Heidegger's Hut

In 1922, a shingle-clad hut was built on a slope in theBlack Forest region of southern Germany, incountryside above Todtnauberg. It was built forMartin Heidegger (1889–1976), who had recentlybecome Professor of Philosophy at MarburgUniversity. Constructed under the supervision ofHeidegger’s wife Elfride, this small building wasintended as a place where he could think and writein peace. The intention seems to have beensuccessful, he used the house at various times duringthe following five decades.

Heidegger wrote many of his most importantpublished works at his Black Forest refuge, almostcertainly including ‘Building, Dwelling, Thinking’(1951), which deals with the immediacy of therelationship between life and its places ofoccupation. This essay has been profoundlyinfluential to the approach of a number of architectsduring the latter half of the twentieth century; itseems to offer a persuasive account of thefundamental burden of architecture – theidentification of place. Heidegger’s thinking on thenotion of place and its relationship with that ofdwelling was influenced by his own experience ofthe places in which he dwelt and perhaps mostsignificantly by this simple hut where he thoughtand wrote over many years. With this in mind, thisessay describes, illustrates and discusses Heidegger’shut in the Black Forest.

The floor plan has not been published previously.The description and illustrations are based on visitsto the hut in May 1999 and June 2000. The hut is littlechanged and remains in the ownership of the

Heidegger family, who would not permit access forthis study. The plan [Fig. 1a] and model [Fig. 1b] havebeen deduced from a number of sources: thedimensions of the exterior, recent video footage(BBC, 1999), published contemporary photographs(Biemel, 1973; Meller-Marcovicz, 1985; Fedier, 1999)and, most usefully, an interview with Heidegger’sgranddaughter, Gertrud Heidegger, who remembershow the hut was used when Heidegger was alive andwas able to provide a sketch plan of its configuration.The accompanying discussion draws from some ofHeidegger’s own writings (Heidegger, 1934, 1950,1951, 1954, 1995; Storck, 1990; Biemel and Saner, 1990)and biographical material (Kisiel 1991; Petzet, 1993;Ott, 1994; Safranski, 1998).

How the hut came to be builtHeidegger’s first appointment to a Chair ofPhilosophy at the age of 33 provided both theincentive and the financial resources to build thehut. The post allowed him the funds to build theretreat he felt necessary to pursue his philosophicalwork. He sought a place with particular conditionsto suit his needs for writing. These derived partlyfrom his upbringing (Safranski, 1998).

Heidegger was born the son of a barrel-maker andchurch sexton in a small Swabian town on the edgeof the Black Forest. He was encouraged to undertaketheological study, supported by grants held in thegift of the church, turning to an academic career intheology and then philosophy when his enrolmentwith a Jesuit order failed in unclear circumstances(Ott, 1994). Having ‘found’ philosophical questioning

history arq . vol 5 . no 1 . 2001 53

Martin Heidegger’s ‘Building, Dwelling, Thinking’ is well known tomany architects. But comparatively little is known about thebuilding in southern Germany’s Black Forest where this influentialwork was almost certainly written. This essay describes howHeidegger’s Hut came to be built and how it was configured andoccupied. No plan of this little building has ever before beenpublished. In the intellectual alignments that the hut displays,particularly at a small scale, it records physically many of thepriorities that Heidegger wrote about.

Heidegger’s hutAdam Sharr withSimon Unwin

Authors’ addressWelsh School of ArchitectureCardiff UniversityKing Edward VII AvenueCardiff CF10 3NBUnited Kingdom

[email protected]@cardiff.ac.uk

history

through a childhood rigorously ordered by his rolein the local church, he continued to work withsimilar intensity, his thought leading him away frominstitutionalized Catholicism (Kisiel, 1993).Heidegger found the countryside conducive for workand later admitted his dislike of working in a formalacademic environment (Biemel and Saner, 1990). Hefound movements of nature to be resonant andessential, close to existence and to things (Heidegger,1995). To him, the landscape particularlyaccentuated a sacredness in presence. It offered

Heidegger a footing from which to explore thephilosophy of others and guided his own. On hisprofessorial appointment, he sought a ‘retreat’ forwork in rural surroundings away from city anduniversity. Once his appointment was secured, hefound a suitable site in the mountains atTodtnauberg and the hut was complete by the end ofthe year.

