Refuse Archeology: Virchow—Schliemann— Freud

Dietmar Schmidt Universität Erfurt

In the early twentieth century, psychoanalysis tries to investigate a speciªc logic of the appearance and the incident of what is taken to be unintended in everyday communication and human behavior. What before hardly seemed to be worth systematic research, now becomes a privileged ªeld, in which the meaningful signs of a hidden and unwelcome past appear. For representing this new ªeld of research Freud often makes use of archaeological metaphors. But in quoting the knowledge and the techniques of archaeology, he evokes imaginary landscapes of a reappearing human past, which is not depraved and repressed but glorious and precious. This contradiction or gap between the character of analytical objects and their representation gives reason for an ‘archaeological’ investigation of psychoanalysis itself. To this end one of the heroes of nineteenth century archaeology, Heinrich Schliemann, will be con- fronted with two little works of Rudolf Virchow, in which he follows up the astonishing idea of an archaeology of refuse. Relating treasure troves and rubbish dumps it can be asked whether ‘archaeological’ practices in the late nineteenth century constituted a type of historical knowledge which runs counter to contemporary historicism and is crucial not only for Freud but also for today’s theoretical reºections on archaeological perspectives in cultural studies.

I. In the second half of the nineteenth century, refuse became an object of historical research. This event occurred in different contexts, and in each almost casually. Although refuse as an object of analysis ªrst emerged only occasionally or even by accident, in the long run it unfolded a speciªc type of knowledge concerning not only the constitution of culture but also the Translated by Andrew Gledhill.

210

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 211

structure of the human mind. The practice of, so to speak, ‘digging for dirt’, though at ªrst glance not seeming to be a very spectacular way of exploring cultural phenomena, has contributed to establishing a certain kind of signs which, paradoxically, refer to a given cultural order by being worthless. To make this clear it may be helpful to characterize in general terms the new concept of refuse rising from this practice. Refuse in this context can be described as “matter out of place”, according to the phrase coined by Mary Douglas ([1966] 1995, p. 36).1 This displacement of refuse is not conªned to speciªc places. It is unnecessary to indicate where refuse is out of place as it applies to any place—even to the site of its ªnal disposal where it is left to its own devices. Refuse is “out of place” in the most radical sense: it has no purpose anywhere. At the same time, it becomes clear that refuse is not a singular, isolated occurrence, as Douglas continues to describe. Where there is refuse, there is a system, an order: “[It] is the by-product of a systematic ordering and classiªcation of matter, in so far as ordering involves rejecting inappropri- ate elements. This idea [...] takes us straight into the ªeld of symbolism” (Douglas [1966] 1995, p. 36). The existence of refuse is dependent upon the recognition of a symbolic order, to which refuse does not belong. Re- fuse, as something that is basically out of place, forms the counterpart to everything that can be missing from its place and, thus, forms part of the symbolic order. This distinction between what is “out of place” and what can be missing from its place was introduced by Jacques Lacan in his lec- tures on Poe’s The Purloined Letter. According to Lacan, this distinction correlates with the differentiation between the two basic spheres of what he calls ‘the Symbolic’ and ‘the Real’. Lacan claims that it is only the Sym- bolic of which one can “literally say” “that it is missing from its place”—like a book that has been lost in the library and cannot be found on its shelf. The Real, on the other hand, has no place where it is either available or not; and its location, therefore, cannot be distinguished from the Real as a place in a speciªc order. In other words, the Real is, so to speak, “always and in every case in its place, it carries its place on the soles of its feet,” it does not leave any trace of its absence. Lacan elucidated this deªnition of ‘the Real’, which is opposited to the idea of a symbolic order, by a reading of Poe’s ‘purloined letter’. This letter, which the police were searching for, using all of their investigative techniques, is openly lying around, crumpled and half torn. The letter cannot be found and cannot even be looked for, because it does not belong to the symbolic order,

1. Although Douglas in her text discusses the cultural status of ‘ªlth’ in general, her statement may here be related to the idea of ‘refuse’ as it emerged in Western industrial- ized societies in the nineteenth century.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 212 Refuse Archeology

within which the police are operating. “A letter, a litter” (Lacan [1966] 1970, p. 35). The example of this letter, which ªgures as refuse, also implies that changes in the position of things from the Symbolic to the Real are thinkable. And, one might add, changes in the opposite direction are possible, too. In the same way that a letter can become litter, litter can also be inte- grated into a given order. Refuse, as is well known, can be transformed into useful materials. In this process, however, the refuse ceases instanta- neously to be refuse. But the following passages will discuss another way of handling refuse, which is different from simply recycling it. I will focus on a practice which turns refuse into an academic matter without immediately changing its speciªc status; a practice that appreciates refuse and displays an interest in it without primarily wanting to dispose of it or to convert it into useful materials—in other words: a practice that leads to the question how refuse can become the object of an archaeological search. An undertaking which could be described as refuse archaeology does not speak for itself. How can things that are “matter out of place” become the object of an archaeological excavation? How can something that is not missed anywhere and does not attract any attention to itself by any traces it has left behind or by its absence, nevertheless be the subject of archaeological interest? How is it possible to view things that have been disposed of all over the place as archaeological ªnds? What type of knowledge is established in this way? All these questions are asked (or should be asked) apropos of two short reports made by Rudolf Virchow at the beginning of the 1870’s about a discovery which was made on a building site in the center of Berlin. Dur- ing digging work, refuse was found which evidently did not originate from contemporary times and which aroused Virchow’s lively interest. I want to highlight the peculiarity of this interest and, then, consider the conditions under which Virchow’s unusual refuse archaeology could become possible. What links this speciªc archaeology to the excavations that Heinrich Schliemann carried out in the same decade, partly with Virchow’s participation,2 at the supposed scenes of Homer’s Iliad? It seems as if the contrast could not be greater. While Schliemann worked in locations of high symbolic quality, Virchow descended into the unknown sewers of the city of Berlin. Furthermore, the topic of refuse archaeology can be linked to a broader context. I would like to suggest that connections can be identiªed be-

2. Cf. also the extensive correspondence between Schliemann and Virchow (Herrmann/ Maaß 1990).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 213

tween refuse archaeology on the one hand, as outlined—in a kind of pri- mal scene—through the ªnds of the Berlin excavation, and psychoanalysis on the other. In psychoanalysis the contrast between treasure troves and rubbish dumps, both being objects of an archaeological quest, plays an important role. It is well-known that Freud repeatedly referred to archaeology in order to present a conception of the speciªc nature of psychoanalytical knowledge to a skeptical audience. Freud sought to adopt traditional archaeology and mythical arenas like Pompeii and Troy, which were of such signiªcance to nineteenth-century historicism, for the representation of both his research and practice. It is, however, questionable whether this attempt did not involve major contradictions, for psychoanalysis is also rather concerned, as it were, with “matters out of place”—in other words, with matters that—although they are based on the validity of a speciªc logic—can nonetheless never have a place in this order. The question as to the conditions of Virchow’s refuse archaeology provides the op- portunity to simultaneously inquire into the conditions of psychoanalysis, which appeared only a few years later. The connection between the two procedures is not causal, but, rather, an epistemological question. And in this sense even Lacan’s psychoanalytical distinction between ‘the Sym- bolic’ and ‘the Real’ itself might in some respect be in the debt of refuse archaeology.

