Archaeology and Communication With The Public: Archaeological Open-Air Museums and Historical Re-Enactment in Action
Archaeology and Communication With The Public: Archaeological Open-Air Museums and Historical Re-Enactment in Action
Archaeology and Communication With The Public: Archaeological Open-Air Museums and Historical Re-Enactment in Action
net/publication/308780428
CITATIONS READS
7 390
1 author:
Dawid Kobiałka
Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology PAN
70 PUBLICATIONS 163 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Między pamięcią a zapomnieniem: archeologia a XX-wieczne dziedzictwo militarne na terenach zalesionych View project
Back to the Past? The Relations Between Tourism, Past, and Cultural Heritage. The Case of Poland and Sweden View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Dawid Kobiałka on 01 October 2016.
Volume 4
May 2014
european journalof
postclassicalarchaeologies
RETROSPECT
J. Wienberg Historical Archaeology in Sweden
PROJECT
E. Jansma et al. The Dark Age of the Lowlands in an interdisciplinary light: people, landscape and climate in The
pca
Netherlands between AD 300 and 1000
REVIEWS
4
2014 SAP
Società
ISSN 2039-7895 € 42,00 Archeologica
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.39 Pagina 1
volume 4/2014
Mantova 2014
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.39 Pagina 2
pca
EDITOrS EDITOrIAl bOArD
Gian Pietro Brogiolo (chief editor) Gilberto Artioli (università degli Studi di Padova)
Alexandra Chavarría (executive editor) Andrea Breda (Soprintendenza bb.AA. della lombardia)
Post-Classical Archaeologies (PCA) is an independent, international, peer-reviewed journal devoted to the communication of
post-classical research. PCA publishes a variety of manuscript types, including original research, discussions and review ar-
ticles. Topics of interest include all subjects that relate to the science and practice of archaeology, particularly multidiscipli-
nary research which use specialist methodologies, such as zooarchaeology, paleobotany, archaeometallurgy, archaeometry,
spatial analysis, as well as other experimental methodologies applied to the archaeology of post-classical Europe.
Submission of a manuscript implies that the work has not been published before, that it is not under consideration for publica-
tion elsewhere and that it has been approved by all co-authors. Each author must clear reproduction rights for any photos or
illustration, credited to a third party that he wishes to use (including content found on the Internet). Post-Classical Archaeolo-
gies is published once a year in May, starting in 2011. Manuscripts should be submitted to [email protected] in ac-
cordance to the guidelines for contributors in the webpage http://www.postclassical.it
Post-Classical Archaeologies’s manuscript review process is rigorous and is intended to identify the strengths and weak-
nesses in each submitted manuscript, determine which manuscripts are suitable for publication, and to work with the au-
thors to improve their manuscript prior to publication.
For subscription and all other information visit the web site http://www.postclassical.it
DESIGN
Paolo Vedovetto
PublIShEr
SAP Società Archeologica s.r.l.
Viale risorgimento 14 - 46100 Mantova
www.archeologica.it
PrINTED bY
Tecnografica rossi, Via I maggio, Sandrigo (VI)
ISSN 2039-7895
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.39 Pagina 3
CONTENTS PAGES
EDITORIAL 5
RETROSPECT
J. Wienberg Historical Archaeology in Sweden 447
PROJECT
E. Jansma et al. The Dark Age of the Lowlands in an interdisciplinary 471
light: people, landscape and climate in The Netherlands
between AD 300 and 1000
REVIEWS 477
C. Broodbank, The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterrane-
an from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World - by
M. Hummler
A. Izdebski, A rural Economy in Transition. Asia Minor from Late Antiquity into
the Early Middle Ages - by V. La Salvia
N. Christie, O. Creighton, M. Edgeworth, H. Hamerow, Transforming town-
scapes. From Burh to Borough: the archaeology of Wallingford, AD
800-1400 - by A. Chavarría Arnau
S. Gutiérrez, I. Grau (eds), De la estructura doméstica al espacio social. Lec-
turas arqueológicas del uso social del espacio - by J. Sarabia Bautista
P.E. Boccalatte, Fabbri e ferri. Italia, XII-XVI secolo - by F. Ballestrin
I.H. Goodhall, Ironwork in medieval Britain: an archaeological study - by F. Balle-
strin
S. Costa, G.L. Pesce (eds), Open source, Free Software e Open Format nei
processi di ricerca archeologica - by A. Porcheddu
Communication in archaeology is not only about dual dialogue and understanding each other.
