Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:01:51.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From pessimism to optimism. A reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Kerstin P. Hofmann  and
Philipp W. Stockhammer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The diversity of the comments makes it an easy and a complex task to address them. It is an easy task, since each of the commentators presented clear yet widely ranging opinions about the extent and relevance of theories in GSA, which differ astonishingly – from accusations of just presenting ‘theory-lite’ (Veit) to the very positive view that there is even more relevant theoretical discussion in GSA than mentioned by us (Kristiansen). The surprisingly diverse comments lead us to suppose that we have probably found a middle ground between the pessimistic and the more optimistic perspectives. However, commenting on the responses is also a complex task, because the only way of doing justice to them is by discussing them individually.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , June 2017 , pp. 44 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dürr, M., 2016: Die soziale Dimension von Gräbern. Ansätze und Theorien in der deutschen und britischen Ur- und Frühgeschichte in der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts, Archäologische Informationen 39, 107–46.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., 2001: Prähistorische Archäologie. Konzepte und Methoden, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Hirschauer, S., 2008: Die Emperiegeladenheit von Theorien und der Erfindungsreichtum der Praxis, in Kalthoff, H., Hirschauer, S. and Lindemann, G. (eds), Theoretische Empirie. Zur Relevanz qualitativer Forschung, Frankfurt am Main, 165–87.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2006–7: Anthropologie als umfassende Humanwissenschaft. Einige Bemerkungen aus archäologischer Sicht, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 136–37, 283–300.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2013a: Gräber und Totenrituale. Zu aktuellen Theorien und Forschungsansätzen, in Eggert, M.K.H. and Veit, U. (eds), Theorie in der Archäologie. Zur jüngeren Diskussion in Deutschland, Münster (TAT 10), 269–98.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2016d: With víkingr into the identity trap. Or when historiographical actors get a life of their own, Medieval worlds 4, 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, J., and Stockhammer, P.W., 2013: Zeiten des Umbruchs? Gesellschaftlicher und naturräumlicher Wandel am Beginn der Bronzezeit, Jahrbuch der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 322–26.Google Scholar
Meier, T., and Tillessen, P. (eds), 2011: Über die Grenzen und zwischen den Disziplinen. Fächerübergreifende Zusammenarbeit im Forschungsfeld historischer Mensch-Umwelt-Beziehungen, Budapest.Google Scholar
Narr, K.J., 1990: Nach der nationalen Vorgeschichte, in Prinz, W. and Weingart, P. (eds), Die sog. Geisteswissenschaften. Innenansichten, Frankfurt am Main, 279–305.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2011b: Theories in German archaeology. A critical discussion of theoretical aspects in the work of Rolf Hachmann, in Gramsch, A. and Sommer, U. (eds), A history of Central European archaeology. Theory, methods, and politics, Budapest (Archaeolingua 30), 89–105.Google Scholar