II. On the ninth of March, 1871, at a meeting of the Berlin Society for Anthro- pology, Ethnology and Prehistory (Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte), Rudolf Virchow presented a report on an “unusual ªnd,” as he called it: An unusual ªnd has been made recently on a construction site of a building, which the municipal authorities are having built in Dorotheenstrasse 13/14. Suddenly, numerous large posts were unearthed. These posts were arranged in connected rows without dis- playing any recognizable use of these posts as grating or further foundations. I was told that very large quantities of bones were found, hence objects that could arouse all kinds of speculation. When I ªnally heard that the whole plot of land was very marshy and that at one point no solid ground was found at a depth of forty feet, I began to think that we could have the pleasure of having found a real pile dwelling in the middle of Berlin (Virchow 1872a, p. 123).3

3. “Neulich ist ein sonderbarer Fund gemacht worden bei einem Bau, den die städtischen Behörden in der Dorotheenstrasse 13/14 ausführen lassen. Man stiess dort

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 214 Refuse Archeology

Virchow could be sure of his audience’s attention. There are at least two good reasons for this assumption. Firstly, it was not just anyone who was presenting this report to the Berlin Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory. The audience was listening to the words of the founder of one of the ªrst prehistoric-anthropological societies in the German-speaking world, the Berlin Society, which Rudolf Virchow founded in 1869 and of which he remained the chairman for many years. In addition, Virchow had occupied the chair of the German Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Pre- history for many years and had played an inºuential role in its founding in 1870. The decisive stimulus for these activities presumably originated from the Congrés International d’Anthropologie et d’Archeologie Préhistorique, the most important forum for international prehistoric research, which was established in 1866 and was regularly attended by Virchow. Virchow, therefore, had excellent national and international contacts in the ªeld of prehistoric research and he developed comprehensive organizational activities, which were of great signiªcance for the establishment of prehistoric studies in Germany. Furthermore, due to the large quantity of his own research work, he was also regarded as an expert in this ªeld. His publications focused particularly on reindeer ªnds in Germany, on Pomeranian burial grounds, on bronze barrows which were dug up in Germany and Sweden, on coins, urns, Hun burial grounds, and, last but not least, repeatedly on prehistoric pile dwellings. The earliest excavation that was deªnitely carried out by Virchow himself took place in 1865 when he “discovered a building on piles at the mouth of the Plöne lake at Lübtow in Weizacker near Pyritz, which he dated back to prehistoric times” (Andree 1976, p. 57).4 Virchow’s report to the Berlin Society, which I have referred to above, also concerns a pile dwelling. This is the second reason why he could be sure of his audience’s full attention. In the winter of 1853/54, pile dwelling settlements from the early Iron Age were discovered in lake Zurich in Switzerland and were subsequently described by Ferdinand Keller (cf. Pfahlbauberichte pp. 1854ff). Since this time, pile dwellings have created a stir among European pre-historians as one of the ªrst testimonies to a

plötzlich auf zahlreiche grosse Pfähle in zusammenhängenden Reihen, ohne dass irgend eine Verwendung dieser Pfähle zu Rosten oder weiteren Fundamentierungen erkennbar war. Es wurde mir berichtet, dass auch sehr grosse Quantitäten von Knochen gefunden seien, also Dinge, welche wohl allerlei Vermuthungen erregen konnten. Als ich endlich hörte, dass das ganze Grundstück sehr moorig sei und an einer Stelle bei 40 Fuss noch kein Grund gefunden war, so stieg der Gedanke in mir auf, dass wir das Vergnügen haben könnten, mitten in Berlin einen wirklichen Pfahlbau zu constatieren.” 4. Andree’s book also includes a comprehensive bibliography on Virchow’s publications on prehistory and early history.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 215

prehistoric human culture. Keller’s discovery was followed by the discovery of 46 settlements on lake Neuenburg alone within one decade. Fur- thermore, the ªrst pile dwelling ªnds were made accessible to a wider public in the Zurich Museum. The object of fascination ‘pile dwellings’ soon also appeared in literary works, namely in one of the cult books of the Wilhelmian professorship: Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s novel Auch einer (Also One). In this novel, a long embedded narrative unfolds the panorama of a prehistoric community of a village on piles. One day, one of the inhabitants called Massikomur makes a strange discovery at the bottom of a dried-out lake. He ªnds the remains of an even more ancient pile dwelling settlement that originates from time immemorial, which makes him and the other inhabitants of the village shudder. “But even greater than the shudder was the astonishment, the feeling of darkness, the charm, the de- sire to see it in broad daylight.[...]Just slip into the minds of a pile building dweller! Then sink into thoughts of cultural periods! Vast eras! Eternal change! If one just glances at the range of the observations which are related to it, one will understand that their spirits were thoroughly confused, uneasy, and full of dread” (Vischer [1879] 1902, p. 179; Zintzen 1998, pp. 186–188).5 The same strange feelings in view of an immense depth of historical time, which—in this parody—are ascribed to the pile building dwellers of the Iron Age, may well have been evoked by Virchow in his report on the pile building complexes which were found in the middle of Berlin. In any case, according to his description, he himself rushed immediately to the site of the discovery. In view of an unexpected projection of prehistoric human culture in the present of the modern city, he did not hesitate for long. “Everything that I ªrst saw and heard on the building site served more to conªrm my suspicions and I ªnally felt the need to position myself at one of the large shafts which secured the foundation walls so that I could establish what was emerging.” What was actually revealed, however, disap- pointed his high expectations: Then a large mass of bones and broken crockery in a black, stinking layer of bog at a depth of 8, 10 and more feet, was brought to the light of day. Clearly, this was mainly kitchen waste, and partly of a very high cuisine. Totally unexpected things were revealed, namely

5. “Doch viel größer als der Schauer war das Staunen, das Gefühl des Dunkels, der Reiz, die Begierde, es gelichtet zu sehen. [...][M]an versetze sich billig in den Kopf eines Pfahlbewohners! Dann versenke man sich in den Gedanken: Kulturperioden! Ungeheure Zeiträume! Ewiger Wechsel! Man werfe nur einen Blick in die Perspektive der Betrachtungen, die sich daran knüpfen, und man wird begreiºich ªnden, daß die Geister gründlich verwirrt, beunruhigt, ja durchschauert waren.”

