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 Reference Bernbeck1997; Eggert Reference Eggert2001; Eggert and Veit Reference Eggert and Veit1998; Karl Reference Karl2004; Siegmund and Zimmermann Reference Siegmund and Zimmermann2000; Sommer Reference Sommer2000b). 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.Footnote 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 Reference Burmeister2005). 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 Reference Siegmund2003). 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).Footnote 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.Footnote 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 Reference Eggert and Veit2013). Furthermore, a number of handbooks and introductions were published that focused on interpretive approaches, themes and questions (e. g. Bernbeck Reference Bernbeck1997; Eggert Reference Eggert2006; Eggert and Samida Reference Eggert and Samida2009; Haupt Reference Haupt2012; Mölders and Wolfram Reference Mölders and Wolfram2014; Samida, Eggert and Hahn Reference Hahn, Eggert, Samida, Samida, Eggert and Hahn2014), 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.Footnote ⁷ The EU funding of museums and heritage has had almost no impact on theoretical debates (cf. Gramsch Reference Gramsch2000a; Reference Gramsch2005; and Mante Reference Mante and Loth2005 for a critical assessment).

Whereas, in the year 2000, Ulrike Sommer stated that ‘there is almost no methodological and theoretical debate’ in GSA (Sommer Reference Sommer2000b, 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 Reference Eggert1999; Krausse Reference Krausse1999; Schweizer Reference Schweizer2012); the debate on the possibilities and constraints of conclusions by analogy (e.g. Eggert Reference Eggert and Veit1998; Gramsch Reference Gramsch2000b); the ‘new fight about Troy’ focusing on the understanding of early urbanism and the concept of Orient and Occident (e.g. Schweizer and Kienlin Reference Schweizer and Kienlin2001–2; Ulf Reference Ulf2003); and the debate on the role of tradition, cultural patterns and material culture in ethnic interpretation (e.g. Bierbrauer Reference Bierbrauer and Pohl2004 versus Brather Reference Brather2000; Brather and Wotzka Reference Brather, Wotzka, Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel2006 versus Siegmund Reference Siegmund, Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel2006; Eger Reference Eger2011; Reference Eger, Ebanista and Rotili2015 versus Rummel Reference Rummel2007; cf. Siegmund Reference Siegmund, Krausse and Nakoinz2009; Reference Siegmund2014). 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 Reference Holtorf and Veit2006). 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 Reference Sommer2000b, 161).

Meanwhile, it is much easier for students to participate in theoretical and methodological debates (cf. Hachmann Reference Hachmann1987 for a very early example). This is enhanced by theoretically oriented workshops (e.g. Göbel and Zech Reference Göbel and Zech2011; Furholt, Hinz and Mischka Reference Furholt, Hinz and Mischka2012; Hofmann and Schreiber Reference Hofmann and Schreiber2015a; Stockhammer and Hahn Reference Hahn and Hahn2015), 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 Reference Bintliff, Bintliff and Pearce2011a), 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 Reference Hegmon2003).Footnote 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 Reference Hofmann2008; Meier Reference Meier2002a; Meyer-Orlac Reference Meyer-Orlac1982; Müller-Scheeßel Reference Müller-Scheeßel2013b), settlements (e.g. Mattheußer and Sommer Reference Sommer, Mattheußer and Sommer1991; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2008), depositions (Hansen Reference Hansen1994; Hansen, Neumann and Vachta Reference Hansen, Neumann and Vachta2012) or particular categories of objects or materials (Dietz and Jockenhövel Reference Dietz and Jockenhövel2011; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2009). 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 Reference Eggers1959; Narr Reference Narr1972; Torbrügge Reference Torbrügge1958).Footnote 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 Reference Grunwald2010; for an early exception cf. Smolla Reference Smolla1979–80). The growing distance from Nazi archaeologists, however, enabled a new critical perspective analysing political enmeshments of GSA in Nazi and immediate post-war Germany.Footnote ¹⁰ Moreover, there was a shift from history of research (e.g. Coblenz Reference Coblenz1998; Reference Coblenz and Härke2000; Kossack Reference Kossack1992; Reference Kossack1999; Kühn Reference Kühn1976) to history of archaeological thinking and/or history of science (cf. Veit Reference Veit2011; Zimmermann Reference Zimmermann, Eckert, Eisenhauer and Zimmermann2003),Footnote ¹¹ often written by historically trained young scholars (e.g. Gramsch Reference Gramsch2006; Gramsch and Sommer Reference Gramsch and Sommer2011; Härke Reference Härke2000; Mante Reference Mante2007; Perschke Reference Perschke2014; Reichenbach and Rohrer Reference Reichenbach and Rohrer2011; Veit Reference Veit, Biehl, Gramsch and Marciniak2002b). 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.Footnote ¹² Another centre of discussion for the history of archaeological research has been in Berlin (e.g. Callmer et al. Reference Callmer, Meyer, Struwe and Theune2006; Eberhardt and Link Reference Eberhardt and Link2015; Leube and Hegewisch Reference Leube and Hegewisch2002). 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 Reference Jansen2008; Vigener Reference Vigener2012).

