 Thank you very much for the invitation to speak today. The European Association of Archaeologists was established in order to bring different tradition in archaeology together, and in particular, to tackle situations where the freedom of scholarship needs to be supported. And indeed, 25 annual meetings of the European Association of Archaeology have produced a lively exchange across borders between knowledge cultures and fields of expertise. They have changed European archaeology. Instead of thinking in close compartments, it is important that we look outside the box and consider other knowledge stocks and their genesis. In other words, it is time to think beyond paradigms and speak about reflected translations. Our most important challenge is how, in the face of increasing particularism, we can contribute knowledge stocks that were produced in different ways. Beyond universalization, we need transgressive translations. Breaks and contradictions should thereby use to upset the calm order of our own world use and dominant discourses. As a result, it is not my intention to use a single all-encompassing picture to search for the missing pieces of the puzzle or to ask how it really was. I am interested in transformation and reflection, or as Bostrat recently put it, history is a translation of the past into our time. To this extent, both historians and archaeologists can be seen as translators, whereby according to Walter Benjamin, the task of the translator is to be guided by the breaks and the contradictions and not to irritate them. Our intention should be drawn to them so that in the transition, the space where they belong is reopened. It is here that the temporal duality and that lies at the heart of archaeology is of central importance. The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there. This quote of the British writer Leslie Poald Hardley was taken up by David Leventhal when he analyzed the ever-changing role of the past in shaping our lives. In archaeology, the past and the present are always perceived relationally. The relationship between them is marked by continuity and discontinuity, as well as distance and closeness, and is continually re-uniciated by othering and lastrification. On the one hand, the impression of the irrelevant class creates an insurmountable distance and thus discontinuity. On the other hand, the distance and the breaks that is created are bridged by sense-making construction, such as chronology and the concept of development. The continuities and coherence that are then postulated link the past and the present in you and make archaeology attractive to the public, especially in times of social upheaval. This is at least a good explanation for the role individual archaeological sites play in the construction of identities and the heritage boom. In this way, the insight that the study of history produced lies in the entanglement of the past and present and the future. The practices of translation realize the innermost relationship of the past and present as current references. Archaeology is therefore translation. It translates between the past and the present for the future, but in other contexts, archaeology also translates in a variety of ways. Archaeologists translate terms, ideas and concepts between societies, academic tribes and territories. In middle terms, archaeologists translate between the material, the iconographic, textual and more recently, digital worlds. But archaeology can also investigate translation processes themselves, particularly so when studying cultural context or the use of the past in the past. This is the reason why I advocate that archaeology should see themselves as translators in a proactive and reflexive manner. An explicit focus on translation processes may enable us to scrutinize more closely our knowledge production and may save us from hasty assumptions about the past, the present and the future. In the next 40 minutes, I would like to speak about what does translation mean and about the different ways of looking at the production of knowledge and theory in archaeology. This lead us directly to my three examples for the relevance of translation in archaeology. First, transdisciplinary, resilience as a traveling concept. Second, from things to linked open data, object epistemological practices and circulating references. And last but not least, third, cultural translation as a concept for the analysis of cultural context and the past in the past, using so-called imitative coins as a case study. To conclude, I would like to address some prospect and challenges for an archaeology that in a globalized world deals with multiple ways of translation. What is translation? Or better, what does translation as practice and analytical concept mean? Translation is a term that for several years has found increasing application in a number of empirical and theoretical contexts, for example, understanding, mediation or intercultural action, whether as exchange or as conflict. Sensation is also a versatile analytical concept currently employed across several academic fields, including cultural studies, sociology and science and technology studies. But the so-called translational term has played only a minor role in archaeology. Our focus on objects and assemblages rather than languages and texts may, to some extent, explain this. A situation that is no doubt exuberated by a current general rather critical stance towards all text metaphors. Yet the successful reconceptualization of the translational term in many cultural and social sciences and its regular application and parxological approaches to knowledge production offers a welcome opportunity to introduce the concept into archaeology. In contrast to the conventional understanding of translation as the identical reproduction of the context of a text in another language as early