Vera Egbers
Vera Egbers is an archaeologist working as a postdoctoral researcher at BTU Cottbus on rural Turkey in the 20th cent. She recently finished her PhD at the Institute of Near Eastern Archaeology at the Freie Universität Berlin. While studying in Berlin, Istanbul and Paris she participated in various field projects i.a. in Turkey, Turkmenistan and Iraqi-Kurdistan. She also had fellowships at the Department of Anthropology at Harvard University as well as the Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations of Koç University in Istanbul.
Vera specializes in sensory archaeology, subjectification processes, theories of space, as well as ethics and archaeology, ancient western Asia, Iron Age, Internal Colonization, Thirdspace, archaeology of modernity.
Supervisors: Reinhard Bernbeck and Susan Pollock
Vera specializes in sensory archaeology, subjectification processes, theories of space, as well as ethics and archaeology, ancient western Asia, Iron Age, Internal Colonization, Thirdspace, archaeology of modernity.
Supervisors: Reinhard Bernbeck and Susan Pollock
less
InterestsView All (34)
Uploads
Papers by Vera Egbers
After some introductory remarks on the Neolithic and Aeneolithic architecture in what is today southern Turkmenistan, I outline my methodology based on the object biographical approaches of Arjun Appadurai (1986a) and Igor Kopytoff (1986). I then turn to a detailed analysis of House 10 as process, examining the phases of its existence from its construction up to the present. This is followed by an interpretation of my findings that moves past the material itself and takes the form of two fictional scenarios revolving around a specific event in the life of House 10. These scenarios are an attempt to go beyond “typical” archaeological work on architecture and to look at prehistory as populated by people. In this regard, I borrow ideas from feminist archaeology, specifically from the work of Ruth Tringham (1991) and Janet Spector (1993).
Despite the commitment of individual associations, working groups, and researchers, a comprehensive discussion on the ethics of archaeology has not yet been established. Although there are different codes of ethics, they focus almost unilaterally on specific ethical topics. While codes of ethics tend to offer best practices and guidelines, at the same time they make the foundational discussions behind them invisible. Ethics, however, require a lively discussion that does not break down, but is rather continuous. From the 6th to 7th of November 2015, a workshop was held in Kassel in order to identify important lines of discussion for a foundational discussion about ethics in archaeology and, above all, to anchor an understanding of ethical issues and problems within younger academics. Our paper brings together qualitatively and quantitatively different positions on these ethical issues and, thus, presents them for further scientific exchange and discussion.
Talks by Vera Egbers
After some introductory remarks on the Neolithic and Aeneolithic architecture in what is today southern Turkmenistan, I outline my methodology based on the object biographical approaches of Arjun Appadurai (1986a) and Igor Kopytoff (1986). I then turn to a detailed analysis of House 10 as process, examining the phases of its existence from its construction up to the present. This is followed by an interpretation of my findings that moves past the material itself and takes the form of two fictional scenarios revolving around a specific event in the life of House 10. These scenarios are an attempt to go beyond “typical” archaeological work on architecture and to look at prehistory as populated by people. In this regard, I borrow ideas from feminist archaeology, specifically from the work of Ruth Tringham (1991) and Janet Spector (1993).
Despite the commitment of individual associations, working groups, and researchers, a comprehensive discussion on the ethics of archaeology has not yet been established. Although there are different codes of ethics, they focus almost unilaterally on specific ethical topics. While codes of ethics tend to offer best practices and guidelines, at the same time they make the foundational discussions behind them invisible. Ethics, however, require a lively discussion that does not break down, but is rather continuous. From the 6th to 7th of November 2015, a workshop was held in Kassel in order to identify important lines of discussion for a foundational discussion about ethics in archaeology and, above all, to anchor an understanding of ethical issues and problems within younger academics. Our paper brings together qualitatively and quantitatively different positions on these ethical issues and, thus, presents them for further scientific exchange and discussion.