Gertrud Heidegger reports that the local farmersold her grandfather the steeply-sloping plot inTodtnauberg cheaply because it was waterlogged due

arq . vol 5 . no 1 . 2001 history54

Adam Sharr Heidegger’s hut

1 The hut is still ownedby the Heideggerfamily, no access isalloweda This plan, the firstever published, isconjecturalb The author’smodel of the hut

1a

11 22 33 44 55

1b

to a passing stream. However, what primarily led hissearch for an appropriate site to the immediatelocality is not clear. It is likely that he was familiarwith the district; the village lies close to the BlackForest’s highest peak, Feldberg, not far from longdistance paths crossing the region that he wouldhave followed as a keen walker and cross-countryskier [Fig. 2a]. The valley was then remote, home to a‘traditional’ community reliant on agriculture andforestry for subsistence, accommodated in BlackForest farmhouses [Fig. 2b] like those Heidegger waslater to idealize in ‘Building, Dwelling, Thinking’.The location is quiet, with extensive views. Thelandscape is dramatic. Patterns of weather varyquickly and wildly. The high peak and deep valleyscreate extremes of localized microclimate. IfHeidegger was seeking inspiration from nature, thenTodtnauberg offered the opportunity at highconcentration (Storck, 1990, p.53).

Physical layoutHeidegger’s wife Elfride, to whom he was married in1917, ‘organized and supervised’ the hut’sconstruction on his behalf (Safranski, 1998, p.129). As

many of the building’s dimensions are metricallyregular, it is reasonable to conjecture that certainaspects were drawn first rather than just built ‘byeye’. It has not been possible to establish who thebuilders were or whether an architect was involved;Heidegger’s relatives interviewed could offer noassistance and no evidence was traced in localauthority or national architectural archives. It hasalso been impossible to establish precisely whatHeidegger’s role was in initial building work at thehut. His involvement in the construction was notentirely direct, although it is likely that he wouldhave taken an interest in the layout of a buildingintended for his work.

Heidegger’s hut was similar in construction tonearby Black Forest farmhouses, made with a timberframe infilled with stone and clad with overlappingtimber shingles. It is akin to the living quarters ofsuch a house without the integral barn andoversailing roof [Fig. 3a]. Materials used are thoseavailable in the forest nearby. Cross-timbers at eaveslevel support a ceiling that covers an almost squarefloor. A partition halves the hut, another dividingone side of the remainder [Fig 3b]. Half thus contains


Heidegger’s hut Adam Sharr

2 The site lies close tothe Black Forest’shighest peaka A June 2000 viewlooking south-westjust below the hut,indicating theplunging horizondominating the

valley aboveTodtnaubergb Traditional BlackForest Farmhouseson the trackbetween the villageof Todtnauberg andthe hut

3 Heidegger’s hut isbuilt on traditionallinesa The hut from thesouth-east in May1999b Model from above,indicating the hut

layout. The lowerhalf, dividedhorizontally, is theVorraum. Thebedroom is behindto the right, thestudy to the left

3a

3b

2a

2b

two distinct territories, divided less emphatically,separated by a cupboard and an overhead shelf. Thismakes a ‘Vorraum’ – literally ‘fore’ or ‘front’ room –almost double the size of the remaining two. Itcontains a cooking place [Fig. 4b], a dining place [Fig. 4a] and a bed place, along with a variety ofshelves and ledges. The smaller rooms suggest ahierarchy of seclusion which assigns Heidegger’sstudy as the most private.

The first room off the Vorraum is a bedroom, intowhich were squeezed four beds and a washing place,also shelves and cupboards [Fig. 5a]. Innermost is thestudy, with a desk, another table for papers and afurther bed [Fig. 5b]. By being sunk into the

mountain slope, the hut has an almost buried edgewhich is thus assigned as ‘back’. Between the bankface and occupied rooms is a firewood drying room,protecting inner walls from the damp ground, usingstored logs as additional insulation. The oppositeedge of the hut is projected forward giving a ‘front’on a low platform [Fig. 6].

Light, heat, waterThis alignment corresponds almost exactly with thecardinal points of the compass, the ‘front’ to thesouth, opening towards midday sun and ‘back’sheltered against the cold north. The arrangement ofplaces inside is opportune with respect to theorientation of each edge and needs for light. Thedining table receives lunchtime southern sun anddinnertime western sun. The bedroom window facessouth, casting eastern morning light diagonally ontothe washing table placed on its west side. The kitchenfaces west, catching evening sun during preparationof the main meal. The study window receivessunlight in the early morning when Heidegger likedto work (Petzet, 1993, p.194) and affords a distantprospect [Fig. 7]. Windows also tempered the climatewith two layers of glazing, both opening for variabledegrees of ventilation, and an outer shutter [Fig. 9].They were brightly painted, with frames in deep blueand shutters in green.