as 1923, Benjamin insisted that the real translation is not a reproduction, but an intensive confrontation with foreigners. But by the 1980s, at the latest, and in particular in the course of the writing culture debate, the range of meanings of the term translation has been greatly extended. The new conceptualization of translation as a transformation with reverse references could have been the occasion for archaeology to take a close look at translation. In particular in 1986, Bruno Latour had already drawn attention to the fact that translation also enjoys the central role in human-object relationships. The concept translation was also taken up in cultural studies for the analysis of the how of intercultural exchange and at the same time to ask about the who and why of translation as well as situation conditions and context. An advantage of the term translation that should not be underestimated is that the concept duration does not deny differences, but in fact recognize and emphasize them. According to the Japanese journalist Naoki Salkai, anthropologist Andreas Langenhol, translation can be understood as a performative practice through which the addressing and recognition of the context of origin and destination that necessarily arise in the process of translation produce not only old, but also new differences. Above all, in legalistic functional equivalence was seen as a central feature of a translation. In other words, that the translation can fulfill similar meanings and function in a different context. Whereby what is translated is always subject to a selection and always poses a question of the potential constructive role of misunderstanding and untranslatability. In particular, when a concept describes a phenomenon that is unknown in the destination context or falls between the stools of the destination context ontology. For this reason, the culture and social theorist Martin Fuchs emphasized that as a social practice in its interactivity and intentionality, translation is reaching out, an overcoming of restriction to just one context. Translation is always a combined appeal for the acceptance of multiple contexts and of translation itself. Translation is a negotiation of flauntures and the crossing when successful entanglement arise. As a nodal point, in a change of context, translation are not one way processes, but transformations that are marked by the reciprocity of their addressings and referencings. Translation is more than just transferring of influencing, it is more than just a bridge between two unrelated poles. Rather, the translation expresses the resistance and the otherness of what is to be translated. Translation does not just happen of its own accord but takes place in searching, testing, revising, in other words, exactly where the continuation of the action is more than problematic. But requires extra effort. This far-reaching notion of translation has played an important role in post-colonial studies seeking to break open-fixed identities and entities and to attack the principle of binarism, to critically remap and reorient previously dominant notions of center and periphery and to reveal patterns of power that arise from or during translation processes. It has also created a demand for a translational reconceptualization of the notion of culture itself. Cultures are consequently no longer conceived as a unified givens, but as being constantly transformed through multiferous overlaps, transferences and histories of entanglement. According to Doris Bachmann-Medik, it might also be constructive to consider inter-entrance disciplinary and the linking of different kinds of stocks or flows of knowledge as a translation problem. In the past, translation was mainly perceived as spatially-synchronic, but it can also serve to analyze temporarily diachronic changes of context, how the past has been dealt with in the past or the present. When describing the production of knowledge and the development of archeological theory, we often speak of paradigms, especially in the Anglophone world. While Thomas Kuhn developed the paradigm concept to analyze the production and the incompatibility of scientific knowledge in archeology, the term paradigm is often used as a rhetorical device or in a historiographic function. A common simplified description would therefore be the following. After the shift from the antiquarian, the revolutionary and the cultural-historical archeology to the new possessional archeology in the 1960s, there was another paradigm shift to post-possessional archeology in the 1980s. Because of the current absence of a clear recognizable new paradigm, some researchers already speak of a crisis or else diagnose the death of theory. Where as others see a new era coming, the starting point for the new paradigm is then seen either in the third science revolution or a new materialism and in archeology itself as a source of theory. In German-speaking archeology, the metaphor of Dwarf's standing on the shoulder of giants was a long time the common way of describing knowledge production as discovering truth by building on previous discoveries. The constructivism adopted by some German-speaking archeologists from the 1990s then led to doubts about the old view that academic knowledge is progressive and cumulative. Instead of consciously instigated breaks as is usual in paradigm shift, interest moved generally to the unconscious binding of the production of knowledge and to context. And given the close connection with the historical science, we prefer often to speak of thought styles and collective epistemes and discourses or more recently following increasingly alignments with the cultural sciences of turns, traveling concepts and conceptual metaphors. At the same time as these discussions, the nature of archeological theory and its mobility have increasingly become the