Beyond antiquarianism. A review of current theoretical issues in German-speaking prehistoric archaeology

Abstract

Whereas German-speaking archaeology (GSA) has long been understood as generally uninterested in theoretical debates, the situation has taken a most interesting development since the year 2000. Archaeologists tried to escape the general decline of the small university disciplines by getting more and more involved in the overarching research questions of cultural studies and in large-scale collaborative projects. The necessity of integrating a clear theoretical and methodological approach for a successful proposal and the subsequent research changed the significance of theoretical discussions. As a consequence, theme-oriented research has developed which aims at addressing overarching themes in the cultural and social sciences. We have chosen five of the most prominent themes in German-speaking archaeology – self-reflexivity, identities, space, cultural encounter and knowledge transfer – as well as material culture, and shed light on their theoretical conceptualization and methodological implementation in recent publications. Despite the lack of dominant schools of thinking, its strong rootedness in the evaluation of empirical sources, and its close link to the discipline of history, current GSA can contribute to the overall theoretical discourse of the discipline.

Introduction

For many years post-war German-speaking prehistoric archaeology (or GSA for short), as part of Central European archaeology, with its material-oriented publications (see Gramsch and Sommer 2011; Gramsch 2011), has been perceived as rather uninterested in theoretical debates and has been understood as mostly antiquarian in its approach. This assessment has resulted in a self-fulfilling prophecy: as no one expected GSA to publish on theoretical issues, no one would search for them – especially as this would require reading through thick monographs and anthologies predominantly published in German. This has led to a lack of interest in the current emerging theoretical discussions in German-speaking academia. We want to overcome this unsatisfying situation by shedding light on recent developments in GSA and current themes: self-reflexivity, identity, social space, intercultural encounter and knowledge exchange, as well as material culture. We hope that we can thereby awaken people's interest in getting further involved in these discussions.

Writing about the current theoretical discourse in GSA is neither an easy nor an unproblematic task. We have to raise the question whether, in the age of intense international academic entanglement, we can still speak about territorially restricted discourses, and whether we do not run the risk of essentializing a more or less internationally connected archaeological community. ¹ So what do we mean when speaking of ‘theoretical issues in German-speaking prehistoric archaeology’? In this article, we take as the basis for our reflections theoretical and problem-oriented approaches developed and published after the year 2000 by researchers who enjoyed most of their academic education in prehistory and protohistory at a German-speaking university. ² We will not focus on those scholars who fit this definition but who have been working mostly outside German-speaking institutions since the new millennium. These restrictions are, of course, artificial, but explicitly formulated by the editors of Archaeological dialogues, as Ulrike Sommer already published a statement on archaeological theory in GSA in the 1990s (Sommer 2000b). ³

Our understanding of ‘theory’ in archaeology is a very broad one (cf. Gramsch 2011; Johnson 2006; Veit 2002a), comprising all reflections on and assumptions about archaeological practice (including excavation, interpretation, dissemination of knowledge etc.) and their operationalization as methods in order to be used in the epistemological process. It is important to understand that monographs or articles with a purely theoretical focus are largely missing in GSA. Therefore our contribution does not aim to present ‘grand theory’ in a rather philosophical sense, but concentrates on theory-based and problem-oriented research (cf. Ziegert 1980) that even cuts across major theoretical schools established in British archaeology. As a consequence, our approach is similar to Michelle Hegmon's (2003) perspective on theory in North American archaeology, which she based on the analysis of selected themes. As we will argue below, due to important changes in the structure and funding of research in German academia, GSA has increasingly focused on overarching themes in the cultural and social sciences.

We are aware that our overview is neither objective nor comprehensive. Other scholars might have chosen different themes and references. Both of us academically grew up around the turn of the millenium inside particular academic and theoretical discourses and within particular university structures. We both are specialized in the European Metal Ages. For almost a decade, both of us conducted research within large interdisciplinary research collaborations, which are based in cultural and social studies and which promoted extensive interdisciplinary exchange. Thus the following overview reflects our specific perspectives on German-speaking prehistoric and protohistoric archaeology, with a focus on the Metal Ages, since 2000.

Recent developments in German-speaking archaeology

Since the late 1980s and especially around the year 2000, a considerable number of articles and books have been published in GSA which reviewed either the state of art of theoretical discussions in GSA mostly for anglophone academia or summarized recent trends in anglophone archaeology for a German-speaking audience (Bernbeck 1997; Eggert 2001; Eggert and Veit 1998; Karl 2004; Siegmund and Zimmermann 2000; Sommer 2000b). These publications were attempts to self-assure theoretical interest and to recognize the position of GSA in order to build bridges between the different traditions of research. In these years, dealing with theoretical issues in GSA did not find broader interest and was considered as hindering rather than advancing an academic career in Germany. Neverthless, several theoretically interested research groups were founded and the German T-AG (Theorie-ArbeitsGemeinschaft) sessions (renamed AG TidA in 2012) have found an increasingly broad audience. ⁴

Since the 1990s, archaeologists felt threatened by what was perceived as the crisis of the ‘small disciplines’ (kleine Fächer) and severe funding cuts (Burmeister 2005). At the same time, the Bologna process and connected academic reforms forced archaeologists to rethink their positions at universities and forced coalitions for joint bachelor and master's programmes (Siegmund 2003). The best way out of this crisis since the 1990s seemed to be intensified joint application for DFG (German Research Foundation)-financed large-scale coordination projects (Verbundforschungsprojekte), i.e. so-called priority programmes (Schwerpunktprogramm, SPP) and collaborative research centres (Sonderforschungsbereich, SFB). ⁵ Interdisciplinary collaboration also seemed to become one of the prerequisites for a successful application to most other third-party donors. These funding lines offered new financial possibilities but required clearly problem-oriented approaches and multi- or even interdisciplinary collaboration. ⁶ The necessity of integrating a clear theoretical and methodological approach for a successful proposal changed the significance of theoretical discussions in archaeology.

The new focus on issue-related research also led to a stronger interconnection of research within the German Archaeological Institute, which introduced several research clusters on key issues in order to better interconnect the research of the different departments. The development towards problem-oriented collaborative research gained momentum with the Bologna process and the establishment of the German Universities Excellence Initiative, namely the Human Development in Landscapes graduate school at Kiel University, the Topoi: The Formation and Transformation of Space and Knowledge in Ancient Civilization cluster of excellence in Berlin, and the Asia and Europe in a Global Context: The Dynamics of Transculturality cluster of excellence at Heidelberg University since 2007. These projects triggered transdisciplinary research on socially relevant themes and English became more popular as a language for publication. Many already theoretically interested archaeologists participated in the realization of these large-scale collaborations, which again further encouraged archaeologists to participate in the creation and elaboration of current epistemes and theorems. Last but not least, the graduate schools and clusters of excellence financed numerous issue-related research projects, Ph.D. grants, international conferences and networking. Inside and outside these collaborative projects, a large number of monographs and anthologies with a clear focus on methodological and theoretical issues have been published in the last decade (see Eggert and Veit 2013). Furthermore, a number of handbooks and introductions were published that focused on interpretive approaches, themes and questions (e. g. Bernbeck 1997; Eggert 2006; Eggert and Samida 2009; Haupt 2012; Mölders and Wolfram 2014; Samida, Eggert and Hahn 2014), which are increasingly used in bachelor's and master's programmes, where theoretical perspectives for a long time had not played a significant role at all.

However, the large-scale funding of research by the German Research Foundation and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research reduced scholarly interest in applications for ERC grants which have rarely been awarded to GSA. The few ERC grants were mostly awarded to projects with a highly innovative and interdisciplinary scientific approach. ⁷ The EU funding of museums and heritage has had almost no impact on theoretical debates (cf. Gramsch 2000a; 2005; and Mante 2005 for a critical assessment).