Communication is a form of establishing and maintaining social relations as well. Some
scholars highlighted this aspect of language, calling it a phatic function of communication.
Based on this concept, I claim that the crucial aspect of communication between society
and archaeology actually might lie in a non-communicative aspect of communication (lan-
guage) itself. To back up this thesis I rely on my own research into archaeological open-air
museums and historical re-enactment events which took place in Poland in 2011-2012.
Keywords: communication, society, archaeological open-air museums, historical re-enact-
ment
1. Introduction
The database for this article consists mostly of the observations gath-
ered during my research in 2011-2012 when I visited some of archaeo-
logical open air-museums (e.g. Grzybowo, Kalisz zawodzie, Biskupin) and
archaeological theme parks (Wolin) in Poland and during my participation in
historical re-enactment events (e.g. Leśno, Gniezno, Ląd). The research
methodology was based upon ethnographic participant observation (e.g.
Dawid Kobiałka
Tedlock 1991). There were events like those in Leśno, Ląd and Kalisz za-
wodzie, where I spent only one day observing and talking with historical re-
enactors. There were also some (Grzybowo, Biskupin, Gniezno) where it
was possibile to do research for two days. In the case of the Slavs and
Vikings Festival organised by the Slavs and Vikings Centre Wolin Jomsborg
Vineta in Wolin, I was living with historical re-enactors for three days.
I rely also on visitors of archaeological open-air museums and the in-
terviews conducted with some of them. Nonetheless, because of the fact
I was able to interview in detail only 20 visitors of archaeological open-air
museums, the data and conclusions based upon them do not pretend to
be an exhaustive overview of what people think of archaeological open-air
museums and historical re-enactment. I use this data rather as a cogni-
tive mapping, as Fredrick Jameson (1991) would have put it, for a theo-
retical discussion on what I call a phatic function of archaeology.
Definitely, today’s archaeology is a global brand (Holtorf 2007). It is
almost impossible to open a daily paper and not to find out about new
ground-breaking archaeological discoveries: the oldest, the biggest, the
first was finally found. The same has to be said about Hollywood block-
busters. Archaeology, archaeological finds and sites are very often part
of the plot. For example, this is precisely the case of Prometheus (2012)
directed by Ridley Scott, the film which was nominated for an Oscar for
visual effects, where archaeologists analysing, among other things, the
Paleolithic rock art discover that human beings were created by extra-
terrestrials. These and many other social clichés about archaeology are
part of popular culture and of archaeology itself too.
One of the places where one may encounter many references to ar-
chaeology and the past in general are archaeological open-air museums
and historical re-enactment events that often take place within them.
According to the most concise definition, historical re-enactment can be
understood as any attempt to recreate a historical event or a specific
historical period (e.g. Petersson 2010, p. 75). On the other hand, for
the purpose of this study, I follow a definition of an archaeological open-
air museum used by Roelend Paardekooper. According to the Dutch ar-
chaeologist (Paardekooper 2012, p. 289), an archaeological open-air
museum is:
360
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.42 Pagina 361
Fig. 1. A copy of a helmet from Lednica Lake in the foreground, Grzybowo 2012 (author
Dawid Kobiałka).
361
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.42 Pagina 362
Dawid Kobiałka
362
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.42 Pagina 363
363
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.42 Pagina 364
Dawid Kobiałka
and society. How the Web has changed communication between archae-
ology and society is the subject of e.g. Archaeology 2.0: New Approach-
es to Communication & Collaboration (Kansa et al. 2011). As the au-
thors of Archaeology 2.0 are convinced, the Web gives new opportuni-
ties for popularisation of archaeology and communication with society
such as: the possibility of online co-production, an active and dynamic di-
alogue through blogs, creation and sharing of user-generated content,
quick and broad dissemination of archaeological knowledge in the Web, to
mention but a few possibilities.