focus of attention according to Gavin Lukas in a focus on theorizing, theorizing as an ongoing practice if you can subvert the normative hierarchies which are often implied in disciplinary and epistemological frameworks where the direction of building and borrowing is always laden with an inherent value of elation. Archeology with its specific stock of sources and the wide scope of its subject matter will never stand out for its purity, but rather in my opinion as a constant translator between various disciplines and knowledge cultures. One that in the process can above all introduce the relevance of material culture, practices and temporality to the transdisciplinary discourse. The current and ever louder demand for the creation of something of its own contradicts the maternal demand for more cooperation between disciplines, the reintegration of individual information and for socially relevant research, nor should the innovative power of combining and translating be underestimated. Looking at the academic world, four different types of research can be distinguished depending on the degree to which they integrate different kinds of knowledge. Disciplinarity takes place within the borders and boundaries of currently recognized academic disciplines, new disciplinary knowledge, and theory is mainly developed by button-up research. Multidisciplinarity involves different academic disciplines that share a common goal, but with multiple disciplinary objectives. Theories mostly develop button-up, but under one thematic umbrella often one discipline dominates and the others are treated as secondary. In contrast, interdisciplinary forces unrelated disciplines of different academic cultures to cross subject boundaries. Disciplinary knowledge is integrated in order to create new knowledge and theory and to achieve a common research goal. Peace of positions, frameworks, and data evolution must be discussed together and thus need a certain degree of work on theory. Transdisciplinary courses not only disciplinary borders, but systematically also those between the academic and non-academic world. It combines interdisciplinarity with the participatory approach. Everyday life problems and questions are studied. A high degree of self-emitter reflection are necessary. Among the other things, this also affects the use of a supposed common language. In recent decades, there has been an increasing demand for research and archaeology itself to be socially relevant. Moreover, we can observe a departure from a disciplinary focus in favor of a cross-disciplinary approach. From academic research that shielded itself from the outside world to co-op productions of by science and society, national and European funding formats triggered further transdisciplinary research on socially relevant themes and international exchange. An example for such a project is resilience factors in a dichronic and intercultural perspective of the collaborative Excellency Research Program of the Leibniz Association, coordinated by the Rümisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum and the German Resilience Center in Mainz. The Interdisciplinary Research Association consists of archaeologists, psychologists and life scientists and asks the question, what makes people resilient? It investigates individual and collective resilience factors. In inter-entrance disciplinary corporations, there is often an overwhelming wish to agree on common terms and definitions. In the end, one tries to focus on certain topics by applying guiding concepts that still have a common signifier but which each have gone through their own development in the different disciplines and research traditions. And in the process have undergone change in meaning for concepts as complex as resilience with its numerous figurations. This necessarily results in holistic definitions that are devoid of context. Belief in the resilience would be fatal. Theories and concepts are by no means tools that can be employed universally or without problems. Nor can there be a definition of a concept that is fixed across disciplines. Contrary to this instrumentalistic view of theories and concepts following the literary theories and critic Edward Said and the Dutch cultural theorist Mieke Baal, we understand them as traveling concepts. However, the metaphor of travels often suggests a certain lightness and a patronage that does not do justice to the translatory work with concepts that is always necessary. When dealing with concrete research objects, therefore Doris Bachmann Medich suggested calling them concepts in translation. Looking at concepts in this way focuses on that dynamics and viability while at the same time historicizing and contextualizing them. In our opinion, it is only then that concept can be used productively without having to abandon their function as analytical concepts or categories that scholars require. However, this requires constant reflection and discussion across disciplinary divides about concepts employed and common reference points. Through the dialogue between the life science and archaeology as well as further development and translation of concepts, not only can the various specificities and importance of factors and resilience for a wise society can be studied, we can also take a self-reflective look at our current perception of coping strategies and resilience factors and perhaps even modify them while this offers archaeology a new view based on the analytical categories of life sciences. The life science and their categories can profit from considering materiality and in particular from looking more closely at groups and long periods. Misunderstanding that arose from transdisciplinary process of translations and discussing about them led to knowledge becoming more explicit, concrete criteria being established or even new or more differentiated