Whereas, in the year 2000, Ulrike Sommer stated that ‘there is almost no methodological and theoretical debate’ in GSA (Sommer 2000b, 160), vivid debates on modi of interpretation in archaeology gained momentum at the very same time, e.g. the dispute about the interpretation of the princely sites and graves of the Early Iron Age (e.g. Eggert 1999; Krausse 1999; Schweizer 2012); the debate on the possibilities and constraints of conclusions by analogy (e.g. Eggert 1998; Gramsch 2000b); the ‘new fight about Troy’ focusing on the understanding of early urbanism and the concept of Orient and Occident (e.g. Schweizer and Kienlin 2001–2; Ulf 2003); and the debate on the role of tradition, cultural patterns and material culture in ethnic interpretation (e.g. Bierbrauer 2004 versus Brather 2000; Brather and Wotzka 2006 versus Siegmund 2006; Eger 2011; 2015 versus Rummel 2007; cf. Siegmund 2009; 2014). The Interpretierte Eisenzeiten: Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorien (Interpreted Iron Ages: Case Studies, Method, Theory) annual workshop series was launched in 2004 by Jutta Leskovar and Raimund Karl in order to bring new theoretical and methodological impulses into research on Iron Age Central Europe. In addition to the Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift and the Archäologische Informationen journals, where more theoretical contributions have been printed, the Forum Kritische Archäologie (http://www.kritischearchaeologie.de) was founded in 2012 in order to enhance theoretical discourse on key issues in archaeology. However, we still need more courage to present innovative theoretical approaches without fearing harsh rejection (e.g. Holtorf and Veit 2006). In GSA it is rather uncommon to bring first thoughts up for discussion even at conferences, because what is presented is still expected to be ‘final and authoritative treatise’ (Sommer 2000b, 161).

Meanwhile, it is much easier for students to participate in theoretical and methodological debates (cf. Hachmann 1987 for a very early example). This is enhanced by theoretically oriented workshops (e.g. Göbel and Zech 2011; Furholt, Hinz and Mischka 2012; Hofmann and Schreiber 2015a; Stockhammer and Hahn 2015), which enabled vivid discussions and even publications of undergraduates and graduate students on these issues. Nevertheless, exclusively theoretical academic theses are still hindering rather than promoting individual careers. One is still confronted with the notion that theoretical debates are rather more avant-garde than helpful when evaluating the empirical data and archaeological practices. Even if it is now broadly expected that theoretical and methodological chapters should be integrated into such works, the deep knowledge of material culture and excavation skills are still considered to be the most important qualification in GSA.

In contrast to British archaeology (cf. Bintliff 2011a), German-speaking archaeologists have never had the need to root themselves in already existing general theories – beyond the general link to historicism and positivism. The strong focus on material culture and the lack of necessity of writing an introductory theoretical chapter or paragraph in publications created a free space for individual decisions about what ideas to appropriate and along which lines to think (cf. Hegmon 2003). ⁸ Therefore GSA is rather characterized by a very vivid eclecticism of approaches, which is generated around certain major themes. For a long time and still today, these themes have been linked to the archaeological record of the period of interest, and methods and theories were developed in order to best evaluate the respective sources – burials (e.g. Hofmann 2008; Meier 2002a; Meyer-Orlac 1982; Müller-Scheeßel 2013b), settlements (e.g. Mattheußer and Sommer 1991; Stockhammer 2008), depositions (Hansen 1994; Hansen, Neumann and Vachta 2012) or particular categories of objects or materials (Dietz and Jockenhövel 2011; Stockhammer 2009). Meanwhile, however, major topics are often shaped in the framework of the preparation and the conduct of large-scale collaborative research projects, as those offered funding and resources to realize the potential of a small discipline. The selection of the following themes is, as already mentioned, nevertheless a result of our own academic background.

Self-reflexivity In the decades after the Second World War, self-reflection only took place in the very restricted field of source criticism (e.g. Eggers 1959; Narr 1972; Torbrügge 1958). ⁹ It was rather unwanted to critically analyse the discipline's involvement in the cruelties of the Nazi regime until the late 1990s (cf. Grunwald 2010; for an early exception cf. Smolla 1979–80). The growing distance from Nazi archaeologists, however, enabled a new critical perspective analysing political enmeshments of GSA in Nazi and immediate post-war Germany. ¹⁰ Moreover, there was a shift from history of research (e.g. Coblenz 1998; 2000; Kossack 1992; 1999; Kühn 1976) to history of archaeological thinking and/or history of science (cf. Veit 2011; Zimmermann 2003), ¹¹ often written by historically trained young scholars (e.g. Gramsch 2006; Gramsch and Sommer 2011; Härke 2000; Mante 2007; Perschke 2014; Reichenbach and Rohrer 2011; Veit 2002b). This new reflexivity has been the focus of several projects at the Universities of Leipzig and Freiburg – especially in the context of the Collaborative Research Centres SFB 417 on regional processes of identification at Leipzig and SFB 541, Identities and Alterities, at Freiburg, as well as in the framework of the EU-financed Archives of European Archaeology. ¹² Another centre of discussion for the history of archaeological research has been in Berlin (e.g. Callmer et al. 2006; Eberhardt and Link 2015; Leube and Hegewisch 2002). Moreover, the German Archaeological Institute chose this perspective as one of its research clusters in order to shed light on the institute's political and societal role through time (e.g. Jansen 2008; Vigener 2012).

A particular focus has been placed on individual researchers of the 19th and 20th centuries (e.g. Fries and Gutsmiedl-Schühmann 2013; Grünert 2002; Koch and Mertens 2002; Mahsarski 2011; Steuer 2001) and in the field of Nazi archaeology (e.g. Arnold and Hassmann 1995; Geringer et al. 2013; Halle 2002). GSA of the post-war area has also been studied with a focus on inherent and more or less explicit theoretical and methodological arguments in order to better understand theoretical approaches – many very functionalist in their line of thinking – within a supposedly ‘purely antiquarian’ archaeology (Andresen 1997; Stockhammer 2011b). Only recently, the interpretation of groups of monuments (Link 2011; 2014; Müller-Scheeßel 2011a; Rieckhoff, Grunwald and Reichenbach 2009) or paradigms of interpretation (Brather 2014; Wiwjorra 2006) have been studied more intensively.

This went hand in hand with a more general reflection on archaeologists’ practices like excavating (Eberhardt 2008; 2011), mapping (Grunwald 2012; 2016; Hofmann 2016b) and reading of traces (Holtorf 2007; Kümmel 2009; Veit et al. 2003). Moreover, scholars discussed the generation or logic of archaeological knowledge (Davidovic 2009; Jung 2006; Mölders 2013) and the role of the archaeologist as artist, storyteller, scientist or cultural historian (Kümmel, Müller-Scheeßel and Schülke 1999; Leskovar 2005; Niklasson and Meier 2013; Rieckhoff 2007b; Rieckhoff, Veit and Wolfram 2010; Samida and Eggert 2013a; Veit 2006a). In the 1990s and early 2000s, vivid discussions on the cognitive identity of the discipline arose at the University of Tübingen triggered by Manfred K.H. Eggert's and Ulrich Veit's aim to reconceptualize the discipline as a historische Kulturwissenschaft (Eggert 2005; 2006; Heinz, Eggert and Veit 2003; Samida and Eggert 2013a; Veit 1995; cf. Angeli 1999; 2003). Soon, other scholars engaged in these concepts, developed these thoughts further (Frommer 2007; Mante 2007) and defined archaeology as a branch of history and part of a new comprehensive anthropology (Hofmann 2004; 2006–7).