The project will organize a three-day conference to further investigate the topic of "conflict", with a particular focus on the intertwining of violence, space, and movement. We will explore questions such as these: How did people avoid conflict and what role did space and mobility play when violence erupted, or when it did not? Can we consider spatial avoidance to have been a resilience strategy of past societies? Can we sustain the thesis that mobile lifestyles and low population density enabled prehistoric forager communities to coexist peacefully, by allowing them to literally avoid or rather outrun conflict? What archaeological evidence of violence or of crisis management is available to us? What evidence of peace has been uncovered, and where are the risks of misinterpretation when studying such evidence?
In addition to the archaeological perspective, the conference will elicit the perspectives of invited experts who study phenomena of this kind in relation to modern societies or who work with people affected by conflict and displacement today. Since human conflicts – whether ancient or modern – are far more complex socio-political phenomena than the grand historical narratives that they tend to call forth suggest, we believe that all disciplines dealing with this topic can benefit from inter- and transdisciplinary communication on these questions.
Am 6. und 7. November 2015 veranstalten FkA, TidA und FAiG einen Workshop, auf dem Studierende und Lehrende archäologischer Fächer ihre Interessen, Meinungen und Standpunkte einbringen können. Verschiedene Themen und Perspektiven zu Ethik werden in Gruppen besprochen und gemeinsam offen diskutiert. Die Ergebnisse des Workshops können in die Fächer weitergetragen werden und sollen zu weiterer anhaltender Diskussion anregen.
This book joins an interdisciplinary discourse on subjectivation, production of (social) space, subalternity, and habitus, and integrates these concepts into the archaeology of West Asia. In doing so, various sites are examined quantitatively and qualitatively using methods from the field of the so-called archaeology of the senses, in order to infer the basic features of the sensory organization of Urartu and Assyria. The comparison of these reconstructed sensory worlds takes place against the background of the question of how deportees and prisoners of war perceived the new environment after their deportation. What were the effects of this abrupt change in living conditions due to captivity and forced resettlement? How were the new, subaltern subject positions communicated and evoked nonverbally by means of spatial organization – and were there places where low-threshold subversion occurred through irritation, misunderstanding, and unplanned behavior?
Since 2010 we have reinvestigated one of these sites, the small Late Neolithic (ca. 6200-5600 BCE) and early Aeneolithic (ca. 4800-4350 BCE) village of Monjukli Depe. Our research examines microhistories of cultural techniques as a source of insights into long-term and spatially extensive change as well as internal variations and similarities in material practices. This volume presents results of this work. A Bayesian modeling of 14C dates demonstrates a long hiatus between the Neolithic and Aeneolithic strata of the site as well as a hitherto unattested very early Aeneolithic phase (“Meana Horizon”). A sequence of densely built, well preserved Aeneolithic houses exhibits marked similarities to earlier Neolithic architecture in the region. Despite overall standardized plans, the houses reveal significant variations in internal features and practices. Similar flexibility within a set of common dispositions is evident in burial practices. Very limited quantities of pottery offer a stark contrast to the frequent occurrence of spindle whorls, indicating a substantial production of thread, and to a large and varied assemblage of clay tokens. A wide variety of fire installations attests to routinized handling of fire, which did not prevent at least one building from succumbing to a conflagration. Animal herding was heavily based on sheep and goats, while cattle figured prominently in feasts.
The Meana tradition at Monjukli Depe exhibits significant structural similarities to other early village societies in Western Asia and will make this volume of interest to scholars working on similar times and contexts.
A contribution to the current debate on decolonization and memorialization
- Interdisciplinary perspectives on architecture and heritage
- International range of authors
The contributions are organized in three chapters. The first chapter „Taking a Closer Look…“ brings together in-depth studies of prehistoric communities and object analyses. which offer a plethora of different approaches to the past. The second chapter„… While Keeping the Big Picture“ offers contributions of larger scale, in time and geographically, of migrations, prehistoric economies, conflicts within communities and societies, as well as wars between different groups. The closing chapter „Questioning the Discipline“ frames methodological questions, scrutinizes current discourses in archaeologies and the specificities and problems ranging from decolonization to the role of women in archaeological disciplines. The chapters are interlocked with personal anecdotes and essays, chronicling the authors’ experiences they shared with Susan at different times in her career.
A big “Thank You!” from 63 authors in 46 contributions to Susan Pollock for collaborating in joint projects and her manifold support which shaped them into self-determined scholars.