‘Reflexiveness’ is a term used for the growth of discussions in archaeology on its history, epistemology, and social relevance. While much of this reflecting refers to the relation of archaeology and nationalism, leading to insights into the politicisation of archaeological research and presentation to the public and the use of the past for ideological purposes, still we can witness many parallels to the use of prehistory for the creation of a European identity. After briefly commenting on discussions on different nationalisms and national and cultural identity, I will present a short history of ideas of Europe, followed by a consideration of two examples of the attempt to create the lacking founding myth of post-cold-war Europe. In the end, it is argued that a ‘Reflexive Theory’ should necessarily replace current rather politically motivated ‘reflexiveness’ and is needed to examine critically the Europeanist notion of European archaeology.

The proliferation of European Union law and policies and their impact on Member States appear to be issues very much connected with the future of the political union of Europe. Heritage management practice in Member States is also being affected by legal developments promoted by E.U. institutions. This article attempts to assess the E.U.'s growth of interest in cultural heritage matters as part of a broader political context, which involves issues ranging from economic development to ‘European’ identity. The successful cultural integration of Member States is being pursued by the E.U. on the basis of a common cultural heritage. Does the perceived legal necessity for uniformity in Member State's heritage management pose a danger to the differences and particularities that stem from the diverse pasts in the E.U.?

I would like to begin by saluting these two different but complementary contributions. Compared to the many works, sometimes questionable and often redundant, published in this field, not only are they convincing, but above all, they truly bring something new.

For more than a decade, since the mid-80s, the context of archaeology has changed rapidly and profoundly all over Europe. We are still in the middle of this development and numerous recent publications show an increasing awareness of archaeologists about its causes and implications. This is what Gramsch in his paper calls the self-reflexive approach and I join him in his appeal for the development of an archaeological reflexive theory embedded in sociological theory and epistemology. Not only to help us to be better aware of the changing context of our work but also to provide us with the insights and the tools to cope with such change.

This article offers an interpretation of the structure and meaning of a mortuary ritual at Tell Sabi Abyad in Syria. Remains of this funeral have been uncovered in the ‘Burnt Village’, a late neolithic settlement largely destroyed by fire. The possibly intentional and ritual burning of the settlement is related to the mortuary ritual; it is suggested that here we have evidence for an extended ‘death ritual’ ending, but also transforming, human and material life. Death, fire and abandonment, then, seem to have been closely related. Some examples suggest that these relations also existed at other neolithic sites in the Near East.

Presumably it is because I work at Çatalhöyük, a site referred to in just about every publication on ritual in the prehistoric Near East, that I have been asked to respond to Verhoeven's stimulating and thoughtful paper. It is certainly welcome to see an approach to ritual practice in the prehistoric Near East from a comparative and anthropological perspective rather than one in thrall to the search for origins of much later religious practices - as the discoverer of Çatalhöyük, James Mellaart (1965a, 77) puts it, ‘a cult of the Mother Goddess, the basis of our civilization’. At Çatalhöyük the debate has been dominated by the discourse of the goddess to the extent that other interpretations have been excluded, often subconsciously, so strong is this metanarrative (Meskell 1995). For instance, recent virtual reality reconstructions still depict the buildings as austere, atmospheric shrines rather than busy, smoky, dirty places of domestic work and (often rather restricted) movement. In a paper cited by Verhoeven I suggested that in order to counter this we should concentrate less on the iconography of the Çatalhöyük images and more on the mode of their experience and consumption (Last 1998). It is the need for an explicitly contextual consideration of meaning that forms my main criticism of the present paper. While a lot of detail is presented about the deposits found in the Burnt Village, the citing of various parallels from sites not necessarily greatly connected in time and space ultimately leaves a sense of vagueness, particularly in attempting to assimilate the fascinating clay ‘monsters’ to a widespread Near Eastern ritual interest in horns. In this contribution I wish to discuss the problems of interpreting the unique, offer some thoughts on how to get at the meaning and significance of these objects, and conclude by mentioning a recently discovered deposit from Çatalhöyük which raises similar issues.

Because of the climate and the nature of the sites, most archaeological material in the Near East has survived the passage of time in a reasonably well preserved state (at least, until recent decades). It remains true, however, that occasional deposits with exceptional preservation provide a level of detail that opens up new areas of interpretation to archaeologists. The classic examples are, perhaps, Çatalhöyük and Nahal Hemar. The ‘Burnt Village’ at Sabi Abyad is proving to be another where the new evidence is leading to a series of publications offering interpretations of the settlement which will have profound implications for our perception of the late Neolithic in northern Mesopotamia. This stimulating article amplifies one area of discussion, attempting to bring some of the most striking features of the ‘Burnt Village’ into a single, unified interpretation. Importantly, this unified interpretation draws on a range of contemporary approaches to understanding the past and, given the tendency of near eastern archaeologists to function in a degree of isolation from wider archaeological trends, this article is to be particularly welcomed. Inevitably it can be criticised in certain areas and it might have gone further in others but these comments start from the basis of welcoming, enjoying and being stimulated by this piece of work.

I am most grateful for the critical, yet on the whole positive and inspiring reactions of Stuart Campbell and Jonathan Last, who offer ample opportunities for an archaeological dialogue. Besides specific questions, they raise a number of important issues which have a general theoretical significance. Last, moreover, presents some new and most interesting data on horned objects from Çatalhöyük West, whereas Campbell comes up with some additional and intriguing examples of the relations between death, fire and abandonment in the late Neolithic of the Near East. In my reply I wish to start with the specific issues before I move on to more general topics.

In their article ‘Romancing the stones: towards a virtual and elemental Avebury’ (Archaeological dialogues 1998, 5.2, 143–64), Joshua Pollard and Mark Gillings argued that traditional cartography no longer suffices to understand sites like Avebury. In the absence of excavation, new technological possibilities like Virtual Reality and GIS were according to them more than electronic gadgets but genuine alternatives to the usual maps and plans. Mark Bowden takes issues with what he perceives to be exaggerated criticisms of traditional archaeological survey techniques. In particular, he suggests that, far from being ‘sterile’ as Pollard and Gillings state, conventional survey plans are imbued with meaning, and are essential tools of analysis and interpretation. Users of archaeological earthwork plans must study them carefully and be critically aware to get the greatest benefit from them. Innovative new approaches must be pursued vigorously, but well-tested traditional techniques which still have value should not be abandoned lightly, Bowden argues. Pollard and Gillings reply to this challenging criticism.

But topography (like cartography) also is a ‘practice’, knowledge put to use, knowledge in the service of power that is deeply intertwined in the cultural, social and political webs of a society (Duncan and Ley 1993, 1, emphasis added).