The role of archaeology in the present public sphere has consequently been analysed in order to contrast current political enmeshments (e.g. in the framework of EU-financed attempts towards transregional identity) with past experiences (e.g. Gramsch 2000a; 2005; Mante 2005; 2007, 195–217). The construction of images of the past in exhibitions, popular film and other media was the focus of several publications (e.g. Gehrke and Sénécheau 2010; Ickerodt 2004; Kaenel and Jud 2002; Kerig 2005; Mainka-Mehling 2008; Rahemipour 2009; Röder 2015; Samida 2011), as were practices of re-enactment, living history (Ickerodt 2009; Samida 2014) and gender stereotypes (Röder 2014).

The analysis of archaeological thinking and the aim of reconceptualizing the discipline raised the question whether archaeologists should again be more engaged in current political discourse and – vice versa – what power structures and discourses influence archaeological thinking (Wolfram and Sommer 1993; Gramsch 2000a; cf. also http://archaeologik.blogspot.de). For the first time since the Second World War, GSA seemed to be willing again to get involved in political and societal discourse – albeit this time in a critical and reflective manner (Editorial Collective 2012; Meier 2012).

To sum up: due to the strong tradition in GSA of localizing one's own study in pre-existing research, interest in the history of research of archaeological sites, scholars and institutions has continuously been increasing. We consider it typical of GSA that this kind of research is heavily based on archival studies and the methodological toolbox of historiography. In addition, approaches from the sociology of knowledge have been introduced and also further strengthened self-reflexivity from an epistemological and praxeological perspective. It is the intense interaction with pre-existing systems of knowledge and concepts and their influence on ongoing research that can also help scholars outside GSA to further reflect on their own approaches.

Identities The topic of identity – albeit under different labels – has always been crucial for archaeology (Gardner 2011, 11; Hofmann 2012a). Before and during the Second World War, the term Volk was very popular to describe the relation between material culture and people. Due to the abuse of ethnic interpretations by nationalist approaches, the term Volk was replaced by seemingly more neutral terms like ‘culture’ and ‘ethnicity’ in the post-war decades (Rieckhoff 2007a, 9). Whereas the term ‘identity’ was introduced as ‘social identity’ in anglophone archaeology in the 1970s (Gillespie 2001, 77), a different understanding of ‘identity’ was introduced in GSA in the context of the aforementioned rise of critical self-reflection from the end of the 1990s and terms like ‘ethnicity’ were replaced by ‘cultural identity’ or ‘ethnic identity’. Closely related to contemporaneous research in historical studies (Pohl 2004; Pohl and Mehofer 2010; Pohl and Reimitz 1998; Steinacher 2011; 2012), the importance of self-identification, consciousness and imagination, as well as situational affiliation, has been stressed (Brather 2004, 79; Fehr 2010a; Müller-Scheeßel and Burmeister 2006; Rieckhoff and Sommer 2007). Moreover, researchers emphasized the ambivalence of meaning of dress (Brather 2007; Burmeister 1997; 2003), pottery (Hahn 2009; Furholt and Stockhammer 2008; Zeeb-Lanz 2006) and burial practices (Brather 2010; Hinz 2009) from new perspectives inspired by semiotics and communication theory. They argued for a more sophisticated approach to non-verbal communication with the help of objects beyond simple markers of identities. This went hand in hand with a growing scepticism regarding the possibility of identifying prehistoric and protohistoric ethnic identities in the archaeological record at all. In particular, scholars from Freiburg often interpreted those sources as a means of social distinction, which had formerly been understood as a means of ethnic differentiation (Brather 2007; Jentgens 2001; Rummel 2007). Other scholars have been trying to maintain the ethnic interpretation (Bierbrauer 2004; Eger 2011; 2012; Koch 2004) or to propose alternatives (e.g. Fernández-Götz 2009; 2014). Instead of focusing on the presence or absence of single diacritical features, several scholars (Furholt 2009; Müller 2006; Nakoinz 2009a; 2013; Siegmund 2000; Zimmermann 1995; 2007) argued for identifying spaces of communication and/or collectives in the archaeological record on the basis of quantitative analysis of features. Sometimes, these assumed collectives were afterwards thought to be the traces of tribes or identity groups (Furholt 2009, 236; Zimmermann 2007), or even labelled with historiographical ethnonyms (Siegmund 2000, 307–13). Brather and Wotzka (2006) argued, however, that these data are also shaped by structural and economic conditions as well as by traditions and related social practices without a clear link to ethnicity.

Other lines of discussion can be framed as identity politics. The late onset of feminist approaches in GSA since the 1990s first aimed at visualizing and acknowledging the role of women in history (cf. Auffermann and Weniger 1998; Bergmann-Kickenberg, Kästner and Mertens 2004; Brandt 1996; Karlisch, Kästner and Mertens 1997) and at supplying gender studies with a prehistoric perspective (e.g. Rambuscheck 2009). A new critical approach towards unquestioned narratives and research paradigms gained momentum – especially against androcentric or other simplistic reconstructions of prehistoric life worlds (e.g. Fries and Koch 2005; Koch 2009; R. Röder 2004; B. Röder 2010b; Röder, Hummel and Kunz 2001). Meanwhile, GSA sometimes distinguishes between ‘women research’ and ‘men research’ (e.g. Müller-Scheeßel 2011b), ‘gender research’ and ‘feminist research’, as well as queer studies (e.g. Matić 2012; Wiermann 1997). However, a strict differentiation between these lines of research seems impossible (Fries 2005, 94). Most of these approaches in GSA have focused on the analysis of burials and the question of how to identify sex or gender (e.g. Alt and Röder 2009; Derks 2012; Hofmann 2009a). Furthermore, gender-related iconographies and divisions of labour have been discussed (e.g. Allinger 2007; Fries and Rambuscheck 2011; Owen 2005). Inspired by current anglophone discussions, recent research has studied embodiment and ‘doing gender’ (e.g. Gramsch 2008; 2010; Harris and Hofmann 2014; Rebay-Salisbury 2013b). However, a systematic discussion of third-wave feminism and queer studies is still largely missing.

Parallel to the critique of the androcentric world view, the lack of age-differentiated perceptions was problematized. Interest in the topic of age started with the differentiation of age groups and classes (e.g. Gebühr 1994; critique by Jung 2004; Müller 1994). Initially the focus was mainly on children and childhood (e.g. Beilke-Voigt 2008; Kraus 2006; Lohrke 2004; Röder 2008; 2010a) and only rarely were old people selected as a research topic (e.g. Stauch 2008). Relatively soon it became common to differentiate between different types of age – for example chronological, physiological and sociocultural age – and to investigate ageing instead of age (e.g. Röder, de Jong and Alt 2012).

A particular interest has been placed on the analysis of the social structures of past societies (for a critical review of recent German social archaeology cf. Veit 2012), however, with a clear focus on so-called elites. Vivid discussions arose around the Early Iron Age princely burial of Hochdorf (Veit 2000b; Karl 2005) and especially the social status of the deceased. The suggestions vary from the village elder of a segmented and micro-regionally organized society (Burmeister 2000b, 208–11; Eggert 1999; 2003; Nortmann 2007) to the sacral king of an early state with a possible super-regional organization (Egg 1996a; 1996b; Krausse 1996a, 337–53; 1999). Although published in 1974, the seminal article of Georg Kossack (1974) on prestigious burials is still the starting point of many discussions (cf. von Carnap-Bornheim et al. 2006; Nortmann 2002; Schier 1998). For example, Detlef Gronenborn (2009b) interpreted prestigious burials as political monuments at the transition from corporate to network strategies (cf. Blanton et al. 1996) or vice versa. Whereas most approaches have emphasized the eminent role of the deceased individual, Ulrich Veit (2005) and Tobias L. Kienlin (2008a) pointed to the relevance of such burial practices for the construction of regional traditions and cultural memory, which again are highly important for integrating a local community. These ideas have also been picked up for Neolithic megaliths (Furholt et al. 2011). Moreover, the notion of Gefolgschaften (allegiances) has been analysed in GSA (Knöpke 2009; Steuer 1982, 54–59; 2009). Qualitative judgements have been supplemented by different quantitative approaches based on statistical evaluation of big data in order to elucidate the differing ranks and status of the inhabitants of a particular region, or of all buried individuals within a burial ground (Burmeister 2000b; Hinz 2009; Müller 2001; Müller-Scheeßel 2013b; Rebay 2006). Interest in ordinary people (Trebsche et al. 2007) or ‘beyond-elites’ (Kienlin and Zimmermann 2012) has only started recently.