A particular focus has been placed on individual researchers of the 19th and 20th centuries (e.g. Fries and Gutsmiedl-Schühmann Reference Fries and Gutsmiedl-Schümann2013; Grünert Reference Grünert2002; Koch and Mertens Reference Mertens2002; Mahsarski Reference Mahsarski2011; Steuer Reference Steuer2001) and in the field of Nazi archaeology (e.g. Arnold and Hassmann Reference Hakelberg and Wiwjorra1995; Geringer et al. Reference Geringer, von der Haar, Halle, Mahsarski and Walter2013; Halle Reference Halle2002). 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 Reference Andresen1997; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer, Gramsch and Sommer2011b). Only recently, the interpretation of groups of monuments (Link Reference Link2011; Reference Link2014; Müller-Scheeßel Reference Müller-Scheeßel2011a; Rieckhoff, Grunwald and Reichenbach Reference Rieckhoff, Grunwald and Reichenbach2009) or paradigms of interpretation (Brather Reference Brather, Brandt and Rauchfuß2014; Wiwjorra Reference Wiwjorra2006) have been studied more intensively.

This went hand in hand with a more general reflection on archaeologists’ practices like excavating (Eberhardt Reference Eberhardt, Schlanger and Nordbladh2008; 2011), mapping (Grunwald Reference Grunwald2012; Reference Grunwald, Hofmann, Meier, Mölders and Schreiber2016; Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Dietz and Jockenhövel2016b) and reading of traces (Holtorf Reference Holtorf, Krämer, Kogge and Grube2007; Kümmel Reference Kümmel2009; Veit et al. Reference Veit, Kienlin, Kümmel and Schmidt2003). Moreover, scholars discussed the generation or logic of archaeological knowledge (Davidovic Reference Davidovic2009; Jung Reference Jung2006; Mölders Reference Mölders2013) and the role of the archaeologist as artist, storyteller, scientist or cultural historian (Kümmel, Müller-Scheeßel and Schülke Reference Kümmel, Müller-Scheeßel and Schülke1999; Leskovar Reference Leskovar, Karl and Leskovar2005; Niklasson and Meier Reference Niklasson and Meier2013; Rieckhoff Reference Rieckhoff, Burmeister, Derks and von Richthofen2007b; Rieckhoff, Veit and Wolfram Reference Rieckhoff, Veit and Wolfram2010; Samida and Eggert Reference Samida and Eggert2013a; Veit Reference Veit and Wotzka2006a). 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 Reference Eggert2005; Reference Eggert2006; Heinz, Eggert and Veit Reference Heinz, Eggert and Veit2003; Samida and Eggert Reference Eggert and Veit2013a; Veit Reference Veit1995; cf. Angeli Reference Angeli1999; Reference Angeli2003). Soon, other scholars engaged in these concepts, developed these thoughts further (Frommer Reference Frommer2007; Mante Reference Mante2007) and defined archaeology as a branch of history and part of a new comprehensive anthropology (Hofmann Reference Hofmann2004; Reference Hofmann2006–7).

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 Reference Gramsch2000a; Reference Gramsch2005; Mante Reference Mante and Loth2005; Reference Mante2007, 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 Reference Gehrke and Sénécheau2010; Ickerodt Reference Ickerodt2004; Kaenel and Jud Reference Kaenel and Jud2002; Kerig Reference Kerig2005; Mainka-Mehling Reference Mainka-Mehling2008; Rahemipour Reference Rahemipour2009; Röder Reference Röder and Kienlin2015; Samida Reference Samida2011), as were practices of re-enactment, living history (Ickerodt Reference Ickerodt2009; Samida Reference Samida, Eggert and Hahn2014) and gender stereotypes (Röder Reference Röder2014).

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 Reference Wolfram and Sommer1993; Gramsch Reference Gramsch2000a; 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 Reference Meier2012).