The hut had two proprietary stoves rather than thetraditional single fireplace; one for heating and onefor cooking. Above the cooking stove, the masonrywall was made with a splashback and shelf for hotpots [Fig. 8]. There were no connections to mainsservices: light after sunset was provided by oil lampsand candles, heat from burning logs on the stove andwater from a neighbouring well. The well, central tothe view from Heidegger’s writing desk, consisted of a



4 The Vorraum areaa The dining tableviewed from thekitchen, withHeidegger satcentrally at its headb Heidegger in thekitchen area of thehut, the cookingstove behind himand bed to the right

4a

4b



5 The bedroom andstudy spaces lead offfrom the Vorraum a Heidegger sat athis desk in the studyb The bedroomtightly packed withbeds and the cornertable set out forwashing

6 The model,indicating the hut’srelationship with thehillside

7 The view fromHeidegger’s study isnow almostcompletely obscuredby trees; this May1999 photographshows the terrainbehind that screen

5a

5b

76

trough hollowed from a split log and a wooden spoutfed by a hidden spring [Fig. 10].

Sacred placesAlthough Heidegger’s hut is in the Catholic countryof southern Germany, it has none of theconventional sacred places of traditional localhouses; there is no priest’s blessing recorded in chalkover front door, nor places like those in thefarmhouse he wrote about in ‘Building, Dwelling,

Thinking’: ‘Totenbaum’, coffin place; ‘Hergottswinkel’,Lord’s corner; or ‘Gemeinsamer Tisch’, communitytable. However, there were places that had similarsacred qualities for Heidegger. In summer, he foundinspiration at a temporary desk set up outside, onthe levelled earth, under the open sky, surveying thevalley (Petzet, 1993, p.169). Moreover, the well hadgreat significance for him (Petzet, 1993, pp.192–193).He found metaphoric power in the absence of avisible provenance for the spring that supported life.



8 The kitchen in thehut’s Vorraum withElfride Heideggerstood at the stoveand MartinHeidegger alongside

9 A window on thewest wall of the hutshowing the shutterand two openingleaves of glazing, theouter of which alsocontains an openinglight

10 The well, with acarved star fixed toits spout

8

9

On top of the well was fixed a carved relief star. ForHeidegger, it stood for the wandering thinker, abright trace against a dark sky. This iconic star, whichwas repeated on Heidegger’s gravestone, was also ofgreat symbolic importance to the Jewish poet andconcentration camp survivor Paul Celan whose visitto the hut in 1967 was recorded by his poem‘Todtnauberg’ (Celan, 1996).

The landscape presenceTodtnauberg and its landscape sustained anourishing relationship between thought andpresence for Heidegger. Although he spent time atthe university by necessity, he sought to immersehimself in work at the hut as often as was practicable(Storck, 1990, p.53). Nevertheless, despite returningmany times until his old age, he remained anoccasional occupant, always maintaining anotherresidence in the town of his academy. The hutbecame the site for many key moments in his life,some more controversial than others (Ott, 1994;Safranski, 1998). Much of his thinking was donethere throughout his mature career. He preferredquiet, allowing few visitors. Heidegger came to feelthat his work took place through an opening to thelandscape, receiving its changefulness in theconstancy of solitude.

There appears to have been an intense relationshipbetween Heidegger’s mind, the landscape’s presenceand his writing, for which there is a good deal ofpublished evidence. His correspondence with KarlJaspers offers an illustration (Safranski, 1998; Biemeland Saner, 1990):

‘I’m off to the cabin – and am looking forward a lot to thestrong mountain air – this soft light stuff down here ruinsone in the long run. Eight days lumbering – then again

writing … It’s late night already – the storm is sweepingover the hill, the beams are creaking in the cabin, life liespure, simple and great before the soul … Sometimes I nolonger understand that down there one can play suchstrange roles.’