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 216 Refuse Archeology

numerous oyster shells and other conches, amongst which were mussels of considerable size, alongside many deer, pig, chicken and goose bones. After everything had been put into some sort of order and had been regarded in the local context of earlier times, the ªnd seemed to originate from the beginnings of the previous century” (Virchow 1872a, pp. 123–124).6

Virchow remained, therefore, consistent to the systematic procedures of a professional archaeologist although he had realized that his bold hopes to have stumbled upon a prehistoric pile dwelling were fundamentally wrong. Everything that was revealed was thoroughly registered and or- dered, even if it were only kitchen waste or a few examples of broken uten- sils. Furthermore, the peculiarities of the location were carefully deter- mined, in so far as this was possible. On the basis of these thorough investigations Virchow could eventually come to a conclusion that every successful archaeological ªeld investigation strives to achieve: The ªnd was dated. But this particular dating is anything but spectacular: it does not date back to prehistory, but just to the previous century. It would not have been surprising if Virchow had declared the whole case closed at this point. He had not found what he was looking for and would have had, therefore, good reason to let the matter settle and refrain from making a corresponding report to the Berlin Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory. This, however, did not happen. Virchow did indeed present his report and, even more: he searched further. Not without the certain stubbornness that was to be highlighted later by his biogra- phers, he ªrst sought to convince his archaeological friends at the Berlin Society that his ªnd in Dorotheenstraße could very much be of interest. Virchow insisted: “We do not have a single collection that contains a certain pig skull from the last century and I noticed at a previous conference that the question of the peat hog had become signiªcantly more difªcult. 6. “Alles, was ich auf dem Bauplatze zunächst sah und hörte, war eher bestätigend, und ich sah mich schliesslich genöthigt, mich selbst an einen der grossen, zur Fundirung der Grundmauern bestimmten Senkbrunnen zu stellen, um zu constatieren, was herauskam.”- “Da ergab sich denn, dass in einer schwarzen, sehr übelriechenden, schmierigen Moor- schicht bei einer Tiefe von 8, 10 und noch mehr Fuss eine grosse Masse von Knochen und zerschlagenem Geschirr zu Tage gefördert wurde. Offenbar handelte es sich ganz überwie- gend um Küchenabfälle und zwar zum Theil sehr delicate. Denn außer zahlreichen Knochen vom Reh, Schwein, Huhn, Gans u.s.w. kamen auch ganz unerwartete Dinge zum Vorschein, nehmlich zahlreiche Austernschalen und dabei noch andere Conchylien, namentlich [ ...]Miesmuscheln von sehr beträchtlicher Grösse. [ ...][N]achdem Alles einigermassen geordnet und auch die früheren Localverhältnisse in Betracht gezogen sind, so scheint sich zu ergeben, dass es sich um einen Fund handelt, welcher etwa dem Anfange des vorigen Jahrhunderts angehört.”

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 217

All sorts of usable remains appear to be available here. There are excellent examples of jaws and other parts of the hog’s skeleton that have been col- lected from this excavation” (Virchow 1872a, p. 124).7 Accidentally, then, the kitchen waste had acquired museum qualities. Virchow succeeded in declaring them as objects of antiquarian interest. Waste that has left the human food cycle was thus incorporated into subsequent Natural History collections. Virchow insisted, however, that it was primarily because of the oyster and mussel shells rather than the pig remains that the ªndings brought to light at the Dorotheenstraße dig were of considerable interest. Virchow achieved this through a remarkable shift of emphasis from a natural- historical standpoint to a cultural-historical examination of the subject: In my research into the question of when oysters have been eaten in Berlin for the ªrst time I have not been able yet to establish an earlier date than the end of the previous century, when there existed a Hamburg post ofªce regulation for the handling of oyster contain- ers. It is, however, surprising that at a much earlier date oysters and even mussels actually made the journey to Berlin and were eaten there. This new information encourages further research (Virchow 1872a, p. 124).8 It was only at this point that the actual refuse archaeology began. Not just because the continuation of investigations was announced at this moment, but mainly because the oysters and mussels had gained a speciªc status. Natural history’s interest in the constitution of domestic pigs in earlier times allowed the animal bones to lay claim to a place in museums as historical ªnds. However, the same cannot be said of the oysters and mussels, as a particular exhibition quality could not be attributed to them. In fact, it made no sense to keep the shells at all. They could be thrown away because they were only interesting as refuse. The oysters and mussels showed what was consumed and disposed of in earlier times.

7. “Wir haben keine einzige Sammlung, welche einen sicheren Schweineschädel aus dem vorigen Jahrhundert besitzt, und ich habe schon in einer früheren Sitzung bemerkt, dass dadurch die Frage über das Torfschwein ganz bedeutend erschwert wird. Hier schei- nen sich allerlei brauchbare Ueberreste zu ergeben. Es sind ein ausgezeichneter Kiefer und andere Skelettheile vom Schwein gesammelt worden.” 8. “Es ist mir bei Nachforschungen darüber, wann zuerst Austern in Berlin gegessen worden seien, noch nicht möglich gewesen, einen früheren Zeitpunkt zu ermitteln, als das Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts, von wo eine Verordnung für die Hamburger Post in Betreff der Behandlung der Austernfässer existirt. Dass aber jedenfalls in viel früherer Zeit Austern und sogar Miesmuscheln nach Berlin gekommen und gegessen worden sind, das war in der That überraschend und regt zu weitern Forschungen an.”

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 218 Refuse Archeology

A fortnight later, on the twenty-third of March 1871, Virchow made further reports on the ªnds in Dorotheenstraße to the Berlin Society for An- thropology, Ethnology and Prehistory. These reports conªrmed the speciªc status of the unearthed oyster and mussel shells. The title of this second report, which was published in the society’s periodical, was no longer “pile dwellings and kitchen waste,” but was now only “kitchen waste.” The direction of interest had, therefore, clearly and recognizably changed. Virchow reported that further waste had been uncovered. “Apart from the discovery of large ªsh bones and of a tortoiseshell, which is still at- tached to the skeleton, especially the conches amongst the animal remains give further cause for investigation.” Virchow noted as one of the results of these investigations that the animal skeletons “did not differ in any way from the types or species of those still living today” (Virchow 1872b, p. 132). This conªrmed that the oysters and mussels had little or no intrinsic value. The only notable fact that remained was their appearance at this speciªc place, deep below the ground of Dorotheenstraße, where they clearly did not belong, amongst the foul smelling mud and other waste. The only remaining subject of discussion was “the large quantities of used shells [...] at this time,” i.e. at the beginning of the eighteenth century (Virchow 1872b, p. 134). In order to gain a better idea of this high consumption, the “kitchen invoices that were available in the ar- chives of the royal household were examined” on Virchow’s initiative. These invoices show in great detail that on one Sunday in October 1702, boiled mussels were eaten at midday and roast oysters were served in the evening “to Her Majesty the Queen’s table at the Queen’s household” in Lützenburg. Virchow went on to report that in October 1704, 4–5,000 oysters per week were consumed by the royal household in Berlin (Virchow 1872b, p. 133). Virchow ended his investigations with these results.