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 Reference Gardner, Amundsen-Meyer, Engel and Pickering2011, 11; Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Heske and Horejs2012a). 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 Reference Rieckhoff, Rieckhoff and Sommer2007a, 9). Whereas the term ‘identity’ was introduced as ‘social identity’ in anglophone archaeology in the 1970s (Gillespie Reference Gillespie2001, 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 Reference Pohl2004; Pohl and Mehofer Reference Pohl and Mehofer2010; Pohl and Reimitz Reference Pohl and Reimitz1998; Steinacher Reference Steinacher, Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel2011; Reference Steinacher and Fehr2012), the importance of self-identification, consciousness and imagination, as well as situational affiliation, has been stressed (Brather Reference Brather2004, 79; Fehr Reference Fehr, Pohl and Mehofer2010a; Müller-Scheeßel and Burmeister Reference Burmeister, Wendowski-Schünemann and Wotzka2006; Rieckhoff and Sommer Reference Sommer, Rieckhoff and Sommer2007). Moreover, researchers emphasized the ambivalence of meaning of dress (Brather Reference Brather2007; Burmeister Reference Burmeister1997; Reference Burmeister, Veit, Kienlin, Kümmel and Schmidt2003), pottery (Hahn Reference Hahn and Stockhammer2009; Furholt and Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2008; Zeeb-Lanz Reference Zeeb-Lanz, Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel2006) and burial practices (Brather Reference Brather, Pohl and Mehofer2010; Hinz Reference Hinz2009) 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 Reference Brather2007; Jentgens Reference Jentgens2001; Rummel Reference Rummel2007). Other scholars have been trying to maintain the ethnic interpretation (Bierbrauer Reference Bierbrauer and Pohl2004; Eger Reference Eger2011; Reference Eger2012; Koch Reference Koch2004) or to propose alternatives (e.g. Fernández-Götz Reference Fernández-Götz2009; Reference Fernández-Götz2014). Instead of focusing on the presence or absence of single diacritical features, several scholars (Furholt Reference Furholt2009; Müller Reference Müller2006; Nakoinz Reference Nakoinz, Krausse and Nakoinz2009a; Reference Nakoinz2013; Siegmund Reference Siegmund and Zimmermann2000; Zimmermann Reference Zimmermann1995; Reference Zimmermann, Rieckhoff and Sommer2007) 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 Reference Furholt2009, 236; Zimmermann Reference Zimmermann, Rieckhoff and Sommer2007), or even labelled with historiographical ethnonyms (Siegmund Reference Siegmund and Zimmermann2000, 307–13). Brather and Wotzka (Reference Brather, Wotzka, Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel2006) 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 Reference Auffermann and Weniger1998; Bergmann-Kickenberg, Kästner and Mertens Reference Bergmann-Kickenberg, Kästner and Mertens2004; Brandt Reference Brandt1996; Karlisch, Kästner and Mertens Reference Karlisch, Kästner and Mertens1997) and at supplying gender studies with a prehistoric perspective (e.g. Rambuscheck Reference Rambuscheck2009). 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 Reference Fries and Koch2005; Koch Reference Koch and Rambuscheck2009; R. Röder Reference Röder2004; B. Röder Reference Röder, Claßen, Doppler and Ramminger2010b; Röder, Hummel and Kunz Reference Röder, Hummel and Kunz2001). Meanwhile, GSA sometimes distinguishes between ‘women research’ and ‘men research’ (e.g. Müller-Scheeßel Reference Müller-Scheeßel2011b), ‘gender research’ and ‘feminist research’, as well as queer studies (e.g. Matić Reference Matić2012; Wiermann Reference Wiermann1997). However, a strict differentiation between these lines of research seems impossible (Fries Reference Fries and Koch2005, 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 Reference Alt, Röder and Rambuscheck2009; Derks Reference Derks2012; Hofmann Reference Hofmann and Rambuscheck2009a). Furthermore, gender-related iconographies and divisions of labour have been discussed (e.g. Allinger Reference Allinger and Birkhan2007; Fries and Rambuscheck Reference Fries and Rambuscheck2011; Owen Reference Owen2005). Inspired by current anglophone discussions, recent research has studied embodiment and ‘doing gender’ (e.g. Gramsch Reference Gramsch, Kümmel, Schweizer and Veit2008; Reference Gramsch2010; Harris and Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Schreiber, Mölders and Wolfram2014; Rebay-Salisbury Reference Rebay-Salisbury, Wefers, Fries, Fries-Knoblach, Later, Rambuschek, Trebsche and Wiethold2013b). 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 Reference Gebühr and Stjernquist1994; critique by Jung Reference Jung, Owen, Porr and Struwe2004; Müller Reference Müller1994). Initially the focus was mainly on children and childhood (e.g. Beilke-Voigt Reference Beilke-Voigt, Kümmel, Schweizer and Veit2008; Kraus Reference Kraus2006; Lohrke Reference Lohrke2004; Röder Reference Röder, Dommasnes and Wrigglesworth2008; Reference Röder2010a) and only rarely were old people selected as a research topic (e.g. Stauch Reference Stauch and Brather2008). 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 Reference Röder, de Jong and Alt2012).

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 Reference Veit, Kienlin and Zimmermann2012), however, with a clear focus on so-called elites. Vivid discussions arose around the Early Iron Age princely burial of Hochdorf (Veit Reference Veit2000b; Karl Reference Karl, Karl and Leskovar2005) and especially the social status of the deceased. The suggestions vary from the village elder of a segmented and micro-regionally organized society (Burmeister Reference Burmeister2000b, 208–11; Eggert Reference Eggert1999; Reference Eggert, Heinz, Eggert and Veit2003; Nortmann Reference Nortmann, Trebsche, Balzer, Eggl, Koch, Nortmann and Withold2007) to the sacral king of an early state with a possible super-regional organization (Egg Reference Egg1996a; Reference Egg, Jerem and Lippert1996b; Krausse Reference Krausse1996a, 337–53; Reference Krausse1999). Although published in 1974, the seminal article of Georg Kossack (Reference Kossack, Kossack and Ulbert1974) on prestigious burials is still the starting point of many discussions (cf. von Carnap-Bornheim et al. Reference Carnap-Bornheim, Krausse and Wesse2006; Nortmann Reference Nortmann and Baitinger2002; Schier Reference Schier, Küster, Lang and Schauer1998). For example, Detlef Gronenborn (Reference Gronenborn, Egg and Quast2009b) interpreted prestigious burials as political monuments at the transition from corporate to network strategies (cf. Blanton et al. Reference Blanton, Feinman, Kowalewski and Peregrine1996) or vice versa. Whereas most approaches have emphasized the eminent role of the deceased individual, Ulrich Veit (Reference Veit2005) and Tobias L. Kienlin (Reference Kienlin, Kümmel, Schweizer and Veit2008a) 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. Reference Furholt, Lüth and Müller2011). Moreover, the notion of Gefolgschaften (allegiances) has been analysed in GSA (Knöpke Reference Knöpke2009; Steuer Reference Steuer1982, 54–59; Reference Steuer, Burmeister and Aßkamp2009). 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 Reference Burmeister2000b; Hinz Reference Hinz2009; Müller Reference Müller2001; Müller-Scheeßel Reference Müller-Scheeßel2013b; Rebay Reference Rebay2006). Interest in ordinary people (Trebsche et al. Reference Trebsche, Balzer, Eggl, Koch, Nortmann and Withold2007) or ‘beyond-elites’ (Kienlin and Zimmermann Reference Zimmermann, Kienlin and Zimmermann2012) 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 Reference Gramsch2010; Müller Reference Müller2005; Moraw and Kieburg Reference Moraw and Kieburg2014; Owen, Porr and Struwe Reference Owen, Porr and Struwe2004) – sometimes also in relation to status and power (Burmeister Reference Burmeister2000b; Rebay-Salisbury Reference Rebay-Salisbury, Christiansen and Thaler2013a) – or space (e.g. S. Reinhold Reference Reinhold, Fries and Koch2005; R. Reinhold Reference Reinhold, Meyer and Hansen2013). Relationships between parents and children (Hausmair Reference Hausmair, Hofer, Kühtreiber and Theune2013; Krausse Reference Krausse, Müller-Karpe, Brandt, Jöns, Krausse and Wigg1998) and life course (Hausmair Reference Hausmair, Hofer, Kühtreiber and Theune2013; Koch Reference Koch, Meller and Alt2010; Koch and Kupke Reference Koch, Kupke, Kaiser, Burger and Schier2012) 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. Reference Reiter, Nørgaard, Kölcze and Rassman2014). The transformation of identity found more interest – especially due to events like death and related rites de passage (e.g. Gramsch Reference Gramsch2010). Furthermore, the constitutions of the identities and the communities of the dead are discussed (Hausmair Reference Hausmair2015; Hofmann Reference Hofmann and Baitinger2016c).

