We just need to compare the basic archaeological term 'object culture' with the one used in ethnology. The neighbouring museums of archaeology and of ethnology at Berlin-Dahlem exemplify this. The visitor may well be surprised at the material difference of the objects presented. Products made of stone, ceramics and metals in the former, highly perishable hut and house exhibitions in the latter, furnished with an abundance of household instruments and other tools, jewellery etc. Only a very small part of all this is made of durable materials.
History is a gigantic process of destruction.
It only preserves minor fragments which we have to piece together. But this line of argument is just too simplistic. If we realize that archaeology and prehistory are highly speculative regarding their basic and most elementary terms of 'objective remains' or 'object culture' , then this compels us to search for other methods. This is the real content of this study. Basic to our approach is, firstly, the comparison of the ethnological and the archaeological term of 'object culture' and, based on this, the distinction of durable and nondurable object culture.