Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ph5wq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-19T01:11:08.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Discussion Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017

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 Reference Gramsch and Sommer2011; Gramsch Reference Gramsch and Sommer2011), 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.Footnote 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.Footnote 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 Reference Sommer2000b).Footnote 3

Our understanding of ‘theory’ in archaeology is a very broad one (cf. Gramsch Reference Gramsch and Sommer2011; Johnson Reference Johnson2006; Veit Reference Veit, Aslan, Blum, Kastl, Schweizer and Thumm2002a), 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 Reference Ziegert1980) that even cuts across major theoretical schools established in British archaeology. As a consequence, our approach is similar to Michelle Hegmon's (Reference Hegmon2003) 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 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

Wir lesen im Raum die Zeit

(In space we read time)

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.

Conclusion and further perspectives

In a recently published paper on migration and ethnicity, Stefan Burmeister (Reference Burmeister, Eggert and Veit2013b, 258–59) stated that German-speaking archaeologists are neither problem-solvers in the sense of Karl Popper (Reference Popper2001) nor puzzle-solvers in the sense of Thomas Kuhn (Reference Kuhn1962). 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.Footnote 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.Footnote 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,Footnote 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.Footnote 25 Moreover, a debate has started about scales and their conceptualization in a more dynamic and dialectic way (cf. Clifford Reference Clifford, Grossberg, Nelson and Treichler1992). 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.Footnote 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 Reference Bintliff, Bintliff and Pearce2011a; Gardner Reference Gardner2013; Johnson Reference Johnson2006), 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 Reference Hirschauer, Kalthoff, Hirschauer and Lindemann2008). 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.

Acknowledgements

First of all, we would like to thank Martin Furholt for inviting us to review the current state of theories in German-speaking archaeology. The respective research of Kerstin P. Hofmann has been financed by the Topoi cluster of excellence at the Freie Universität Berlin. Philipp W. Stockhammer's research has been financed by the BEFIM: Bedeutungen und Funktionen mediterraner Importe im früheisenzeitlichen Mitteleuropa collaborative project. Svend Hansen, Thomas Meier and Michael Meyer kindly supported our research by giving us information about research projects and access to so-far unpublished manuscripts. Moreover, we are very thankful to Joseph Maran, Stefan Schreiber, Sabine Rieckhoff and Brigitte Röder for most important and inspiring comments on a first draft of our article. The critical comments of two reviewers and the editorial board also helped us very much to improve our article.

Footnotes

1 We have witnessed a growing internationalization of archaeology in recent decades, which went hand in hand with the establishment of English as lingua franca also in archaeology. At the same time, publications in other languages than English have found less and less of an audience. Language competence beyond English constitutes an increasingly important obstacle.

2 In some cases, we also included scholars who have made important contributions to the academic discourse in prehistoric archaeology but who are based in neighbouring disciplines, e.g. Matthias Jung, Erich Kistler and Beat Schweizer.

3 It is beyond the aims of our review but nevertheless most interesting to compare earlier theoretical works in GSA before the year 2000 with the situation after 2000, and we have also not considered the dialectics between German-speaking scholars in exile and those who are still part of GSA. It would also have been interesting to track the developments of the theoretical works of German-speaking scholars after they left German-speaking academia. We must not forget that there is a considerable number of archaeologists with a German-speaking background who, due to their interest in and work on theoretical issues, left German-speaking academia and took positions in anglophone or Scandinavian countries – e.g. (in alphabetical order) Bettina Arnold, Reinhard Bernbeck (Near Eastern archaeologist, but with a strong interest in global archaeology and therefore also prehistoric archaeology), Peter F. Biehl, Heinrich Härke, Cornelius Holtorf, Raimund Karl, Tim Kerig, Martin Porr, Katharina Rebay-Salisbury, Almut Schülke, Ulrike Sommer. Meanwhile Bernbeck, Kerig and Rebay-Salisbury returned to academic positions in Germany or Austria.

4 All societies promoting theoretical debates in GSA were founded by young archaeologists who felt uncomfortable with the academic establishment. For example, the DGUF, the German Society of Pre- and Protohistory (www.dguf.de) in 1969 (Banghard Reference Banghard2015; Eckert Reference Eckert2002); the Unkeler Kreis in 1983 (Härke Reference Härke1989), which was then the basis of T-AG Germany founded in 1990 (Wolfram et al. Reference Wolfram, Jacobs, Schmidt, Träger and Jakobs1991; Wolfram Reference Wolfram and Härke2000, 193–95), now AG TidA (www.agtida.de); and FemArc, the Network of Archaeologically Working Women in 1991 (www.femarc.de; see further www.archaeology-gender-europe.org) (Mertens Reference Mertens2002). The founders of these societies argued for an alternative research agenda which also led to the association of theoretical interest with anti-establishment politics.

5 Especially relevant are the following priority programmes and collaborative research centres: SPP 190, Kelten, Germanen, Römer im Mittelgebirgsraum zwischen Luxemburg und Thüringen: Archäologische und naturwissenschaftliche Forschungen zum Kulturwandel unter der Einwirkung Roms in den Jahrhunderten um Christi Geburt, 1993–2000 (cf. Krausse Reference Krausse1996b); SPP 1171, Frühe Zentralisierungs- und Urbanisierungsprozesse: Zur Genese und Entwicklung ‘frühkeltischer Fürstensitze’ und ihres territorialen Umlandes (www.fuerstensitze.de), 2004–2010; SPP 1400, Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung (www.monument.ufg.uni-kiel.de), since 2009 (cf. Mischka Reference Mischka2012); SFB 417, Regionenbezogene Identifikationsprozesse: Das Beispiel Sachsen (www.uni-leipzig.de/~sfb417), 1999–2002; SFB 541, Identitäten und Alteritäten: Die Funktion von Alterität für die Konstitution und Konstruktion von Identität, 1997–2003; SFB 806, Unser Weg nach Europa: Kultur-Umwelt Interaktion und menschliche Mobilität im Späten Quartär (www.sfb806.uni-koeln.de), since 2009; SFB 933, Materiale Textkulturen: Materialität und Präsenz des Geschriebenen in non-typographischen Gesellschaften (www.materiale-textkulturen.de), since 2011; SFB 1070, RessourcenKulturen: Soziokulturelle Dynamiken im Umgang mit Ressourcen (www.uni-tuebingen.de/forschung/forschungsschwerpunkte/sonderforschungsbereiche/sfb-1070.html), since 2013.

6 In this line of thought, the so-called Altertumswissenschaftliche Kolleg Heidelberg was founded in 2004 with the aim of studying past societies on the basis of questions and phenomena which are crucial for present societies (www.uni-heidelberg.de/fakultaeten/philosophie/zaw/akh/zielsetzung_en.html). Its first topics from 2004 to 2005 were ‘Architecture and Society’ and ‘Globalization and Elites’.

7 This situation changed in 2015, when Katharina Rebay-Salisbury and Philipp Stockhammer were successful in acquiring ERC starting grants with strongly theoretically oriented projects about practices of motherhood and the transformative power of globalization on food practices.

8 The common introductory chapter on the history of research – a prerequisite for monographs in GSA – was more like an enumeration of previous excavations and studies without commenting on (mostly implicit) epistemologies and theoretical concepts.

9 Early statements by Joachim Werner (Reference Werner1945–46) and Karl Heinz Jacob-Friesen (Reference Jacob-Friesen1950) are an exception, which were, however, not published in prominent places.

10 However, the relation between post-war archaeology in western and eastern Germany before reunification and the implications that arose from this interplay have not yet been the subject of much attention, with very few exceptions (e.g. Grunwald Reference Grunwald2010; Härke Reference Härke2000; Mante Reference Mante2007, 91–160; Struwe Reference Struwe, Díaz-Andreu and Sørensen1998). This is also true for the ex-/incorporation of former GDR archaeologists in the newly reunified state.

11 This history of research was either written by old men or in the form of obligatory introductory chapters to larger publications listing dates of discoveries and important publications.

12 See e.g. Freiburg: Beck et al. (Reference Beck, Geuenich, Hakelberg and Steuer2004), Brather (Reference Brather2004), Fehr (Reference Fehr2010b), Steuer (Reference Steuer2001); Leipzig: Link (Reference Link2011), Middell and Sommer (Reference Middell and Sommer2004), Rieckhoff and Sommer (Reference Sommer, Rieckhoff and Sommer2007), Rieckhoff, Grunwald and Reichenbach (Reference Rieckhoff, Grunwald and Reichenbach2009); AREA: Hakelberg and Wiwjorra (Reference Hakelberg and Wiwjorra2010), cf. www.area-archives.org.

13 Since the beginning of the discipline, the wish to date European prehistoric developments by linking them with historical sources very much stimulated interest in the material outcome of long-distance relations (for a critical review cf. Eggert and Wotzka Reference Eggert and Wotzka1987; Wotzka Reference Wotzka1990).

14 Cf. Brandt (Reference Brandt2001) for one of the few attempts to apply core–periphery models in GSA in order to explain sociopolitical dynamics.

15 One should note that the understandings of ‘entanglement’ in GSA differ markedly from Ian Hodder's (Reference Hodder2012) recent definition of this concept (see also below). Stockhammer's concept of entanglement focuses on the transformations of humans, things and the relation between them in contexts of cultural encounter, thereby integrating approaches from transcultural and material-culture studies.

16 One may add the recently initiated BEFIM: Meanings and Functions of Mediterranean Imports in Early Celtic Central Europe collaborative research project (www.befim.de), which aims at understanding the transformative power of encounters with foreign objects with the help of archaeometric and contextual analyses.

17 Historiographical epistemology also stimulated radical constructivist perspectives in GSA (Holtorf Reference Holtorf, Ebeling and Altekamp2004; Karl Reference Karl, Karl and Leskovar2005; Meier Reference Meier2012).

18 These were later renamed by Manfred K.H. Eggert as ‘living culture’, ‘dead culture’ and ‘recovered culture’. While ‘living culture’ comprises the sum of past cultural existences, ‘dead culture’ refers only to the section which has been preserved until today. It is only the ‘dead culture’ that can be found by archaeologists, and thus transformed into ‘recovered culture’ (Eggert Reference Eggert2001, 112–14).

19 See e.g. Hilgert (Reference Hilgert2015) and the Objektepistemologien: Zum Verhältnis von Dingen und Wissen in ‘multiplen Vergangenheiten’ workshop (http://berliner-antike-kolleg.org/event/objektepistemologien-zum-verhaltnis-von-dingen-und-wissen-in-multiplen-vergangenheiten), which took place in July 2015 at the Berliner Antike-Kolleg.

20 As mentioned above, the understandings of ‘entanglement’ in GSA differ from Ian Hodder's (Reference Hodder2012) recent definition. Hodder's ‘entanglement’ and its related conceptual framework have been criticized due to their evolutionist and deterministic message (Pollock et al. Reference Pollock, Bernbeck, Jauß, Greger, von Rüden and Schreiber2014). For an alternative narratological approach see Hofmann (Reference Hofmann, Boschung, Kienlin and Kreuz2015). In order to emphasize the unpredictability and flexibility of this relation, Hofmann and Schreiber (Reference Schreiber, Göbel and Zech2011) speak of the ‘interplay between humans and things’.

21 In colloquial German, Ding (thing) is often used in a pejorative way in order to express a lack of interest or the low value of a particular object. In addition – and in contrast to anglophone archaeology – GSA has a very ambivalent perception of Heidegger due to his active role in Nazi Germany (see Eggert Reference Eggert2011, 229; Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Hofmann, Meier, Mölders and Schreiber2016a, 285; Sommer Reference Sommer2000a). Moreover, several scholars have critically reviewed the relevance of early ‘thing theory’ in German philosophy of the 19th and 20th centuries (Hahn, Eggert and Samida Reference Samida, Eggert and Hahn2014, 5, 10; Jung Reference Jung, Hofmann, Meier, Mölders and Schreiber2016).

22 As a positive consequence, conceptual studies of GSA have also been taken into account by scholars of globalization studies (e.g. Ritzer and Dean Reference Ritzer and Dean2015, 215, 234).

23 For a critical reaction against right-wing activists of prehistory cf. Mölders and Hoppadietz (Reference Mölders and Hoppadietz2007) and Albrecht Jockenhövel's very prominent statement, the ‘Mannheimer Erklärung’ (www.uni-muenster.de/UrFruehGeschichte/aktuelles/mannheimererklaerung.html), against the enmeshment of enactment and nationalist ideology.

24 For a first starting point cf. Reinhold and Hofmann (Reference Hofmann, Schreiber, Mölders and Wolfram2014). The newly funded Center of the Einstein Foundation, ‘Chronoi’, investigating time and time consciousness, will further stimulate this discussion.

25 Cf. Claßen and Schön (Reference Claßen and Schön2014), Samida and Eggert (Reference Eggert and Veit2013a), Wiwjorra (Reference Wiwjorra, Puschner and Großmann2009), www.genetic-history.com; see also the articles in Medieval worlds 4: The genetic challenge to medieval history and archaeology (2016), at www.medievalworlds.net.