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 Reference Bernbeck, Bonatz, Czichon and Kreppner2008; Pollock Reference Pollock, Heinz and Feldman2007) and ‘multitude’ (Bernbeck Reference Bernbeck, Kienlin and Zimmermann2012) 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 Reference Brather2004; Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Hofmann, Kamp and Wemhoff2014a; Kienlin Reference Kienlin2015b). 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

This quote from the German human geographer Friedrich Ratzel (Reference Ratzel1904, 28) was true for GSA for many decades – and is partially valid even today (cf. Veit Reference Veit, Brandt and Rauchfuß2014, 36–37). As a logical consequence, GSA has developed its own methodological approach to space, ‘chorology’ (cf. Perner Reference Perner2005), and has intensively reflected on the epistemological potential of distribution maps and horizontal stratigraphies (cf. Eggert Reference Eggert2001, 222–47; 270–83; Steuer Reference Steuer and Hoops2006; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2004). 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 Reference Gramsch1996a, 19–21; Müller-Scheeßel Reference Müller-Scheeßel2000). In the last few years, redefined cultural-historical approaches (Müller-Scheeßel Reference Müller-Scheeßel, Eggert and Veit2013a, 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 Reference Müller-Scheeßel, Burmeister, Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel2006; Doppler and Ebersbach Reference Doppler, Ebersbach, Doppler, Ramminger and Schimmelpfennig2011; Furholt Reference Furholt2009; Hofmann Reference Hofmann and Hesse2009b; Reference Hofmann, Dietz and Jockenhövel2016b; Krausse and Nakoinz Reference Krausse and Nakoinz2009; Nakoinz Reference Nakoinz, Krausse and Nakoinz2009a; Reference Nakoinz2013; Müller Reference Müller and Kadrow2000; Reference Müller, Brather, Geuenich and Huth2009; Zimmermann Reference Zimmermann1995).

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 Reference Daim, Gronenborn and Schreg2011; Gronenborn Reference Gronenborn2009a; Meller et al. Reference Meller, Bertemes, Bork and Risch2013) and/or as background for so-called historic-genetic settlement research (see Gramsch Reference Gramsch1996a, 21–22; Jankuhn Reference Jankuhn1952–55; Reference Jankuhn1977). 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 Reference Schier1990; Saile Reference Saile1997; Schade Reference Schade2000; Schier Reference Schier, Ettel, Friedrich and Schier2002). 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 Reference Burmeister, Wendowski-Schünemann and Wotzka2006; Reference Burmeister and Wendowski-Schünemann2010), and the Hofplatzmodel (yard model), which was very popular in the reconstruction of settlements of the Bandkeramik (Rück Reference Rück2007; Wolfram and Stäuble Reference Wolfram and Stäuble2012, 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 Reference Brather2005, 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 Reference Zimmermann, Wendt, Frank and Hilpert2009; Zimmermann et al. Reference Zimmermann, Richter, Frank and Wendt2004; Zimmermann et al. Reference Zimmermann, Wendt, Frank and Hilpert2009). Further sophisticated GIS and statistically based approaches for archaeology have been developed by Axel Poluschny (e.g. Posluschny Reference Posluschny2002; Reference Posluschny2006; Posluschny, Lambers and Herzog Reference Posluschny, Lambers and Herzog2008; Posluschny et al. Reference Posluschny, Fischer, Rösch, Schatz, Stephan, Stobbe, Kluiving and Guttmann-Bond2012) and Oliver Nakoinz (e.g. Nakoinz Reference Nakoinz2005; Reference Nakoinz, Krausse and Nakoinz2009a; Reference Nakoinz2013) – both members of Priority Programme 1171, Frühe Zentralisierungs- und Urbanisierungsprozesse. Surprisingly, central-place theory has recently found wider interest again (Gringmuth-Dallmer Reference Gringmuth-Dallmer1996; Krausse and Beilharz Reference Krausse and Beilharz2010; U. Müller Reference Müller, Theune, Biermann, Struwe and Jeute2010; Nakoinz Reference Nakoinz2009b; Reference Nakoinz2010; Schade Reference Schade2004), whereas social-network theories have found only sparse interest in GSA (Claßen Reference Claßen, Hofmann and Bickle2009; Reference Claßen2011; Kleingärtner and Zeilinger Reference Kleingärtner and Zeilinger2012; U. Müller Reference Müller, Brather, Geuenich and Huth2009) – 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 Reference Mischka2007) and on the predictive modelling of landscapes (Kunow and Müller Reference Kunow and Müller2003; see also Furholt Reference Furholt2009; Reference Furholt2011; Hinz et al. Reference Hinz, Feeser, Sjögren and Müller2012).