III. It is worth noting that Virchow’s archaeological procedures are clearly the result of coincidental circumstances. Initially, Virchow was far from being interested in kitchen waste, but was mainly attracted to the Berlin building site because of his hopes of having found a construction dating back to prehistoric times. It was only when these ªrst hopes were dashed and something completely different to previous expectations was discovered, that Virchow began to deªne new suppositions of his archaeological ªeld research on the basis of the material that was put before him. This pro- gression developed from the dynamism and economy of the research activity itself. Refuse archaeology, as was presented to the Berlin Society, is a dis- cursive event, which was born out of coincidence.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 219

This event has its systematic preconditions, however. It is noticeable that Virchow speciªes these haphazard objects of knowledge by a two- sided delimitation. On the one hand, there is a difference between these objects and objects which are of antiquarian interest in any way, i.e., arti- cles that can be incorporated into a museum collection. On the other hand, a distinction is made between the objects of refuse archaeology and the general sanitary difªculty of the hygienic handling of waste. I would like to ªrstly tackle this second difference and then return to discuss the ªrst distinction in detail at a later stage. It is not self-evident that the term ‘Abfall’ (refuse—literally ‘fall (down)’ or ‘drop’) is used at all in Virchow’s texts. In Grimm’s Deutsches Wörterbuch (German Dictionary) of 1854, the term ‘Abfall’ does not appear in the modern sense of the word, which is also the sense that Virchow meant. Instead, ‘Abfall’ is ªrst deªned as “the process of falling down or the state of having fallen down”: like water falling down from a rock or leaves of a tree being fallen down. The term ‘Abfall’ could then also mean something like ‘Nuance’ or ‘Nuancierung’ (nuance): “the casting of color” is used here as an example. Furthermore, the word ‘Abfall’ is deªned as inªdelity or breach of trust: “a fall from the grace of God” (Grimm [1854] 1984, col 36; cf. also Hoffmann 1864). Hence it becomes obvious that in the second third of the nineteenth century, the semantics, which was to become familiar later, could not clearly be ascribed to ‘Abfall’. The idea of refuse must thus have ªrst been discovered or even invented during the nineteenth century. It is well-known that this process was mainly taking place in the cities and larger towns where refuse became a problem as a topic in town planning, social hygiene, and population politics. It was only in this context that the deªnition of this speciªc term for a material, which could be described as ‘Abfall’ was construed for the very ªrst time. Virchow also had a certain share in this invention of ‘Abfall’, which in Germany—in relation to France or England—started with a certain delay. Virchow presented a comprehensive Gutachten über die Kanalisation von Berlin (Report on the Berlin sewage system) (Virchow 1868). This piece of work, which was followed by others (Virchow 1879), can be seen in connection with the thorough research into sewers carried out by Parent-Duchâtelet in Paris in the 1830’s (Parent-Duchâtelet 1836). Refuse became an object of academic interest for Parent-Duchâtelet and his successors in the nineteenth century—albeit in a form which can be distinguished from refuse archaeology. Contrary to refuse archaeology, the creation of a sewer inventory had the more exact deªnition of the occurrence of refuse as its main aim, in order to be able to indicate the necessity of the disposal of refuse and the ways in which this can be done. A compa-

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 220 Refuse Archeology

rable interest is mentioned brieºy in Virchow’s ªrst report on the kitchen waste in Dorotheenstraße. He succeeded in ªnding out, with the help of the Berlin archivist Fidicin, that the pile works had formed part of an earlier sewer canal, which had ºowed there. “It appears that mainly the afore- mentioned objects were disposed of on its banks. The ªnd is at any rate of some interest [...]apart from the fact that it may serve as a warning” (Virchow 1872a, p. 124). The ªnd can act as a warning because it becomes clear once more that—in view of the foul stench of the matter which was uncovered there—one cannot deal with waste in this way. At the same time, Virchow claims that the waste material should be considered apart from this aspect of sanitary education in order to gain further knowledge from the refuse. Refuse archaeology, therefore, has a two-sided relationship with the problem of sanitation. On the one hand, this archaeology is only made possible by the fact that the concept of refuse was formed from the hygiene perspective, on the other hand, the archaeological treatment of refuse goes clearly beyond a mere question of sanitation. As already implied, there is a further distinction that has to be pointed out. Refuse archaeology receives its speciªc character not only through the fact that it refrains from quickly disposing the refuse, but also because it does not contribute to its conversion into an object of antiquarian value. At this point, it becomes apparent that the archaeological interest in refuse was a signiªcant breakthrough in the ªeld of archaeology. At the time of Virchow’s ªnd in Berlin, archaeology was still essentially in the realms of “treasure hunting”. Archaeology was—following Winckelmann’s example (Schömann 1845; Bruer 1994)—essentially art science, over which an interest with a different orientation, namely that of excavation science, could only gradually assert itself from the mid-nineteenth century onwards (Conze 1869; Maier 1992). This shall be clariªed through Heinrich Schliemann’s reports on the excavations carried out in Troy in 1871–73 (Easton 1992). Schliemann’s report on his discovery of Troy is characterized by a very ambivalent attitude towards treasure hunting. On the one hand, it is well known that Schliemann planned his excavations following Homer’s guide- lines. Schliemann was concerned with ªnding the settlement of “Homer’s praised Trojans” (Schliemann 1990, p. 3). This was an attempt to determine an ancient text of western culture by exposing his objects of refer- ence. Even though this attempt was already anachronistic at this time, because it falls into stark contradiction to the principles of source criticism (in the sense of Lachmann and others), which were already well established in Germany (Schuchardt 1890), Schliemann appears convinced that his excavations has, indeed, led to the discovery of the very same Troy that Homer had described. The core of his ªnds, which brought him to this

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 221

conviction, was the presumed ‘buried treasure of Priam’. “The treasure, which was discovered at a depth of eight and a half meters near the royal palace on the city wall and was covered by one and a half to two meters of red Trojan rubble and a six meter high post-Trojan fortress wall, excludes any doubt. A member of the royal family had probably tried to rescue the treasure during the destruction of Troy, but had been forced to leave it behind on the wall.” Schliemann determines the signiªcance of his discoveries by an exact comparison between the uncovered objects and Homer’s text. The treasure and the text agreed exactly so that the myth was transformed into history. “This great treasure of the mythical King Priam of the mythical heroic age, which I found at a great depth in the ruins of the mythical city of Troy, is a unique archaeological discovery of great wealth, of a great civilization and of a great artistic culture” (Schliemann 1990, pp. 4, 10).9 At the same time, however, Schliemann encountered circumstances at his excavation sites, which—as archaeological historians have repeatedly emphasized (Herrmann 1990; Herrmann 1992)—demanded a procedure which was still new for an archaeologist of that time. This procedure could no longer be described in terms of treasure hunting. Troy represented a huge “pile of debris” for Schliemann. “A colossal 40 to 46 1/2 foot thick covering of debris” had formed on the “ancient ground” made of “shell limestone rocks.” It “originated from four different tribes which dwelled on the mountain, one after the other, before the arrival of the Greek col- ony, in other words before 700 B.C.” According to Schliemann, this layer of debris “is an immeasurably rich horn of plenty of the most remarkable terracotta and other objects, the like of which has never been seen and which do not bear the slightest resemblance to the products of Hellenic art” (Schliemann 1990, p. 2). The words “immeasurably rich horn of plenty” insinuate the idea of treasure once again, but at the same time it becomes clear that the archaeologist is dealing with debris that had to be dated back to very different times. Schliemann frequently only found “shards of pottery” (Schliemann 1990, p. 5) instead of artistic treasures. Schliemann had to attempt to determine the time of the various cultural