References

Allinger, K., 2007: Genderspezifische Aspekte des früheisenzeitlichen Symbolsystems, in Birkhan, H. (ed.), Kelten-Einfälle an der Donau, Vienna (ÖAW, Phil.-Hist. Klasse Denkschriften 345), 128.Google Scholar
Alt, K.W., and Röder, B., 2009: Das biologische Geschlecht ist nur die halbe Wahrheit. Der steinige Weg zu einer anthropologischen Geschlechterforschung, in Rambuscheck, U. (ed.), Zwischen Diskursanalyse und Isotopenforschung. Methoden der archäologischen Geschlechterforschung, Münster (Frauen–Forschung–Archäologie 8), 85129.Google Scholar
Andresen, M., 1997: Zur Geschichte der anthropologischen Wissenschaften in den fünfziger Jahren. Ein Beitrag zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der prähistorischen Archäologie, Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 2, 343–53.Google Scholar
Andresen, M., 2004: Studien zur Geschichte und Methodik der archäologischen Migrationsforschung, Münster (Internationale Hochschulschriften 373).Google Scholar
Angeli, W., 1999: Erklären und Verstehen. Die Frage einer archäologischen Hermeneutik, Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, Serie A, 101, 122.Google Scholar
Angeli, W., 2002: Die archäologische Kultur, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 132, 153–74.Google Scholar
Angeli, W., 2003: Urgeschichte als Geschichtswissenschaft, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 133, 4755.Google Scholar
Appadurai, A. (ed.), 1986: The social life of things. Commodities in cultural perspective, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appadurai, A., 1991: Global ethnoscapes. Notes and queries for a transnational anthropology, in Fox, R.G. (ed.), Recapturing anthropology. Working in the present, Santa Fe, 191210.Google Scholar
Assmann, A., 1996: Texte, Spuren, Abfall. Die wechselnden Medien des kulturellen Gedächtnisses, in Böhme, H. and Scherpe, K.R. (eds), Literatur und Kulturwissenschaften, Reinbek bei Hamburg, 96111.Google Scholar
Auffermann, B., and Weniger, G.-C. (eds), 1998: Frauen – Zeiten – Spuren, Mettmann.Google Scholar
Augstein, M., 2009: Der Körper als Zeichen? Deutungsmöglichkeiten von Körperinszenierungen im hallstattzeitlichen Bestattungsritual, in Karl, R. and Leskovar, J. (eds), Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie, Linz (Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 22), 1125.Google Scholar
Augstein, M., 2013: Gräber – Orte der Lebenden und der Toten. Medien der Kommunikation, in Karl, R. and Leskovar, J. (eds), Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie, Linz (Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 37), 107–22.Google Scholar
Bachmann-Medick, D., 2016: Cultural turns. New orientations in the study of culture, Berlin.Google Scholar
Bagley, J.M., 2014: Zwischen Kommunikation und Distinktion. Ansätze zur Rekonstruktion frühlatènezeitlicher Bildpraxis, Rahden/Westfalen (Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 25).Google Scholar
Bagley, J.M., 2015: Werkzeug, Prestigemarker, Kultobjekt und Ausstellungsstück. Neolithische Steinbeile und -äxte im Wandel der Zeit, in Stockhammer, P.W. and Hahn, H.P. (eds), Lost in things. Fragen an die Welt des Materiellen, ihre Funktionen und Bedeutungen, Münster (TAT 12), 193209.Google Scholar
Bagley, J.M., and Schumann, R. 2013: Materialized prestige. Remarks on the archaeological research of social distinction based on case studies of the late Hallstatt golden necklaces and early La Tène Maskenfibeln, in Karl, R. and Leskovar, J. (eds), Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie, Linz (Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 37), 123–36.Google Scholar
Ballmer, A., 2010: Zur Topologie des bronzezeitlichen Deponierens. Von der Handlungstheorie zur Raumanalyse, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 85, 120–31.Google Scholar
Banghard, K., 2015: Die DGUF-Gründung 1969 als Reaktion auf den extrem rechten Kulturkampf, Archäologische Informationen 38, 433–52.Google Scholar
Beck, H., Geuenich, D., Hakelberg, D. and Steuer, H. (eds), 2004: Zur Geschichte der Gleichung ‘germanisch–deutsch’. Sprache und Namen, Geschichte und Institutionen, Berlin (Ergänzungsbände RGA 34).Google Scholar
Becker, C, Benecke, N., Grabundžija, A., Küchelmann, H.-C., Pollock, S., Schier, W., Schoch, C., Schrakamp, I., Schütt, B. and Schumacher, M., 2016: The textile revolution. Research into the origin and spread of wool production between the Near East and Central Europe, in Graßhoff, G. and Meyer, M. (eds), Space and Knowledge. Topoi Research Group Articles, Berlin (eTopoi, Journal for ancient studies, special issue 6), 102–51, available at http://journal.topoi.org/index.php/etopoi/article/view/253/261.Google Scholar
Beilke-Voigt, I., 2008: Kindergräber in frühgeschichtlichen Hausbefunden Norddeutschlands und Dänemarks. Bauopfer oder Bestattungen?, in Kümmel, C., Schweizer, B. and Veit, U. (eds), Körperinszenierung – Objektsammlung – Monumentalisierung. Totenritual und Grabkult in frühen Gesellschaften. Archäologische Quellen in kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive, Münster (TAT 6), 537–62.Google Scholar
Benz, M., 2000: Die Neolithisierung im vorderen Orient. Theorien, archäologische Daten und ein ethnologisches Modell, Berlin (Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence and Environment 7).Google Scholar
Bergmann-Kickenberg, S., Kästner, S. and Mertens, E.-M. (eds), 2004: Göttinnen, Gräberinnen und gelehrte Frauen, Münster (Frauen – Forschung – Archäologie 5).Google Scholar
Bernbeck, R., 1997: Theorien in der Archäologie, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Bernbeck, R., 2008: Sex/gender/power and Sammuramat. A view from the Syrian steppe, in Bonatz, D., Czichon, R.M. and Kreppner, F.J. (eds), Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altvorderasiens ad honorem Hartmut Kühne, Wiesbaden, 351–69.Google Scholar
Bernbeck, R., 2009b: Wertschöpfungstheorien von Marx und Mauss zu Baudrillard und Bourdieu, in Hildebrandt, B. and Veit, C. (eds), Der Wert der Dinge. Güter im Prestigediskurs, Munich, 2971.Google Scholar
Bernbeck, R., 2012: Multitudes before sovereignty. Theoretical reflections and a Late Neolithic case, in Kienlin, T.L. and Zimmermann, A. (eds), Beyond elites. Alternatives to hierarchical systems in modelling social formations, Vol. 1, Bonn (UPA 215), 147–67.Google Scholar
Bernbeck, R., Kaiser, E., Parzinger, H., Pollock, S. and Schier, W., 2011: A-II. Spatial effects of technological innovations and changing ways of life, in Fless, F., Graßhoff, G. and Meyer, M. (eds), Reports of the research groups at the Topoi plenary session 2010, Berlin (eTopoi, Journal for ancient studies, special volume 1), available at http://journal.topoi.org/index.php/etopoi/article/view/6.Google Scholar
Bierbrauer, V., 2004: Zur ethnischen Interpretation in der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, in Pohl, W. (ed.), Die Suche nach den Ursprüngen. Von der Bedeutung des frühen Mittelalters, Vienna (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 8), 4584.Google Scholar
Bintliff, J.L., 2011a: The death of archaeological theory?, in Bintliff, J. and Pearce, Mark (eds), The death of archaeological theory?, Oxford, 722.Google Scholar
Blanton, R.E., Feinman, G.M., Kowalewski, S.A. and Peregrine, P.N., 1996: A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization, Current anthropology 37 (1), 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boschung, D., Kienlin, T. and Kreuz, P.A. (eds), 2015: Biography of objects. Aspekte eines kulturhistorischen Konzepts, Munich (Morphomata 31).Google Scholar
Brandt, H., 1996: Frauen- und feministische Forschung in der Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 37, 5985.Google Scholar
Brandt, J., 2001: Jastorf und Latène. Kultureller Austausch und seine Auswirkungen auf soziopolitische Entwicklungen in der vorrömischen Eisenzeit, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie 66).Google Scholar
Brather, S., 2000: Ethnische Identitäten als Konstrukte der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie, Germania 78 (1), 139–77.Google Scholar
Brather, S., 2004: Ethnische Interpretationen in der frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie. Geschichte, Grundlagen und Alternativen, Berlin (Ergänzungsbände RGA 42).Google Scholar
Brather, S., 2005: Entwicklungen der Siedlungsarchäologie. Auf dem Weg zu einer umfassenden Umwelt- und Landschaftsarchäologie?, Siedlungsforschung. Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie 24, 5197.Google Scholar
Brather, S., 2007: Von der ‘Tracht’ zur ‘Kleidung’. Neue Fragestellungen und Konzepte in der Archäologie des Mittelalters, Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 35, 185206.Google Scholar
Brather, S., 2010: Bestattungen und Identitäten. Gruppierungen innerhalb frühmittelalterlicher Gesellschaften, in Pohl, W. and Mehofer, M. (eds), Archaeology of identity. Archäologie der Identität, Vienna (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 17), 2549.Google Scholar
Brather, S., 2014: Archäolgische Kultur und historische Interpretation. Zwischen Raumklassifikation und Raumanalyse, in Brandt, J. and Rauchfuß, B. (eds), Das Jastorf-Konzept und die vorrömische Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitteleuropa, Hamburg (Veröffentlichungen des Archäologischen Museums Hamburg 105), 1934.Google Scholar
Brather, S., and Wotzka, H.-P., 2006: Alemannen und Franken? Bestattungsmodi, ethnische Identitäten und wirtschaftliche Verhältnisse zur Merowingerzeit, in Burmeister, S. and Müller-Scheeßel, N. (eds), Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Identitäten in der prähistorischen Archäologie, Münster (TAT 5), 139224.Google Scholar
Brück, J., 2005: Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory, Archaeological dialogues 12 (1), 4572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, A., and Vetters, M., 2010: Practicing identity. A crafty ideal?, Mediterranean archaeology and archaeometry 10 (2), 2543.Google Scholar
Burmeister, S., 1997: Zum sozialen Gebrauch von Tracht. Aussagemöglichkeiten hinsichtlich des Nachweises von Migrationen, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 38, 177203.Google Scholar
Burmeister, S., 2000a: Archaeology and migration. Approaches to an archaeological proof of migration, Current anthropology 41, 539–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burmeister, S., 2000b: Geschlecht, Alter und Herrschaft in der Späthallstattzeit Württembergs, Münster (Tübinger Schriften zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 4).Google Scholar
Burmeister, S., 2003: Die Herren der Ringe. Annäherung an ein späthallstattzeitliches Statussymbol, in Veit, U., Kienlin, T.L., Kümmel, C. and Schmidt, S. (eds), Spuren und Botschaften. Interpretationen materieller Kultur, Münster (TAT 4), 265–96.Google Scholar
Burmeister, S., 2005: Einführung. ‘Die Archäologie in der Krise? Grundfragen der Urgeschichtsforschung. 76 Jahre nach Jacob-Friesen’, Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 10, 152–66.Google Scholar
Burmeister, S., 2011: Innovationswege – Wege der Kommunikation. Erkenntnisprobleme am Beispiel des Wagens im 4. Jt. v. Chr., in Hansen, S. and Müller, J. (eds), Sozialarchäologische Perspektiven. Gesellschaftlicher Wandel 5000–1500 v. Chr. zwischen Atlantik und Kaukasus, Mainz, 211–40.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), 3558.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
Burmeister, S., Hansen, S., Kunst, M. and Müller-Scheeßel, N. (eds), 2013: Metal matters. Innovative technologies and social change in prehistory and antiquity, Rahden/Westfalen (Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 12).Google Scholar
Burmeister, S., and Müller-Scheeßel, N., 2013: Innovation as a multi-faceted social process. An outline, in Burmeister, S., Hansen, S., Kunst, M. and Müller-Scheeßel, N. (eds), Metal matters. Innovative technologies and social change in prehistory and antiquity, Rahden/Westfalen (Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 12), 111.Google Scholar
Burmeister, S., and Wendowski-Schünemann, A., 2006: Der ‘Herrenhof’ der Feddersen Wierde. Anmerkungen zu einem sozialgeschichtlichen Konzept, in Wotzka, H.-P. (ed.), Grundlegungen. Beiträge zur europäischen und afrikanischen Archäologie für Manfred K.H. Eggert, Tübingen, 109–31.Google Scholar
Burmeister, S., and Wendowski-Schünemann, A., 2010: Werner Haarnagel und der ‘Herrenhof’ der Feddersen Wierde. Anmerkungen zu einem sozialtopographischen Konzept, Siedlungs- und Küstenforschung im südlichen Nordseegebiet 33, 3552.Google Scholar
Bystřina, I., 1989: Semiotik der Kultur. Zeichen – Texte – Codes, Tübingen (Probleme Semiotik 5).Google Scholar
Callmer, J., Meyer, M., Struwe, R. and Theune, C. (eds), 2006: Die Anfänge der ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie als akademisches Fach (1890–1930) im europäischen Vergleich, Rahden/Westfalen (Berliner Archäologische Forschungen 2).Google Scholar
Carnap-Bornheim, C. von, Krausse, D. and Wesse, A. (eds), 2006: Herrschaft, Tod, Bestattung. Zu den vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Prunkgräbern als archäologisch-historische Quelle, Bonn (UPA 139).Google Scholar
Claßen, E., 2009: Settlement history, land use and social networks of Early Neolithic communities in Western Germany, in Hofmann, D. and Bickle, P. (eds), Creating communities. New advances in Central European Neolithic research, Oxford, 95110.Google Scholar
Claßen, E., 2011: Siedlungen der Bandkeramik bei Königshoven, Darmstadt (Rheinische Ausgrabungen 64).Google Scholar
Claßen, E., and Schön, W., 2014: Die DGUF-Tagung 2013. ‘Archäologie und Paläogenetik’ – eine Einführung, Archäologische Informationen 37, 78.Google Scholar
Clifford, J., 1992: Traveling cultures, in Grossberg, L., Nelson, C. and Treichler, P.A. (eds), Cultural studies, New York, 96116.Google Scholar
Coblenz, W., 1998: Bemerkungen zur ostdeutschen Archäologie zwischen 1945 und 1990, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 39 (4), 529–61.Google Scholar
Coblenz, W., 2000: Archaeology under communist control. The German Democratic Republic, 1945–1990, in Härke, H. (ed.), Archaeology, ideology, and society. The German experience, Frankfurt am Main (Gesellschaften und Staaten im Epochenwandel 7), 304–38.Google Scholar
Daim, F., Gronenborn, D. and Schreg, R. (eds), 2011: Strategien zum Überleben. Umweltkrisen und ihre Bewältigung. Tagung des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, 19./20. September 2008 , Mainz (RGZM Tagungen 11).Google Scholar
Davidovic, A., 2009: Praktiken archäologischer Wissensproduktion. Eine kulturanthropologische Wissenschaftsforschung, Münster (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 13).Google Scholar
Derks, H., 2012: Gräber und ‘Geschlechterfragen’. Studie zu den Bestattungssitten der älteren Römischen Kaiserzeit, Bonn (Archäologische Berichte 24).Google Scholar
Dietz, U.L., and Jockenhövel, A. (eds), 2011: Bronzen im Spannungsfeld zwischen praktischer Nutzung und symbolischer Bedeutung, Stuttgart (Prähistorische Bronzefunde 20(13)).Google Scholar