Nonetheless, the three models and new approaches to communication
caused by the Web seem to presuppose the idea of finding out better
forms of dialogue between archaeology and society. What such perspec-
tive entails is that communication is the answer: the more communica-
tion, the better it is for the public and archaeology itself. There are differ-
ent strategies (e.g. the three models described above) to achieve it, but
the answer is, to simplify, more communication and mutual understand-
ing. However, what if our comprehension of communication itself is a prob-
lem, not so much an answer to archaeological engagement with contem-
porary society? I will approach this question a little bit more below.
There are few researchers who had such an impact on the humani-
ties in the 20th century as Roman Jakobson with his structural analyses
of language (e.g. Jakobson 1930). What characterises the late Jakob-
son is, however, a shift in his research interest. His late works offer a
more general, theoretical and comprehensive view on language and com-
munication than his earlier work, more oriented to an analysis of Slavic
languages. Although structural analyses of language are dead, Jakobson-
ian ideas on communication functions and language are still valid in
today’s humanities (e.g. Adams 2009; Bradford 2013). They might be of
some help in discussions on archaeology and communication with socie-
ty as well.
According to Jakobson (1981), every verbal act of communication
consists of six elements. First, there is the addresser; second, who
sends a message; third, to the addressee. To be properly understood,
the message required the fourth aspect of a verbal act of communica-
tion, a context. Fifth, all sides of communication must share at least par-
tially the same code which enables one side to encode and the other to
decode the message. The sixth and the last element is a contact: “a
364
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.42 Pagina 365
Fig. 2. An archaeological act of communication with the public through Jacobson’s scheme.
365
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.42 Pagina 366
Dawid Kobiałka
366
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.42 Pagina 367
367
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.42 Pagina 368
Dawid Kobiałka
368
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.42 Pagina 369
4. Phatic archaeology
369
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.43 Pagina 370
Dawid Kobiałka
370
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.43 Pagina 371
Jakobson was well aware of the complexity of language and every act
of communication. Additionally, he knew that communication is not only
about sending messages. In other words, every act of communication
has many functions. The Russian and American structuralist was writing
about six such functions: the poetic, the referential, the conative, the ex-
pressive, the metalinguar, and – the most important in the context of
historical re-enactment and archaeological open-air museums – the phat-
ic. Communication is about starting and maintaining social relations too.
He calls this aspect of communication a phatic one. At this point, what
needs to be clearly stated is the fact that Jakobson followed Bronisław
Malinowski’s (1923) research into language, who was the first to notice
this function of language.
One usually uses the phatic function of language during the exchange
of day-to-day formulas, chit-chatting, discussions about the weather,
etc. Jakobson (1981, p. 24) exemplifies this ambiguous form of commu-
nication by referring to Dorothy Parker:
‘Well!’ the young man said. ‘Well!’ she said. ‘Well, here we are’ he
said. ‘Here we are’ she said, ‘Aren’t we?’ ‘I should say we were’ he
said, ‘Eeyop! Here we are.’ ‘Well!’ she said. ‘Well!’ he said, ‘well.’
371
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.43 Pagina 372
Dawid Kobiałka
Fig. 4. A young Viking during a historical re-enactment event, Grzybowo 2012 (author
Dawid Kobiałka).
counted for. So, these two social phenomena are more about generating
the curiosity about the past, the strange, cultural heritage, etc. than
any concrete and clear message.
For the visitors of archaeological open-air museums, there is no dif-
ference between, let us say, a helmet from the 10th and from the 13th
century. The message ‘now you see a helmet from the 10th century and
over there is a bit later one’ is important not because the public will from
now on know the differences between historical helmets but because
there was a social relation between archaeologists and the public. Here
the old idea of Marshall McLuhan (1964) that the medium is the mes-
sage works perfectly. This aspect of historical re-enactment and archae-
ological open-air museums became clear to me during the research. Peo-
ple did not necessarily want to hear any deep messages from archaeol-
ogists and historical re-enactors during historical re-enactment festivals.
For example, when I asked one of the tourists who was listening how a
historical re-enactor was explaining the differences and chronology of the
372
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.43 Pagina 373
helmets in figure 1, only 10 minutes after this short lecture the tourist
told to me: “I still do not see any differences in the helmets. They look
the same to me” (pers. comm., Daniel, 19 August 2012, Grzybowo; my
translation).