In letters from Todtnauberg, Heidegger wrote of lifeelsewhere as ‘unter’, literally ‘under’ or ‘below’(Storck, 1990, p.53). Life at the hut was ‘above’,superior; he came to refer to it as ‘up there’. The termdescribed writing mixed with walking and skiing, anintense relationship with the hut and seasonalmovements enveloping it. In 1934, Heidegger wasoffered the Chair of Philosophy in Berlin – the mostprestigious appointment in Germany. He turned itdown and life at the hut was central to the argumentof his official justification, published as a newspaperarticle and recorded as a radio address (Heidegger,1934):

‘On the steep slope of a wide mountain valley in thesouthern Black Forest, at an elevation of 1150 metres,there stands a small ski hut. The floor plan measures sixmetres by seven. The low-hanging roof covers three rooms:the kitchen which is also the living room, a bedroom and astudy ...

‘This is my work-world … Strictly speaking I myselfnever observe the landscape. I experience its hourlychanges, day and night, in the great comings and goingsof the seasons. The gravity of the mountains and thehardness of their primeval rock, the slow and deliberategrowth of the fir-trees, the brilliant, simple splendour ofthe meadows in bloom, the rush of the mountain brook inthe long autumn night, the stern simplicity of the flatlandscovered with snow – all of this moves and flows throughand penetrates daily existence up there, and not in forcedmoments of ‘aesthetic’ immersion or artificial empathy,but only when one’s existence stands in its work. It is thework alone that opens up space for the reality that is thesemountains. The course of the work remains embedded inwhat happens in this region.

‘On a deep winter’s night when a wild, poundingsnowstorm rages around the cabin and veils and coverseverything, that is the perfect time for philosophy. Then itsquestions become simple and essential. Working througheach thought can only be tough and rigorous. The struggleto mould something into language is like the resistance ofthe towering firs against the storm.’

Heidegger, the phenomenological reporter, seems tohave felt duty bound to respond to what heconsidered the landscape’s challenge to philosophy.For him, the landscape was not a fancy to be admiredand ‘observed’. He felt that its tangible presencehelped him to explore being there. Heideggerchallenged philosophical aesthetics and empathy,finding greater authority in a bluntness of existence,intensified by the reality of mountain territory. Forhim, the very being of place preceded interpretation.He appears to have sensed that the material heneeded to philosophize was already there laid outbefore him.

Yet, despite the landscape’s palpable tangibility, itssimplicity belied the complex task of attempting torender its charge in words. Further indications ofsuch a relationship between Heidegger and his hutappear in his published writing; notably his



10

correspondence with Elisabeth Blochmann (Saner,1990) and his poem translated as ‘The Thinker as Poet’(Heidegger, 1954). It is no over-statement to suggestthat many aspects of Heidegger’s written work,especially later in his career, are attributable in partto Todtnauberg’s presence. If philosophicalspeculation involves a generic rendering of theindividual philosopher’s surrounding circumstances,then much of Heidegger’s philosophy is, to someextent, a response to the hut and its landscape.

Significance through daily ritualsHeidegger’s relationship with the hut at a small scaleis especially important. Although there are fewconventionally-defined sacred places within the hut,there were places that had significance to Heideggerthrough their configuration of repetitive rituals inhis daily life. This relates directly to notions of‘dwelling’ and ‘place’ that he wrote about,particularly in ‘Building, Dwelling, Thinking’ and ‘...poetically, Man dwells ...’ (Heidegger, 1950). For him,it was significant that places of daily occupation areintertwined with the lives of those who use them. Bytheir very relationship to the mind’s engagementwith place, they could manifest the multiplicity oftangible forces underpinning everyday existence(Heidegger, 1951).

Heidegger seems to have felt deeply the immediaterelationships between life and the small places, fordifferent purposes, that it makes and occupies. Forhim such places were a part of human presence inthe world. Their occurrence and countlessrecurrence was evidence of shared responses to thephysical conditions of life. They amounted tophilosophy – thought towards a cause ofunderstanding in response to existence – made inphysical form rather than words.

One could consider a number of places withinHeidegger’s hut which might thus be found ‘sacred’in their approach to such embedded authority. Thesix beds, like other beds, were raised above the floor.Like a dais, they displayed their incumbents whensleeping, their emptiness at other times awaiting theabsent sleeper. Eating took place at a corner table,presided over by a portrait of Friedrich von Schellingrather than an icon, set for particular – almost ritual– configurations of meals. The changing layout ofthe table traced those who met there and celebratedtheir meeting by sharing food. Towel hooks abovethe stove ensured that cloths were both dried byrising heat and kept handy [Fig. 11].

