Until now, the Roman economy has been discussed primarily in economic terms. After the vehement debate between substantivist and formalists in the 1960s and 1970s, most historians and archaeologists have embraced an essentially substantivist perspective. Although this outlook has proven its value, it also seriously hampers a holistic view on the Roman exchange system by its focus on economic factors. Recent theoretical developments in economic anthropology, particularly through the work of Bloch and Parry, provide a model which is better suited to analysing the exchange system in its social, political and moral dimensions. It has been used succesfully in recent publications of the exchange system in the ancient Greek world. In this article, its possibilities for the Roman exchange system and the role of money in it will be explored.

In the first third of his paper, Joris Aarts offers an elegant and stimulating review of the ideas that have underpinned our interpretation of coinage and exchange in the Roman world for the past 30 years. In the central section, he outlines a possible alternative approach to analysing Roman coinage, drawing on research in economic anthropology and on the role of money in the Greek world. The final part of the paper discusses ways in which this cultural-economic perspective might be applied, primarily using evidence from northern Gaul.

The discussion of coin finds in the European periphery and the light they throw on the nature of the Roman socio-economic complex is the most interesting part of this paper for me, because it is somewhat analogous to the relations of western Europe with west Africa in the 19th and early colonial 20th centuries. But this commentary steps over into the vast field of classical archaeology that is unfamiliar to me and instead of pursuing this analogy I find it more comfortable to make a few more general remarks on the use of social anthropological ideas and questions of method.

Aarts's argument revolves around three binaries: formalist and substantivist approaches to the study of the ancient economy, narrow economy-centered and broader culture-centered assessments of money use, and long-term and short-term transactional orders. Binary opposites play a critical role in our construction of the world, and consequently provide potent rhetorical tools for structuring an argument and especially for demarcating the novel and imaginative from the old and staid. At the same time, while this arrangement helps to define ideal types, it also runs the risk of obscuring what the debate is really about.

It is a new and exciting experience for me to read the critical comments on my article by people who are so well informed about the topics I discussed. I am very grateful to Colin Haselgrove, Mahir Şaul and Walter Scheidel for their willingness and time to critically read my article and provide a basis for further discussion.

In recent years the development of a phenomenological archaeology has provoked considerable discussion within the discipline, particularly within British prehistory. This paper provides a review of this challenging body of research, outlining its problems and potentials and setting it within its broader disciplinary context. Phenomenology has been used to great effect to critique the Cartesian rationalism inherent in traditional archaeological approaches, encouraging imaginative and valuable reinterpretations of the architecture and landscape settings of different monuments. Nonetheless, there are a number of significant problems raised by this work. The suggestion that the archaeologist’s embodied engagement with an ancient monument or landscape can provide an insight into past experiences and interpretations is critically considered. The epistemological status of the knowledge-claims made, including how and whether the patterns identified should be verified, is discussed. The contribution of phenomenology to postprocessual debates surrounding concepts of the self, the individual, embodiment and emotion are also explored. The work of key proponents of phenomenology such as Tilley and Thomas provides a particular focus, although a range of other authors are also considered.

This paper reconsiders German reflection on National Socialist pre- and protohistoric archaeology from 1933 onwards. It tries to do so by means of a case study of the academic contacts between the Dutch prehistorian A.E. van Giffen (1884–1973) and his German colleague H. Reinerth (1900–90). The approach adopted here differs from traditional historiographical writing on National Socialist archaeology in two respects. First, in its analysis of the academic exchange between the two scholars, the case study seeks to bridge the classical caesura between a pre- and post-war period. Second, contemporary and historical studies of National Socialist archaeology and archival sources, as well as interviews, have been incorporated in the research alongside the usual publications of the scholars involved. It is argued that with the approach taken here we may arrive at a more nuanced understanding of the different ways archaeologists have reacted to National Socialism over the past seven decades.

In the 1920s, and especially during the Third Reich, the ‘lunatic fringe’ of prehistoric archaeology – in this case a group of pseudoscientists that used and created archaeological evidence to found their religious and political visions of the early past – has had a great influence on German archaeology. This group, often called archaeological Schwarmgeister (‘fanatic dreamers’), attempted with varying success to gain influence by occupying party positions and by initiating excavations that might not have occurred otherwise. By focusing on the activities of two pseudoscientists – Wilhelm Teudt and Hermann Wille – as case studies, it becomes clear that they reinforced the existing division (Ahnenerbe versus Amt Rosenberg) within professional archaeology. The reactions from academic archaeologists turn out to have been diverse. The theories of Wilhelm Teudt on the Germanic Externsteine were accepted by some professional archaeologists. At the megalithic graves in the Oldenburg area, where Hermann Wille was active, this did not happen. After 1945 their work was used in the accusations that the assistants of Amt Rosenberg especially had been involved in unscientific research. This accusation did not correspond with contemporary reality but was the result of the struggle for power and influence within the group of academic archaeologists that continued in post-war Germany.