One of the many examples of material culture where materiality and memory are deeply interwoven is a certain tram cemetery in Wrocław (Poland). That is why I will shortly describe the history of the site, to focus later on interesting problems which confront us, such as heritage sites as tram and/or car cemeteries. I refer also to cinema, where issues often discussed by archaeologists, like ruins, material culture, heritage in becoming, etc. are staged in such a way that is worthy of closer attention

Archaeology has been for many years identified with its own method, that of excavation. It isthe way the public sees archaeology and many archaeologists think of themselves too (e.g.Holtorf 2007). However, Rodney Harrison recently pointed out the crucial role of the surfacein archaeological thinking (Harrison 2011, in press).

Archaeology as practiced by anthropologists is no longer only about prehistoric societies. As the world becomes increasingly preoccupied with preserving cultural heritage for future generations, archaeologists are increasingly shifting their attention from mummies and pottery to contemporary phenomena. Cultural heritage that is worth preserving could be almost anything: from Stonehenge, through to the pyramids in Egypt, to places where Star Wars or The Lord of the Rings were filmed. Even such places as the ruins of Nazi factories or Soviet war infrastructure are fragments of our history and can say something significant about our past. In fact, blockbuster films can be just as valid a topic for anthropological investigation.

There is always something to learn from Sherlock Holmes. It is a good sign that an archaeologist has been often identified with the private detective.

The abundance of the references to the past in the present causes some theoretical problems. In other words, usually analysing different manifestations of the past in e.g. computers games, Hollywood films and so on to much attention is paid only on content (what is presented). Formal aspects of each film, computer game and so on are omitted. I want to explore this problem a little bit in this short text by taking as an example a historical re-enactment movement of the Viking Age.

Biografia rzeczy należy od końca lat dziewięćdziesiątych XX wieku do jednego z bardziej wyraźnych i interesujących nurtów badawczych współczesnej humanistyki. Jest to kierunek, który zwraca uwagę na rolę rzeczy w codziennym życiu człowieka. Badania, które się prowadzi nad problematyką rzeczy są bardzo zróżnicowane. Materialność rzeczy i ich powszechność jako nieodłącznych „towarzyszy” życia ludzkiego, zarówno w przeszłości, jak i współcześnie sprawiła, iż rzeczy są tematem rozpraw nie tylko archeologicznych. Nikogo nie może dziwić stosunek archeologów do rzeczy. Jednak takie nauki jak historia, socjologia czy też antropologia kulturowa traktowały problemy kultury materialnej jako problemy uboczne, mniej interesujące itp. W pisaniu biografii rzeczy nie przedmiot badań jest inny, bo również dotyczy szeroko rozumianych przedmiotów materialnych, ale forma, czyli nowe pytania i problemy badawcze (Domańska 2006a, s. 105).

It is often said that new problems need new theories. In such a way of thinking, it is presupposed that a new (theory) can only born out of the new (problem). However, this paper tries to claim that the new can only emerge by repeating the past.

Contemporary archaeologies are complex and diverse. It is easier to find things that differentiateprehistoric archaeology, for example, (e.g. Childe 1929) from the archaeology of the contemporary past(Buchli and Lucas 2001) than to identify what both share. The same claim applies to a history ofarchaeology as such. To simplify, to indicate the differences between culture-historical archaeology,processual archaeology and post-processual archaeologies does not cause many problems (Trigger 2006).However, in this article I claim that these archaeologies use in a very same way the ideas of what ‘new’ and‘critique’ in archaeology are about. The thesis of this text is: there is usually not so much truly new in theideas that are described as new and innovative (Žižek 2008).

We live in a world–or so we’re told–in which we’re obsessed with the new. Shopping malls, glossy magazines, and catwalk parades encourage us to buy more new, shiny stuff. But the famous song line, “Hey, Macklemore! Can we go thrift shopping?” by American rapper Ben Haggerty (a.k.a. Macklemore) suggests that fashion on a different trajectory. To put it simply, Macklemore’s song suggest that what’s old is new again. It is only by wearing kitschy material culture from the ’80s and ’90s found in a thrift shop that one can be considered fashionable and–as it is often said–cool. What ten years ago would have been discernible as a sign of a lack of good taste is today an ultimate example of being fashionable. In short, non-fashion is its own fashion today. The only new things are from the past.

Hitherto archaeologists interpreting face-urns have focused ontheir symbolic aspects. However, the aim of this paper is to examinePomeranian face-urns from a perspective emphasizing artefacts assuch, not what artefacts symbolise but rather what artefacts were forthe prehistoric societies. However, my research does not stand in oppositionto the existing approaches. They should rather be complementary.Only by taking into account both a symbolic perspective andthe approach offered in this paper – what I shall call a thingness perspective– can archaeology take a step closer to grasping the complexityof the face-urns phenomenon. The paper begins with a discussionof Martin Heidegger’s thinking about the differences between thingand object. Then I will try to correlate Heidegger’s reasoning withthe Lévy-Bruhlian concept of dualité et bi-présense, using a film, TheMask (1994) directed by Chuck Russell, to illustrate Heidegger’s andLévy-Bruhl’s thinking about things. Then using some thoughts fromarchaeology of the body I will investigate similarities between the humanbody and face-urns. The paper will conclude with an attempt todraw some aspects of the cultural biography of face-urns.