Whereas in the beginning, researchers focused on specific partial identities, the interplay between different social categories has gained in interest recently. Meanwhile, sex and gender are regularly combined in analyses with age (Gramsch 2010; Müller 2005; Moraw and Kieburg 2014; Owen, Porr and Struwe 2004) – sometimes also in relation to status and power (Burmeister 2000b; Rebay-Salisbury 2013a) – or space (e.g. S. Reinhold 2005; R. Reinhold 2013). Relationships between parents and children (Hausmair 2013; Krausse 1998) and life course (Hausmair 2013; Koch 2010; Koch and Kupke 2012) have been added as new perspectives. The role of human mobility as a crucial factor for identity constitution was also discussed within the EU-funded Forging Identities: The Mobility of Culture in Bronze Age Europe (2009–12) network for initial training, where several partners from GSA were involved (e.g. Reiter et al. 2014). The transformation of identity found more interest – especially due to events like death and related rites de passage (e.g. Gramsch 2010). Furthermore, the constitutions of the identities and the communities of the dead are discussed (Hausmair 2015; Hofmann 2016c).

Moreover, some scholars have emphasized that the application of modern-day categories and concepts of identity to prehistory has to be problematized. Therefore, alternative notions like ‘subjectivization’ (Bernbeck 2008; Pollock 2007) and ‘multitude’ (Bernbeck 2012) have been proposed. Due to the importance of ‘identity’ in current discussions in society, in politics and in the humanities, most scholars have continued to speak about ‘identities’ – albeit while explicitly aware that the term has not been able to solve all the pitfalls of essentialization and exclusion. Furthermore, identities are more often understood as processes rather than as states, and the focus of analysis is placed on the dynamics of identities, the interplay between self-attribution and external attributions, and the relevance of alterity and alienness for the constitution of selfness (e.g. Brather 2004; Hofmann 2014a; Kienlin 2015b). Practices and discourses of creating and transforming identities are studied and, therefore, we now think in terms of ‘doing identity’ instead of ‘having identity’.

To sum up, research on ‘identity’ has played a major role in anglophone archaeology due to the introduction of questions arising from current societal issues. However, in GSA ‘identity’ has rather been studied with a focus on the history of science and epistemology, and scholars have asked whether ‘ethnicity’, ‘gender’ and other social and cultural groups can be identified in the archaeological record at all. As a result, the emphasis has been placed on the constructedness and processuality of identities and on their de-essentialization. Moreover, there has always been the effort to develop qualitative and quantitative methodologies for such an attempt – which might be of interest for the international research community.

Space

Wir lesen im Raum die Zeit

(In space we read time)

This quote from the German human geographer Friedrich Ratzel (1904, 28) was true for GSA for many decades – and is partially valid even today (cf. Veit 2014, 36–37). As a logical consequence, GSA has developed its own methodological approach to space, ‘chorology’ (cf. Perner 2005), and has intensively reflected on the epistemological potential of distribution maps and horizontal stratigraphies (cf. Eggert 2001, 222–47; 270–83; Steuer 2006; Stockhammer 2004). For a long time, the attribution of particular spaces to a particular culture – the so-called Kulturkreise (culture areas) or Kulturprovinzen (culture provinces) – and the change of these areas through time was of major interest. Consequently, these spaces were often interpreted as ethnically or politically meaningful territories (cf. Gramsch 1996a, 19–21; Müller-Scheeßel 2000). In the last few years, redefined cultural-historical approaches (Müller-Scheeßel 2013a, 105–9) have gained new popularity. In this framework, distribution maps have been analysed with regard to similarities and differences, spaces of communication and the drawing of boundaries and borders (e.g. Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel 2006; Doppler and Ebersbach 2011; Furholt 2009; Hofmann 2009b; 2016b; Krausse and Nakoinz 2009; Nakoinz 2009a; 2013; Müller 2000; 2009; Zimmermann 1995).

Another line of research has focused on the impact, use and appropriation of material space often from a functionalist perspective. In the early 20th century, natural regions and climatic conditions were considered to be of major importance for the character of the inhabitants. Later, both factors were seen as drivers for socio-economic processes (e.g. Daim, Gronenborn and Schreg 2011; Gronenborn 2009a; Meller et al. 2013) and/or as background for so-called historic-genetic settlement research (see Gramsch 1996a, 21–22; Jankuhn 1952–55; 1977). Since the 1990s, there has been an ongoing discussion on the conceptualization of settlement and cultural landscape archaeology, as well as on the analysis of scales of different kinds in GSA (e.g. Schier 1990; Saile 1997; Schade 2000; Schier 2002). In addition, older socio-topographical concepts were critically re-evaluated, e.g. the notion of the Herrenhöfe (chiefly farmsteads), which had formerly been proposed for the Roman Iron Age in northern Germany (Burmeister and Wendowski-Schünemann 2006; 2010), and the Hofplatzmodel (yard model), which was very popular in the reconstruction of settlements of the Bandkeramik (Rück 2007; Wolfram and Stäuble 2012, 11–46).

New questions and methods derived from geography, such as GIS, statistical analysis and geographical modelling, have been tested on the basis of already conducted large-scale research projects (for a list of German projects see Brather 2005, 85). For example, a hierarchical scale model was developed by Andreas Zimmermann and his colleagues which enables researchers to change between different scales and to estimate population densities for different regions (e.g. Wendt and Zimmermann 2009; Zimmermann et al. 2004; Zimmermann et al. 2009). Further sophisticated GIS and statistically based approaches for archaeology have been developed by Axel Poluschny (e.g. Posluschny 2002; 2006; Posluschny, Lambers and Herzog 2008; Posluschny et al. 2012) and Oliver Nakoinz (e.g. Nakoinz 2005; 2009a; 2013) – both members of Priority Programme 1171, Frühe Zentralisierungs- und Urbanisierungsprozesse. Surprisingly, central-place theory has recently found wider interest again (Gringmuth-Dallmer 1996; Krausse and Beilharz 2010; U. Müller 2010; Nakoinz 2009b; 2010; Schade 2004), whereas social-network theories have found only sparse interest in GSA (Claßen 2009; 2011; Kleingärtner and Zeilinger 2012; U. Müller 2009) – despite their popularity in current anglophone archaeology. Another focus has been on quantifying the potential of particular environments and their specific exploitation through time (e.g. Mischka 2007) and on the predictive modelling of landscapes (Kunow and Müller 2003; see also Furholt 2009; 2011; Hinz et al. 2012).