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 Reference Brück2005). 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 Reference Gramsch, Kunow and Müller2003; Kleingärtner et al. Reference Kleingärtner, Newfield, Rossignol and Wehner2013; Meier Reference Meier and Meier2006; Reference Meier, Brather, Geuenich and Huth2009; Schülke Reference Schülke, Biermann and Kersting2007; Doneus Reference Doneus2013). Almut Schülke (Reference Schülke2011) 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 Reference Posluschny, Schierhold, Henning, Leube and Biermann2010; Steffen Reference Steffen2008). Moreover, the histories of monuments (e.g. Holtorf 2000–8; Mischka Reference Mischka, Furholt, Lüth and Müller2011) and of early monumentality have also been a focus of study (e.g. Gramsch Reference Gramsch, Müller and Bernbeck1996b; SPP 1400, Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung), mostly in their relevance for the creation of landscape (e.g. Müller et al. Reference Müller, Bork, Brozio, Demnick, Diers, Dibbern, Dörfler, Feeser, Fritsch, Furholt, Hage, Hinz, Kirleis, Klooß, Kroll, Lorenz, Mischka, Rinne, Bakker, Bloo and Dütting2013).

Furthermore, a new kind of environmental archaeology has been developed which focuses on the historicization of human–environment interactions (cf. Knopf Reference Knopf2004; Reference Knopf2008; Reference Knopf, Eggert and Veit2013; Meier and Tillessen Reference Meier and Tillessen2011). 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 Reference Knopf2010; SFB 1070, RessourcenKulturen) and the archaeology of economics (e.g. Eggert Reference Eggert2007; Kerig Reference Kerig and Zimmermann2013; Kerig and Zimmermann Reference Kerig and Zimmermann2013; Roth Reference Roth2008; GRK 1878, Archäologie vormoderner Wirtschaftsräume; Ramminger Reference Ramminger2007) have recently found much interest.

In recent years, space has increasingly been understood as the product of social practices – inspired by Henri Lefebvre (Reference Lefebvre1991) and with reference to the sociology of space as developed by Martina Löw (Reference Löw2001). Moreover, theories and concepts of the so-called spatial turn (cf. Bachmann-Medick Reference Bachmann-Medick2016) have been translated for archaeological research (cf. Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Schreiber, Mölders and Wolfram2014–15; Hofmann and Schreiber Reference Hofmann, Schreiber, Hofmann and Schreiber2015b). 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. Reference Maran, Juwig, Schwengel and Thaler2006; Paliou, Lieberwirth and Polla Reference Paliou, Lieberwirth and Polla2014; Trebsche, Müller-Scheeßel and Reinhold Reference Trebsche, Müller-Scheeßel and Reinhold2010). 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 Reference Maran, Stockhammer, Maran and Stockhammer2012a; Maran et al. Reference Maran, Juwig, Schwengel and Thaler2006). In this context, the space-syntax models of Bill Hillier and Julienne Hanson (Reference Hillier and Hanson1984) were applied to the study of spaces of movement (see especially Thaler Reference Thaler and van Nes2005; Reference Thaler2010), and the notion of performative space (Maran Reference Maran, Juwig, Schwengel and Thaler2006) has been conceptualized. The latter has also been used to study Bronze Age hoards and hoarding as a social practice within space (Ballmer Reference Ballmer2010; Gramsch and Meier Reference Gramsch, Meier, Bergerbrant and Sabatini2013; Hansen Reference Hansen2008; Hansen, Neumann and Vachta Reference Hansen, Neumann and Vachta2012; Neumann Reference Neumann2015). Another focus of interest has been funeral spatial concepts (Härke Reference Härke, de Jong, Theuws and van Rhijn2001; Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Meyer and Hansen2013b; Reference Hofmann and Baitinger2016c). In the latter contexts, theoretical approaches have been based on Michel Foucault's (Reference Foucault, Defert and Ewald2005) heterotopia, as well as on Anthony Giddens's (Reference Giddens1984, esp. 118–123) locales and Peter Weichhart's (Reference Weichhart, Meusburger and Schwan2003) action settings. Most recently, parallel concepts of space, multiple spaces and their localization have been studied (e.g. Hofmann and Schreiber Reference Hofmann and Schreiber2015a; Meyer and Hansen Reference Meyer and Hansen2013).