9. “[K]einen Zweifel [...][läßt] der von mir auf der Ringmauer neben dem königlichen Palast in 8 1/2 Meter Tiefe und mit 1 1/2 bis 2 Meter rotem trojanischen Schutt und einer posttrojanischen, 6 Meter hohen Festungsmauer bedeckt gefundene Schatz, den wahrscheinlich jemand von der königlichen Familie während der Zerstörung [Trojas] versucht hat zu retten, aber gezwungen worden ist, auf der Ringmauer zu- rückzulassen”.—“Dieser in großer Tiefe, in den Ruinen der für mythisch angesehenen Stadt Troja von mir entdeckte große Schatz des für mythisch gehaltenen Königs Priamos aus dem mythischen heroischen Zeitalter ist[...]eine in der Archäologie einzig dastehende Entdeckung großen Reichtums, großer Zivilisation und großen Kunstsinns.”

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 222 Refuse Archeology

layers with the aid of these fragments of pottery. If he were to fail to clearly differentiate between the settlements, which were built on top of each other, each over the debris of the previous settlement, then it would not be possible for him to ªnd the city built by the Trojans, which was ªnally destroyed. Schliemann was, therefore, required to follow a strictly stratigraphic procedure whereby the individual fragments would serve as index ªnds to differentiate between the individual layers and to date them. A completely different methodology in the archaeologist’s ªeld of attention results from this: the secondary ªnds, the fragmentary and irrep- arably damaged artifacts, which are intrinsically worthless, have an ever increasing relevance alongside the main archaeological objectives, i.e., the treasures. The very things, which appear insigniªcant from the perspective of ªnding the richest booty possible for the collections of European museums, become a decisive area of archaeological study for Schliemann. A meeting of archaeological and geological procedures can be observed here. It is not only the fact that the occurrence of different layers of culture (as described by Schliemann) corresponds to the problem of the different layers of the earth’s crust, which preoccupies geologists, but also that the function of fragments as index ªnds is basically the same as the function of index fossils in geology. Lyell had already established this connection— even if only metaphorically—in his Principles of Geology (1830–33). “Some remains of former organic beings, like the ancient temple, statue, or pic- ture, may have both their intrinsic and their historical value, while there are others which can never be expected to attract attention for their own sake” (Lyell [1830–33] 1997, p. 7). Lyell emphasized that it is those very objects, which do not attract attention through their intrinsic value, which are of great interest to the geologist. The remains which are worthless to the lover of both architecture and art may be equally of interest to the archaeologist or historian. The so-called trace fossils are the clearest example for such a displacement of interest to unremarkable objects in the ªeld of geology itself. Even fossilized animal tracks or fossilized excrement, the so-called coprolites, can serve as index fossils, as time marks of geological formations. The stratigraphic procedure, which was scarcely established in archaeology at the time when Schliemann was following it in his excavation of Troy, would have been scarcely thinkable without the speciªc knowledge provided by geology. In addition to that, the geological interest in fossilized excrement, in coprolites, appears to indicate that geology is also an essential prerequisite for the possibility of refuse archaeology. Without a geological knowledge that attributes signiªcance even to fossilized animal matter, Virchow’s refuse archaeology would have been unimaginable, too. However, certain dissimilarities must also be highlighted. There are con-

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 223

siderable differences between refuse archaeology and the excavation of Troy as well as between refuse archaeology and the geological study of fossilized excrement. Despite a certain distance from the paradigm of treasure hunting, Schliemann’s undertaking remains nevertheless clearly orientated towards this paradigm. Virchow’s notes make this point clear. In 1879, upon Schliemann’s request, Virchow himself had visited Troy. In his notes, he occasionally reports on refuse which was uncovered on the excavation site: “the remains of animal feed, oyster shells and mussels of all kinds, bones of sheep and goats, cattle and pigs” (Virchow [1874] 1974, p. 396). This refuse did not, however, arouse particular interest. Troy remained primarily a witness, endowed with a particular aura, of an early high culture, a mythical place, which, in the course of the excavations, had suddenly been transformed into the presence of material objects. In this translation, it remained basically in agreement with, and even seems to have been brought forth by, the imagination which was mobilized by the literary tradition:10 We should not rob ourselves unnecessarily of all poetry. As the chil- dren of a hard and often truly prosaic time, we want to reserve the right to re-evoke the pictures, which fulªlled our youthful fantasy, even in this day and age. It is kind of melancholic, while at the same time uplifting, to follow the paths of history via layer upon layer of the earth’s crust like a geological break-down on a site like that of Hissarlik. This history is not like the history that has been recorded, but as it physically presents itself to us in the legacy of the past, in the things themselves, which people used in former times (Virchow [1879] 1974, p. 398).11 The study of the ‘things themselves’, the poetry of the authentic, which Virchow conjures up here in the image of geological layers, could barely contrast more sharply with his interest in refuse, which he had previously

10. Cf. also the characterization of Schliemann in Virchow 1891, pp. 107–108, where Virchow described the archaeologist’s excavation projects very clearly as systematically pro- duced reading matter. 11. “Berauben wir uns doch nicht ganz unnötigerweise aller Poesie. Wir, die Kinder einer harten und oft recht prosaischen Zeit, wir wollen uns doch das Recht vorbehalten, die Bilder, welche unsere jugendliche Phantasie erfüllt haben, auch in unserem Alter wieder heraufzubeschwören. Es hat etwas Wehmütiges, aber doch zugleich Erhebendes, auf einer Stätte wie der von Hissarlik aus der Reihe aufeinanderfolgender Erdschichten wie aus einem geologischen Aufschlusse den Gang der Geschichte abzulesen, nicht wie er aufgezeichnet worden ist, sondern wie er sich uns körperlich darstellt in der Hinterlassenschaft der Vorzeit, in den Dingen selbst, welche die früheren Menschen gebraucht haben.”