Doneus, M., 2013: Die hinterlassene Landschaft. Prospektion und Interpretation in der Landschaftsarchäologie, Vienna (Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission der ÖAW, Phil.-Hist. Klasse 78).Google Scholar
Doppler, T., and Ebersbach, R., 2011: Grenzenlose Jungsteinzeit? Betrachtungen zur kulturellen Heterogenität im schweizerischen Neolithikum – ein Projektbericht, in Doppler, T., Ramminger, B. and Schimmelpfennig, D. (eds), Grenzen und Grenzräume? Beispiel aus Neolithikum und Bronzezeit. Fokus Jungsteinzeit, Kerpen-Loogh (Berichte der AG Neolithikum 2), 205–15.Google Scholar
Eberhardt, G., 2008: Methodological reflections on the history of excavation techniques, in Schlanger, N. and Nordbladh, J. (eds), Archives, ancestors, practices. Archaeology in the light of its history, New York, 8996.Google Scholar
Eberhardt, G., and Link, F. (eds), 2015: Historiographical approaches to past archaeological research, Berlin (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 32).Google Scholar
Eckert, J., 2002: Die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, der Schleswiger Kreis und der Unkeler Kreis, Archäologische Informationen 25, 1521.Google Scholar
Editorial Collective (ed.), 2012: Was ist eine kritische Archäologie?, Forum Kritische Archäologie 1, at www.kritischearchaeologie.de/repositorium/fka/Forum_Kritische_Archaeologie_2012_1.pdf.Google Scholar
Eger, C., 2011: Kleidung und Grabausstattung barbarischer Eliten im 5. Jahrhundert. Gedanken zu Philipp von Rummels ‘Habitus barbarus, Germania 89, 215–30.Google Scholar
Eger, C., 2012: Spätantikes Kleidungszubehör aus Nordafrika I. Trägerkreis, Mobilität und Ethnos im Spiegel der Funde der späten römischen Kaiserzeit und der vandalischen Zeit, Wiesbaden (Münchener Beiträge zur Provinzialrömischen Archäologie 5).Google Scholar
Eger, C., 2015: Habitus militaris or habitus barbarus? Towards an interpretation of rich male graves of the mid-5th century in the Mediterranean, in Ebanista, C. and Rotili, M. (eds), Aristocrazie e società fra transizione romano-germanica e alto medioevo, San Vitaliano, 213–36.Google Scholar
Egg, M., 1996a: Das hallstattzeitliche Fürstengrab von Strettweg bei Judenburg in der Oststeiermark, Mainz (Monographien RGZM 37).Google Scholar
Egg, M., 1996b: Zu den Fürstengräbern im Osthallstattkreis, in Jerem, E. and Lippert, A. (eds), Die Osthallstattkultur, Budapest (Archaeolingua 7), 5386.Google Scholar
Eggers, H.J., 1959: Einführung in die Vorgeschichte, Munich.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., 1978: Zum Kulturkonzept in der prähistorischen Archäologie, Bonner Jahrbücher 178, 120.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., 1999: Der Tote von Hochdorf. Bemerkungen zum Modus archäologischer Interpretation, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 29, 211–22.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., 2001: Prähistorische Archäologie. Konzepte und Methoden, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., 2003: Über Zimelien und Analogien. Epistemologisches zum sogenannten Südimport der späten Hallstatt- und frühen Latènekultur, in Heinz, M., Eggert, M.K.H. and Veit, U. (eds), Zwischen Erklären und Verstehen? Beiträge zu den erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlagen archäologischer Interpretation, Münster (TAT 2), 175–94.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., 2005: Archäologie als historische Kulturwissenschaft. Ein Projektbericht. Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 10, 220–33.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., 2006: Archäologie. Grundzüge einer historischen Kulturwissenschaft, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., 2007: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im früheisenzeitlichen Mitteleuropa. Überlegungen zum ‘Fürstenphänomen’, Fundberichte Baden-Württemberg 29, 255302.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., 2011: Über Zeit und Archäologie, Ethnographisch-archäologische Zeitschrift 52(2), 215–38.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., and Samida, S., 2009: Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., and Veit, U. (eds), 1998: Theorie in der Archäologie. Zur englischsprachigen Diskussion, Münster (TAT 1).Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., and Veit, U. (eds), 2013: Theorie in der Archäologie. Zur jüngeren Diskussion in Deutschland, Münster (TAT 10).Google Scholar
Eggert, M.K.H., and Wotzka, H.-P., 1987: Kreta und die absolute Chronologie des europäischen Neolithikums, Germania 65, 379422.Google Scholar
Eisenhauer, U., 1999: Kulturwandel als Innovationsprozeß. Die fünf großen ‘W’ und die Verbreitung des Mittelneolithikums in Südwestdeutschland, Archäologische Informationen 22, 215–39.Google Scholar
Eisenhauer, U., 2002: Untersuchungen zur Siedlungs- und Kulturgeschichte des Mittelneolithikums in der Wetterau, Bonn.Google Scholar
Espagne, M., and Werner, M. (eds), 1988: Transferts. Les relations interculturelles dans l'espace franco-allemand (XVIIIe et XIXe siècle), Paris.Google Scholar
Fansa, M., 1996: Realienforschung und historische Quellen, Oldenburg (Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Beiheft 15).Google Scholar
Fansa, M., and Burmeister, S. (eds), 2004: Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im vorderen Orient und Europa, Mainz (Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Beiheft 40).Google Scholar
Fansa, M., and Wolfram, S. (eds), 2003: Müll. Facetten von der Steinzeit bis zum Gelben Sack, Mainz (Schriftenreihe des Landesmuseums für Natur und Mensch 27).Google Scholar
Fehr, H., 2010b: Germanen und Romanen im Merowingerreich. Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie zwischen Wissenschaft und Zeitgeschehen, Berlin (Ergänzungsbände RGA 68).Google Scholar
Fehr, H., 2010a: Am Anfang war das Volk? Die Entstehung der bajuwarischen Identität als archäologisches und interdisziplinäres Problem, in Pohl, W. and Mehofer, M. (eds), Archaeology of identity. Archäologie der Identität, Vienna (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 17), 211–31.Google Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M., 2009: Ethnische Interpretationen in der Eisenzeitarchäologie. Grenzen und Möglichkeiten, in LVR-Landesmuseum Bonn/Verein von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande (eds), Kelten am Rhein, Vol. 1, Archäologie. Ethnizität und Romanisierung, Mainz (Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher 58), 1323.Google Scholar
Fernández-Götz, M., 2014: Identity and power. The transformation of Iron Age societies in Northeast Gaul, Amsterdam (Amsterdam Archaeological Studies 21).Google Scholar
Foucault, M., 2005 (1967): Von anderen Räumen, in Defert, D. and Ewald, F. (eds), Michel Foucault. Schriften in vier Bänden. Dits et écrits, Vol. 4, 1980–1988, Frankfurt am Main, 931–42.Google Scholar
Fries, J.E., and Gutsmiedl-Schümann, D. (eds), 2013: Ausgräberinnen, Forscherinnen, Pionierinnen. Ausgewählte Porträts früher Archäologinnen im Kontext ihrer Zeit, Münster (Frauen – Forschung –Archäologie 10).Google Scholar
Fries, J.E., and Koch, J.K. (eds), 2005: Ausgegraben zwischen Materialclustern und Zeitscheiben. Perspektiven zur archäologischen Geschlechterforschung, Münster (Frauen – Forschung – Archäologie 6).Google Scholar
Fries, J.E., and Rambuscheck, U. (eds), 2011: Von wirtschaftlicher Macht und militärischer Stärke. Beiträge zur archäologischen Geschlechterforschung, Münster (Frauen – Forschung – Archäologie 9).Google Scholar
Friesinger, H., and Stuppner, A. (eds), 2004: Zentrum und Peripherie. Gesellschaftliche Phänomene in der Frühgeschichte, Vienna (Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission 57).Google Scholar
Fröhlich, S. (ed.), 2000: Kultur. Ein interdisziplinäres Kolloquium zur Begrifflichkeit, Halle/Saale.Google Scholar
Frommer, S., 2007: Historische Archäologie. Ein Versuch der methodolgischen Grundlegung der Archäologie als Geschichtswissenschaft, Büchenbach (Tübinger Forschungen zur historischen Archäologie 2).Google Scholar
Furholt, M., 2009: Die nördlichen Badener Keramikstile im Kontext des mitteleuropäischen Spätneolithikums (3650–2900 v. Chr.), Bonn (Studien zur Archäologie in Ostmitteleuropa 3).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., Hinz, M. and Mischka, D. (eds), 2012: ‘As time goes by?’ Monumentality, landscapes and the temporal perspective, Bonn (UPA 206).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
Gardner, A., 2011: Paradox and praxis in the archaeology of identity, in Amundsen-Meyer, L., Engel, N. and Pickering, S. (eds), Identity crisis. Archaeological perspectives on social identity, Calgary, 1126.Google Scholar
Gardner, A., 2013: Thinking about Roman imperialism. Postcolonialism, globalisation and beyond?, Britannia 44, 125.Google Scholar
Gebühr, M., 1994: Alter und Geschlecht. Aussagemöglichkeiten anhand des archäologischen und anthropologischen Befundes, in Stjernquist, B. (ed.), Prehistoric graves as a source of information, Stockholm (Konferenser/Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien 29), 7386.Google Scholar
Gehrke, H.-J., and Sénécheau, M. (eds), 2010: Geschichte, Archäologie, Öffentlichkeit. Für einen Dialog zwischen Wissenschaft und Medien. Standpunkte aus Forschung und Praxis, Bielefeld (Historische Lebenswelten in populären Wissenskulturen 4).Google Scholar
Geringer, S., von der Haar, F., Halle, U., Mahsarski, D. and Walter, K. (eds), 2013: Graben für Germanien. Archäologie unterm Hakenkreuz, Stuttgart (Ausstellung Focke-Museum Bremen).Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J., 1979: The ecological approach to visual perception, Boston.Google Scholar
Giddens, A., 1984: The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Gillespie, S.D., 2001: Personhood, agency, and mortuary ritual. A case study from the ancient Maya, Journal of anthropological archaeology 20, 73112.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, C., 1983: Clues. Morelli, Freud and Sherlock Holmes, in Eco, U. and Sebeok, T.A. (eds), The sign of three. Dupin, Holmes, Peirce, 81118.Google Scholar
Göbel, J., and Zech, T. (eds), 2011: Exportschlager. Kultureller Austausch, wirtschaftliche Beziehungen und transnationale Entwicklungen in der antiken Welt, Munich (Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt 56).Google Scholar
Gramsch, A., 1996a: Landscape archaeology. Of making and seeing, Journal of European archaeology 4, 1938.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A., 1996b: Monumente und soziale Aktion. Prestige im Dänischen Frühneolithikum, in Müller, J. and Bernbeck, R. (eds), Prestige – Prestigegüter – Sozialstrukturen. Beispiele aus dem europäischen und vorderasiatischen Neolithikum, Archäologische Berichte 6, 97110.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A., 2000a: ‘Reflexiveness’ in archaeology, nationalism, and Europeanism, Archaeological dialogues 7 (1), 445.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A. (ed.), 2000b: Vergleichen als archäologische Methode. Analogien in den Archäologien, Oxford (BAR International Series 825).Google Scholar
Gramsch, A., 2003: Landschaftsarchäologie. Ein fachgeschichtlicher Überblick und ein theoretisches Konzept, in Kunow, J. and Müller, J. (eds), Landschaftsarchäologie und geographische Informationssysteme. Prognosekarten, Besiedlungsdynamik und prähistorische Raumordnungen, Wünsdorf (Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land Brandenburg, 8/Archäoprognose Brandenburg, 1), 3554.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A., 2005: Archäologie und post-nationale Identitätssuche, Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 10, 185–93.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A., 2006: Eine kurze Geschichte des archäologischen Denkens in Deutschland. Leipziger online-Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 19, 118, at www.gko.uni-leipzig.de/fileadmin/user_upload/historisches_seminar/02urundfruehgeschichte/Online_Beitraege/OnlBei19.pdf.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A., 2008: Rekonstruierte Körper. Körperinszenierung in der rituellen Kommunikation der Lausitzer Kultur, in Kümmel, C., Schweizer, B. and Veit, U. (eds), Körperinszenierung – Objektsammlung – Monumentalisierung. Totenritual und Grabkult in frühen Gesellschaften. Archäologische Quellen in kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive, Münster (TAT 6), 337–51.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A., 2009: Die Gleichzeitigkeit des Ungleichzeitigen. Überlegungen zum Kulturwandel, in Zeeb-Lanz, A. (ed.), Krisen – Kulturwandel – Kontinuitäten. Zum Ende der Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa, Rhaden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie. Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 10), 925.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A., 2010: Ritual und Kommunikation. Altersklassen und Geschlechterdifferenz im spätbronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Gräberfeld Cottbus Alvensleben-Kaserne (Brandenburg), Bonn (UPA 181).Google Scholar
Gramsch, A., and Meier, T., 2013: An archaeological outline of ritual dynamics and social space, in Bergerbrant, S. and Sabatini, S. (eds), Counterpoints. Essays in archaeology and heritage studies in honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen, Oxford (BAR International Series 2508), 193–98.Google Scholar
Gramsch, A., and Sommer, U. (eds), 2011: A history of Central European archaeology. Theory, methods, and politics, Budapest (Archaeolingua 30).Google Scholar
Gringmuth-Dallmer, E., 1996: Kulturlandschaftsmuster und Siedlungssysteme, Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie 14, 731.Google Scholar
Gronenborn, D., 2009a: Climate fluctuations and trajectories to complexity in the Neolithic. Towards a theory, Documenta praehistorica 36, 97110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gronenborn, D., 2009b: Zur Repräsentation von Eliten im Grabbrauch. Probleme und Aussagemöglichkeiten historischer und ethnographischer Quellen aus Westafrika, in Egg, M. and Quast, D. (eds), Aufstieg und Untergang. Zwischenbilanz des Forschungsschwerpunktes ‘Studien zu Genese und Struktur von Eliten in vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften’, Mainz (Monographien RGZM, Forschungsinstitut für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 82), 217–45.Google Scholar
Gronenborn, D., and Petrasch, J. (eds), 2010: Die Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas, Mainz (RGZM-Tagungen 4).Google Scholar
Grünert, H., 2002: Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931). Vom Germanisten zum Prähistoriker. Ein Wissenschaftler im Kaiserreich und in der Weimarer Republik, Rahden/Westfalen (Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen, 22).Google Scholar
Grunwald, S., 2010: Die geschriebene und die ungeschriebene Geschichte der deutschen prähistorischen Archäologie, Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 15, 334–44.Google Scholar