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.Footnote 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 Reference Maran, Galanaki, Tomas, Galanakis and Laffineur2007; Reference Maran and Stockhammer2012b; Rebay-Salisbury Reference Rebay-Salisbury, Roberts and Linden2011). Early interest in the mobility and movement of people also had an impact on the definition of ‘culture’ in GSA (Veit Reference Veit1984; Reference Veit and Härke2000a). 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 Reference Eggert1978; Hachmann Reference Hachmann1987; Narr Reference Narr and der Wissenschaften1985) and gained momentum from the 1990s (e.g. Angeli Reference Angeli2002; Eggert Reference Eggert and Veit2013; Fröhlich Reference Fröhlich2000; Sommer Reference Sommer, Rieckhoff and Sommer2007; Wotzka Reference Wotzka1993; Reference Wotzka1997). Nowadays, different notions of ‘culture’ exist in GSA, ranging from a reductionist notion of ‘material culture’ via semiotic approaches (e.g. Veit et al. Reference Veit, Kienlin, Kümmel and Schmidt2003; U. Müller Reference Müller2006; Hofmann Reference Hofmann2008) to the understanding of culture as compromise after Andreas Wimmer (Reference Wimmer1996; Reference Wimmer, Albert and Sigmund2011; e.g. Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Hofmann, Kamp and Wemhoff2014a, 28; Schreiber Reference Schreiber2013, 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 Reference Friesinger and Stuppner2004; Kienlin Reference Kienlin and Kienlin2015a; Kümmel Reference Kümmel2001; Maran Reference Maran, Fansa and Burmeister2004a; Reference Maran, Fansa and Burmeister2004b; Reference Maran, Galanaki, Tomas, Galanakis and Laffineur2007; Reference Maran, Wilkinson, Sherratt and Bennet2011b) – both very vibrant in contemporaneous anglophone archaeology.Footnote 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 Reference Andresen2004; Burmeister Reference Burmeister2000a; Reference Burmeister, Kaiser and Schier2013a; Jockenhövel Reference Jockenhövel1991; Reference Jockenhövel, Rieckhoff and Sommer2007; Kaiser and Schier Reference Schier, Kaiser and Schier2013; Koch Reference Koch, Meller and Alt2010; Prien Reference Prien2005). This was most important, as human mobility and migration had always been considered crucial factors for culture change in GSA (cf. Burmeister Reference Burmeister, Eggert and Veit2013b; Härke Reference Härke1997).

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 Reference Brandt2001; Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Hofmann, Kamp and Wemhoff2014a; Horejs Reference Horejs, Galanaki, Tomas, Galanakis and Laffineur2007; Kistler Reference Kistler and Kienlin2015). 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 Reference Kistler, Ulf, Ulf and Hochhauser2012). So-called ‘cultural-transfer research’ (Espagne and Werner Reference Espagne and Werner1988; Mitterbauer and Scherke Reference Mitterbauer and Scherke2005) has been proposed, which focuses strongly on individual actors’ roles in situations of cultural encounter (Klammt and Rossignol Reference Klammt and Rossignol2009).

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 Reference Stockhammer and Stockhammer2012a; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2011c; Reference Stockhammer2012d). 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 Reference Maran, Wilkinson, Sherratt and Bennet2011b; Reference Maran and Stockhammer2012b; Theel Reference Theel, Grunwald, Koch, Mölders, Sommer and Wolfram2009; Hofmann and Stockhammer forthcoming), as well as ‘hybridity’, ‘appropriation’, ‘copying’ and ‘entanglement’Footnote ¹⁵ (Schreiber Reference Schreiber, Göbel and Zech2011; Reference Schreiber2013; Forberg and Stockhammer forthcoming; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer and Stockhammer2012a; Reference Stockhammer2012b; Reference Stockhammer2012d). 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 Reference Hofmann, Hofmann, Kamp and Wemhoff2014a; Meyer Reference Meyer2008; Schörner Reference Schörner2005) in order to avoid the creation of ever new and at the same time very short-lived terminologies (cf. Bintliff's Reference Bintliff, Bintliff and Pearce2011a, 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 Reference Hofmann, Hofmann, Kamp and Wemhoff2014a; Maran Reference Maran2011a; Reference Maran, Wilkinson, Sherratt and Bennet2011b; Reference Maran, Hahn and Weis2013; Maran and Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2012b; Rüden Reference Rüden2011; Reference Rüden, Brown and Feldman2013; Reference Rüden, Cappel, Günkel-Maschek and Panagiotopoulos2015; Schreiber Reference Schreiber2013; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer, Gauss, Lindblom, Smith and Wright2011a; Reference Stockhammer2012c; Reference Stockhammer2012d; Reference Stockhammer and van Pelt2013).