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 224 Refuse Archeology

presented to the Berlin Society for Anthropology, Ethnology and Ancient History. Moreover, this interest in refuse can be distinguished from the geological examination of fossilized excrement. Many different types of objects are also involved in this case. Fossilized excrement is understood as a natural product and, as such, it is signiªcant for geology. The fossilized excrement is part of the natural order and functions as circumstantial evidence of a more comprehensive ecological relationship in the past. In contrast, refuse is systematically generated in the execution of cultural procedures without forming a part of that particular cultural order. Refuse thus brings the reverse side of culture into view. In being useless, refuse manifests itself on the edge of a cultural order and forms its silhouette. A refuse archaeology which does not pursue the transformation, incorporation and recycling of refuse must, in this sense, ªnally encounter the limits of what has or had value, i.e. the limits of knowledge and signiªcance. The most widespread ªeld that can be deªned within these outlines would be the human sciences. In actual fact, the practices of refuse archaeology were repeatedly of help to late nineteenth-century anthropology in ªnding the earliest and simplest traces of man. Perhaps the best example of this is the problem of eoliths (Figure 1). Eoliths—the so-called ‘stones from the dawn of mankind’, as Abbé Bourgeois put it in 1863—are objects, which originate from the tertiary and oldest quaternary stages and have certain resemblance to tools. Because the eoliths are, however, older than previously known “certainly man-made stone tools”, conclusive evidence is required—as Moritz Hoernes argued in his work about the culture of primeval times—to exclude the possibility that eoliths are not purely “deceptive ºint formations which feign the appearance of tools for various uses.” There would have been such evidence, according to Hoernes, if “eoliths” had been found “in the proximity of traces of ªres and food remains.” This was, however, not the case. Instead, eoliths were found “in extensive deposits amongst masses of more or less similar stone debris, from which unsuspecting researchers devised a whole range of different tools for hitting, stabbing, drilling, cutting, rasping, throwing, etc.” (Hoernes 1912, pp. 17–18). The relevance of food remnants for the determination of eoliths shows that just the presence of kitchen waste could transform mere stones into artifacts, and “deceptive shapes” into prehistoric monuments. Refuse becomes the decisive ªnd in this case, which separates nature from culture and makes the study of archaic objects possible. Refuse provides a breakthrough, which indicates that the presence of a human order can be assumed. The archaeological objects take shape through these very ªnds, which had never been the goal of craftsmanship or the realization of intentions (Davis 1992) nor objects

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 225

Figure 1. Tertiary eoliths from Belgium and France (Hoernes 1912)

of cultural practices in the broadest sense, but always the “refuse” of these practices. Refuse precedes the possibility of any supposed “meaning,” which—according to the understanding of traditional archaeology—should ªnd its fulªllment “in the form or the order” of monuments (Niemeyer 1995, p. 8). Nevertheless, refuse remains as something that must be present: where there is no refuse, nothing speciªc has happened. In this manner, refuse archaeology does not aim to interpret monuments, but to draw attention to their mere presence. Refuse archaeology lends the knowledge which it establishes a certain distance from its objects.12 In the same way as the unclear form of eoliths demands proof of whether eoliths belong to nature or culture, every cultural order that by means of discoveries of refuse begins to emerge either from their limits or beyond inevitably is a different order to that of the archaeologist. On every occasion the archaeology of refuse discovers, so to speak, another kind of prehistory, in which a respective cultural order emerges in a speciªc way. The questions that the “friend of eolith studies” (Hoernes 1912, p. 17) asks—Was there something there? Is this ºint formed by human hands?—multiply and disintegrate the uniform ªgure of man. 12. Foucault (1969) took up this speciªc aspect of archaeology as he detached archaeological knowledge strictly from the concept of (continuity-supporting) memory and allocated it to that of the archive.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 226 Refuse Archeology

IV.

“You enjoy turning the truth of life on its head. You stand before a palace and judge it from the rear[...].What should be forgotten is what you dwell upon. That which is not worth thinking about is what you study, you create a system from it! You spend your most precious time on the things, which are a waste of time. You take the tiny and enlarge it. [...]. [...] By the way, you also smoke too much! Stop smok- ing and you will have less problems with catarrh!” —Friedrich Theodor Vischer: Auch einer

There was no archaeological study that bore the name of ‘refuse archaeology’ at Virchow’s times.13 Refuse archaeology—as can also be observed in the case of Virchow—appears only as an occasional event that is not proven by a secure ªeld of tangible knowledge. This strange state of la- tency in refuse archaeology is presumably connected to the fact that refuse archaeology must be essentially concerned with discontinuities. These discontinuities are not of the type that is negotiated within the framework of a given cultural order, but, rather, discontinuities of a historical kind. These historical discontinuities thwart the appropriation of the past which nineteenth-century historicism carried out in the most varied ªelds and for which archaeology (and also geology) can be seen as its most prominent metaphor. Archaeology also appears as a metaphor in Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis. In a letter to Fliess of December 1899, Freud wrote that he had great hope of bringing the treatment of a very “persistent patient” to a quick and lucky end. The breakthrough in therapy, which he had man- aged, seemed to Freud “as if Schliemann had once more excavated Troy” (Freud 1985, p. 391). This strange idea that Troy could be excavated more than once, that it could be discovered again and again, does not only as- sign the task of repeating archaeological ªnds to psychoanalysis, but also indicates that archaeology itself is marked by a certain structure of repetition. This leads to the question whether an archaeological discovery can ever be made for the ªrst time. Virchow, anyhow, was looking for prehistoric pile dwellings like those that had already been found somewhere else; and Schliemann’s excavations rediscovered a Troy that had always already existed in books. Freud was much interested in such structures of repetition, and, therefore, was not only fascinated by the excavation of Troy as a fulªllment of Schliemann’s childhood dreams (Freud 1985,

13. The concept of an archaeology which consistently takes refuse as its main subject was ªrst conceived around 1970 (Rathje 1974; Rathje/McCarthy 1977).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 227

p. 353), but also by archaeology itself. His comprehensive private collection of archaeological objects, which were exhibited in his study, always surrounded both the analyst and the patients who consulted him: as a promise of what during a treatment perhaps would come to light, but also as an ensemble of things which always already had been found. Against this background, a certain problem becomes obvious: In order for psychoanalysis shall not just be called unnecessary, that means, for it not to amount to nothing more than endless repetitions, the analytical treatment—though in search for the familiar—has to ªnd something strange. This was exactly what happened to Virchow in Dorotheenstraße. Refuse as an ever-excluded matter out of place in this way paradoxically becomes a ªgure of what is new. It was one of Freud’s main concerns to develop a speciªc technique that would guarantee this emerging of the new and unfamiliar as a systematic effect. But it is very doubtful whether this could succeed at all. A matter out of place that becomes an object of formalized research must, in the end, unavoidably change its status and be allocated to a speciªc place. This aporia can be demonstrated with respect to Freud’s varying use of the archaeological metaphor, which oscillates between refuse and treasure-hunting archaeology. Freud referred to archaeology again and again, from his Studies of Hyste- ria (1895) to his later essay on Constructions in Analysis (1937), in order to illustrate both the analytical procedure itself and the objects of this procedure. In his Traumdeutung (Interpretation of Dreams), the archaeological metaphor only appears incidentally, but, nonetheless, in a very signiªcant way. At one point in his comprehensive literary report on the problem of dreams, Freud refers to F. W. Hildebrandt’s book Der Traum und seine Verwerthung für’s Leben (The Dream and Its Exploitation for Life) (1875). The term ‘Verwerthung’ (exploitation or utilisation) in the title of this book refers to the idea of refuse, which implies its antithesis. According to Freud, Hildebrandt is of the opinion that the possibility of an exploitative interpretation of dreams is very limited, and that the determination of the origin of dreams—here Freud quotes Hildebrandt verbatim—is “an exceed- ingly laborious and thankless task. For as a rule it ends in hunting out every kind of utterly worthless psychical event from the remotest corners of the chambers of one’s memory, and in dragging to light once again every kind of completely indifferent moment of the past from the oblivion in which it was buried in the very hour, perhaps, after it occurred” (Freud [1900] 1973, vol. IV, p. 20; cf. Hildebrandt 1875, pp. 12–13). Hildebrandt founded his reserved attitude towards a too thorough pre- occupation with the phenomenon of the dream with the argument that such an activity would be the same as an excavation of psychically indiffer-

