Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:40:38.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From deconstruction to interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Kristian Kristiansen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hofmann and Stockhammer provide an exhaustive and informative overview of German-speaking archaeology (GSA) seen through a set of theoretical lenses that, as they readily admit, may leave other equally important trends in the dark. I shall therefore provide a slightly different perspective, and highlight some interpretive trends that received less coverage in their exposition. Again, it is based on my selective reading of German archaeology, which includes only part of the bibliography of Hofmann and Stockhammer, but then some other works as well. In conclusion I shall discuss what I consider one of the major obstacles for GSA to reach theoretical maturity and a wider international impact.

Type
Discussion
Information
Archaeological Dialogues , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , June 2017 , pp. 41 - 44
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

Allentoft, M.E., et al., (2015): Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia, Nature 522, 167–72.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., 2010: Image and audience. Rethinking prehistoric art, Oxford.Google Scholar
Burmeister, S., 2013a: Migration – Innovation – Kulturwandel. Aktuelle Problemfelder archäologischer Investigation, in Kaiser, E. and Schier, W. (eds), Mobilität und Wissenstransfer in diachroner und interdisziplinärer Perspektive, Berlin (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 9), 35–58.Google Scholar
Burmeister, S., 2013b: Migration und Ethnizität. Zur Konzeptualisierung von Mobilität und Identität, in Eggert, M.K.H. and Veit, U. (eds), Theorie in der Archäologie. Zur jüngeren Diskussion in Deutschland, Münster (TAT 10), 229–67.Google Scholar
Endrigkeit, A., 2014: Älter- und mittelbronzezeitliche Bestattungen zwischen nordischem Kreis und süddeutscher Hügelgräberkultur, Bonn (Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung 6).Google Scholar
Furholt, M., 2011: Polythetic classification and measures of similarity in material culture. A quantitative approach to Baden Complex material, Analecta archaeologica ressoviensis 4, 225–63.Google Scholar
Furholt, M., Lüth, F. and Müller, J. (eds), 2011: Megaliths and identities. Early monuments and Neolithic societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic, Bonn (Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung 1).Google Scholar
Haak, W., et al., (2015). Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European language in Europe. Nature 522, 207–11.Google Scholar
Hansen, S., and Müller, J. (eds), 2011: Sozialarchäologische Perspektiven. Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 5000–1500 v. Chr. zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus, Mainz (Archäologie in Eurasien 24).Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., Meier, T., Mölders, D. and Schreiber, S. (eds), 2016, Massendinghaltung in der Archäologie. Der material turn und die Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Leiden.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T.L., 2012: Patterns of change, or: perceptions deceived? Comments on the interpretation of late Neolithic and Bronze Age tell settlements in the Carpathians, in Kienlin, T.L. and Zimmerman, A. (eds), Beyond elites. Alternatives to hierarchial systems in modelling social formations, Vol. 1, Bonn (UPA 215), 251–310.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T.L., 2015a: All heroes in their armour bright and shining? Comments on the Bronze Age ‘other’, in Kienlin, T.L. (ed.), Fremdheit – Perspektiven auf das Andere, Bonn (Cologne Contributions to Archaeology and Cultural Studies 1/UPA 264), 153–93.Google Scholar
Knipper, C., Meyer, C., Jacobi, F., Roth, C., Fecher, M., Stephan, E., Schatz, K., Hansen, L., Posluschny, A., Höppner, B., Maus, M., Pare, C.C.E. and Alt, K., 2014: Social differentiation and land use at an Early Iron Age ‘princely seat’: bioarchaeological investigations at the Glauberg (Germany). Journal of archaeological science 41, 818–35.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., 2015: Towards a new paradigm? The third science revolution and its possible consequences in archaeology, Current Swedish archaeology 22, 11–34.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., and Earle, T., 2015: Neolithic versus Bronze Age social formations. A political economy approach, in Kristiansen, K., Smedja, L. and Turek, J. (eds), Paradigm found. Archaeological theory – present, past and future. Essays in honour of Evzen Neustupny, Oxford, 234–47.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., and Larsson, T.B., 2005: The Rise of Bronze Age society. Travels, transmissions and transformations, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Maran, J., and Stockhammer, P.W. (eds), 2012b: Materiality and social practice. Transformative capacities of intercultural encounters, Oxford and Oakville, CT.Google Scholar
Mathieson, I. et al., 2015 Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians. Nature 528, 499–503.Google Scholar
Meller, H., Bertemes, F., Bork, H.-R. and Risch, R. (eds), 2013: 1600. Kultureller Umbruch im Schatten des Thera-Ausbruchs?, Halle/Saale (Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 9).Google Scholar
Meyer, C., Ganslmeier, R., Dresely, V., and Alt, K.W., 2012: New approaches to the reconstruction of kinship and social structure based on bioarchaeological analysis of Neolithic multiple and collective graves, in Kolář, J. and Trampota, F. (eds), Theoretical and methodological considerations in Central European Neolithic archaeology, Oxford (BAR International Series 2325), 11–23.Google Scholar
Müller, J., 2015: Eight million Europeans: Social demography and social archaeology on the scope of change – from the Near East to Scandinavia, in Kristiansen, K., Smedja, L. and Turek, J. (eds), Paradigm found. Archaeological theory – present, past and future. Essays in honour of Evzen Neustupny, Oxford, 200–14.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W. (ed.), 2012b: Conceptualizing cultural hybridization. A transdisciplinary approach, Berlin and Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., and Hahn, H.P. (eds), 2015: Lost in things. Fragen an die Welt des Materiellen, ihre Funktionen und Bedeutungen, Münster (TAT 12).Google Scholar
Tilley, C., 1999: Metaphor and material culture, London.Google Scholar