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 Reference Stockhammer2012b; 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 Reference Stockhammer and Stockhammer2012e; Reference Stockhammer and van Pelt2013). 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.Footnote 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 Reference Eisenhauer1999; Reference Eisenhauer2002; Strahm Reference Strahm1994). Since then, archaeologists have further developed models of social continuity and change (Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Bérenger, Bourgeois, Talon and Wirth2012b; Knopf Reference Knopf2002; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2008, 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 Reference Benz2000; Gronenborn and Petrasch Reference Gronenborn and Petrasch2010; Kienlin Reference Kienlin2006; Scharl Reference Scharl2004). Andrew Sherratt's (Reference Sherratt, Hodder, Isaac and Hammond1981) 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 Reference Burmeister, Hansen and Müller2011; Reference Burmeister, Kaiser and Schier2013a; Maran Reference Maran, Fansa and Burmeister2004a; Reference Maran, Fansa and Burmeister2004b). Furthermore, there has been growing interest in exploring the breeding of woolly sheep and related practices as a bundle of innovation (Becker et al. Reference Becker, Benecke, Grabundžija, Küchelmann, Pollock, Schier, Schoch, Schrakamp, Schütt, Schumacher, Graßhoff and Meyer2016), and the development of water management technologies has been viewed in a similar way (Klimscha et al. Reference Klimscha, Eichmann, Schuler and Fahlbusch2012). 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. Reference Burmeister, Hansen, Kunst and Müller-Scheeßel2013; Kienlin Reference Kienlin2008b; Reference Kienlin2010; Klimscha Reference Klimscha2010; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2015c; Strahm Reference Strahm, Grunwald, Koch, Mölders, Sommer and Wolfram2009). 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 Reference Hofmann2008; Reference Hofmann, Bérenger, Bourgeois, Talon and Wirth2012b) and Überausstattung (over-endowment) as a social innovation (Hansen Reference Hansen and Müller2011, 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 Reference Gramsch and Zeeb-Lanz2009; Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Bérenger, Bourgeois, Talon and Wirth2012b). Interest in the origin of innovations (e.g. Fansa and Burmeister Reference Fansa and Burmeister2004) 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. Reference Bernbeck, Kaiser, Parzinger, Pollock, Schier, Fless, Graßhoff and Meyer2011; Burmeister Reference Burmeister, Kaiser and Schier2013a; Hofmann and Patzke Reference Hofmann, Patzke, Kern, Koch, Balzer, Fries-Knoblach, Kowarik, Later, Ramsl, Trebsche and Wiethold2012; Zimmermann and Siegmund Reference Zimmermann and Siegmund2002). Innovations are now seen as processes and clusters, or networks, of knowledge and not as self-existing entities (e.g. Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel Reference Burmeister, Müller-Scheeßel, Burmeister, Hansen, Kunst and Müller-Scheeßel2013). As a consequence, the respective local ‘adaption environment’ (Meir Reference Meir, Hugill and Dickson1988) has been taken into account (e.g. Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel Reference Burmeister, Müller-Scheeßel, Burmeister, Hansen, Kunst and Müller-Scheeßel2013; Maran Reference Maran, Fansa and Burmeister2004a; Schier Reference Schier, Kaiser and Schier2013). Strategies of innovation management have been identified (Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2015c) and the unsuccessful or belated spread of innovations due to local non-interest and rejection has been studied (e.g. Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel Reference Burmeister, Müller-Scheeßel, Burmeister, Hansen, Kunst and Müller-Scheeßel2013; Kienlin Reference Kienlin2010). 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 Reference Hofmann, Bérenger, Bourgeois, Talon and Wirth2012b; Kaiser and Schier Reference Schier, Kaiser and Schier2013). 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 Reference Zimmermann, Kienlin and Zimmermann2012; Siegmund Reference Siegmund2012).

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 Reference Eggert2001, 100–21; Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Hofmann, Meier, Mölders and Schreiber2016a; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer, Böschen, Gläser and Schubert2015b) and was inspired by historiography,Footnote ¹⁷ which has always had a strong methodological influence on GSA. Of great influence were Hans Jürgen Eggers's (Reference Eggers1959, 258–62) distinction between a ‘living good’, a ‘dying good’ and a ‘dead good’,Footnote ¹⁸ Walter Torbrügge's (Reference Torbrügge1965; Reference Torbrügge1970–71) methods of crosschecking distributions maps, and more recent discussions on taphonomy (Link and Schimmelpfennig Reference Link and Schimmelpfennig2012; Orschiedt Reference Orschiedt1999; Sommer Reference Sommer, Mattheußer and Sommer1991) and traces (Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Hofmann, Meier, Mölders and Schreiber2016a; Kümmel Reference Kümmel, Veit, Kienlin, Kümmel and Schmidt2003; Reference Kümmel2009; Mante Reference Mante, Veit, Kienlin, Kümmel and Schmidt2003). 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 Reference Hofmann, Brandt and Rauchfuß2014b; Reference Hofmann, Dietz and Jockenhövel2016b; Hofmann et al. Reference Hofmann, Meier, Mölders and Schreiber2016; Holtorf and Veit Reference Holtorf and Veit2006), and the relationship between things and knowledge has been studied, inter alia, under the heading ‘object epistemologies’.Footnote 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 (Reference Veit1988; Reference Veit1993; Reference Veit1997) 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 Reference Kienlin2005; Kümmel, Schweizer and Veit Reference Kümmel, Schweizer and Veit2008; Veit et al. Reference Veit, Kienlin, Kümmel and Schmidt2003). A broad range of material evidence has been studied with regard to its symbolic meaning – be it Neolithic pottery (Furholt and Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2008; Veit Reference Veit1997; Zeeb-Lanz Reference Zeeb-Lanz, Veit, Kienlin, Kümmel and Schmidt2003; Reference Zeeb-Lanz, Burmeister and Müller-Scheeßel2006), dress (e.g. Burmeister Reference Burmeister1997; Veit Reference Veit1988), art (Bagley Reference Bagley2014; Rieckhoff Reference Rieckhoff, Veit and Wolfram2010), prestige objects and status symbols (Bagley and Schumann Reference Bagley, Schumann, Karl and Leskovar2013; Burmeister Reference Burmeister, Veit, Kienlin, Kümmel and Schmidt2003; Hildebrandt and Veit Reference Hildebrandt and Veit2009; Müller and Bernbeck Reference Müller and Bernbeck1996; Schumann Reference Schumann2014), architecture (Meier Reference Meier and Henning2002b), burials and body postures (Augstein Reference Augstein, Karl and Leskovar2009; Reference Augstein, Karl and Leskovar2013; Meier Reference Meier2002a; Müller-Scheeßel Reference Müller-Scheeßel and Kienlin2005; Reference Müller-Scheeßel, Kümmel, Schweizer and Veit2008) or even whole cemeteries (Hofmann Reference Hofmann2008). Several studies were inspired by approaches from cultural semiotics (Hofmann Reference Hofmann2008; Kümmel, Schweizer and Veit Reference Kümmel, Schweizer and Veit2008; Veit Reference Veit2005). Whereas the possibility of reconstructing past symbolic grammars is widely acknowledged, the potential of a semantic evaluation is regarded with scepticism (Hinz Reference Hinz2009; Furholt and Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2008). Only a few authors developed more reflective approaches to determine past sign contents, mostly on the structural notion of anthropological constants (e.g. Hofmann Reference Hofmann2008; Jung Reference Jung and Kienlin2005). 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 Reference Bystřina1989, 63–78; Ginzburg Reference Ginzburg, Eco and Sebeok1983; e.g. Hofmann Reference Hofmann2008; Veit et al. Reference Veit, Kienlin, Kümmel and Schmidt2003). 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 Reference Schreiber, Göbel and Zech2011; Kistler Reference Kistler and Kienlin2015; Schreiber Reference Schreiber2013; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2012d) and the changeabilities of objects themselves (Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer, Stockhammer and Hahn2015a; Reference Stockhammer, Böschen, Gläser and Schubert2015b).