In spite of these vivid discussions, the problem of an implicit assumption or explicit theorem of a nature–culture dichotomy has not successfully been solved (cf. Brück 2005). In GSA, landscape has often been perceived as the surroundings or as a background, and not as an integral part of human life worlds. There are only a small number of recent studies which aim at a better understanding of the perception and constitution of landscapes (e.g. Gramsch 2003; Kleingärtner et al. 2013; Meier 2006; 2009; Schülke 2007; Doneus 2013). Almut Schülke (2011) developed her ideas by integrating GIS data with a diachronic analysis of a particular region in north-eastern Germany. Visual field analyses have been conducted to better understand potential past landscape perception (e.g. Posluschny and Schierhold 2010; Steffen 2008). Moreover, the histories of monuments (e.g. Holtorf 2000–8; Mischka 2011) and of early monumentality have also been a focus of study (e.g. Gramsch 1996b; SPP 1400, Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung), mostly in their relevance for the creation of landscape (e.g. Müller et al. 2013).

Furthermore, a new kind of environmental archaeology has been developed which focuses on the historicization of human–environment interactions (cf. Knopf 2004; 2008; 2013; Meier and Tillessen 2011). It emphasizes the relevance of the perception of environment and its inherent temporal dynamics. In this line of thought, the constitution and utilization of resources through cultural practices (Knopf 2010; SFB 1070, RessourcenKulturen) and the archaeology of economics (e.g. Eggert 2007; Kerig 2013; Kerig and Zimmermann 2013; Roth 2008; GRK 1878, Archäologie vormoderner Wirtschaftsräume; Ramminger 2007) have recently found much interest.

In recent years, space has increasingly been understood as the product of social practices – inspired by Henri Lefebvre (1991) and with reference to the sociology of space as developed by Martina Löw (2001). Moreover, theories and concepts of the so-called spatial turn (cf. Bachmann-Medick 2016) have been translated for archaeological research (cf. Hofmann 2014–15; Hofmann and Schreiber 2015b). On this basis, the constructed space of past societies has been studied with a particular focus on social differentiation and the construction of power (e.g. Maran et al. 2006; Paliou, Lieberwirth and Polla 2014; Trebsche, Müller-Scheeßel and Reinhold 2010). It has been emphasized that constructed space represents societal structures, and at the same time structures societies in a highly interesting dynamic relationship. This was very convincingly exemplified in the novel interpretation of social spaces in Mycenaean palaces (Maran 2012a; Maran et al. 2006). In this context, the space-syntax models of Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson (1984) were applied to the study of spaces of movement (see especially Thaler 2005; 2010), and the notion of performative space (Maran 2006) has been conceptualized. The latter has also been used to study Bronze Age hoards and hoarding as a social practice within space (Ballmer 2010; Gramsch and Meier 2013; Hansen 2008; Hansen, Neumann and Vachta 2012; Neumann 2015). Another focus of interest has been funeral spatial concepts (Härke 2001; Hofmann 2013b; 2016c). In the latter contexts, theoretical approaches have been based on Michel Foucault's (2005) heterotopia, as well as on Anthony Giddens's (1984, esp. 118–123) locales and Peter Weichhart's (2003) action settings. Most recently, parallel concepts of space, multiple spaces and their localization have been studied (e.g. Hofmann and Schreiber 2015a; Meyer and Hansen 2013).

To sum up, in GSA, research on space and spatial practices has long been informed by approaches from physical geography, which focus on material space and its appropriation. Distribution maps still play a crucial role and scholars aim to improve their evaluation by integrating different statistical as well as practice-oriented approaches. Phenomenology and semiotics have so far played only minor roles. A major current focus of GSA is the analysis of the production of space by applying approaches from the sociology of space and human geography. We are convinced that an international audience could profit from the long tradition in GSA of studying distribution maps and their epistemological potential, as well as performative and/or processual concepts of space.

Cultural encounter and knowledge exchange There has been a long history of interest in cultural encounter in GSA, as from the 19th century onwards archaeologists have been aware of the mobility of humans and things and the connected exchange of knowledge in past times. ¹³ From early on, there has been a particular interest in the identification of ‘foreign objects’ as well as ‘foreign people’ and their mapping (cf. Grunwald et al. forthcoming). In the beginning, this was particularly motivated by diffusionism and the Kulturkreislehre (for a critical review cf. Maran 2007; 2012b; Rebay-Salisbury 2011). Early interest in the mobility and movement of people also had an impact on the definition of ‘culture’ in GSA (Veit 1984; 2000a). A new and more sophisticated understanding of cultural encounter resulted from the critical evaluation of the concept of ‘culture’ in GSA, which started in the late 1970s (Eggert 1978; Hachmann 1987; Narr 1985) and gained momentum from the 1990s (e.g. Angeli 2002; Eggert 2013; Fröhlich 2000; Sommer 2007; Wotzka 1993; 1997). Nowadays, different notions of ‘culture’ exist in GSA, ranging from a reductionist notion of ‘material culture’ via semiotic approaches (e.g. Veit et al. 2003; U. Müller 2006; Hofmann 2008) to the understanding of culture as compromise after Andreas Wimmer (1996; 2011; e.g. Hofmann 2014a, 28; Schreiber 2013, 51–54). The redefinition of ‘culture’ in GSA was accompanied by a critical discussion of the understanding of ‘culture’ in world-systems theory and connected conceptualizations of core and periphery (Friesinger and Stuppner 2004; Kienlin 2015a; Kümmel 2001; Maran 2004a; 2004b; 2007; 2011b) – both very vibrant in contemporaneous anglophone archaeology. ¹⁴ Moreover, traditional notions of ‘migration’ have been revised and individual as well as group mobility redefined in order to modify still-existing ideas of the ‘migration of people’ (Andresen 2004; Burmeister 2000a; 2013a; Jockenhövel 1991; 2007; Kaiser and Schier 2013; Koch 2010; Prien 2005). This was most important, as human mobility and migration had always been considered crucial factors for culture change in GSA (cf. Burmeister 2013b; Härke 1997).

The rethinking of human mobility has also been crucial for the conceptualization of ‘encounter’ in GSA. In this context, spaces, actors and practices have been discussed – albeit to different degrees. GSA still lacks a convincing concept of the contact zone, although first steps towards a better understanding of spaces of encounter have been made (Brandt 2001; Hofmann 2014a; Horejs 2007; Kistler 2015). At the same time, actor-centred approaches emphasized individual cultural brokers who play a key role in the transmission of knowledge, objects and practices (Kistler and Ulf 2012). So-called ‘cultural-transfer research’ (Espagne and Werner 1988; Mitterbauer and Scherke 2005) has been proposed, which focuses strongly on individual actors’ roles in situations of cultural encounter (Klammt and Rossignol 2009).

Inspired by practice-oriented approaches in the social sciences, scholars have focused on human practices and related phenomena in situations of cultural encounter (Maran and Stockhammer 2012a; Stockhammer 2011c; 2012d). Archaeologists have realized that this will enable them to demonstrate the historical dimension of phenomena which have so far been discussed as outcomes of modernity in the social sciences. In consequence, archaeologists have rethought and revised relevant concepts, e.g. ‘glocalization’, ‘globalization’ and ‘translation’ (Maran 2011b; 2012b; Theel 2009; Hofmann and Stockhammer forthcoming), as well as ‘hybridity’, ‘appropriation’, ‘copying’ and ‘entanglement’ ¹⁵ (Schreiber 2011; 2013; Forberg and Stockhammer forthcoming; Stockhammer 2012a; 2012b; 2012d). At the same time, archaeologists have continued to use ‘older’ terminology like ‘acculturation’ and tried to refine related notions in the framework of recent research (e.g. Hofmann 2014a; Meyer 2008; Schörner 2005) in order to avoid the creation of ever new and at the same time very short-lived terminologies (cf. Bintliff's 2011a, 8, critique of the ‘use-and-discard’ approach). Taking these considerations as a basis for an innovative approach to archaeological sources, the analyses of several case studies have been aimed at demonstrating the transformative potential of cultural entanglement (e.g. Hofmann 2014a; Maran 2011a; 2011b; 2013; Maran and Stockhammer 2012b; Rüden 2011; 2013; 2015; Schreiber 2013; Stockhammer 2011a; 2012c; 2012d; 2013).