The additional argument for such understanding of historical re-enact-
ment and archaeological open-air museums is the fact that children are
mostly fascinated with what they see and experience in archaeological
open-air museums (e.g. Paardekooper 2012). Jakobson (1981) noted
that the phatic function of communication is typical to infants and chil-
dren too. That is why, there is nothing banal in saying that historical re-
enactment and archaeological open-air museums should be thought of as
mostly for children (fig. 4).
Seeing archaeological open-air museums and historical re-enactment
through the phatic perspective does not in any way deny their complexi-
ty. They also can be seen as a way of gaining some kind of ontological se-
curity (e.g. Giddens 1991, chapter 2). Definitely, they are the embodi-
ment of carnivalisation and commercialisation of contemporary world
(e.g. Pawleta 2010, 2011), social fantasy of late capitalism (e.g. Kobi-
ałka 2013c), up to and including a perspective through which they are
analysed as an example of time-traveling into a distant past (e.g. Holtorf
2010; Paardekooper 2010).
5. Conclusion
373
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.43 Pagina 374
Dawid Kobiałka
son why I described more closely what has been unnoticed in archaeo-
logical studies into different strategies of communication between ar-
chaeology and society, as far as I know, a phatic function of communica-
tion. A successful communication is not only about sending messages,
etc. It is also about starting and maintaining social relations. From this
viewpoint, the crucial advantage of historical re-enactment and archaeo-
logical open-air museums can be especially appreciated.
The conclusion of this paper can be formulated as follows: the less we
as archaeologists desire to send clear messages to the public, the bet-
ter it sometimes is for society and archaeologists themselves.
Acknowledgements
374
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.43 Pagina 375
References
M. ADAMS 2009, Slang. The People’s Poetry, E.C. KANzA, S.W. KANzA and E. WATRALL (eds)
Oxford-New York. 2011, Archaeology 2.0: New Approach-
es to Communication & Collaboration,
J. BAUDRILLARD 1994, Simulacra and Simulation, California. Online in: http://escholarship.
Michigan. org/uc/item/1r6137tb (accessed 1 May
R. BRADFORD 2013, Roman Jakobson: Life, Lan- 2013).
guage and Poetics, London-New York. D. KOBIAłKA 2013a, Against Gandalf the Grey:
D. EVANS 2006, An Introductory Dictionary of an archaeology of the surface. “Archae-
Lacanian Psychoanalysis, London-New olog”. Online in: http://traumwerk.stanford
York. .edu/archaeolog/2013/02/against_gan-
dalf_the_grey_an_ar.html#more (ac-
P. FOWLER 2007, Not archaeology and the cessed 1 May 2013).
media, in T. CLACK, M. BRITTAN (eds), Ar-
chaeology and the Media, Walnut Creek, D. KOBIAłKA 2013b, From excavation to archae-
pp. 89-107. ological X-Files, in A. GONzáLEz-RUIBAL
(ed), Reclaiming Archaeology. Beyond the
A. GIDDENS 1991, Modernity and Self-Identity. Tropes of Modernity, London-New York,
Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, pp. 56-66.
Stanford.
D. KOBIAłKA 2013c, Time travels in archaeology:
C. HOLTORF 2007, Archaeology is a Brand! The between Hollywood films and historical
Meaning of Archaeology in Contemporary re-enactment, “AP: Online Journal in Pub-
Popular Culture, Walnut Creek. lic Archaeology”, 3, pp. 110-130.
C. HOLTORF 2008, Can you hear me at the back? J. LACAN 1966, écrits, Paris.
Archaeology, communication and society,
“Journal of European Archaeology”, 10(2- J. LACAN 1993, The Seminar. Book III. The Psy-
3), pp. 149-165. choses, 1955-56, London-New York.
C. HOLTORF 2010, On the possibility of time A. MADSUDA and K. OKAMURA 2011, Introduc-
travel, “Lund Archaeological Review”, 15- tion: public archaeology in a global con-
16, pp. 31-41. text, in A. MADSUDA, K. OKAMURA (eds),
New Perspectives in Global Public Ar-
C. HOLTORF and T. SCHADLA-HALL 1999, Age as chaeology, New York, pp. 1-18.
arfefact. On archaeological authenticity,
“Journal of European Archaeology”, 2, pp. B. MALINOWSKI 1923, The problem of meaning in
229-247. primitive languages, in C.K OGDEN, I.A.