concept being developed. The central concern of a linguistic pragmatic and chronological clarification of a concept is to turn the analysis of the journey and the translation into a methodological and systematic process. For the concept of resilience, we can first note that the context of its genesis and employment is remarkable heterogeneous. As you can see here, the term to resilience was on occasions already used in law and literature in the classical times. In science, it was then adopted as a technical term in the field of mechanics and material research. In the second half on the 20th century, resilience then found use in different ways in ecology, psychology and social research as well in politics as in advertising. It directs our view to the potential and our characteristic of entities, whether as things living creatures or complex systems to cope with constantly occurring challenges and finds employment for the analysis of transformation. The interplay of event for process and structure as well as non-linear temporalities are central. Resilience has become a constitutive and positively connoted component of the current dispositive on security. From a critical point of view, the focus on resilience no longer serves to solve problems socially, but only to cope with the individual effects. It transfers responsibility to the individual actor, but resilience may not always be a choice, as advertisement sometimes told us. Resilience has found its way into archaeology above all through the translation of the concept of adaptive cycles of social ecology where older system theoretical approaches of processional archaeology has been taken up. Currently, the emergence of new trajectories that maintains its stability of complex systems is subject of more research. For example, in our research association, the archaeologists that live grown up and the social psychologists, Roy van Dijk explore together social diversity, identity and cohesion as well as the emergence of surplus. Population and the socioeconomic dynamics of early farming societies are investigated from an empirical perspective. By applying mathematical modeling, they aim to isolate and create factors contributing to the dynamics of these societies conceptualized as cycles. Another of our projects seeks to determine when factors that psychologists today class as resilience factors have appeared through human evolution. It is a widespread thesis in psychology that the older factors are, the more conductive they are to resilience. But this is something that needs to be confirmed. A central challenge in the translation of resilience between psychology and archaeology is that the entities to be studied are now not individuals, but collectives that cannot be clearly delimited. There are also significant differences between the length of the periods investigated. And psychology long-term studies generally last only a few years or decades. But in archaeology difficulties in exact dating mean longer periods must be studied. All of this has a variety of effects on how resilience and processes, conjunctures and structures are studied. It is also important to ensure that the anachronistic introduction of present day ideas and perspectives into interpretations of the past are minimized. To achieve this a method is required that aims reduction of biases and increasing inter-rater reliability, making use of latent verbal models. The approach adopted by our project the archaeology of Deso resisted which has just started is no longer to look at barrels and barrel grounds only as places of the social display of status and roles or the performance of identities, but to examine them within the framework of Tannato archaeology as places of coping with death and loss. We are working together with psychologists who are investigating resilience factor that are particularly effective in dealing with the major life event death today. Our focus is to interpret the practices carried out barrel grounds as potential indicators of resilience factors and analyze that change and variance, diachronically and synchronically. Questions of context and the translatability of abstract concepts into concrete practices and vice versa plays a central role. Are for example, fertile rites or grave goods for the afterlife in indication for optimism, cognitive flexibility and or religious? Do collective barrels or grave goods express social support? One thing is for sure, their interrelationships will not be monocosal. Just like things, practices are ambivalent and have or produce multiple meanings. So there will be no universal answers, but it will be possible to restrict interpretations by considering the context of the practice that carried out at the burial ground. Following on from the translation of context I would now like to turn your attention to media processes of translation. The main question is how do we pass from things in the world to archaeological objects and from them to the reusable linked open data and new interpretation that take into account the diversity of human thing and thing-thing relationships. Here I would like to take a closer look at object epistemologies and a bonola towards circulating reference. The example I have chosen is the Agica Project corpus of Roman finds in the European Barbaricum. One result of the project is a new addition of the finds from the cemetery at Haasleben in Tübinger, which include one of the most enrichly furnished late Roman enumeration burials from central Germany. Things are not what they used to be because our views on and our practices with things are dynamic and change again and again. Following Marcus Hilgard, object epistemologies are a transdisciplinary field of research on the how, why, what and what form of past and present discourses on things. They are the attempt to describe and analyze knowledge about