A bed unusually placed in the kitchen was thefavourite choice for sleeping, as reported by GertrudHeidegger, because it was closest to the warm stoves,reradiating masonry core and insulative mass of logsin the shed. Ledges and shelves were built-in to thewalls, using planks arranged as vertical surfaces. Someprovided seats or low work surfaces, like that aroundthe stove. These ledges made places underneath too,for boots or boxes. Further vertical planks were madeinto tables for writing, dining and washing. From theintricacy of such places, it is reasonable to suggest thatHeidegger’s hut also sustained a relationship with histhought at a small scale.

Places can have a philosophical authorityThe evidence collected here suggests an importantinterrelationship between Heidegger’s hut and hiswritings about ‘building’, ‘dwelling’ and ‘place’. Themythical paradigm of the Black Forest Farmhouse heestablished in concluding ‘Building, Dwelling,Thinking’ appears to have many relationships withhis experience at Todtnauberg. Heidegger’s hutshares much with this generic house: construction;orientation; an ascetic quality; an interaction withlandscape; a strong temporal and physical order; asensitivity towards dimensions of ‘presence’ and‘absence’; a mutual inter-mediation of mind andplace at small and large scales. Yet, there are alsoimportant discrepancies with this paradigm thatappear to follow differences between Heidegger’s lifeas a tenured university professor and his neighbours’life organized around necessities of subsistence. Hewas a part-time resident of the hut and, although hewrote of his preference of time spent there, he hadthe ability to choose; his neighbours had no optionbut to dwell by subsistence.

Relationships between Heidegger’s hut and hiswritings about ‘dwelling’ and ‘place’ raise animportant issue for architectural scholarship andpractice. In ‘Building, Dwelling, Thinking’, Heideggerwrote about how people relate with place. To him, oneinevitably finds oneself enmeshed in an iterativeengagement of mind and place. This involves



11 The kitchen from thedining area of theVorraum

11

intellectual structuring of a complexity equal to otherdimensions of human thought. For him, moments ofcommon intellectual and physical approach areimbued with philosophical authority. Where recordedin building, resulting places become repositories ofunderstanding, physically recorded. Heidegger thusproposed that, adequately heeded, places might becloser to words in their communicative potential thanremains commonly assumed. This proposal is broadlysupported by the hut.

There are many correlations between Heidegger’swriting and traces of his mind’s engagement with

the hut. It appears plausible to suggest that, in theintellectual alignments that the hut displays,particularly at small scale, it records physically manyof the priorities that Heidegger wrote about. Thesestrong relationships between the substance ofHeidegger’s words and his places are worthy of note.They reinforce the suggestion that places can have aphilosophical authority of their own in the traces ofhuman engagement that they report. This remainsimportant for architecture, whose scholarship oftenderives from the methods of other academicdisciplines.



ReferencesBBC Television (1999), Human, All Too

Human: Thinking the Unthinkable;Martin Heidegger, BBC2, 10 August2000.

Biemel, W. (1973). Heidegger, RohwoltsMonographien, Hamburg.

Biemel, W. and Saner, H. eds. (1990).‘Martin Heidegger/Karl Jaspers’:Briefwechsel, Vittorio Klostermann,Frankfurt.

Celan, P. (1996). Selected Poems,Penguin, London.

Commenge, B. (1996). ‘D’un Chemin ‡L’Autre; De Messkirch ‡ Todtnauberg’in Infini, no.53, pp.47–57.

Fedier, F. (1999). Soixante-deuxphotographies de Martin Heidegger,L’Infini, Gallimard.

Heidegger, M. (1934). ‘Warum bleibenwir in der Provinz’, in Der Alemanne,7 March, 1934. An Englishtranslation by T. Sheehan appears as‘Why Do I Stay in the Provinces?’ in:Sheehan, T. (ed.) (1981). Heidegger; TheMan and the Thinker. Precedent,Chicago, pp.27–29.

Heidegger M. (1950). ‘... dichterischwohnt der Mensch ...’ in Jahrbuch derAkademie; Bayerischen Akademie derSchˆnen Kunste, Band I, pp.128ff. AnEnglish translation by A. Hofstädterappears as ‘... poetically, Man dwells...’ in: Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry,Language, Thought, Harper and Row,London.

Heidegger, M. (1951). ‘Bauen WohnenDenken’ in Mensch und Raum, DasDarmstädter Gespräch 1951. ReprintedVieweg, Braunschweig, 1991. AnEnglish translation by A. Hofstädterappears as ‘Building, Dwelling,

Thinking’ in: Heidegger, M., (1971).Poetry, Language, Thought, Harper andRow, London.