RICHARDS (eds), The Meaning of Meaning:
A. HÖGBERG 2008, Community Archaeology – en A Study of the Influence of Language
samskapandets arkeologi, in M. upon Thought and of the Science of Sym-
BURSTRÖM (ed), Arkeologi i förorten. bolism, New York, pp. 451-510.
Berättelser från norra Botkyrka, Hud-
dinge, pp. 119-140. M. MCLUHAN 1964, Understanding Media, Lon-
don-New York.
R. JAKOBSON 1930, K charakteristike evrazijsko-
go jazykovogo sojuza, Prague. N. MERRIMAN (ed) 2004a, Public Archaeology,
London.
R. JAKOBSON 1981, Linguistics and poetics, in
Selected Writings. Vol. III. Poetry of N. MERRIMAN 2004b, Introduction: diversity and
Grammar and Grammar of Poetry, The dissonance in public archaeology, in MER-
Hague, pp. 18-51. RIMAN 2004a, pp. 1-17.
F. JAMESON 1991, Postmodernism, Or the Cul- G. MOSHENSKA 2006, The archaeological uncan-
tural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham. ny, “Public Archaeology”, 5, pp. 91-99.
I. KANT 1996, An answer to the question: what R. PAARDEKOOPER 2010, Archaeological open air
is Enlightenment?, in J. SCHMIDT (ed), museums as time travel centers, “Lund
What is Enlightenment: Eighteenth-Cen- Archaeological Review”, 15-16, pp. 61-
tury Answers and Twentieth-Century 69.
Questions, Berkeley, pp. 58-64.
375
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.43 Pagina 376
Dawid Kobiałka
R. PAARDEKOOPER 2012, The Value of an Archae- M. RUSSELL 2002, No more heroes any more:
ological Open-Air Museum is in its Use, the dangerous world of the pop culture
Leiden. archaeologist, in M. RUSSELL (ed), Digging
Holes in Popular Culture. Archaeology
M. PAWLETA 2010, “The Past Industry”: select- and Science Fiction, Oxford-Oakville, pp.
ed aspects of the commercialisation of 38-54.
the past and products of archaeological
knowledge in contemporary Poland, M. SHANKS, C. TILLEY 1987, Social Theory and
“Sprawozdania Archeologiczne”, 63, pp. Archaeology, Cambridge.
9-54.
M. SHANKS, M. PEARSON 2001, Theatre/Archae-
M. PAWLETA 2011, Encounters with the past: ology, London.
the significance of archaeological festi-
vals in contemporary Poland, in A. ARN- B. TEDLOCK 1991, From participant observation
BERG, T. STJäRNA (eds), Communicate the
to the observation of participation: the
Past – Ways to Present Archaeology to emergence of narrative ethnography,
the Public, Västeras, pp. 57-76. “Journal of Anthropological Research”,
47(1), pp. 69-94.
B. PETERSSON 2010, Travels to identity. Viking
rune carvers of today, “Lund Archaeolog- S. ŽIŽEK 1989, The Sublime Object of Ideology,
ical Review”, 15-16, pp. 71-86. London.
376
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.44 Pagina 490
VOLuME 1/2011
pca
ricum e Mediterraneo nel periodo l’esempio di Faragola (FG). A.M.
delle Grandi Migrazioni. V. Fronza Grasso Analisi archeobotaniche a
Edilizia in materiali deperibili nell’alto Supersano (lE): una comunità auto-
medioevo italiano: metodologie e sufficiente? L. Spera le forme della
casi di studio per un’agenda della ri- cristianizzazione nel quadro degli
cerca. C. Negrelli Potenzialità e limi- assetti topografico-funzionali di
ti delle ricerche sugli indicatori cera- roma tra V e IX secolo. E. Destefa-
mici nelle regioni altoadriatiche e nis Archeologia dei monasteri alto-
european journal of padane tra tardo antico e alto me- medievali tra acquisizioni raggiunte
postclassicalarchaeologies dioevo. F. Cantini Dall’economia e nuove prospettive di ricerca. C.