things, the conceptualization inherent in this knowledge and the relationship between such knowledge and epistemic or scientific practices. As a specific class of academic literature, additions are the result of a specific object epistemologies practiced by scholars. Copper enable us to compare and evaluate objects regardless of when and where they are, but additions are dependent on carefully source criticism and the quality of their representation and references. Quickly, they are consequent normalization and standardization of object representation and description set standards. Thing additions have to meet the challenges of how assemblages and their materiality can be recorded in spite of the change of medium. The platotonic division of the world into reality and imagination, sees an analytical differentiation between the two poles of real world and its representation. However, if we follow the French philosopher, Bruno Latour, and consider instead the parxological connection, then we see a whole series of small breaks between the world and representations. These arise with each translation of matter into form, whereby each step is matter for what follows and form for what precedes it. A precondition of the acceptance of the transformation and thus also for scientific knowledge is the standardized and conventionalized production of references. These Latour codes circulating references. Every stage that produces knowledge is based on a reduction of locality, particularity, materiality, variety, and continuity, as well as an amplification of compatibility, universality, and standardization. Within the framework of the network theory, the resulting transformation of the world and the network into apparently isolated objects by means of writtenized and repetitively performed entanglements is known as punctualizations. They are often the starting points for further action and research. And new punctualizations can appear. In the digital age, they are a precondition for networking data. Let us look at a concrete example for this process, which in the near future will be integrated into the network of IDI world, the new portal for digital archeological knowledge of the German archeological institute. All finds that are considered to be of Roman origin, such as the Hemorrhoid bucket and the four coins found together with more than 120 other objects in the Unanimation Grave 8 near Hassleben during an excavation in 1912, are part of the corpus of Roman finds of European. They were recognized as remains of a long-last pastime and world and so following Lauren Destin became scientific objects. Normally, two processes are now initiated. On the one hand, the thing identities are determined. Steps are taken to preserve the find for posterity, to remove them from changeability and to stabilize them by preservation and archiving. Thanks to an inventory number and the data recorded, the objects can be re-identified, publications make them citable and referential. On the other hand, representation result in object transformations, the description, visualization and reference logic vary according to the questions being asked and the find category. In the printed corpus, a detailed description and the measurements of the bucket can be found. The coins are also recorded in the corpus of Roman finds and if in less detail, but with a reference to the numismatic corpus Fundmünzen in der Römischen Zeit in Deutschland, kurz FND. They will be part of the online database Antike Fundmünzen in Europa and the virtual Union Catalog Online Coins of Roman Empire. The catalog entries include numbers and references beside the internal catalog numbers and references to the plate highlighted in green. These includes the administrative localization as well as the find spot names used in the excavation and the publication, the location of the find and center bibliographical references to early publication of the finds in blue. I would also like to draw your attention to two kinds of dates provided for the bucket and the type number E58, red and orange highlighted. When it comes to linking the catalog entries with each other in its hint of importance that web services are developed for archeological standard vocabularies. Thanks to our new tool for type of chronology it will be possible to complement entries and dates with the result of the relevant discussion on chronology. For example, the new data proposed by Martin Louis for the Hemmora buckets, first half third century AD can be displayed for all data entries and even linked with Louis Artikel in the Germania which will also be available online. Very much in line with linked open data this web service chronology connects period terms with datings. The web service EDI Gazette here connects toponyms with coordinates this helps to map types and assemblages. Ultimately the sequential procedure of editing and mapping serves to facilitate abstraction and so to achieve more compatibility and universality new concept tank textualization and depunctualization it made possible through media translation. What do we hope that the digitization of addition can achieve? First, faster and more mobile access to information. Second, dynamic networking of information. Third, faster evolution of large numbers of data. Networks are created by a variety of cross-references whereby the individual pieces of information are embedded and so depunctualized. What needs to be done? Terminologies and description logics must be communicated more explicitly. Classification and the effects on research processes require new reflection. We have to translate all the new classification into overarching system of terms and ontologies. Source and reference criticism are also of the utmost importance for additions. By referring to Latour's concept of circulating reference the individual translation step and