Grunwald, S., 2012: ‘Das ergab aber ein so buntes und wenig eindrucksvolles Bild’. Zu den Anfängen der archäologischen Kartographie in Deutschland (1870–1914), Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 53 (1–2), 534.Google Scholar
Grunwald, S., 2016: ‘Riskante Zwischenschritte’. Archäologische Kartographie in Deutschland zwischen 1870 und 1900, in Hofmann, K.P., Meier, T., Mölders, D. and Schreiber, S. (eds), Massendinghaltung in der Archäologie. Der material turn und die Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Leiden, 111–42.Google Scholar
Hachmann, R., (ed.), 1987: Studien zum Kulturbegriff in der Vor- und Frühgeschichtsforschung, Bonn (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 48).Google Scholar
Hahn, H.P., 2004: Global goods and the process of appropriation, in Probst, P. and Spittler, G. (eds), Between resistance and expansion. Explorations of local vitality in Africa, Münster (Beiträge zur Afrikaforschung 18), 211–29.Google Scholar
Hahn, H.P., 2005: Materielle Kultur. Eine Einführung, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hahn, H.P., 2007: Objects as such and objects in contexts. Things and equipment, Archaeological dialogues 14 (2), 131–35.Google Scholar
Hahn, H.P., 2009: Keramische Produktion, interethnische Beziehungen und soziale Identitäten in der westafrikanischen Savanne, in Stockhammer, P.W. (ed.), Keramik jenseits von Chronologie, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie. Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 14), 135–55.Google Scholar
Hahn, H.P., 2015: Der Eigensinn der Dinge. Einleitung, in Hahn, H.P. (ed), Vom Eigensinn der Dinge. Für eine neue Perspektive auf die Welt des Materiellen, Berlin, 956.Google Scholar
Hahn, H.P., and Soentgen, J., 2011: Acknowledging substances. Looking at the hidden side of the material world, Journal of philosophy & technology 24 (1), 1933, available at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-010-0001-8.Google Scholar
Hahn, H.P., and Weis, H. (eds), 2013: Mobility, meaning & transformation of things. Shifting contexts of material culture through time and space, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hahn, H.P., Eggert, M.K.H. and Samida, S., 2014: Einleitung. Materielle Kultur in der Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften, in Samida, S., Eggert, M.K.H. and Hahn, H.P. (eds), Handbuch Materielle Kultur. Bedeutungen, Konzepte, Disziplinen, Stuttgart, 112.Google Scholar
Hakelberg, D., and Wiwjorra, I. (eds), 2010: Vorwelten und Vorzeiten. Archäologie als Spiegel historischen Bewusstseins in der Frühen Neuzeit, Wiesbaden (Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 124).Google Scholar
Halle, U., 2002: ‘Die Externsteine sind bis auf weiteres germanisch!’ Prähistorische Archäologie im Dritten Reich, Bielefeld (Sonderveröffentlichungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen und Historischen Vereins für das Land Lippe 68).Google Scholar
Hansen, S., 1994: Studien zu den Metalldeponierungen während der älteren Urnenfelderzeit zwischen Rhônetal und Karpatenbecken, Bonn (UPA 21).Google Scholar
Hansen, S., 2008: Bronzezeitliche Horte als Indikatoren für ‘andere Orte’, Das Altertum 53, 291314.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
Hansen, S., Neumann, D. and Vachta, T. (eds), 2012: Hort und Raum. Aktuelle Forschungen zu bronzezeitlichen Deponierungen in Mitteleuropa, Berlin (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 10).Google Scholar
Hansen, S., Neumann, D. and Vachta, T. (eds), 2016: Raum, Gabe und Erinnerung. Heiligtümer und Weihgaben in prähistorischen und antiken Gesellschaften, Berlin (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 38).Google Scholar
Härke, H., 1989: The Unkel Symposia. The beginnings of a debate in West German archaeology?, Current anthropology 30 (3), 406–10.Google Scholar
Härke, H., 1997: Wanderungsthematik, Archäologen und politisches Umfeld, Archäologische Informationen 20, 6171.Google Scholar
Härke, H., 2000: Archaeology, ideology, and society. The German experience, Frankfurt am Main (Gesellschaften und Staaten im Epochenwandel 7).Google Scholar
Härke, H., 2001: Cemeteries as places of power, in de Jong, M., Theuws, F. and van Rhijn, C. (eds), Topographies of power in the Early Middle Ages, Leiden (The Transformation of the Roman World 6), 930.Google Scholar
Haupt, P., 2012: Landschaftsarchäologie. Eine Einführung, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Hausmair, B., 2013: Gender – Alter – Lebensverlauf. Alters- und geschlechtsbezogenen Identitäten im mittelalterlichen Bestattungsritual, in Hofer, N., Kühtreiber, T. and Theune, C. (eds), Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich. Eine Bilanz, Vienna (Beiträge zur Mittelalterarchäologie in Österreich 29), 273–79.Google Scholar
Hausmair, B., 2015: Am Rande des Grabs. Todeskonzepte und Bestattungsritual in der frühmittelalterlichen Alamannia, Leiden.Google Scholar
Hegmon, M., 2003: Setting theoretical egos aside. Issues and theory in North American archaeology, American antiquity 68 (2), 213–43.Google Scholar
Heinz, M., Eggert, M.K.H. and Veit, U. (eds), 2003: Zwischen Erklären und Verstehen? Beiträge zu den erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlagen archäologischer Interpretation, Münster (TAT 2).Google Scholar
Hildebrandt, B., and Veit, C. (eds), 2009: Der Wert der Dinge. Güter im Prestigediskurs, Munich.Google Scholar
Hilgert, M., 2015: Warum Dinge zeigen? Zum Verhältnis von Grundlagenforschung und musealer Praxis (23 February 2015), at www.materiale-textkulturen.de/mtc_blog/2015_001_Hilgert.pdf (accessed 18 August 2015).Google Scholar
Hillier, B., and Hanson, J., 1984: The social logic of space, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hinz, M., 2009: Eine multivariate Analyse Aunjetitzer Fundgesellschaften, Bonn (UPA 173).Google Scholar
Hinz, M., Feeser, I., Sjögren, K.-G. and Müller, J., 2012: Demography and the intensity of cultural activities. An evaluation of Funnel Beaker Societies (4200–2800 cal BC), Journal of archaeological science 39 (10), 3331–40.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
Hodder, I., 2012: Entangled. An archaeology of the relationships between humans and things, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2004: Zwischen Erklären und Verstehen. Überlegungen zur Erkenntnisstruktur der Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 9, 185–95.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2006–7: Anthropologie als umfassende Humanwissenschaft. Einige Bemerkungen aus archäologischer Sicht, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 136–37, 283300.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2008: Der rituelle Umgang mit dem Tod. Untersuchungen zu bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Brandbestattungen im Elbe-Weser-Dreieck, Oldenburg (Archäologische Berichte des Landkreises Rotenburg (Wümme) 14/Schriftenreihe des Landschafts verbandes der ehemaligen Herzogtümer Bremen und Verden 32).Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2009a: Grabbefunde zwischen Sex und Gender, in Rambuscheck, U. (ed.), Zwischen Diskursanalyse und Isotopenforschung. Methoden der archäologischen Geschlechterforschung, Münster (Frauen – Forschung – Archäologie 8), 133–61.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2009b: Grenzen in der Bronzezeit am Beispiel des Elbe-Weser-Dreiecks, in Hesse, S. (ed.), Grenzen in der Archäologie und Geschichte, Archäologische Berichte des Landkreises Rotenburg (Wümme) 15, 67107.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2012a: Der Identität ihr Grab? Zur archäologischen Identitätsforschung anhand bronzezeitlicher Bestattungen des Elbe-Weser-Dreiecks, in Heske, I. and Horejs, B. (eds), Bronzezeitliche Identitäten und Objekte, Bonn (UPA 221), 1325.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2012b: Kontinuität trotz Diskontinuität? Der Wechsel von der Körper- zur Brandbestattung im Elbe-Weser-Dreieck und die semiotische Bedeutungsebene ‘Raum’, in Bérenger, D., Bourgeois, J., Talon, M. and Wirth, S. (eds), Gräberlandschaften der Bronzezeit. Paysages funéraires de l’âge du Bronze, Darmstadt (Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 51), 355–73.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2013b: Jenseits zum Quadrat? Zur räumlichen Organisation von Bestattungsplätzen in Südostsizilien im 8.-5. Jh. v. Chr., in Meyer, M. and Hansen, S. (eds), Parallele Raumkonzepte, Berlin (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 16), 219–42.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2014a: Akkulturation und die Konstituierung von Identitäten. Einige theoretische Überlegungen anhand des Fallbeispiels der Hogbacks, in Hofmann, K.P., Kamp, H. and Wemhoff, M. (eds), Die Wikinger und das Fränkische Reich. Identitäten zwischen Konfrontation und Annäherung, Paderborn (MittelalterStudien 29), 2150.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2014b: Auf der Suche nach der Jastorf-Fibel. Die ältereisenzeitlichen Plattenfibeln Norddeutschlands – eine Leitform?, in Brandt, J. and Rauchfuß, B. (eds), Das Jastorf-Konzept und die vorrömische Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitteleuropa, Hamburg (Veröffentlichungen des Archäologischen Museums Hamburg 105), 129–42.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2015: In Geschichten verstrickt . . . Menschen, Dinge, Identitäten, in Boschung, D., Kienlin, T. and Kreuz, P.A. (eds), Biography of objects. Aspekte eines kulturhistorischen Konzepts, Munich (Morphomata 31), 87123.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2016a: Dinge als historische Quellen in Revision. Materialität, Spuren und Geschichten, in Hofmann, K.P., Meier, T., Mölders, D. and Schreiber, S. (eds), Massendinghaltung in der Archäologie. Der material turn und die Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Leiden, 283308.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2016b: Fundverbreitungen, archäologische Grenzziehungen und Identitätsräume. Zum methodologischen Territorialismus der Bronzezeitforschung, in Dietz, U.L. and Jockenhövel, A. (eds), 50 Jahre ‘Prähistorische Bronzefunde’. Bilanz und Perspektiven, Stuttgart (Prähistorische Bronzefunde 20, 14), 207–26.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., 2016c: Funerärpraktiken = Identitätsdiskurse? Die Felskammergrab-Nekropolen von Morgantina und Monte Casasia im Vergleich, in Baitinger, H. (ed.), Materielle Kultur und Identität im Spannungsfeld zwischen mediterraner Welt und Mitteleuropa/Material Culture and Identity between the Mediterranean World and Central Europe, Mainz (RGZM-Tagungen 27), 131–45.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
Hofmann, K.P., and Patzke, S., 2012: Von Athen nach Etrurien. Zum Diffusionsprozess der entlehnten Innovation ‘Ceramica Sovraddipinta’, in Kern, A., Koch, J.K., Balzer, I., Fries-Knoblach, J., Kowarik, K., Later, C., Ramsl, P.C., Trebsche, P. and Wiethold, J. (eds), Technologieentwicklung und -transfer in der Hallstatt- und Latènezeit, Langenweißbach (Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 65), 83101.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., and Schreiber, S., 2014: Materielle Kultur, in Mölders, D. and Wolfram, S. (eds), Schlüsselbegriffe der Prähistorischen Archäologie, Münster (TAT 11), 179–83.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., and Schreiber, S. (eds), 2015a: Raumwissen und Wissensräume. Beiträge des interdisziplinären Theorie-Workshops für Nachwuchswissenschaftler/innen, eTopoi special volume 5, available at http://journal.topoi.org/index.php/etopoi/issue/view/18.Google Scholar
Hofmann, K.P., and Schreiber, S., 2015b: Raumwissen und Wissensräume. Vielfältige Figurationen eines weiten Forschungsfeldes für die Altertumswissenschaften, in Hofmann, K.P. and Schreiber, S. (eds), Raumwissen und Wissensräume (eTopoi, Journal for ancient studies, special volume 5), available at http://journal.topoi.org/index.php/etopoi/article/view/207.Google Scholar
Holtdorf, C., 2000–8: Monumental past. The life-histories of megalithic monuments in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany), electronic monograph available at http://hdl.handle.net/1807/245.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2002: Notes on the life history of a pot sherd, Journal of material culture 7, 4971.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2004: Archäologie als Spurensicherung, in Ebeling, K. and Altekamp, S. (eds), Die Aktualität des Archäologischen in Wissenschaft, Medien und Künsten, Frankfurt am Main, 306–24.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., 2007: Vom Kern der Dinge keine Spur. Spurenlesen aus archäologischer Sicht, in Krämer, S., Kogge, W. and Grube, G. (eds), Spur. Spurenlesen als Orientierungstechnik und Wissenskunst, Frankfurt am Main, 333–52.Google Scholar
Holtorf, C., and Veit, U., 2006: Über archäologisches Wissen. Mit Kommentar von U. Veit und Antwort des Verfassers, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 47 (3), 349–70.Google Scholar
Horejs, B., 2007: Macedonia. Mediator or buffer zone between cultural spheres?, in Galanaki, I., Tomas, H., Galanakis, Y. and Laffineur, R. (eds), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory across borders, Liège (Aegaeum 27), 293306.Google Scholar
Ickerodt, U., 2004: Bilder von Archäologen, Bilder von Urmenschen. Ein kultur- und mentalitätsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Genese prähistorischer Archäologie am Beispiel zeitgenössischer Quellen, Halle/Saale, 2004, available at urn:nbn:de:gbv:3-000010238).Google Scholar
Ickerodt, U.F., 2009: Erlebte Vergangenheit. Archäologische Wissensvermittlung am Beispiel von Bodendenkmalen, Freilichtmuseen, Freizeitparks und Spielfilmen, Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgeschichte 78, 207–24.Google Scholar
Jacob-Friesen, K.H., 1950: Wissenschaft und Weltanschauung in der Urgeschichtsforschung, Die Kunde, N.F. 1 (1–2), 15.Google Scholar
Jankuhn, H., 1952–55: Methoden und Probleme siedlungsarchäologischer Forschung, Archaeologica geographica 2, 7384.Google Scholar
Jankuhn, H., 1977: Einführung in die Siedlungsarchäologie, Berlin and New York.Google Scholar
Jansen, C., 2008: The German archaeological institute (DAI) between transnational scholarship and foreign cultural policy, Fragmenta 2, 151–81.Google Scholar
Jentgens, G., 2001: Die Alamannen. Methoden und Begriffe der ethnischen Deutung archäologischer Funde und Befunde, Rahden/Westfalen (Freiburger Beiträge zur Archäologie und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends 4).Google Scholar
Jockenhövel, A., 1991: Räumliche Mobilität von Personen in der mittleren Bronzezeit des westlichen Mitteleuropa, Germania 69, 49–2.Google Scholar
Jockenhövel, A., 2007: Zu Mobilität und Grenzen in der Bronzezeit, in Rieckhoff, S. and Sommer, U. (eds), Auf der Suche nach Identitäten. Volk – Stamm – Kultur – Ethnos, Oxford (BAR International Series 1705), 95106.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.H., 2006: On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory, Archaeological dialogues 13 (2), 117–32.Google Scholar