Ebanista le chiese tardoantiche e
altomedievali della Campania: vec-
chi scavi, nuovi orientamenti
REVIEWS
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.44 Pagina 491
VOLuME 2/2012
EDITORIAL
RESEARCH. G. Dean GIS, archae- urban form: the case of late medie-
ology and neighbourhood assem- val Padua. C. Citter Townscape-
blages in Medieval York. é. Jean- landscape. The shaping of the me-
Curret SIG, morphologie et ar- dieval town of Grosseto and its ter-
chives foncières médiévales: dyna- ritory (AD 600-1400). k.D. Lilley
miques spatiales d’un quartier de Mapping truth? Spatial technolo-
bordeaux aux XIVe et XVe s. B. Le- gies and the medieval city: a criti-
febvre The study of urban fabric cal cartography.
dynamics in long time spans. Mod-
pca
elling, analysis and representation BEyOND THE THEME. V. Cara-
of spatio-temporal transforma- cuta, G. Fiorentino, M. Turchia-
tions. T. Bisschops It is all about lo- no, G. Volpe Processi di formazio-
cation: GIS, property records and ne di due discariche altomedievali
the role of space in shaping late del sito di Faragola: il contributo
medieval urban life. The case of dell’analisi archeobotanica. P.
Antwerp around 1400. A. Nardini Forlin Airborne liDAr Data analy-
Siena: un ‘prototipo’ di GIS di fine sis of Trentino Alpine landscapes:
european journal of millennio a dieci anni dalla creazio- a methodological approach.
postclassicalarchaeologies ne. V. Valente Space syntax and
DOSSIER - PuBLIC ARCHAEOLO-
Gy IN EuROPE. G.P. Brogiolo A r -
cheologia pubblica in Italia: quale
futuro? J. Flatman The past, pres-
ent and future of rescue archaeol-
ogy in England. F. Iversen The land
of milk and honey? rescue archa-
eology in Norway. I. Catteddu,
M.A. Baillieu, P. Depaepe, A. Rof-
fignon l’archéologie préventive en
France: un service public original.
A. León Public administration of
archaeology in Spain. Notes on the
current situation and future pros-
pects.
REVIEWS
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.44 Pagina 492
VOLuME 3/2013
pca
tal remains. S. Inskip Islam in Ibe- Carni, lane e pellame nell’Italia del
ria or Iberian Islam: bioarchaeolo- medio e basso versante adriatico,
gy and the analysis of emerging tra X e XV secolo. A. Rotolo, J.M.
Islamic identity in Early Medieval Martín Civantos rural settlement
Iberia. S. Hakenbeck Potentials patterns in the territory of baida
and limitations of isotopes analysis (Trapani Mountains) during the Isla-
in Early Medieval archaeology. M. mic period. M. Migliavacca, F. Car-
Marinato Gli studi di bioarcheolo- raro, A. Ferrarese Nelle viscere
european journal of gia dei cimiteri medievali in Italia della montagna. Paesaggi pre-indu-
postclassicalarchaeologies striali sulla dorsale Agno-leogra
RETROSPECT. B. Scholkmann
The discovery of the hidden Middle
Ages: the research history of me-
dieval archaeology in Germany
REVIEWS
PCA 4_gao 6 27/05/14 10.44 Pagina 493
pca
"
%&' %
"'
"
7 '!
% $ *!
&$ &&
&&@ & 9
&! %( !7 $ %
$ ' $ !
* "$ ( & :
studies
$ %&$'&&'$ 7
"$! $ %% ( !8
%&$'* ! &&@ ( $ ** & '!( &&!$ %! 9 ( % !(!7 $ %&! $ *
7 & "!( $ : $ % ! &&@ 9 ! !$& * ! 7 &!"! $ $8
%& 7 &$ "$! '&& ( $'$ &$ ! &&@:5 #' $! %! ! ! !
$ & &! 9 % %"$ ( $ & ! '! % "! &'$ 7 ! &$ "8
"!% * ! &$ $ & &&'$ & $ & " ( %! " B %% 7
% $& ! * ! & %%'&! * !: $ &$!( $@ & & 7 $ * % 7 '!(
% ! '!( & '&!$ ""$ % & * ! 5 ?
!" $& 6
,4-38123/
312822821++/80284
VOLuME 1/2011 > -2744