Current theories of material culture have also been stimulated by empirical culture studies (cf. König Reference König, Maase and Warneken2003), which can look back on a long but rather shadowy existence even from the perspective of GSA (Fansa Reference Fansa1996; Samida and Eggert Reference Eggert and Veit2013b). 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 Reference Hahn, Probst and Spittler2004; Reference Hahn2005; Reference Hahn2007; Hahn and Soentgen Reference Hahn and Soentgen2011; Samida, Eggert and Hahn Reference Hahn, Eggert, Samida, Samida, Eggert and Hahn2014). 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,Footnote 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 Reference Schreiber, Göbel and Zech2011; Kerig Reference Kerig2008; Maran and Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2012b; Meier, Ott and Sauer Reference Meier, Ott and Sauer2015; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2011c). 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 Reference Jung, Ramminger and Lasch2012; Reference Jung, Boschung, Kienlin and Kreuz2015; pro: Schreiber Reference Schreiber, Hofmann, Meier, Mölders and Schreiber2016), whether agency has to be redefined in this case (e.g. agency dissolved from the notion of intentionality; cf. Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2012d) and how to approach the possibility that from one emic perspective objects could have acted intentionally and from another one not (Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer, Stockhammer and Hahn2015a). In order to overcome the problem of ‘agency’, several solutions have been presented: some scholars have appropriated James J. Gibson's (Reference Gibson1979) notion of ‘affordance’ (Hofmann and Schreiber Reference Schreiber, Göbel and Zech2011; Keßeler Reference Keßeler, Hofmann, Meier, Mölders and Schreiber2016). Following Max Weber and Ulrich Oevermann's objective hermeneutics, Matthias Jung (Reference Jung, Veit, Kienlin, Kümmel and Schmidt2003; Reference Jung, Boschung, Kienlin and Kreuz2015) 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 Reference Stockhammer, Stockhammer and Hahn2015a). 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 Reference Samida, Eggert and Hahn2014, 2–3; Hofmann and Schreiber Reference Hofmann, Schreiber, Mölders and Wolfram2014).Footnote 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 Reference Lemonnier1992) and tacit knowing (Polanyi Reference Polanyi1966; e.g. Kienlin Reference Kienlin and Yalcin2011; Reference Kienlin, Roberts and Thornton2014; Rüden Reference Rüden, Cappel, Günkel-Maschek and Panagiotopoulos2015). Furthermore, the interaction between different chaînes opératoires in the sense of cross-craft interactions has been studied (Brysbaert and Vetters Reference Brysbaert and Vetters2010). 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 Reference Stockhammer, Stockhammer and Hahn2015a).

In line with this thought, the notion of object biographies has been finding more and more interest (e.g. Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Boschung, Kienlin and Kreuz2015; Krmnicek Reference Krmnicek, von Kaenel and Kemmers2009) and several studies have evaluated the epistemological potential of such an approach by studying the biography of particular objects (e.g. Holtorf Reference Holtorf2002; Kienlin and Kreuz Reference Kienlin, Kreuz, Boschung, Kienlin and Kreuz2015), types of object (e.g. Bagley Reference Bagley, Stockhammer and Hahn2015; Kistler Reference Kistler and Rollinger2010; Maran Reference Maran, Hahn and Weis2013; Metzner-Nebelsick and Nebelsick Reference Metzner-Nebelsick and Nebelsick1999) or monuments (e.g. Holtorf Reference Holtdorf2000–8; Mischka Reference Mischka, Furholt, Lüth and Müller2011). 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 Reference Boschung, Kienlin and Kreuz2015; Hahn and Weiss Reference Hahn and Weis2013). 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 Reference Bernbeck, Hildebrandt and Veit2009b; Hansen, Neumann and Vachta Reference Hansen, Neumann and Vachta2016; Kienlin and Kreuz Reference Kienlin, Kreuz, Boschung, Kienlin and Kreuz2015). Based on Arjun Appadurai's (Reference Appadurai1986; Reference Appadurai and Fox1991) writings, an archaeology of consumption has been postulated (Scholz Reference Scholz2012; Schreiber Reference Schreiber, Göbel and Zech2011).

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 Reference Fansa and Wolfram2003; Sommer Reference Sommer and Schmidt1998), roughly contemporaneously with the idea of understanding rubbish as a means of cultural memory and of achieving unique insights into past human practices (Assmann Reference Assmann, Böhme and Scherpe1996; Schmidt Reference Schmidt and Kienlin2005; Veit Reference Veit2005–6).

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.