Jung, M., 2003: Bemerkungen zur Interpretation materieller Kultur aus der Perspektive der objektiven Hermeneutik, in Veit, U., Kienlin, T.L., Kümmel, C. and Schmidt, S. (eds), Spuren und Botschaften. Interpretationen materieller Kultur, Münster (TAT 4), 89106.Google Scholar
Jung, M., 2004: Die Dimension von Alter und Geschlecht aus strukturanalytischer und empirischer Sicht und ihre Bedeutung für die Rekonstruktion von Sozialstrukturen prähistorischer Gesellschaften, in Owen, L.R., Porr, M. and Struwe, R. (eds), Von der Geburt bis zum Tode. Individuelle und gesellschaftliche Dimensionen von Alter und Geschlecht in der Urgeschichte, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 45, 449–60.Google Scholar
Jung, M., 2005: Zur objektiv-hermeneutischen Interpretation des Symbolguts prähistorischer Kulturen am Fallbeispiel des ‘Entenvogels’ der Urnenfelderzeit, in Kienlin, T.L. (ed.), Die Dinge als Zeichen. Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur, Bonn (UPA 127), 329–38.Google Scholar
Jung, M., 2006: Zur Logik archäologischer Deutung. Interpretation, Modellbildung und Theorieentwicklung am Fallbeispiel des späthallstattzeitlichen ‘Fürstengrabes’ von Eberdingen-Hochdorf, Kr. Ludwigsburg, Bonn (UPA 138).Google Scholar
Jung, M., 2012: ‘Objektbiographie’ oder ‘Verwirklichung objektiver Möglichkeiten’? Zur Nutzung und Umnutzung eines Steinbeiles aus der Côte d'Ivoire, in Ramminger, B. and Lasch, H. (eds), Hunde – Menschen – Artefakte. Gedenkschrift für Gretel Gallay, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria 32), 375–83.Google Scholar
Jung, M., 2015: Das Konzept der Objektbiographie im Lichte der Hermeneutik materieller Kultur, in Boschung, D., Kienlin, T.L. and Kreuz, P.A. (eds), Biography of objects. Aspekte eines kulturhistorischen Konzepts, Munich (Morphomata 31), 3565.Google Scholar
Jung, M., 2016: Krüge und Katheder. Ein ‘material turn’ in der deutschen Philosophie des frühen 20. Jahrhunderts und seine Bedeutung für eine Hermeneutik materieller Kultur, in Hofmann, K.P., Meier, T., Mölders, D. and Schreiber, S. (eds), Massendinghaltung in der Archäologie. Der material turn und die Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Leiden, 215–40.Google Scholar
Kaenel, G., and Jud, P., 2002: Lebensbilder. Scènes de vie, Lausanne and Zug (Documents du Groupe de travail pour les recherches préhistoriques en Suisse 2).Google Scholar
Karl, R. (ed.), 2004: Archäologische Theorie in Österreich. Eine Standortbestimmung, Vienna.Google Scholar
Karl, R., 2005: Warum nennen wir ihn nicht einfach Dietrich? Zum Streit um des dorfältesten Hochdorfer Sakralkönigs Bart, in Karl, R. and Leskovar, J. (eds), Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie, Linz (Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 18), 191202.Google Scholar
Karlisch, S.M., Kästner, S. and Mertens, E.-M. (eds), 1997: Vom Knochenmann zur Menschenfrau. Feministische Theorie und archäologische Praxis, Münster (Frauen – Forschung – Archäologie 3).Google Scholar
Kerig, T., 2005: Mammuts, !Kung und Hairstylisten. Fremdheit und Nähe in archäologischen Lebensbildern, Mitteilungen aus dem Museumswesen Baden-Württembergs 38, 2427.Google Scholar
Kerig, T., 2008: Hanau-Mittelbuchen. Siedlung und Erdwerk der bandkeramischen Kultur. Materialvorlage – Chronologie – Versuch einer handlungstheoretischen Interpretation, Bonn (UPA 156).Google Scholar
Kerig, T., and Zimmermann, A. (eds), 2013: Economic archaeology. From structure to performance in European archaeology, Bonn (UPA 237).Google Scholar
Keßeler, A., 2016: Affordanz, oder was Dinge können!, in Hofmann, K.P., Meier, T., Mölders, D. and Schreiber, S. (eds), Massendinghaltung in der Archäologie. Der material turn und die Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Leiden, 343–63.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T.L. (ed.), 2005: Die Dinge als Zeichen. Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur, Bonn (UPA 127).Google Scholar
Kienlin, T.L., 2006: Von Jägern und Bauern, Theorie(n) und Daten. Anmerkungen zur Neolithisierungsdebatte, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 81,135–52.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T.L., 2008a: Der ‘Fürst’ von Leubingen. Herausragende Bestattungen der Frühbronzezeit als Bezugspunkt gesellschaftlicher Kohärenz und kultureller Identität, in Kümmel, C., Schweizer, B. and Veit, U. (eds), Körperinszenierung – Objektsammlung – Monumentalisierung. Totenritual und Grabkult in frühen Gesellschaften. Archäologische Quellen in kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive, Münster (TAT 6), 181206.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T.L., 2008b: Tradition and innovation in Copper Age metallurgy. Results of a metallographic examination of flat axes from eastern Central Europe and the Carpathian Basin, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 74, 79107.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T.L., 2010: Traditions and transformations. Approaches to Eneolithic (Copper Age) and Bronze Age metalworking and society in eastern Central Europe and the Carpathian Basin, Oxford (BAR International Series 2184).Google Scholar
Kienlin, T.L., 2011: Aspects of the development of casting and forging techniques from the Copper Age to the Early Bronze Age of eastern Central Europe and the Carpathian Basin, in Yalcin, Ü. (ed.), Anatolian metal V, Bochum (Veröffentlichungen aus dem Deutsches Bergbau-Museum Bochum 180), 127–36.Google Scholar
Kienlin, T.L., 2014: Aspects of metalworking and society from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea from the fifth to the second millennium BC, in Roberts, B.W. and Thornton, C.P. (eds), Archaeometallurgy in global perspective. Methods and syntheses, New York, 447–72.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
Kienlin, T.L. (ed.), 2015b: Fremdheit – Perspektiven auf das Andere, Bonn (Cologne Contributions to Archaeology and Cultural Studies 1/UPA 264).Google Scholar
Kienlin, T.L., and Kreuz, P.-A., 2015: (Objekt-)Biographien und Rekontextualisierung, in Boschung, D., Kienlin, T.L. and Kreuz, P.A. (eds), Biography of objects. Aspekte eines kulturhistorischen Konzepts, Munich (Morphomata 31), 6785.Google Scholar
Kistler, E., 2010: Großkönigliches symbolon im Osten – exotisches Luxusgut im Westen. Zur Objektbiographie der achämenidischen Glasschale aus Ihringen, in Rollinger, R. (ed.), Interkulturalität in der Alten Welt. Vorderasien, Hellas, Ägypten und die vielfältigen Ebenen des Kontakts, Wiesbaden (Philippika: Marburger altertumskundliche Abhandlungen 34), 6396.Google Scholar
Kistler, E., 2015: Zwischen Lokalität und Kolonialität – alternative Konzepte und Thesen zur Archäologie eines indigenen Kultplatzes auf dem Monte Iato (Westsizilien: 7. Jh. v. Chr. – 1. Jh. n. Chr.), in Kienlin, T.L. (ed.), Fremdheit – Perspektiven auf das Andere, Bonn (Cologne Contributions to Archaeology and Cultural Studies 1/UPA 264), 195218.Google Scholar
Kistler, E., and Ulf, C., 2012: Kulturelle Akteurinnen und Akteure. Die emische Konstruktion von Kultur und ihre Folgen, in Ulf, C. and Hochhauser, E.-M. (eds), Kulturelle Akteure, Würzburg (Cultural Encounters and Transfers 1), 2169.Google Scholar
Klammt, A., and Rossignol, S. (eds), 2009: Mittelalterliche Eliten und Kulturtransfer östlich der Elbe. Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu Archäologie und Geschichte im mittelalterlichen Ostmitteleuropa, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Kleingärtner, S., and Zeilinger, R. (eds), 2012: Raumbildung durch Netzwerke? Der Ostseeraum zwischen Wikingerzeit und Spätmittelalter aus archäologischer und geschichtswissenschaftlicher Perspektive, Bonn (Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters, Beiheft 23).Google Scholar
Kleingärtner, S., Newfield, T.P., Rossignol, S. and Wehner, D. (eds), 2013: Landscapes and societies in medieval Europe east of the Elbe. Interactions between environmental settings and cultural transformations, Toronto (Papers in Medieval Studies 23).Google Scholar
Klimscha, F., 2010: Kupferne Flachbeile und Meißel mit angedeuteten Randleisten. Ihre Bedeutung für die Entstehung und Verbreitung technischer Innovationen in Europa und Vorderasien im 4. und 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Germania 88, 101–44.Google Scholar
Klimscha, F., Eichmann, R., Schuler, C. and Fahlbusch, H., 2012: Wasserwirtschaftliche Innovationen im archäologischen Kontext. Von den prähistorischen Anfängen bis zu den Metropolen der Antike, Rahden/Westfalen (Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 5).Google Scholar
Knopf, T., 2002: Kontinuität und Diskontinuität in der Archäologie. Quellenkritisch-vergleichende Studien, Münster (Tübinger Schriften zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 6).Google Scholar
Knopf, T., 2004: Environment and change in archaeology. Remarks from a cultural-anthropological perspective, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 45, 521–30.Google Scholar
Knopf, T. (ed.), 2008: Umweltverhalten in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Vergleichende Ansätze, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Knopf, T., 2010: Ressourcennutzung und Umweltverhalten prähistorischer Bauern. Eine Analyse archäologischer und ethnographischer Untersuchungen, unprinted Habilitation, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Knopf, T., 2013: ‘Umwelt’ als Forschungsgegenstand. Konzepte und Theorien, in Eggert, M.K.H. and Veit, U. (eds), Theorie in der Archäologie. Zur jüngeren Diskussion in Deutschland, Münster (TAT 10), 6399.Google Scholar
Knöpke, S., 2009: Der urnenfelderzeitliche Männerfriedhof von Neckarsulm, Stuttgart (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 116).Google Scholar
Koch, J.K., 2009: Geschlechterrollen zwischen den Zeilen. Möglichkeiten der Textanalyse archäologischer Fachliteratur, in Rambuscheck, U. (ed.), Zwischen Diskursanalyse und Isotopenforschung. Methoden der archäologischen Geschlechterforschung, Münster (Frauen – Forschung – Archäologie 8), 1942.Google Scholar
Koch, J.K., 2010: Mobile Individuen in sesshaften Gesellschaften der Metallzeiten Mitteleuropas. Anmerkungen zur Rekonstruktion prähistorischer Lebensläufe, in Meller, H. and Alt, K.W. (eds), Anthropologie, Isotopie und DNA. Biografische Annäherung an namenlose vorgeschichtliche Skelette?, Halle/Saale (Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle (Saale) 3), 95100.Google Scholar
Koch, J.K., and Kupke, K., 2012: Life-course reconstruction for mobile individuals in an Early Bronze Age society in Central Europe. Concept of the project and first results for the cemetery of Singen (Germany), in Kaiser, E., Burger, J. and Schier, W. (eds), Population dynamics in prehistory and early history. New approaches using stable isotopes and genetics, Berlin (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 5), 225–40.Google Scholar
Koch, U., 2004: Polyethnische Gefolgschaften in Schretzheim. Die Abhängigkeit der Interpretation vom Chronologiemodell, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 34 (4), 559–70.Google Scholar
König, G.M., 2003: Auf dem Rücken der Dinge. Materielle Kultur und Kulturwissenschaft, in Maase, K. and Warneken, B.J. (eds), Unterwelten der Kultur. Themen und Theorien der volkskundlichen Kulturwissenschaft, Cologne, Weimar and Vienna, 95118.Google Scholar
Kossack, G., 1974: Prunkgräber. Bemerkungen zu Eigenschaften und Aussagewert, in Kossack, G. and Ulbert, G. (eds), Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Archäologie. Festschrift für Joachim Werner zum 65. Geburtstag. Teil 1 Allgemeines, Vorgeschichte, Römerzeit, Munich, 333.Google Scholar
Kossack, G., 1992: Prehistoric archaeology in Germany. Its history and current situation, Norwegian archaeological review 25, 73109.Google Scholar
Kossack, G., 1999: Prähistorische Archäologie in Deutschland im Wandel der geistigen und politischen Situation, Munich (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse 1999/4).Google Scholar
Kraus, B., 2006: Befund Kind. Überlegungen zu archäologischen und anthropologischen Untersuchungen von Kinderbestattungen, Bonn (Archäologische Berichte 19).Google Scholar
Krausse, D., 1996a: Hochdorf III. Das Trink- und Speiseservice aus dem späthallstattzeitlichen Fürstengrab von Eberdingen-Hochdorf (Kr. Ludwigsburg), Stuttgart (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 64).Google Scholar
Krausse, D., 1996b: Internationale Romanisierungsforschung im Vergleich. Perspektiven für das Schwerpunktprogramm ‘Romanisierung’ der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft, Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 1, 258–73.Google Scholar
Krausse, D., 1998: Infantizid. Theoriegeleitete Überlegungen zu den Eltern-Kind-Beziehungen in ur- und frühgeschichtlicher und antiker Zeit, in Müller-Karpe, A., Brandt, H., Jöns, H., Krausse, D. and Wigg, A. (eds), Studien zur Archäologie der Kelten, Römer und Germanen in Mittel- und Westeuropa (Alfred Haffner zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet), Rahden/Westfalen (25), 313–52.Google Scholar
Krausse, D., 1999: Der ‘Keltenfürst’ von Hochdorf. Dorfältester oder Sakralkönig? Anspruch und Wirklichkeit der sog. kulturanthropologischen Hallstatt-Archäologie, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 29, 339–58.Google Scholar
Krausse, D., and Beilharz, D. (eds), 2010: ‘Fürstensitze’ und Zentralorte der frühen Kelten, Stuttgart (Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 120).Google Scholar
Krausse, D., and Nakoinz, O. (eds), 2009: Kulturraum und Territorialität. Archäologische Theorien, Methoden und Fallbeispiele, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie, Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 13).Google Scholar
Krmnicek, S., 2009: Das Konzept der Objektbiographie in der antiken Numismatik, in von Kaenel, H.-M. and Kemmers, F. (eds), Coins in context I. New perspectives for the interpretation of coin finds, Mainz (Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 23), 4759.Google Scholar
Kühn, H., 1976: Geschichte der Vorgeschichtsforschung, Berlin and New York.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T., 1962: The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kümmel, C., 2001: Frühe Weltsysteme. Zentrum und Peripherie-Modelle in der Archäologie, Rahden/Westfalen (Tübinger Texte, Materialien zur Ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 4).Google Scholar
Kümmel, C., 2003: Wie weit trägt ein Indizienbeweis?. Zur archäologischen Überführung von Grabräubern, in Veit, U., Kienlin, T.L., Kümmel, C. and Schmidt, S. (eds), Spuren und Botschaften. Interpretationen materieller Kultur, Münster (TAT 4), 135–56.Google Scholar
Kümmel, C., 2009: Ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Grabraub. Archäologische Interpretation und kulturanthropologische Erklärung, Münster (Tübinger Schriften zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 9).Google Scholar