This new interest in past cultural encounters also enabled archaeology to successfully (co-)apply for large-scale research projects with an explicit focus on past globalization phenomena, especially the Asia and Europe in a Global Context: The Dynamics of Transculturality cluster of excellence at Heidelberg mentioned above. Their transcultural approach argues that cultures are invariably constituted by interaction, entanglement and reconfiguration, and assumes that cultural encounter and related phenomena are by no means restricted to modernity but are basic constituents of human life worlds (e.g. Maran and Stockhammer 2012b; Forberg and Stockhammer forthcoming). At the same time, a transcultural approach is understood as a research agenda, which aims to relativize disciplinary and national discourses and to accept manifold understandings of the world (Stockhammer 2012e; 2013). This new reflexivity and conceptualization of cultural encounter has been enforced by the German Archaeological Institute, which chose Connecting Cultures: Forms, Channels and Spaces of Cultural Interaction as one of its fields of focus. ¹⁶

At the same time, when interest in a new conceptualization of cultural encounter started in GSA, new approaches to the role and potential of knowledge exchange – especially in the form of innovations – arose. At the beginning of this discussion, innovation was understood as an alternative approach to the explanation of cultural change (Eisenhauer 1999; 2002; Strahm 1994). Since then, archaeologists have further developed models of social continuity and change (Hofmann 2012b; Knopf 2002; Stockhammer 2008, 1–4) and at the same time more and more intensively integrated insights from sociology – especially the sociology of technology – and science and technology studies. Since the year 2000, GSA has mostly focused on those innovations. Therefore GSA has developed novel conceptualizations and models for understanding the process of neolithization (Benz 2000; Gronenborn and Petrasch 2010; Kienlin 2006; Scharl 2004). Andrew Sherratt's (1981) secondary-products revolution has been deconstructed and the innovation of the wheeled vehicle has been redefined as a complex of entangled technologies, each of which had a crucial impact on local appropriations (Burmeister 2011; 2013a; Maran 2004a; 2004b). Furthermore, there has been growing interest in exploring the breeding of woolly sheep and related practices as a bundle of innovation (Becker et al. 2016), and the development of water management technologies has been viewed in a similar way (Klimscha et al. 2012). The complexity of the spread of metallurgies has been emphasized and their belated spread in different regions of Central Europe has been studied in numerous publications (e.g. Burmeister et al. 2013; Kienlin 2008b; 2010; Klimscha 2010; Stockhammer 2015c; Strahm 2009). Whereas those interested have been mostly focusing on technical innovations, in the meantime other kinds of innovation have also found attention, for example the introduction of cremation as an intellectual innovation (Hofmann 2008; 2012b) and Überausstattung (over-endowment) as a social innovation (Hansen 2011, 174–78).

Taking these different case studies together, one can state that old linear models of the spread of past innovations in GSA have been more and more replaced by non-linear models (cf. Gramsch 2009; Hofmann 2012b). Interest in the origin of innovations (e.g. Fansa and Burmeister 2004) has been supplemented with a growing interest in their genealogies, i.e. their transmission and appropriation, as well as the technological impact and transformative potential in contexts of different kinds (e.g. Bernbeck et al. 2011; Burmeister 2013a; Hofmann and Patzke 2012; Zimmermann and Siegmund 2002). Innovations are now seen as processes and clusters, or networks, of knowledge and not as self-existing entities (e.g. Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel 2013). As a consequence, the respective local ‘adaption environment’ (Meir 1988) has been taken into account (e.g. Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel 2013; Maran 2004a; Schier 2013). Strategies of innovation management have been identified (Stockhammer 2015c) and the unsuccessful or belated spread of innovations due to local non-interest and rejection has been studied (e.g. Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel 2013; Kienlin 2010). Moreover, ideas regarding different kinds of knowledge (discursive, embodied) and innovations (paradigmatic, incremental) have been adapted from the social sciences and conceptualized for archaeology (e.g. Hofmann 2012b; Kaiser and Schier 2013). On a broader scale, the Atlas of Innovations initiative at Berlin has been launched in order to digitally visualize the spread and local appearance of innovation (www.topoi.org/group/d-6). This went in line with discussion regarding whether we are able to identify periods with stronger willingness and openness towards innovation (Zimmermann 2012; Siegmund 2012).

To sum up, instead of searching for monocausal explanations of cultural change, current GSA analyses the complex dialectics of parallel intertwined processes triggered by human mobility and knowledge exchange. The scholars to whom we refer in this paper emphasize the transformative potential of intercultural encounter, and the dynamics and processualities of human existence, world views, knowledge etc., and have promoted the respective field of research with publications which have also found much interest outside GSA (especially when published in the English language rather than in German). They have published on conceptual issues as well as case studies which introduce a practice-oriented perspective in order to better understand cultural encounter and knowledge exchange, mostly on a qualitative, but also on a quantitative, basis.

Material culture Although material culture presents the basis of knowledge for prehistoric archaeology, GSA did not theorize material culture for a long time. Besides the strong antiquarian tradition, there has been a concern in post-war GSA to create a valid approach to its evaluation. This has been subsumed under the notion of Quellenkritik (source criticism) (Eggert 2001, 100–21; Hofmann 2016a; Stockhammer 2015b) and was inspired by historiography, ¹⁷ which has always had a strong methodological influence on GSA. Of great influence were Hans Jürgen Eggers's (1959, 258–62) distinction between a ‘living good’, a ‘dying good’ and a ‘dead good’, ¹⁸ Walter Torbrügge's (1965; 1970–71) methods of crosschecking distributions maps, and more recent discussions on taphonomy (Link and Schimmelpfennig 2012; Orschiedt 1999; Sommer 1991) and traces (Hofmann 2016a; Kümmel 2003; 2009; Mante 2003). Moreover, archaeological concepts like index fossils and current practices with things from the past like collecting, storing and editing large numbers of prehistoric objects have been questioned (Hofmann 2014b; 2016b; Hofmann et al. 2016; Holtorf and Veit 2006), and the relationship between things and knowledge has been studied, inter alia, under the heading ‘object epistemologies’. ¹⁹

Since the late 1980s, semiotic approaches have gained increasing interest in GSA. Only a decade later, vivid discussions on the conceptualization and interpretation of material culture emerged, which have spread along the lines of semiotics, practice-oriented approaches, object biographies, consumer research, object epistemologies and many more. Phenomenology has recently served as an inspiration, without, however, constituting the basis of case studies as in current anglophone archaeology.