depunctualizations that take place in the course of editing things can be successfully analyzed and reflected on both on paper and in the digital world. In this way should doubt the rise about object transformation data that has been recorded can be checked through the references given and the thing identities that have been determined. In some cases new data can even be recorded when new questions arise and the methods are available. This again demonstrates that translation are not one way processes, but transformations that are characterized by the reversibility of addressing and referencing. We now come to my third case study, Immutative Coins. Drawing on an article that I wrote together with Philipp Stockhammer on materialized translations and prehistory and a comparison of concept for the investigation of culture change I would now like to show that cultural translation is a concept that is well suited to the analysis of particular phenomena that arise in contact situations or when dealing with the past in the past. It is not my intention to simply replace earlier concept with new ones. Instead I feel that it is important to choose carefully between a number of concepts while also taking into account what exactly is being studied. Also more so given that cultural translation as a practice in pre and photo history can only be identified on the basis of materialized translation that take place between two or more context. Ideally the context should be geographically separated as a result of the translation of the new products of an interaction that can be identified in other context. And where there is some kind of reference and functional equivalence to the object or practice that is translated in its original context. Objects imitating or referencing official coins began almost as soon as coins were invented. These could have been official made by a government during crisis, made by others as a criminal activity or by persons wishing to emulate the benefits of having their own monetary system or they could be objects that translate certain meanings and connotation of coins such as power, yields and representation. While in the 19th century numismatics and equivalence often focused on the coins of ancient civilizations and imitative coins were mainly considered as barbarizations and copies of forgeries, the contextual numismatics of the late 20s and early 21st centuries has become increasingly interested in imitations and so-called barbarian coins in the non-Roman context. The Polish-German project in Magma in which the Aegekei is involved is a good example. It is jointly financed by the Polish National Science Center and the German Research Council. The Magma team is investigating imitations of Roman coins that were produced outside the Roman Empire in the Northern Barbaricum as evidence for the interaction between Rome and so-called barbarians. Today, the so-called imitation of gold coins can serve us as an example. We can see in how interpretations can change thanks to new discoveries, but also thanks to a different point of view when we consider a group of coins with the portray of the Roman Emperor Galinus on the obverse. One such gold coin is held in the cabinet Medaille of Bibliothèque Nationale de France and was already published by Ernest Babylon in the 19th century. He interpreted it as an exceptional issue produced during an emergency or as an unofficial issue. A few years ago, another example of this issue appeared that today is in the National Museum in Warsaw. We can see that the legend on the obverse has been reworked. Alexander Borcher realized that both gold coins were in fact struck using actual dyes that had already been used to produce official provincial bronze coins in Alexandria Tours in Asia Minor. Whereas production of similar over imitation beyond the northern frontier of the Roman Empire had begun by the early third century, the roots of the golden imitation appeared to lie in the second half of the third century. Some 10 years or more after the battle of Abidius modern rascals in Bulgaria in 251. From the literacy sources, we know that the Roman army was annihilated there by Gothic tribesmen and both the emperor, Trian Dysius and his son were killed. The discovery of so many Roman gold coins of Trian Dysius in the Barbaricum suggests that after the battle of God, managed to lay their hands on the imperial treasure. Immutative gold coins of the so-called Eastern European group were probably produced in the northwest Balkan Black Sea region while later coins of the so-called Danubian group were produced in the middle Danube, particularly on the territory of modern Hungary. Unfortunately, we have little information about the fine context of the imitative coins. Large numbers of them are only known from the activities of unofficial and illegal. Like Tectoris January they are said to come from Ukraine, but this could be due to the fact that the present illegal trafficking is not so strictly prosecute them. Where we do have information on the fine spots and imitative coins, then we see a concentration in Poland and the northwest Ukraine. This area corresponds to the area of settlement of the Wielbach culture from which it is thought that the goth, or at least part of the goth, whoever they may have been developed. Here you can see a coin of a very particular group of early imitations, known as Ulofkog. After one of the fine spots of special interest is the reverse. Roman coin is known neither as a pearl circle between the legend and the central motif, nor the motif itself, with a horseman holding a spear above his head. Normally horsemen on Roman coins hold a horizontal glance much lower level with their tides. But not only are gold imitation known, there are also enormous numbers of gold-plated imitation. Both gold and gold-plated imitations are almost always pierced, so