Kümmel, C., Müller-Scheeßel, N. and Schülke, A. (eds), 1999: Archäologie als Kunst. Darstellung, Wirkung, Kommunikation, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Kümmel, C., Schweizer, B. and Veit, U. (eds), 2008: Körperinszenierung – Objektsammlung – Monumentalisierung. Totenritual und Grabkult in frühen Gesellschaften. Archäologische Quellen in kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive, Münster (TAT 6).Google Scholar
Kunow, J., and Müller, J. (eds), 2003: Landschaftsarchäologie und geographische Informationssysteme. Prognosekarten, Besiedlungsdynamik und prähistorische Raumordnungen, Wünsdorf (Forschungen zur Archäologie im Land Brandenburg 8/Archäoprognose Brandenburg 1).Google Scholar
Lefebvre, H., 1991 (1974): The production of space, Malden, MA.Google Scholar
Lemonnier, P., 1992: Elements for an anthropology of technology, Ann Arbor (University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers, 88).Google Scholar
Leskovar, J., 2005: ArchäologInnengarn. Vom Nutzen erzählender und mehrfacher Deutung prähistorischer Evidenz, in Karl, R. and Leskovar, J. (eds), Interpretierte Eisenzeiten. Fallstudien, Methoden, Theorie, Linz (Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 18), 131–45.Google Scholar
Leube, A., and Hegewisch, M. (eds), 2002: Prähistorie und Nationalsozialismus. Die mittel- und osteuropäische Ur- und Frühgeschichtsforschung in den Jahren 1933–1945, Heidelberg (Studien zur Wissenschafts- und Universitätsgeschichte 2).Google Scholar
Link, F., 2011: Erkenntnispotentiale wissens- und wissenschaftssoziologsicher Ansätze für eine Geschichte der Burgenforschung im Nationalsozialismus, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 52 (1), 119–36.Google Scholar
Link, F., 2014: Burgen und Burgenforschung im Nationalsozialismus. Wissenschaft und Weltanschauung 1933–1945, Köln.Google Scholar
Link, T., and Schimmelpfennig, D. (eds), 2012: Taphonomische Forschungen (nicht nur) zum Neolithikum, Kerpen-Loogh/Eifel (Fokus Jungsteinzeit 3).Google Scholar
Lohrke, B., 2004: Kinder in der Merowingerzeit. Gräber von Mädchen und Jungen in der Alemannia, Rahden/Westfalen (Freiburger Beiträge zur Archäologie und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends 9).Google Scholar
Löw, M., 2001: Raumsoziologie, Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar
Mahsarski, D., 2011: Herbert Jankuhn (1905–1990). Ein deutscher Prähistoriker zwischen nationalsozialistischer Ideologie und wissenschaftlicher Objektivität, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie 114).Google Scholar
Mainka-Mehling, A., 2008: LebensBilder. Zur Darstellung des ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Menschen in der Archäologie, Remshalden (Frühgeschichtliche Studien 1).Google Scholar
Mante, G., 2003: Spuren lesen. Die Relevanz kriminalistischer Methoden für die archäologische Wissenschaft, in Veit, U., Kienlin, T.L., Kümmel, C. and Schmidt, S. (eds), Spuren und Botschaften. Interpretationen materieller Kultur, Münster (TAT 4), 157–72.Google Scholar
Mante, G., 2005: Jenseits des Nationalen? Historisierungen und Europa-Bilder in der archäologischen Öffentlichkeitsarbeit gestern und heute, in Loth, W. (ed.), Europäische Gesellschaft. Grundlagen und Perspektiven, Wiesbaden, 2746.Google Scholar
Mante, G., 2007: Die deutschsprachige prähistorische Archäologie. Eine Ideengeschichte im Zeichen von Wissenschaft, Politik und europäischen Werten, Münster.Google Scholar
Maran, J., 2004a: Die Badener Kultur und ihre Räderfahrzeuge, in Fansa, M. and Burmeister, S. (eds), Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa, Mainz (Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Beiheft 40), 265–82.Google Scholar
Maran, J., 2004b: Kulturkontakte und Wege der Ausbreitung der Wagentechnologie im 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr., in Fansa, M. and Burmeister, S. (eds), Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa, Mainz (Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland Beiheft 40), 429–42.Google Scholar
Maran, J., 2007: Sea-borne contacts between the Aegean, the Balkans and the Central Mediterranean in the 3rd millennium BC. The unfolding of the mediterranean world, in Galanaki, I., Tomas, H., Galanakis, Y., and Laffineur, R. (eds), Between the Aegean and Baltic Seas. Prehistory across borders, Liège and Austin (Aegaeum 27), 321.Google Scholar
Maran, J., 2011a: Evidence for Levantine religious practice in the Late Bronze Age sanctuary of Phylakopi on Melos? Eretz-Israel. Archaeology, historical and geographical studies 30, 6573.Google Scholar
Maran, J., 2011b: Lost in translation. The emergence of Mycenaean culture as a phenomenon of glocalization, in Wilkinson, T.C., Sherratt, S. and Bennet, J. (eds), Interweaving worlds. Systemic interactions in Eurasia, 7th to the 1st millennia BC, Oxford (papers from a conference in memory of Professor Andrew Sherratt), 282–94.Google Scholar
Maran, J., 2012b: One world is not enough. The transformative potential of intercultural exchange in prehistoric societies, in Stockhammer, P.W. (ed.), Conceptualizing cultural hybridization. A transdisciplinary approach, Berlin and Heidelberg, 5966.Google Scholar
Maran, J., 2013: Bright as the sun. The appropriation of amber objects in Mycenaean Greece, in Hahn, H.P. and Weis, H. (eds), Mobility, meaning and transformation of things. Shifting contexts of material culture through time and space, Oxford, 147–69.Google Scholar
Maran, J., and Stockhammer, P.W., 2012a: Introduction, in Maran, J. and Stockhammer, P.W. (eds), Materiality and social practice. Transformative capacities of intercultural encounters, Oxford and Oakville, CT, 13.Google Scholar
Maran, J., Juwig, C., Schwengel, H. and Thaler, U. (eds), 2006: Constructing power. Architecture, ideology and social practice, Hamburg and Münster.Google Scholar
Matić, U., 2012: To queer or not to queer? That is the question. Sex/gender, prestige and burial No. 10 on the Mokrin necropolis, Dacia, N.S. 56, 169–85.Google Scholar
Meier, T., 2002a: Die Archäologie des mittelalterlichen Königsgrabes im christlichen Europa, Stuttgart (Mittelalter-Forschungen 8).Google Scholar
Meier, T., 2002b: Magdeburg zwischen Aachen und Jelling. Repräsentationsarchitektur als semiotisches System, in Henning, J. (ed.), Europa im 10. Jahrhundert. Archäologie einer Aufbruchszeit, Mainz, 311–22.Google Scholar
Meier, T., 2006: On landscape ideologies. An introduction, in Meier, T. (ed.), Landscape ideologies, Budapest (Archaeolingua, Series Minor 22), 1150.Google Scholar
Meier, T., 2009: Umweltarchäologie – Landschaftsarchäologie, in Brather, S., Geuenich, D. and Huth, C. (eds), Historia archaeologica. Festschrift für Heiko Steuer zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin and New York (Ergänzungsbände RGA 70), 697734.Google Scholar
Meier, T., 2012: Der Archäologe als Wissenschaftler und Zeitgenosse, Darmstadt and Mainz.Google Scholar
Meier, T., Ott, M.R. and Sauer, R. (eds), 2015: Materiale Textkulturen. Konzepte – Materialien – Praktiken, Berlin (Materiale Textkulturen 1).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
Meir, A., 1988: Adoption environment and environmental diffusion processes. Merging positivistic and humanistic perspectives, in Hugill, P.J. and Dickson, D.B. (eds), The transfer and transformation of ideas and material culture, College Station, 233–47.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
Mertens, E.-M., 2002: Das Netzwerk archäologisch arbeitender Frauen, Archäologische Informationen 25, 4554.Google Scholar
Metzner-Nebelsick, C., and Nebelsick, L.D., 1999: Frau und Pferd. Ein Topos am Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit Europas, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 129, 69106.Google Scholar
Meyer, M., 2008: Mardorf 23, Lkr. Marburg-Biedenkopf. Archäologische Studien zur Besiedlung des deutschen Mittelgebirgsraumes in den Jahrhunderten um Christi Geburt, Rahden/Westfalen (Berliner Archäologische Forschungen 5).Google Scholar
Meyer, M., and Hansen, S. (eds), 2013: Parallele Raumkonzepte, Berlin (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 16).Google Scholar
Meyer-Orlac, R., 1982: Mensch und Tod. Archäologischer Befund, Grenzen der Interpretation, Hohenschäftlarn.Google Scholar
Middell, M., and Sommer, U. (eds), 2004: Historische West- und Ostforschung in Zentraleuropa zwischen dem Ersten und dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Verflechtung und Vergleich, Leipzig (Geschichtswissenschaft und Geschichtskultur im 20. Jahrhundert 5).Google Scholar
Mischka, D., 2007: Methodische Aspekte zur Rekonstruktion prähistorischer Siedlungsmuster. Landschaftsgenese vom Ende des Neolithikums bis zur Eisenzeit im Gebiet des südlichen Oberrheins, Rahden/Westfalen (Freiburger Archäologische Studien 5).Google Scholar
Mischka, D., 2011: Flintbek LA 3. Biography of a monument, in Furholt, M., Lüth, F. and Müller, J. (eds), Megaliths and identities. Early monuments and Neolithic societies from the Atlantic to the Baltic, Bonn (Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung 1), 6794.Google Scholar
Mischka, D., 2012: Das DFG-Schwerpunktprogramm 1400 ‘Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung’, Archäologische Informationen 35, 5360.Google Scholar
Mitterbauer, H., and Scherke, K. (eds), 2005: Ent-grenzte Räume. Kulturelle Transfers um 1900 und in der Gegenwart, Vienna (Studien zur Moderne 22).Google Scholar
Mölders, D., 2013: Vom gallischen Marktplatz zum neoliberalen Handelszentrum (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Leipzig).Google Scholar
Mölders, D., and Hoppadietz, R., 2007: ‘Odin statt Jesus!’ Europäische Ur- und Frühgeschichte als Fundgrube für religiöse Mythen neugermanischen Heidentums?, Rundbrief Theorie-AG 6 (1), 3248.Google Scholar
Mölders, D., and Wolfram, S. (eds), 2014: Schlüsselbegriffe der prähistorischen Archäologie, Münster (TAT 11).Google Scholar
Moraw, S., and Kieburg, A. (eds), 2014: Mädchen im Altertum/Girls in antiquity, Münster (Frauen – Forschung – Archäologie 11).Google Scholar
Müller, J., 1994: Altersorganisation und Westhallstattzeit. Ein Versuch, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 35, 220–40.Google Scholar
Müller, J., 2000: Soziale Grenzen. Ein Exkurs zur Frage räumlicher Identitätsgruppen in der Prähistorie, in Kadrow, S. (ed.), A turning of ages/Im Wandel der Zeiten. Festschrift für Jan Machnik zum 70. Geburtstag, Krakau, 415–27.Google Scholar
Müller, J., 2001: Soziochronologische Studien zum Jung- und Spätneolithikum im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4100–2700 v. Chr.). Eine sozialhistorische Interpretation prähistorischer Quellen, Rahden/Westfalen (Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 21).Google Scholar
Müller, J. (ed.), 2005: Alter und Geschlecht in ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften, Bonn (UPA 126).Google Scholar
Müller, J., and Bernbeck, R. (eds), 1996: Prestige – Prestigegüter – Sozialstrukturen. Beispiele aus dem europäischen und vorderasiatischen Neolithikum, Bonn (Archäologische Berichte 6).Google Scholar
Müller, J., Bork, H.R., Brozio, J.P., Demnick, D., Diers, S., Dibbern, H., Dörfler, W., Feeser, I., Fritsch, B., Furholt, M., Hage, F., Hinz, M., Kirleis, W., Klooß, S., Kroll, H., Lorenz, M.L.L., Mischka, D. and Rinne, C., 2013: Landscapes as social spaces and ritual meaning. Some new results on TRB in northern Germany, in Bakker, J.A., Bloo, S.B.C. and Dütting, M.K. (eds), From funeral monuments to household pottery. Current advances in Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB/TBK) research, Oxford, 5180.Google Scholar
Müller, U., 2006: Zwischen Gebrauch und Bedeutung. Studien zur Funktion von Sachkultur am Beispiel mittelalterlichen Handwaschgeschirrs (5./6. bis 15./16. Jahrhundert), Bonn (Zeitschrift für Archäologie des Mittelalters 20).Google Scholar
Müller, U., 2009: Netzwerkanalysen in der historischen Archäologie. Begriffe und Beispiele, in Brather, S., Geuenich, D. and Huth, C. (eds), Historia archaeologica. Festschrift für Heiko Steuer zum 70. Geburtstag, Berlin and New York (Ergänzungsbände RGA 70), 735–54.Google Scholar
Müller, U., 2010: Zentrale Orte und Netzwerk. Zwei Konzepte zur Beschreibung von Zentralität, in Theune, C., Biermann, F., Struwe, R. and Jeute, G.H. (eds), Zwischen Fjorden und Steppe. Festschrift für Johan Callmer zum 65. Geburtstag, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria 31), 5767.Google Scholar
Müller-Scheeßel, N., 2000: Die Hallstattkultur und ihre räumliche Differenzierung. Der West- und Osthallstattkreis aus forschungsgeschichtlich-methodologischer Sicht, Rahden/Westfalen (Tübinger Texte, Materialien zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 3).Google Scholar
Müller-Scheeßel, N., 2005: Die Toten als Zeichen. Veränderungen im Umgang mit Grab und Leichnam während der Hallstattzeit, in Kienlin, T.L. (ed.), Die Dinge als Zeichen. Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur, Bonn (UPA 127), 339–54.Google Scholar
Müller-Scheeßel, N., 2008: Auffälligkeiten bei Armhaltungen hallstattzeitlicher Körperbestattungen. Postdeponale Eingriffe, funktionale Notwendigkeiten oder kulturelle Zeichen?, in Kümmel, C., Schweizer, B. and Veit, U. (eds), Körperinszenierung – Objektsammlung – Monumentalisierung. Totenritual und Grabkult in frühen Gesellschaften. Archäologische Quellen in kulturwissenschaftlicher Perspektive, Münster (TAT 6), 517–35.Google Scholar
Müller-Scheeßel, N., 2011a: ‘Forschungsgeschichte’ einmal anders. Soziale, politische und ökonomische Einflüsse auf Ausgrabungen in ältereisenzeitlichen Grabhügeln Süddeutschlands, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 52 (1), 5982.Google Scholar
Müller-Scheeßel, N., 2011b: Wirklich nur jagen, kämpfen, saufen? Die Konstruktion von Männlichkeit in ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Gesellschaften, Das Altertum 56, 205–22.Google Scholar
Müller-Scheeßel, N., 2013a: Mensch und Raum. Heutige Theorien und ihre Anwendung, in Eggert, M.K.H. and Veit, U. (eds), Theorie in der Archäologie. Zur jüngeren Diskussion in Deutschland, Münster (TAT 10), 101–37.Google Scholar
Müller-Scheeßel, N., 2013b: Untersuchungen zum Wandel hallstattzeitlicher Bestattungssitten in Süd- und Südwestdeutschland, Bonn (UPA 245).Google Scholar
Müller-Scheeßel, N., and Burmeister, S., 2006: Einführung: Die Identifizierung sozialer Gruppen. Die Erkenntnismöglichkeiten der prähistorischen Archäologie auf dem Prüfstand, in Burmeister, S. and Müller-Scheeßel, N. (eds), Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Identitäten in der prähistorischen Archäologie, Münster (TAT 5), 938.Google Scholar
Nakoinz, O., 2005: Studien zur räumlichen Abgrenzung und Strukturierung der älteren Hunsrück-Eifel-Kultur, Bonn (UPA 118).Google Scholar
Nakoinz, O., 2009a: Die Methode zur quantitativen Untersuchung kultureller Ähnlichkeiten im Rahmen des Projektes ‘Siedlungshierarchien und kulturelle Räume’, in Krausse, D. and Nakoinz, O. (eds), Kulturraum und Territorialität. Archäologische Theorien, Methoden und Fallbeispiele, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie, Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 13), 8797.Google Scholar