Heidegger, M. (1954). Aus der Erfahrungdes Denkens, Günter Neske,Pfullingen. An English translationby A. Hofstädter appears as ‘TheThinker as Poet’ in: Heidegger, M.(1971). Poetry, Language, Thought,Harper and Row, London.

Heidegger, M. (1995). Der Feldweg,Vittorio Klostermann, London. AnEnglish translation by T. F. O’Mearaand T. Sheehan appears as ‘ThePathway’ in: Sheehan, T. (ed.) (1981).Heidegger: The Man and the Thinker,Precedent, Chicago, pp.69–71.

Kisiel, T. (1991). ‘Heidegger’s Apology;Biography as Philosophy andIdeology’, in Graduate FacultyPhilosophy Journal, vol.14, no.2,pp.363–404.

Kisiel, T. (1993). The Genesis ofHeidegger’s Being and Time, Universityof California Press, Berkeley.

Meller Marcovicz, D. (1985). MartinHeidegger, Photos 23 September1966/17&18 Juni 1968, VittorioKlostermann, Frankfurt.

Ott, H. (1994). Martin Heidegger; aPolitical Life, Fontana, London.

Petzet, H.W. (1993). Encounters andDialogues with Martin Heidegger,University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Safranski, R. (1998). Martin Heidegger;Between Good and Evil, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Storck, J. (ed.) (1990). ‘MartinHeidegger/Elisabeth Blochmann’:Briefwechsel. DeutschesSchillergeschaft, Marbach.

Illustration creditsAuthor, 1a and b, 2a and b, 3a and b, 6,

7, 8 and 10DM Marcovicz, 4a and b, 5a and b, 9

and 11

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank:Gertrud Heidegger and HeinrichHeidegger for their kind patience andassistance; Prof. Dr. Hugo Ott ofHeidegger’s alma mater, Albert-Ludwig’s University, Freiburg, forsuggesting some helpful directionsfor this research; also Joanne Sayner,Mark Giles and Gisela Lˆhlein fortheir assistance with Heidegger’sGerman. Adam Sharr would like tothank the Welsh School ofArchitecture for granting a researchstudentship which enabled this study.arq gratefully acknowledges DigneMeller Marcovicz for consent toreproduce photographs from herbook, Martin Heidegger, Photos 23September 1966/17 & 18 Juni 1968,published in 1985 by VittorioKlostermann, Frankfurt.

BiographiesAdam Sharr is a graduate studentwith the Welsh School ofArchitecture, Cardiff University. Healso works in architectural practicefor Wright & Wright Architects,London.Simon Unwin is a senior lecturer atthe Welsh School of Architecture, andthe author of Analysing Architectureand An Architecture Notebook,Routledge.

Volume 11 in 2001April and OctoberInstitutions print only £59/$91Individuals print only: £26/$40 ISSN 0959-7743

to contact the Journals Customer Services Department in Cambridge: tel +44 (0)1223 326070 fax +44 (0)1223 315052email [email protected] in New York: tel (914) 937 9600 fax (914) 937 4712email [email protected]

Take a closer look – freePlease send me free sample pages of

Cambridge Archaeological Journal

Send this coupon to:Journals Marketing, Cambridge University Press,The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, CB2 2RU, UK

or40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA

name

address

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, cb2 2ru, UK West th Street, New York, ny 10011-4211, USA

Cambridge Archaeological Journal is an exciting periodical that covers significantarchaeological research, both theoretical anddescriptive. Ranging widely in space and time,it focuses particularly on the role and development of human cognitive abilities asreflected in the religion, iconography and othercharacteristics of early societies.The journalseeks to promote debate and discussion oncrucial issues such as the origins of speech andlanguage, archaeological approaches to symbolism and art, and the evidence for earlyhuman cognition. Specific topics covered inrecent issues include: process and agency inearly state formation; cosmologies in the BritishIron Age; cave art, autism and the evolution of the human mind; the symbolism ofshellmounds in the San Francisco Bay area; andthe use of colour in early societies.In addition to major articles and shorter notes,Cambridge Archaeological Journal alsoincludes review features on recent books ofspecial interest.The journal has a distinguished editorial board that includesBritish and American scholars of internationalrepute.

Published for the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research

Cambridge Archaeological Journal

Documents

Heidegger's Hut