that when suspended on a necklace or pinned to clothing, the head of the emperor is correctly oriented. The pieces are not intended to be monetary objects in the narrow sense, but to be worn as personal ornaments. This is particularly clear from this coin from Rodec, Poland, where the whole was actually a feature of one of the dyes. In the mid-thick century, occasional impression of Roman and Byzantine coins appear in woman graves as part of the personal jewelry. They take the form of thin coin-like gold discs with suspension loops and have the impression of just the obverse of the original coin. To sum up, in the first and second century, Roman gold coins are frequently found in non-Roman coins that have been secondary reused as pendants. But from the second half of the third century, imitative or so-called imitative gold coins were then produced outside the empire and small batches. They may well have been used for the storage of wheels, but certainly not as currency and are mostly pierced or looped and often plated. Most probably we should interpret them as symbols of power and representation. Often terms such as the various copies, lemus phylda or pseudothology, are applied to imitative coins, but they all have negative connotation and fail to take into account the transformative power of translation. In my opinion, we can better understand the variety of the phenomenon of imitative coins when we analyze the individual stages of translation and context in each case as what was translated into a new context and to whom it was addressed. Beyond mere imitation or simple appropriation, these objects are the products of interactive, biological and intentional selective transformation with background references. Thinking beyond paradigms and disciplinary borders needs reflected translations. Archaeologists are used to translating and researching translations, but instead of doing it uneffectedly, we need an explicit focus on translation processes. They enable us to scrutinize our knowledge production more closely and may save us from harsh assumption about the past, the present and the future. Especially in times and in particular views of the past are militantly used to serve political arguments, we have to reflect on the social, political and cultural relevance of archeological knowledge and heritage and how we translate the past and the present and the future. Just like crossing mountain ranges to say goodbye to fixed opinions and biases and to leave behind academic tribes and territories requires collaborative efforts. Here too, the case studies that I have presented, resilience as concept and translation, from things to link open data as medial translation and imitative coins as culture translation have all arisen from collaborative research projects. Major breakthroughs do not just happen, but take place in searching, testing, revising. In other words, exactly there, where the continuation of the action is more than problematic, where there is a real danger of being lost in translation. But it is precedently the initially untranslatable that motivates us to question implicit patterns of interpretation, world use and practices. Just as it's important that we can understand each other by using academic languages like English, linguistic diversity is just as important in an academic world. It is by translating that in the foreign, we learn and can reflect on our own use of language and our own knowledge. What do I see as the central challenges for archaeology and integrative research project? First, meta reflection on different youth theories, traveling concept and practices and on which of them can be combined or better kept separate. Second, the analysis of complex tangles of relations of a multitude of space, times and actors. Reflections on our own scaling and framing and the interdependencies of different scales and frames. Combination of quantitative and qualitative research. Development of new modes of transdisciplinary collaboration. Linked open data, the intelligent and dynamic networking of data taking into account the creation, quality and validity of data. If archaeologists continue to participate in this translational work, I see in it an unending source of inspiration for theories and practice in archaeology and beyond. As a result, instead of the crisis of ideas that is sometimes invoked, I currently see instead a hearth of unknown diversity of fields of activity for archaeologists. Archaeologists rightly no longer have the attitude of a bosom with a shaft, a bread crumb. Sciences that live of the charity of other disciplines. It can make an important contribution to make new current questions and themes. But in spite of the rediscovery of materiality, in spite of the question of when the Anthropocene begins and whether humans cause climate change, we should not want to take up the mantle of a light discipline, a guiding discipline. What is more, too frequently the attention economy has led us to sell provisionally, preliminary results as spectacular findings, only to be irritated and shocked by how they are sold politically. Instead of thinking that we have everything under control, like Götis, Sorcerer's apprentice, we should always remember that knowledge is a co-production and that we are also responsible for its reproduction and translation, but that we can only help shape it, not control it. Instead of need, we need something that is characteristic of a translator, intellectual humility. It is this that makes constructive dialogue between different humans and cultures possible. The annual meetings of the European Association of Archaeology provide a wonderful platform for this, and I already look forward to the next meeting in Budapest. I would like to thank everyone who is named here on the slide for help and support and you very much for listening. Thank you very much.