Nakoinz, O., 2009b: Zentralortforschung und zentralörtliche Theorie, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 39, 361–80.Google Scholar
Nakoinz, O., 2010: Concepts of central place research in archaeology, in Kiel Graduate School, Human Development in Landscapes (ed.), Landscapes and human development. The contribution of European archaeology, Bonn (UPA 191), 251–64.Google Scholar
Nakoinz, O., 2013: Archäologische Kulturgeographie der ältereisenzeitlichen Zentralorte Südwestdeutschlands, Bonn (UPA 224).Google Scholar
Narr, K.J., 1972: Das Individuum in der Urgeschichte. Möglichkeiten seiner Erfassung, Saeculum 23, 252–65.Google Scholar
Narr, K.J., 1985: Kulturelle Vereinheitlichung und sprachliche Zersplitterung. Ein Beispiel aus dem Südwesten der Vereinigten Staaten, in der Wissenschaften, Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie (ed.), Studien zur Ethnogenese, Opladen (Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 72), 5799.Google Scholar
Neumann, D., 2015: Landschaften der Ritualisierung. Die Fundplätze kupfer- und bronzezeitlicher Metalldeponierungen zwischen Donau und Po, Berlin and Boston (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 26).Google Scholar
Niklasson, E., and Meier, T. (eds), 2013: Appropriate narratives. Archaeologists, publics and stories, Budapest (Archaeolingua, Series Minor 33).Google Scholar
Nortmann, H., 2002: Modell eines Herrschaftssystems. Frühkeltische Prunkgräber der Hunsrück-Eifel-Kultur, in Baitinger, H. (ed.), Das Rätsel der Kelten vom Glauberg. Glaube – Mythos – Wirklichkeit, Stuttgart, 3346.Google Scholar
Nortmann, H., 2007: Überlegungen zu Gruppengröße und Sozialhierarchie in der Hunsrück-Eifel-Kultur, in Trebsche, P., Balzer, I., Eggl, C., Koch, J.K., Nortmann, H. and Withold, J. (eds), Die unteren Zehntausend. Auf der Suche nach den Unterschichten der Eisenzeit, Langenweißbach (Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 47), 1117.Google Scholar
Orschiedt, J., 1999: Manipulationen an menschlichen Skelettresten. Taphonomische Prozesse, Sekundärbestattungen oder Kannibalismus?, Tübingen (Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 13).Google Scholar
Owen, L.R., 2005: Distorting the past. Gender and the division of labor in the European Upper Paleolithic, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Owen, L.R., Porr, M. and Struwe, R. (eds), 2004: Von der Geburt bis zum Tode. Individuelle und gesellschaftliche Dimensionen von Alter und Geschlecht in der Urgeschichte , Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 45 (2–3).Google Scholar
Paliou, E., Lieberwirth, U. and Polla, S. (eds), 2014: Spatial analysis and social spaces. Interdisciplinary approaches to the interpretation of prehistoric and historic built environments, Berlin and Boston (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 18).Google Scholar
Perner, G.U., 2005: Chorologie. Erkenntniswege und Erkenntnisgrenzen in der Archäologie, Frankfurt am Main (Arbeiten zur Urgeschichte des Menschen 23).Google Scholar
Perschke, R., 2014: Ausgrabungen und Zerstörungen an den Megalithen von Carnac während der deutschen Besatzung der Bretagne (1940–1944), Archäologische Informationen 37, 81152.Google Scholar
Pohl, W. (ed.), 2004: Die Suche nach den Ursprüngen. Von der Bedeutung des frühen Mittelalters, Vienna (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 8).Google Scholar
Pohl, W., and Mehofer, M. (eds), 2010: Archaeology of identity. Archäologie der Identität, Vienna (Forschungen zur Geschichte des Mittelalters 17).Google Scholar
Pohl, W., and Reimitz, H. (eds), 1998: Strategies of distinction. The construction of ethnic communities, 300–800, Leiden and Boston (The Transformation of the Roman World 2).Google Scholar
Polanyi, M., 1966: The tacit dimension, Chicago.Google Scholar
Pollock, S., 2007: The royal cemetery of Ur. Ritual, tradition, and the creation of subjects, in Heinz, M. and Feldman, M.H. (eds), Representations of political power. Case histories from times of change and dissolving order in the ancient Near East, Winona Lake, IN, 89110.Google Scholar
Pollock, S., and Bernbeck, R., 2015: A gate to a darker world. Excavating at the Tempelhof airport, in Ruibal, A. González and Moshenska, G. (eds), Ethics and the archaeology of violence, New York (Ethical Archaeologies, the Politics of Social Justice 2), 137–52.Google Scholar
Pollock, S., Bernbeck, R., Jauß, C., Greger, J., von Rüden, C. and Schreiber, S., 2014: Entangled discussion, Forum Kritische Archäologie 3, 151–61.Google Scholar
Popper, K.R., 2001: All life is problem solving, London and New York.Google Scholar
Posluschny, A., 2002: Die hallstattzeitliche Besiedlung im Maindreieck. GIS-gestützte Fundstellenanalysen, Oxford (BAR International Series 1077).Google Scholar
Posluschny, A., 2006: Erkenntnisse auf Knopfdruck? GIS und PC in der Kulturlandschaftsforschung. Grundsätzliche Überlegungen, Siedlungsforschung. Archäologie – Geschichte – Geographie 24, 289312.Google Scholar
Posluschny, A., Fischer, E., Rösch, M., Schatz, K., Stephan, E. and Stobbe, A., 2012: Modelling the agricultural potential of Early Iron Age settlement hinterland areas in southern Germany, in Kluiving, S.J. and Guttmann-Bond, E. (eds), Landscape archaeology between art and science. From a multi- to an interdisciplinary approach, Amsterdam (Landscape and Heritage Series), 413–28.Google Scholar
Posluschny, A., Lambers, K. and Herzog, I. (eds), 2008: Layers of perception, Bonn (Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 10).Google Scholar
Posluschny, A., and Schierhold, K., 2010: Einsichten aus Aussichten. Sichtbarkeitsanalysen zu einer Gruppe von Galeriegräbern im Altenautal bei Paderborn, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Deutschland, in Henning, J., Leube, A. and Biermann, F. (eds), Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte der Iberischen Halbinsel und Mitteleuropas. Studien in honorem Philine Kalb, Bonn (Studien zur Archäologie Europas 11), 8996.Google Scholar
Prien, R., 2005: Archäologie und Migration. Vergleichende Studien zur archäologischen Nachweisbarkeit von Wanderungsbewegungen, Bonn (UPA 120).Google Scholar
Rahemipour, P., 2009: Archäologie im Scheinwerferlicht. Die Visualisierung der Prähistorie im Film 1895–1930 (Ph.D. thesis, Freie Universität Berlin, 2009, available at www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/receive/FUDISS_thesis_000000014394).Google Scholar
Rambuscheck, U. (ed.), 2009: Zwischen Diskursanalyse und Isotopenforschung. Methoden der archäologischen Geschlechterforschung, Münster (Frauen – Forschung – Archäologie 8).Google Scholar
Ramminger, B., 2007: Wirtschaftsarchäologische Untersuchungen zu alt- und mittelneolithischen Felsgesteingeräten in Mittel- und Nordhessen. Archäologie und Rohmaterialversorgung, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie 102).Google Scholar
Ratzel, F., 1904: Geschichte, Völkerkunde und historische Perspektive, Historische Zeitschrift 93, 146.Google Scholar
Rebay, K.C., 2006: Das hallstattzeitliche Gräberfeld von Statzendorf in Niederösterreich. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Interpretation von Sozialindexberechnungen, Bonn (UPA 135).Google Scholar
Rebay-Salisbury, K.C., 2011: Thoughts in circles. Kulturkreislehre as a hidden paradigm in past and present archaeological interpretations, in Roberts, B.W. and Linden, M. Vander (eds), Investigating archaeological cultures. Material culture, variability, and transmission, New York, 4159.Google Scholar
Rebay-Salisbury, K.C., 2013a: Leben mit Erinnerung. Die Performanz von Identität, Status und Prestige in Totenritualen der Bronze- und Eisenzeit Mitteleuropas, in Christiansen, B. and Thaler, U. (eds), Ansehenssache. Formen von Prestige in Kulturen des Altertums, Munich (Münchener Studien zur Alten Welt 9), 427–49.Google Scholar
Rebay-Salisbury, K.C., 2013b: Zur Archäologie des Körpers. Körper und Geschlecht in der Hallstattzeit des Nordostalpenraumes, in Wefers, S., Fries, J.E., Fries-Knoblach, J., Later, C., Rambuschek, U., Trebsche, P. and Wiethold, J. (eds), Bilder – Räume – Rollen, Langenweißbach (Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 72), 8192.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, K., and Rohrer, W. (eds), 2011: Schwerpunktthema Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Archäologie. Ansätze, Methoden, Erkenntnispotentiale, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 52 (1), 5135.Google Scholar
Reinhold, R., 2013: Geschlechtsbezogene Kommunikationsräume. Zeichen paralleler Welten?, in Meyer, M. and Hansen, S. (eds), Parallele Raumkonzepte. Berlin (Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 16), 6382.Google Scholar
Reinhold, S., 2005: Frauenkultur–Männerkultur? Zur Möglichkeit geschlechtsspezifischer Kommunikationsräume in der älteren Eisenzeit Kaukasiens, in Fries, J.E. and Koch, J.K. (eds), Ausgegraben zwischen Materialclustern und Zeitscheiben. Perspektiven zur archäologischen Geschlechterforschung, Münster (Frauen – Forschung – Archäologie 6), 95125.Google Scholar
Reiter, S., Nørgaard, H.W., Kölcze, Z. and Rassman, C. (eds), 2014: Rooted in movement. Aspects in mobility in Bronze Age Europe, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Rieckhoff, S., 2007a: Geschichte als Baustelle, in Rieckhoff, S. and Sommer, U. (eds), Auf der Suche nach Identitäten. Volk – Stamm – Kultur – Ethnos, Oxford (BAR International Series 1705), 716.Google Scholar
Rieckhoff, S., 2007b: Keltische Vergangenheit. Erzählung, Metapher, Stereotyp. Überlegungen zu einer Methodologie der archäologischen Historiografie, in Burmeister, S., Derks, H. and von Richthofen, J. (eds), Zweiundvierzig. Festschrift für Michael Gebühr zum 65. Geburtstag, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria 25), 1534.Google Scholar
Rieckhoff, S., Grunwald, S. and Reichenbach, K. (eds), 2009: Burgwallforschung im akademischen und öffentlichen Diskurs des 20. Jahrhunderts, Leipzig (Leipziger Forschungen zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 5).Google Scholar
Rieckhoff, S., Veit, U. and Wolfram, S., 2010: Der Archäologe als Erzähler, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 51 (1–2), 79.Google Scholar
Ritzer, G., and Dean, P. (eds), 2015: Globalization. A basic text, 2nd edn, Chichester.Google Scholar
Röder, B., 2008: Archaeological childhood research as interdisciplinary analysis, in Dommasnes, L.H. and Wrigglesworth, M. (eds), Children, identity and the past, Newcastle, 6882.Google Scholar
Röder, B., 2010a: Perspektiven für eine theoriegeleitete Kindheitsforschung, Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien 140, 122.Google Scholar
Röder, B., 2010b: Verräterische Idyllen. Urgeschichtliche Sozialverhältnisse auf archäologischen Lebensbildern, in Claßen, E., Doppler, T. and Ramminger, B. (eds), Familie – Verwandtschaft – Sozialstrukturen. Sozialarchäologische Forschungen zu neolithischen Befunden, Kerpen-Loogh (Fokus Jungsteinzeit, Berichte der AG-Neolithikum 1), 1330.Google Scholar
Röder, B. (ed.), 2014: Ich Mann. Du Frau. Feste Rollen seit Urzeiten?, Freiburg im Breisgau and Berlin.Google Scholar
Röder, B., 2015: Jäger sind anders – Sammlerinnen auch. Zur Deutungsmacht des bürgerlichen Geschlechter- und Familienmodells in der prähistorischen Archäologie, in Kienlin, T.L. (ed.), Fremdheit. Perspektiven auf das Andere, Bonn (Cologne Contributions to Archaeology and Cultural Studies 1/UPA 264), 237–53.Google Scholar
Röder, B., de Jong, W. and Alt, K.W. (eds), 2012: Alter(n) anders denken. Kulturelle und biologische Perspektiven, Cologne, Weimar and Vienna (Kulturgeschichte der Medizin 2).Google Scholar
Röder, B., Hummel, J. and Kunz, B., 2001: Göttinnendämmerung. Das Matriarchat aus archäologischer Sicht, Klein Königsförde and Krummwisch.Google Scholar
Röder, R., 2004: Frauen, Kinder und andere Minderheiten. Geschlecht und Alter auf archäologischen Lebensbildern, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 46 (2–3), 507–20.Google Scholar
Roth, G., 2008: Geben und Nehmen. Eine wirtschaftshistorische Studie zum neolithischen Hornsteinbergbau von Abensberg-Arnhofen, Kr. Kelheim (Niederbayern) (Ph.D. thesis, University of Köln, 2008, available at http://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/4176).Google Scholar
Rück, O., 2007: Neue Aspekte und Modelle in der Siedlungsforschung zur Bandkeramik. Die Siedlung Weisweiler 111 auf der Aldenhovener Platte, Kr. Düren, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie 105).Google Scholar
Rüden, C. von, 2011: Die Wandmalereien von Tall Mishrife/Qatna im Kontext einer ägäisch-syrischen Kommunikation, Berlin (Qatna-Studien II).Google Scholar
Rüden, C. von, 2013: Beyond the East–West dichotomy in Syrian and Levantine wall paintings, in Brown, B.A. and Feldman, M.H. (eds), Critical approaches to ancient Near Eastern art, Berlin, 5578.Google Scholar
Rüden, C. von, 2015: Transmediterranean knowledge and Minoan style reliefs in Tell el-Dab'a. An attempt at paradigm shift, in Cappel, S., Günkel-Maschek, U. and Panagiotopoulos, D. (eds), Minoan archaeology. Perspectives for the 21st century, Louvain, 355–66.Google Scholar
Rummel, P. von, 2007: Habitus barbarus. Kleidung und Repräsentation spätantiker Eliten im 4. und 5. Jahrhundert, Berlin and New York (Ergänzungsbände RGA 55).Google Scholar
Saile, T., 1997: Landschaftsarchäologie in der nördlichen Wetterau (Hessen). Umfeldanalysen mit einem geographischen Informationssystem (GIS), Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 27, 221–32.Google Scholar
Samida, S. (ed.), 2011: Inszenierte Wissenschaft. Zur Popularisierung von Wissen im 19. Jahrhundert, Bielefeld (Histoire 21).Google Scholar
Samida, S., and Eggert, M.K.H., 2013a: Archäologie als Naturwissenschaft? Eine Streitschrift, Berlin (Pamphletliteratur 5).Google Scholar
Samida, S., Eggert, M.K.H. and Hahn, H.P. (eds), 2014, Handbuch Materielle Kultur. Bedeutungen, Konzepte, Disziplinen, Stuttgart and Weimar.Google Scholar
Schade, C.C.J., 2000: Landschaftsarchäologie. Eine inhaltliche Begriffsbestimmung, Bonn (Siedlungsarchäologie 2/UPA 60), 135225.Google Scholar
Schade, C.C.J., 2004: Die Besiedlungsgeschichte der Bandkeramik in der Mörlener Bucht/Wetterau. Zentralität und Peripherie, Haupt- und Nebenorte, Siedlungsverbände, Bonn (UPA 105).Google Scholar
Scharl, S., 2004: Die Neolithisierung Europas: Ausgewählte Modelle und Hypothesen, Rahden/Westfalen (Würzburger Arbeiten zur Prähistorischen Archäologie 2).Google Scholar
Schier, W., 1990: Die vorgeschichtliche Besiedlung im südlichen Maindreieck, Kallmünz/Oberpfalz (Materialhefte zur Bayerischen Vorgeschichte, Reihe A, Fundinventare und Ausgrabungsbefunde 60).Google Scholar
Schier, W., 1998: Fürsten, Herren, Händler? Bemerkungen zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft der westlichen Hallstattkultur, in Küster, H., Lang, A. and Schauer, P. (eds), Archäologische Forschungen in urgeschichtlichen Siedlungslandschaften. Festschrift für Georg Kossack zum 75. Geburtstag, Regensburg and Bonn (Regensburger Beiträge zur prähistorischen Archäologie 5), 493514.Google Scholar