Although semiotic approaches have lost their dominant role in recent material-culture studies, they have been of crucial importance in GSA to better understand the heuristic potential of material culture. Since the late 1980s, Ulrich Veit (1988; 1993; 1997) especially has aimed to establish a semiotic approach, which was picked up by students particularly from the University of Tübingen, where Veit was based at this time (e.g. Kienlin 2005; Kümmel, Schweizer and Veit 2008; Veit et al. 2003). A broad range of material evidence has been studied with regard to its symbolic meaning – be it Neolithic pottery (Furholt and Stockhammer 2008; Veit 1997; Zeeb-Lanz 2003; 2006), dress (e.g. Burmeister 1997; Veit 1988), art (Bagley 2014; Rieckhoff 2010), prestige objects and status symbols (Bagley and Schumann 2013; Burmeister 2003; Hildebrandt and Veit 2009; Müller and Bernbeck 1996; Schumann 2014), architecture (Meier 2002b), burials and body postures (Augstein 2009; 2013; Meier 2002a; Müller-Scheeßel 2005; 2008) or even whole cemeteries (Hofmann 2008). Several studies were inspired by approaches from cultural semiotics (Hofmann 2008; Kümmel, Schweizer and Veit 2008; Veit 2005). Whereas the possibility of reconstructing past symbolic grammars is widely acknowledged, the potential of a semantic evaluation is regarded with scepticism (Hinz 2009; Furholt and Stockhammer 2008). Only a few authors developed more reflective approaches to determine past sign contents, mostly on the structural notion of anthropological constants (e.g. Hofmann 2008; Jung 2005). Besides the more common notion of objects as symbols, material culture has also been understood primarily as traces or indicators – i.e. without intentional messages (see Bystřina 1989, 63–78; Ginzburg 1983; e.g. Hofmann 2008; Veit et al. 2003). Former attributions of objects, styles, etc. to seemingly stable categories have been questioned by emphasizing the changeability of the functions and meanings of objects (Hofmann and Schreiber 2011; Kistler 2015; Schreiber 2013; Stockhammer 2012d) and the changeabilities of objects themselves (Stockhammer 2015a; 2015b).

Current theories of material culture have also been stimulated by empirical culture studies (cf. König 2003), which can look back on a long but rather shadowy existence even from the perspective of GSA (Fansa 1996; Samida and Eggert 2013b). Whereas the largest part of German cultural anthropology has not been interested in material culture for the last few decades, the important influence of the anthropologist Hans Peter Hahn on GSA has to be emphasized (e.g. Hahn 2004; 2005; 2007; Hahn and Soentgen 2011; Samida, Eggert and Hahn 2014). Inspired by Hahn's concepts of the Aneignung (appropriation) and Eigensinn (obstinacy) of things, by actor-network theory and by anglophone archaeology and anthropology, GSA has recently tried to develop a better understanding of complex human–thing interactions or entanglements, ²⁰ and to better understand the role of material culture in this relationship. Within the framework of the practice turn, these interactions are studied through the lens of human practices with things (cf. Hofmann and Schreiber 2011; Kerig 2008; Maran and Stockhammer 2012b; Meier, Ott and Sauer 2015; Stockhammer 2011c). Topics that have been discussed include whether the notion of agency can also be applied to objects, whether the strong dichotomy between humans and things should be relativized (contra: Jung 2012; 2015; pro: Schreiber 2016), whether agency has to be redefined in this case (e.g. agency dissolved from the notion of intentionality; cf. Stockhammer 2012d) and how to approach the possibility that from one emic perspective objects could have acted intentionally and from another one not (Stockhammer 2015a). In order to overcome the problem of ‘agency’, several solutions have been presented: some scholars have appropriated James J. Gibson's (1979) notion of ‘affordance’ (Hofmann and Schreiber 2011; Keßeler 2016). Following Max Weber and Ulrich Oevermann's objective hermeneutics, Matthias Jung (2003; 2015) speaks of objektive Möglichkeiten (objective possibilities). Philipp Stockhammer created the term ‘effectancy’ in order to express the objects’ ability to shape, frame, inspire, distort, disappoint, stimulate, etc. human action and perceptions (Stockhammer 2015a). In contrast to anglophone archaeology, materielle Kultur (material culture) is still the most frequent term, whereas Ding (thing) has not achieved a popularity equal to that in current anglophone archaeology (Hahn, Eggert and Samida 2014, 2–3; Hofmann and Schreiber 2014). ²¹

The focus on social practices has resulted in a larger interest in the social and cultural dimension of the production, distribution, usage and disposal of objects. Their production is mostly discussed following the idea of a culturally shaped chaîne opératoire (Lemonnier 1992) and tacit knowing (Polanyi 1966; e.g. Kienlin 2011; 2014; Rüden 2015). Furthermore, the interaction between different chaînes opératoires in the sense of cross-craft interactions has been studied (Brysbaert and Vetters 2010). It has become clear that the creation, formation and change of substances and materialities in this process results in ever new meanings, functions and affordances of objects, which are rather processes than states (Stockhammer 2015a).

In line with this thought, the notion of object biographies has been finding more and more interest (e.g. Hofmann 2015; Krmnicek 2009) and several studies have evaluated the epistemological potential of such an approach by studying the biography of particular objects (e.g. Holtorf 2002; Kienlin and Kreuz 2015), types of object (e.g. Bagley 2015; Kistler 2010; Maran 2013; Metzner-Nebelsick and Nebelsick 1999) or monuments (e.g. Holtorf 2000–8; Mischka 2011). Moreover, the idea of ‘biography’ has been criticized and alternative terms like ‘itineraries’ have been suggested in order to avoid the anthropomorphization of objects (cf. Boschung, Kienlin and Kreuz 2015; Hahn and Weiss 2013). The study of gift exchange is discussed as one of the possibilities to enrich travelling objects with narratives and to adorn them with a particular value (Bernbeck 2009b; Hansen, Neumann and Vachta 2016; Kienlin and Kreuz 2015). Based on Arjun Appadurai's (1986; 1991) writings, an archaeology of consumption has been postulated (Scholz 2012; Schreiber 2011).

The biography of objects most often ended with their deposition or disposal – unless one wishes to write life histories of things until the present day. Systematic evaluations of rubbish and dirt only started in the 1990s (Fansa and Wolfram 2003; Sommer 1998), roughly contemporaneously with the idea of understanding rubbish as a means of cultural memory and of achieving unique insights into past human practices (Assmann 1996; Schmidt 2005; Veit 2005–6).

To sum up, nowadays things are no longer understood as stable and static. Recent approaches emphasize the changeability of their material, their functions, meanings and so on, and the different kinds of transformation which take place, but at the same time acknowledge the obstinacy of things. Scholars aim to further develop the idea of the chaîne opératoire and transform the notion of object biographies into object itineraries and thing narratives by rethinking existing approaches and integrating them with a thourough look at material objects. Concepts of human–thing relations have become much more complex and dynamic. One may hope that these concepts are now transferred from single objects to assemblages of things and the co-presence of humans, animals and things. We do not see much effort to link the current debates on materiality in GSA to the ‘new materialism’ which is finding more and more interest in current anglophone archaeology. This is due to the fact that there are ethical concerns to equalize humans and things because of the crimes conducted during the National Socialist past. Moreover, Max Weber's concept of intentional action is still the dominant reference when working on human practices. It seems it is rather the possibility of integrating the traditional focus on a thorough study of material culture with concepts that allows a better understanding of the evidence which has supported the general interest in material-culture theory in GSA.

Conclusion and further perspectives

In a recently published paper on migration and ethnicity, Stefan Burmeister (2013b, 258–59) stated that German-speaking archaeologists are neither problem-solvers in the sense of Karl Popper (2001) nor puzzle-solvers in the sense of Thomas Kuhn (1962). In his view, German-speaking archaeologists are still collectors, who locate the epistemological problems in the lack of sufficient data, but do not question existing paradigms or other scholars’ ideas or methods. On the basis of our survey of theories in GSA since the year 2000, we cannot agree with Burmeister any more. In our view, current theoretical approaches in GSA are characterized by a multitude of approaches ranging from describing, classifying and reconstructing via systemic–explanatory frameworks up to very conceptual and reflexive studies, which are very popular within theoretically interested GSA. We perceive this flexibility and the related lack of dominant theoretical schools of thinking as one of the most promising potentials of GSA. Theoretical discussions as well as material-oriented methodologies freely mix functional, semiotic and practice-oriented approaches without feeling the need to promote one approach and abolish others. In combination with a thorough knowledge and study of material remnants, this multidirectional mode of thinking opens up the way for a tailor-made approach to the study of archaeological contexts. We have shown for the issues of identity, space, cultural encounter and material culture how fruitful such attempts can be.