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 228 Refuse Archeology

ent and worthless things. In his opinion, the interpretation of dreams was nothing but the archaeology of mental refuse, and to describe dream analysis as such was enough to denounce it. Freud, however, objects to this very argument: “I can only regret that this keen-sighted author allowed himself to be deterred from following the path which [,] [...] if he had followed it, [...] would have led him to the very heart of the explanation of dreams” (Freud [1900] 1973, vol. IV, p. 20). He maintains that the attention given to supposed trivialities forms the ideal way of “the explanation of dreams.” This early, albeit restrained, apology for refuse and its archaeology was also continued in other ªelds of psychoanalysis, namely in the undertaking of a Psychopathology of Everyday Life, in which Freud dedicated himself to the broad ªeld of mistakes/slips—forgetting, slips of the tongue, misreadings, slips of the pen, bungled actions etc. In all these cases, which are not given much attention, because they seem insigniªcant, something repressed appears which is not accessible to the consciousness. In this respect, it could be doubly justiªed to refer to psychoanalysis as refuse archaeology: on the one hand, with regard to the form in which the objects are available for the analysis, and, on the other hand, with regard to the nature of the knowledge which is combined with these objects. This knowledge concerns facts, which are kept away from and taken out of the rational order of consciousness. It is no surprise, therefore, that Freud in his early letters to Fliess coined the neologism “Dreckology”—a pun on the German word ‘Dreck’ (ªlth)—to signify the new ªeld of research that was emerging (Freud 1985, pp. 290–291). And a couple of years later—in his short essay about Michelangelo (1914)— Freud used the English word “refuse” to characterize the speciªc kind of matter psychoanalysis deals with. He pointed out that the analyst had particularly to focus on “the ‘refuse’ [...] of our observation” (Freud [1914] 1999, p. 185),14 that means, all the details that usually are considered as unimportant and insigniªcant. There seems to be good reason, then, to call Freud, as John Forrester has done, a “refuse archaeologist” (Forrester 1998, p. 29). In the light of this comparison between psychoanalysis and refuse archaeology, it appears as if the objection against A. E., the protagonist of Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s novel Auch einer, which is quoted above as a motto (Vischer [1879] 1902, p. 53), could also be directed against Freud. In the same way in which A. E.’s thoughts and actions are wholly dedicated to apparently insigniªcant, everyday, untoward events, i.e. to the “perverseness of things” (Vischer [1879] 1902, p. 24), Freud, who quotes

14. In the translation of the Standard Edition the word “refuse” is cancelled (Freud [1914] 1973, p. 222).

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 229

this formulation from Vischer’s novel (Freud [1901] 1973, p. 140, n.1), is also interested in remote things. It is, therefore, all the more conspicuous that Freud, in a totally different way, takes archaeology as a metaphor of the analytical task. In his works, he often refers to the excavation of valu- able artifacts, important examples of architecture and prominent historical sites. Particularly Pompeii is one of the locations which are repeatedly mentioned: “There is, in fact, no better analogy for repression, by which something in the mind is at once made inaccessible and preserved, than burial of the sort to which Pompeii fell a victim and from which it could emerge once more through the work of spades” (Freud [1907] 1973, p. 40). Through the analogy between archaeology and psychoanalysis, the matter of the unconscious, the repressed, is established and ennobled: “But just as the archaeologist builds up the walls of the building from the foundations that have remained standing, determines the number and position of the columns from depressions in the ºoor and reconstructs the mural decorations and paintings from the remains found in the débris, so does the analyst proceed when he draws his inferences from the fragments of memories, from the associations and from the behavior of the subject of the analysis” (Freud [1937] 1973, p. 259). The constructive element which both archaeological and psychoanalytical work have in common shows the decisive dimension which Freud gains by using the metaphor of archaeology for the representation of his ªeld: the analyst aims to restore meaning in the same way as the archaeologist restores precious monuments and art treasures of a sunken past. Instead of being concerned with refuse archaeology, psychoanalysis rather seems to intend the production of value. “Comparing a symptom to an archaeological ªnd objectiªes that symptom and, rather than exploring its ever-changing manifestations, transforms it into an identiªable and marketable good, available for exhibition and trade” (Hake 1993, p. 152). In this case, the ambivalence between art science and excavation science, which could already be observed with regard to Schliemann’s orientation towards Priam’s treasure and his simultaneous appreciation of worthless remains as primary ªnds, seems to be resolved in favor of art science. Archaeology mainly represents the pro- gramme of a “psychoanalytical treasure hunt” (Cassirer Bernfeld 1988, p. 241). It is indeed more than a mere strategical question of representation and of science politics when Freud searches for a metaphorical connection between the heroic deeds of Schliemann and the mythical cultural arenas of Pompeii and Troy on the one hand, and his often despised and defamed practice of psychoanalysis on the other. This endeavor rather revolves around the basic alternative of whether rich sources of meaning or the refuse tips of insigniªcant events open up to the analysis. In reality, how-

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 230 Refuse Archeology

ever, the alternative is none, since it remains inscribed as a constitutive contradiction of psychoanalysis. Freud’s analytical activity oscillates between two strategies: on the one hand, the attempt to lend deªnitive meaning to the articulations of the unconscious and to integrate these articulations into the consciousness as the subject’s regained history, and, on the other, the arduous search for the distorting mechanisms which consti- tute the material of dreams and mistakes. Their movement does not lead back to a deªnite origin, but only points in the direction of an emptiness, which cannot be symbolized. It is this the terrain of classical archaeology with its ambivalent orientation towards both art science and excavation science, a terrain on which the conception of an irrevocable discontinuity of the conscious and the unconscious becomes possible, as is the case with Virchow’s interest in refuse.