Wielkopolska wieś od dawna jest przedmiotem studiów etnologów. Złożoności i wieloaspektowości życia chłopa wielkopolskiego dają wyraz chociażby dwa tomy studiów pod redakcją Józefa Burszty.

Jednak wielkopolska wieś nie musi być jedynie przedmiotem namysłu etnologa. Również interesującym polem badawczym jest dla archeologa. Jest tak bowiem częstokroć na współczesnej wsi dochodzi do zderzenia pradawnej przeszłości z teraźniejszością. Jako przykład tego, chciałbym omówić pokrótce losy kilku archeologicznych artefaktów pochodzących z okolic Przemęta w powiecie wolsztyńskim i Lginia w powiecie wschowskim.

Definitely, it was not a good day for Theodor Adorno (2005: 25), otherwise great German philosopher, when he honestly admitted in Minima Moralia: ‘Every visit to the cinema leaves me, against all my vigilance, stupider and worse’. What Adorno despised was not only Hollywood movies, but generally, popular culture per se that was part of culture industry. However, it can be said that today there are many interesting things taking place in cinema that can inspire archaeologists. One of them concerns heritage; the subject that is very close to our hearts.

The paper discusses the role of material culture for historical re-enactors of the Viking Age. Three issues are analysed: (a) the clothing and accessories worn by a typical contemporary warrior, craftsman and woman of the Viking times and the range of goods available for purchase at historical re-enactment markets, (b) the active and transformative aspect of material culture for present-day Vikings, (c) the paradox of how mirroring the material past by historical re-enactors is actually a deeply ahistorical category. The main conclusion of this study is that historical re-enactment of the Viking Age is essentially about material culture. The paper is based on observations made during the Viking Week that took place at the Museum of Foteviken (Sweden) on 24–30 June 2013.

One of the recently most popular ways of experiencing the past is time travelling. It is an experience and social practice in the present that evokes a past (or future) reality’ (Holtorf 2009: 33). In this article, I mainly discuss the political aspect of time travelling. I focus on cinema as a medium which closely links archaeology with the time travel phenomenon. Two Oscars galas, of 2010 and 2012, are scrutinised as case studies. The text is a political intervention to start dreaming dangerously, to contribute as an archaeologist to the critique of the utopia of capitalism (see also Hernando 2005: 75).

Archaeologists have been interested in Hollywood films for a number of decades. Initially, their attention was focused on cinema’s misperception of the practice of archaeology and the subject under study (the past). Every film is, to use a Hegelian distinction, a story in itself, presenting a  more or less coherent story. At the same time, each film is for itself: a meta-film (meta-story) which reflects on and encapsulates the context within which it was made. In this paper these two levels of cinema are scrutinised in relation to How to Train Your Dragon (2010), an animation about Vikings and dragons. The paper aims to show how the (imaginable) past is used to both mask and stage tensions of contemporary politics. 

I was sitting with a group of historical re-enactors in front of a fire and listening to them attentively. It was during the thirteenth Meeting of the Slavic Warriors in Grzybowo (Poland) in 2012. One of the re-enactors commented that, during his day-to-day life and work, he feels like the living dead. It is only during summer weekends, when historical re-enactment events take place, that he casts off this zombie-like persona and truly feels alive. Other re-enactors present agreed with him. Historical re-enactment is not, for them, a hobby. It is their way of life.

Skarby z epoki brązu i z wczesnej epoki żelaza nie należą do częstych znalezisk archeologicznych na ziemiach polskich (szczególnie od czasów po II wojnie światowej) (Kaczmarek 2002: 189). Cenne przedmioty wchodzące w skład takich depozytów zawsze budzą szczególne zainteresowanie badaczy. Opracowywanie naukowe takich artefaktów charakteryzuje się sztywnymi regułami. Wskazane jest, by opisać okoliczności odkrycia i przeprowadzić dokładną analizę typologiczną przedmiotów składających się na konkretny skarb. Niezbędną rzeczą jest wskazanie jak największej liczby stanowisk z tak zwanymi „analogiami”. Nieodłącznymi elementami takich prac są liczne kartogramy prezentujące dyspersję przestrzenną poszczególnych kategorii artefaktów oraz katalogi. W nich z kolei znajdują się wykazy stanowisk archeologicznych, które dotyczą badanego problemu. Jest to podejście kulturowo-historyczne, które posiadając swoje zalety, ogranicza jednak możliwości interpretacyjne wyznaczane przez współczesne studia nad rzeczami. Dlatego też artykuł ten proponuje inną perspektywę pisania o przedmiotach z przeszłości. Postaram się w nim ukazać biograficzne podejście do badania kultury materialnej.