However, we have to admit that theory is still far from becoming something like the overall mainstream in GSA. A considerable number of researchers from very different backgrounds still do not show much interest in theoretically based approaches but continue rather traditional, antiquarian styles of research. This is due to many reasons: first, archaeological theory still plays a minor role in the educational curricula of bachelor's as well as master's programmes at most German-speaking universities. Second, an interest in archaeological theory has not been considered an important qualification in job selection processes – and the same has also been true for publications on theoretical issues. We are aware of the fact that theoretically interested archaeologists in GSA still have to argue from time to time that their research is also relevant for prehistoric archaeology. However, we also see that the situation has changed since the year 2000 and has been changing more and more rapidly in the last few years: interest in archaeological theory has risen in GSA, not only in a few ivory towers financed by the Excellence Initiative but – as the myriad publications quoted in our article attest – among a broad field of actors in GSA.

German-speaking archaeologists have cooperated with a broad range of scholars, especially in the natural sciences, since the 1920s – particularly in the framework of settlement archaeology. Recent interdisciplinary research continues a strong relation to the natural sciences (especially genetics, chemistry, isotopics and physical geography), as well as to historical disciplines. It is also characterized by a close exchange with cultural anthropology, cultural studies and sociology. Post-war GSA had for a long time tried to stay far away from any involvement in societal and political debates (as a result of its deep involvement in Nazi politics and a generally positivistic understanding of the sciences in post-war Germany). Well into the 1990s, theory in GSA was only present in the form of a small number of theoretical publications, most of which had a clear methodological or conceptual focus. Since the late 1990s, we have witnessed a growing interest in the epistemological basis and potential of our discipline and its history, as well as an internationalization of GSA – very much framed by growing participation in the German T-AG sessions. At the same time, GSA has increasingly discussed and contributed to overarching themes of cultural and social relevance. This tendency was supported by the establisment of new funding lines requiring interdisciplinary collaborations and social relevance. Therefore GSA has been increasingly involved in common discussions on global consumption, goods exchange, technology assessment, identity politics, cultural heritage, mobility and mass migration. ²² Within the German-speaking countries, GSA has also contributed to ongoing discussions on the understanding of culture. In this context, GSA has enforced the importance of materialty and the challenge of intentionally and unintenionally co-producing views on national culture and the prehistory of collective identities. ²³

Until today, an important feature of GSA is its self-understanding as a historical rather than an anthropological discipline. As a consequence, recent theories in GSA are marked by a strong interest in the history of science and – as we have shown in detail – self-reflexivity. Even if it is not explicitly stated, the still very vivid tradition of the Frankfurt school and critical theory might also have influenced this line of thinking. This self-reflexivity aims at analysing current scientific practices and the historicization of seemingly modern phenomena, as well as the deconstruction of supposed universalisms. In contrast to anglophone archaeology, it is difficult to trace cyclical shifts of paradigms in recent decades. Some lines of thought have never found great interest (e.g. systems theory), and other approaches very soon found a small number of highly interested scholars, but it took years for larger parts of GSA to start to work with them (e.g. semiotics). Moreover, one has been able to witness a vivid eclecticism and consider it unproblematic to integrate concepts of very different roots and schools in one approach. This is also due to the fact that there is rarely any academic advice or demand to follow a particular theory and students are also not supplied with a canon of theoretical texts which have to be read. In spite of following anglophone trends of replacing terminologies from time to time, several scholars continue to use terms (e.g. ‘acculturation’) that might seem to be outdated from an outsider's perspective. Furthermore, it is rather common to integrate processual and postprocessual approaches from anglophone archaeology and add some theoretical writings of German ethnologists or sociologists. Only in the last decade has it become more usual in GSA to appropriate innovative thoughts and approaches directly from other disciplines rather than indirectly via handbook articles or from anglophone scholars. Nevertheless, obligatory courses on archaeological theory are still missing in the academic curriculum of many university departments, and theoretical reflections are not necessarily part of academic theses or publications.

What is still remaining from old Central European archaeology? Definitely a special love for the most comprehensive catalogues of finds, classifications and definitions; extensive discussions of histories of notions, concepts and theories; long footnotes; countless maps; and endless biographies. Even in their theoretical and methodological writings, many scholars of GSA cannot deny their addiction to completeness. This is also true for the authors of this article. The reader can easily see this when having a look at the bibliography of our article. If a scholar is interested in theory, one aims at a most comprehensive discussion of the topic – including its historic and interdisciplinary contextualization. Another still very prominent feature is the idea of measuring the quality of theories in their methodological usefulness and in the way that they allow for a better understanding of particular case studies. The practicality of theories has always been a crucial concern. Therefore almost all theoretical or methodological writings are regularly combined with a quite comprehensive case study, which aims to underline the practicality of one's approach. In contrast to current anglophone archaeology, where it is not hard to find almost completely conceptual writings, the dominant notion in GSA emphasizes the rootedness of all thoughts in the evaluation of concrete archaeological sources. The comprehensive knowledge of sources and excavation skills are still one of the major criteria for evaluating the qualification of a scholar. Meanwhile, however, this is more and more being replaced by the way that these sources are evaluated, which again opens the chance for more theoretically interested scholars to demonstrate the usefulness of their approach. GSA still publishes mostly in German, in huge monographs full of details and thoughts or in often poorly accessible anthologies. For scholars who are not really fluent in German, many of the recent theoretical studies are even more difficult to read than the old-style editions of material culture. We would appreciate an increase of comprehensive publications in English, but we are nevertheless convinced that traditional multilinguality is also an advantage of GSA, which should not be abolished in favour of writing only in English.

Finally, what are the future challenges of GSA? We are convinced that the close interplay between theory and empirical research, as well as between local heritage institutions, museums and universities, has to be further developed. Moreover, we should continue to historicize and recontextualize concepts from current social and cultural sciences. In this line of thought, the concept of time, ²⁴ as well as practices of stabilization and destabilization, continuity and discontinuity, seem to be particularly promising. A major challenge to present research is new scientific approaches, like isotope analyses and genetics, which stimulate debates on how to conceptualize past migrations. ²⁵ Moreover, a debate has started about scales and their conceptualization in a more dynamic and dialectic way (cf. Clifford 1992). Last but not least, we have to continue to develop an archaeology of the recent past and present which includes an ethically reflexive handling also of inconvenient heritage. ²⁶ All of this will further help to develop a theory of historical material culture.

We are convinced that it is worth trying to overcome the outdated notion of a disinterest in, or even rejection of, theories in GSA. Things have changed! Whereas more and more anglophone archaeologists seem to be annoyed with theories and their side effects (Bintliff 2011a; Gardner 2013; Johnson 2006), in GSA theoretical approaches are becoming more and more established. First, GSA discovered the theoretical loadedness of empirical data and subsequently enjoyed the empirical loadedness of theory (cf. Hirschauer 2008). It is in the entanglement of empirical data and theory with the help of carefully contextualized concepts and methods that we see an important contribution for world archaeology – be it the approach to self-reflexivity, identity, space, cultural encounter or materiality. In our opinion, current developments will also be sustainable, because they are deeply embedded in the empirical study of archaeological finds and the daily practice of archaeology. ‘Beyond antiquarianism’ does not imply moving ‘beyond sources and methods’. On the contrary, this leads to a reflected treatment of past material culture and to a relevant contribution to current societal discourse. Our contribution will serve as an overview and a first step into what is discussed and conceptualized and what has the potential to contribute to an international audience of archaeologists.