References Andree, Christian. 1976. Rudolf Virchow als Prähistoriker. Vol. 1. Virchow als Begründer der neueren deutschen Ur- und Frühgeschichtswissenschaft. Köln, Wien: Böhlau. Bruer, Stephanie-Gerrit. 1994. Die Wirkung Winckelmanns in der deutschen Klassischen Archäologie des 19. Jahrhunderts. Mainz, Stuttgart: Steiner. Cassirer Bernfeld, Suzanne. 1988. “Freud und die Archäologie.” Pp. 237–259 in Bausteine der Freud-Biographik. Edited by Siegfried Bernfeld and Suzanne Cassirer Bernfeld. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. Conze, Alexander. 1869. Ueber die Bedeutung der classischen Archaeologie. Wien. Davis, Whitney. 1992. “The deconstruction of intentionality in archaeology.” Antiquity 66: 334–347. Douglas, Mary. [1966] 1995. Purity and Danger. An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London, New York: Routledge. Easton, Donald F. 1992. “Schliemanns Ausgrabungen in Troia.” Pp. 51–72 in Archäologie und historische Erinnerung. Nach 100 Jahren Heinrich Schliemann. Edited by Justus Cobet and Barbara Patzek. Essen: Klartext. Forrester, John. 1998. “Freudsches Sammeln.” Pp. 20–35 in Meine . . . alten und dreckigen Götter. Aus Sigmund Freuds Sammlung. Edited by Lydia Marinelli. Frankfurt/M., Basel: Stroemfeld. Foucault, Michel. 1969. L’archeologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard. Freud, Sigmund. [1900] 1973. The Interpretation of Dreams. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vols. IV and V. Translated and edited by James Strachey. London: The Hogarth Press.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 Perspectives on Science 231

———. [1901] 1973. The Psychopathology of Everyday Life. Forgetting, Slips of the Tongue, Bungled Actions, Superstitions and Errors. The Standard Edi- tion of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. VI. Trans- lated and edited by James Strachey. London: The Hogarth Press. ———. [1907] 1973. “Delusions and Dreams in Jensen’s Gradiva.” Pp. 1–95 in Jensen’s ‘Gradiva’ and Other Works. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. IX. Translated and edited by James Strachey. London: The Hogarth Press. ———. [1914] 1973. “The Moses of Michelangelo.” Pp. 211–238 in To- tem and Taboo and Other Works. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psy- chological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. XIII. Translated and edited by James Strachey. London: The Hogarth Press. ———. [1937] 1999. “Constructions in Analysis.” Pp. 255–269 in Moses and Monotheism. An Outline of Psycho-Analysis and Other Works. The Stan- dard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. XXIII. Translated and edited by James Strachey. London: The Hogarth Press. ———. [1914] 1999. “Der Moses des Michelangelo.” Pp. 171–201 in Gesammelte Werke X. Frankfurt/Main: Fischer. ———. 1985. The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess 1887–1904. Translated and edited by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. Cam- bridge/Mass., London: Belknap. Hake, Sabine. 1993. “Saxa loquuntur. Freud’s Archaeology of the Text.” Boundary 2 20: 146–173. Herrmann, Joachim, and Evelin Maaß (ed.). 1990. Die Korrespondenz zwi- schen Heinrich Schliemann und Rudolf Virchow 1876–1890. Berlin: Akade- mie. Herrmann, Joachim. 1990. Heinrich Schliemann. Wegbereiter einer neuen Wissenschaft. Berlin: Akademie. ———. 1992. “Fragestellungen und Forschungsprobleme Schliemanns und die zeitgenössische Archäologie. Heinrich Schliemann—for- schungsgeschichtliche Leistung, wissenschaftsmethodischer Neuansatz und zentenare Wirkung.” Pp. 93–102 in Heinrich Schliemann. Grundlagen und Ergebnisse moderner Archäologie 100 Jahre nach Schliemanns Tod. Edited by Joachim Herrmann. Berlin. Akademie. Hildebrandt, F. W. 1875. Der Traum und seine Verwerthung für’s Leben. Leip- zig. Hoernes, Moritz. 1912. Kultur der Urzeit I. Steinzeit. Leipzig: Göschen. Lacan, Jacques. [1966] 1970. “Le séminaire sur ‘La Lettre volée’.” Pp. 19–75 in Écrits I. Paris: Seuil. Lyell, Charles. (1830–33) 1997. Principles of Geology. London: Penguin.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021 232 Refuse Archeology

Maier, F. G. 1992. Von Winckelmann zu Schliemann—Archäologie als Er- oberungswissenschaft des 19. Jahrhunderts. Opladen. Niemeyer, Hans Georg. 1995. Einführung in die Archäologie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Parent-Duchâtelet, Alexandre. 1836. Hygiène publique, ou mémoires sur les questions les plus importantes de l’hygiène appliquées aux professions et aux travaux d’utilité publique. 2 Vol. Paris: Bailliere. Pfahlbauberichte. Mitteilungen der antiquarischen Gesellschaft Zürich. 1854ff. Rathje, William L. 1974. “The Garbage Project. A new way of looking at the problems of archaeology.” Archaeology 27: 236–241. Rathje, William L., and Michael McCarthy. 1977. “Regularity and Vari- ability in Contemporary Garbage.” Pp. 262–287 in Research Strategies in Historical Archaeology. Edited by Stanley South. New York. Schliemann, Heinrich. 1990. Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Troja in den Jahren 1871 bis 1873. München, Zürich: Artemis. Schömann, G. F. 1845. Winckelmann und die Archäologie. Greifswald: Koch. Schuchardt, Carl. 1890. Schliemann’s Ausgrabungen in Troja, Tiryns, Mykenä, Orchomenos, Ithaka im Lichte der heutigen Wissenschaft. Leipzig: Brockhaus. Virchow, Rudolf. 1868. Über die Kanalisation von Berlin. Gutachten der Königl. wissenschaftlichen Deputation für das Medicinalwesen. Berlin: Hirschwald. ———. 1872a. “Über moderne Pfahlanlagen und Küchenabfälle in Berlin.” Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Eth- nologie und Urgeschichte October 1871 to November 1872: 123–124. ———. 1872b. “Küchenabfälle in der Dorotheenstraße zu Berlin”. Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte October 1871 to November 1872: 132–134. ———. 1879. Gesammelte Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der öffentlichen Medicin. 2 Vol. Berlin: Hirschwald. ———. [1879] 1974. “Troja und Hissarlik.” Pp. 382–400 in Auf den Spuren der Antike. Heinrich Schliemanns Berichte über seine Entdeckungen in der griechischen Welt. Berlin. ———. 1891. “Erinnerungen an Schliemann.” Die Gartenlaube 38: 66–68, 104–108. Vischer, Friedrich Theodor. [1879] 1902. Auch Einer. Eine Reisebekan- ntschaft. Vol. 1. Stuttgart, Leipzig: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt. Zintzen, Christiane. 1998. Vom Pompeji nach Troja. Archäologie, Literatur und Öffentlichkeit im 19. Jahrhundert. Wien: WUV.

Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/106361401317447291 by guest on 26 September 2021