Schier, W., 2002: Bemerkungen zu Stand und Perspektiven der siedlungsarchäologischen Forschung, in Ettel, P., Friedrich, R. and Schier, W. (eds), Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Siedlungsarchäologie. Gedenkschrift für Walter Janssen, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria 17), 299309.Google Scholar
Schier, W., 2013: Mobilität und Wissenstransfer in prähistorischer und interdisziplinärer Perspektive, in Kaiser, E. and Schier, W. (eds), Mobilität und Wissenstransfer in diachroner und interdisziplinärer Perspektive, Berlin and Boston, 110.Google Scholar
Schmidt, D., 2005: Die Lesbarkeit des Abfalls: Zur Entdeckung materieller Unkultur als Objekt archäologischen Wissens, in Kienlin, T.L. (ed.), Die Dinge als Zeichen. Kulturelles Wissen und materielle Kultur, Bonn (UPA 127), 239–52.Google Scholar
Scholz, U., 2012: Konsum und Archäologie. Zur Anwendung von Theorien der Konsumforschung in der historischen Archäologie, Historische Archäologie 1, 118.Google Scholar
Schörner, G. (ed.), 2005: Romanisierung – Romanisation. Theoretische Modelle und praktische Fallbeispiele, Oxford (BAR International Series 1427).Google Scholar
Schreiber, S., 2011: Ist Konsumforschung für die archäologische Untersuchung von Kulturkontakten relevant? Kulturelle Aneignungen als Strategien des Umgangs mit Dingen, in Göbel, J. and Zech, T. (eds), Exportschlager. Kultureller Austausch, wirtschaftliche Beziehungen und transnationale Entwicklungen in der antiken Welt, Munich (Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt 56), 262–84.Google Scholar
Schreiber, S., 2013: Archäologie der Aneignung. Zum Umgang mit Dingen aus kulturfremden Kontexten, Forum Kritische Archäologie 2, 48123, available at www.kritischearchaeologie.de/repositorium/fka/2013_2_05_Schreiber.pdf.Google Scholar
Schreiber, S., 2016: Die Figur der Cyborg in der Vergangenheit. Posthumanismus oder eine neue sozial(er)e Archäologie?, in Hofmann, K.P., Meier, T., Mölders, D. and Schreiber, S. (eds), Massendinghaltung in der Archäologie. Der material turn und die Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Leiden, 309–30.Google Scholar
Schülke, A., 2007: Kommunikationslandschaft. Wasserwege versus Landwege im Umfeld des wikingerzeitlichen Zentralplatzes Tissø, Westseeland, in Biermann, F. and Kersting, T. (eds), Siedlung, Kommunikation und Wirtschaft im westslawischen Raum, Langenweißbach (Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 46), 3755.Google Scholar
Schülke, A., 2011: Landschaften. Eine archäologische Untersuchung der Region zwischen Schweriner See und Stepenitz, Mainz (Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 68).Google Scholar
Schumann, R., 2014: Status und Prestige in der Hallstattkultur. Aspekte sozialer Distinktion in ältereisenzeitlichen Regionalgruppen zwischen Altmühl und Save, Rahden/Westfalen (Münchner Archäologische Forschungen 3).Google Scholar
Schweizer, B., 2012: Theoretische Archäologie und Historische Erzählung. Zu ‘Hochkultur’ und ‘Barbaricum’ am Beispiel der ‘Fürstensitze’ der Späten Hallstattzeit, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 53 (1–2), 5085.Google Scholar
Schweizer, B., and Kienlin, T.L., 2001–2: Das Troia-Symposium in Tübingen. Eine Diskussion um Geschichte und Archäologie, Hephaistos 19, 738.Google Scholar
Sherratt, A., 1981: Plough and pastoralism. Aspects of the secondary products revolution, in Hodder, I., Isaac, G.L. and Hammond, N. (eds), Pattern of the past. Studies in honour of David Clarke, Cambridge, 261305.Google Scholar
Siegmund, F., 2003: Alles wird anders! Die Einführung von Bachelor- und Masterabschlüssen im Bereich der Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Archäologische Informationen 26 (1), 143–50.Google Scholar
Siegmund, F., 2006: Commentarii. Anmerkungen zum Beitrag von S. Brather und H.-P. Wotzka, in Burmeister, S. and Müller-Scheeßel, N. (eds), Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Identitäten in der prähistorischen Archäologie, Münster (TAT 5), 225–32.Google Scholar
Siegmund, F., 2009: Ethnische und kulturelle Gruppen im frühen Mittelalter aus archäologischer Sicht, in Krausse, D. and Nakoinz, O. (eds), Kulturraum und Territorialität. Archäologische Theorien, Methoden und Fallbeispiele, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie, Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 13), 143–57.Google Scholar
Siegmund, F., 2012: Schnelle Zeiten – langsame Zeiten. Archäologische Chronologiesysteme als Geschichtsquelle, Archäologische Informationen 35, 259–70.Google Scholar
Siegmund, F., 2014: Kulturen, Technokomplexe, Völker und Identitätsgruppen. Eine Skizze der archäologischen Diskussion, Archäologische Informationen 37, 5365.Google Scholar
Siegmund, F., and Zimmermann, A., 2000: Konfrontation oder Integration? Ein Kommentar zur gegenwärtigen Theoriediskussion in der Archäologie, Germania 78, 179–91.Google Scholar
Smolla, G., 1979–80: Das Kossinna-Syndrom, Fundberichte aus Hessen 19–20 (Festschrift U. Fischer zum 65. Geburtstag), 19.Google Scholar
Sommer, U., 1991: Zur Entstehung archäologischer Fundvergesellschaftungen. Versuch einer archäologischen Taphonomie, in Mattheußer, E. and Sommer, U. (eds), Studien zur Siedlungsarchäologie I, Bonn (UPA 6), 51174.Google Scholar
Sommer, U., 1998: Kulturelle Einstellungen zu Schmutz und Abfall und ihre Auswirkungen auf die archäologische Interpretation, in Schmidt, M. (ed.), Geschichte heißt: So ist's gewesen! abgesehen von dem wie's war . . . Geburtstagsgrüße für Günter Smolla, Bonn (Archäologische Berichte 11), 4154.Google Scholar
Sommer, U., 2000a: Rezension. Håkan Karlsson re-thinking archaeology, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 41 (2), 285–89.Google Scholar
Sommer, U., 2000b: Theory and tradition in German archaeology, Archaeological dialogues 7 (2), 160–68.Google Scholar
Sommer, U., 2007: Archäologische Kulturen als imaginäre Gemeinschaften, in Rieckhoff, S. and Sommer, U. (eds), Auf der Suche nach Identitäten. Volk – Stamm – Kultur – Ethnos, Oxford (BAR International Series 1705), 5978.Google Scholar
Starzmann, M.T., 2014: Excavating Tempelhof airfield. Objects of memory and the politics of absence, Rethinking history. The journal of theory and practice 18 (2), 119.Google Scholar
Stauch, E., 2008: Alter ist Silber, Jugend ist Gold! Zur altersdifferenzierten Analyse frühgeschichtlicher Bestattungen, in Brather, S. (ed.), Zwischen Spätantike und Frühmittelalter. Archäologie des 4. bis 7. Jahrhunderts im Westen, Berlin and New York (Ergänzungsbände RGA 57), 275–95.Google Scholar
Steffen, M., 2008: Sichtfeldanalysen im Umfeld der Heuneburg bei Herbertingen-Hundersingen, Lkr. Sigmaringen, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 38 (3), 353–64.Google Scholar
Steinacher, R., 2011: Wiener Anmerkungen zu ethnischen Bezeichnungen als Kategorien der römischen und europäischen Geschichte, in Burmeister, S. and Müller-Scheeßel, N. (eds), Fluchtpunkt Geschichte. Archäologie und Geschichtswissenschaft im Dialog, Münster (TAT 9), 183206.Google Scholar
Steinacher, R., 2012: Zur Identitätsbildung frühmittelalterlicher Gemeinschaften. Überblick über den historischen Forschungsstand, in Fehr, H. and I. Heitmeier (eds), Die Anfänge Bayerns. Von Raetien und Noricum zur frühmittelalterlichen Baiovaria, St Ottilien (Bayerische Landesgeschichte und europäische Regionalgeschichte 1), 73123.Google Scholar
Steuer, H., 1982: Frühgeschichtliche Sozialstrukturen in Mitteleuropa. Eine Analyse der Auswertungsmethoden des archäologischen Quellenmaterials, Göttingen (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Phil.-Hist. Klasse, 3. Folge 128).Google Scholar
Steuer, H. (ed.), 2001: Eine hervorragend nationale Wissenschaft. Deutsche Prähistoriker zwischen 1900 und 1995, Berlin (Ergänzungsbände RGA 29).Google Scholar
Steuer, H., 2006: Verbreitungskarte, in Hoops, J. (ed.), Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde, Vol. 32, Berlin and New York, 142–66.Google Scholar
Steuer, H., 2009: Archäologie der Gefolgschaft, in Burmeister, S. and Aßkamp, R. (eds), 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht. Konflikt, Stuttgart, 309–18.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2004: Zur Chronologie, Verbreitung und Interpretation urnenfelderzeitlicher Vollgriffschwerter, Rahden/Westfalen (Tübinger Texte, Materialien zur ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 5).Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2008: Kontinuität und Wandel. Die Keramik der Nachpalastzeit aus der Unterstadt von Tiryns, available at www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/archiv/8612.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W. (ed.), 2009: Keramik jenseits von Chronologie, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie, Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress 14).Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2011a: An Aegean glance at Megiddo, in Gauss, W., Lindblom, M., Smith, R.A.K. and Wright, J. (eds), Our cups are full. Pottery and society in the Aegean Bronze Age. Papers presented to Jeremy B. Rutter on the occasion of his 65th birthday, Oxford, 282–96.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), 89105.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2011c: Von der Postmoderne zum practice turn. Für ein neues Verständnis des Mensch–Ding–Verhältnisses in der Archäologie, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 52 (2), 188214.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2012a: Conceptualizing cultural hybridization in archaeology, in Stockhammer, P.W. (ed.), Conceptualizing cultural hybridization. A transdisciplinary approach, Berlin and Heidelberg, 4358.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W. (ed.), 2012b: Conceptualizing cultural hybridization. A transdisciplinary approach, Berlin and Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2012d: Performing the practice turn in archaeology, Transcultural studies 1, 742.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2012e: Questioning hybridity, in Stockhammer, P.W. (ed.), Conceptualizing cultural hybridization. A transdisciplinary approach, Berlin and Heidelberg, 13.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2013: From hybridity to entanglement. From essentialism to practice, in van Pelt, P. (ed.), Archaeology and cultural mixture, Archaeological review from Cambridge 28 (1), 1128.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2015a: Archäologie und Materialität, in Stockhammer, P.W. and Hahn, H.P. (eds), Lost in things. Fragen an die Welt des Materiellen, Münster (TAT 12), 2540.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2015b: Lost in things. An archaeologist's perspective on the epistemological potential of objects, in Böschen, S., Gläser, J. and Schubert, C. (eds), Material objects as a challenge to empirical research, Nature & culture 10 (3), 269–83.Google Scholar
Stockhammer, P.W., 2015c: Die Wirkungsmacht des Identischen. Zur Wahrnehmung von Metallobjekten am Beginn der Bronzezeit, Germania 93, 7796.Google Scholar
Strahm, C., 1994: Die Anfänge der Metallurgie in Mitteleuropa, Helvetica archaeologica 25, 239.Google Scholar
Strahm, C., 2009: Prestige versus Ingenium. Die Beweggründe für die Entwicklung der Metallurgie, in Grunwald, S., Koch, J.K., Mölders, D., Sommer, U. and Wolfram, S. (eds), ARTeFACT. Festschrift für Sabine Rieckhoff zum 65. Geburtstag, Bonn (UPA 172), 343–53.Google Scholar
Struwe, R., 1998: When the wall came down. East German women employed in archaeology before and after 1989, in Díaz-Andreu, M. and Sørensen, M.L.S. (eds), Excavating women. A history of women in European archaeology, London and New York, 146–52.Google Scholar
Thaler, U., 2005: Narrative and syntax. New perspectives on the Late Bronze Age palace of Pylos, Greece, in van Nes, A. (ed.), Space syntax 5th international symposium, Amsterdam, 323–39.Google Scholar
Thaler, U., 2010: Architektur der Macht – Macht der Architektur. Mykenische Paläste als Dokument und Gestaltungsrahmen frühgeschichtlicher Sozialordnung, Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 15 (3), 311–15.Google Scholar
Theel, A., 2009: Über-setzen, in Grunwald, S., Koch, J.K., Mölders, D., Sommer, U. and Wolfram, S. (eds), ARTeFACT. Festschrift für Sabine Rieckhoff zum 65. Geburtstag, Vol. 1, Bonn (UPA 172), 355–63.Google Scholar
Theune, C., 2010: Historical archaeology in national socialist concentration camps in Central Europe, Historische Archäologie 2, 114.Google Scholar
Torbrügge, W., 1958: Geographische und historische Fundlandschaften in der Oberpfalz. Korrektive zum Fundbild der Bronzezeit, Germania 36, 1028.Google Scholar
Torbrügge, W., 1965: Vollgriffschwerter der Urnenfelderzeit. Zur methodischen Darstellung einer Denkmälergruppe, Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 30, 71105.Google Scholar
Torbrügge, W., 1970–71: Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Flußfunde. Zur Ordnung und Bestimmung einer Denkmälergruppe, Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 51/52, 1146.Google Scholar
Trebsche, P., Balzer, I., Eggl, C., Koch, J.K., Nortmann, H. and Withold, J. (eds), 2007: Die unteren Zehntausend. Auf der Suche nach den Unterschichten der Eisenzeit, Langenweißbach (Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 47).Google Scholar
Trebsche, P., Müller-Scheeßel, N. and Reinhold, S. (eds), 2010: Der gebaute Raum. Bausteine einer Architektursoziologie vormoderner Gesellschaften, Münster (TAT 7).Google Scholar
Ulf, C. (ed.), 2003: Der neue Streit um Troia. Eine Bilanz, Munich.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 1984: Gustaf Kossinna und V. Gordon Childe. Ansätze zu einer theoretischen Grundlegung der Vorgeschichte, Saeculum 35, 326–64.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 1988: Des Fürsten neue Schuhe. Überlegungen zum Befund von Hochdorf, Germania 66, 162–69.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 1993: Kollektivbestattung im nord- und westeuropäischen Neolithikum. Problemstellung, Paradigmen, Perspektiven, Bonner Jahrbücher 193, 143.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 1995: Zwischen Geschichte und Anthropologie. Überlegungen zur historischen, sozialen und kognitiven Identität der Ur- und Frühgeschichtswissenschaft, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 36, 137–43.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 1997: Zur Form und Funktion ur- und frühgeschichtlicher Gefäßkeramik. Eine semiotische Perspektive, Archäologische Informationen 20 (2), 265–67.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 2000a: Gustaf Kossinna and his concept of a national archaeology, in Härke, H. (ed.), Archaeology, ideology, and society. The German experience, Frankfurt am Main and New York (Gesellschaften und Staaten im Epochenwandel 7), 4064.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 2000b: König und Hohepriester? Zur These einer sakralen Gründung der Herrschaft in der Hallstattzeit, Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 30, 549–68.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 2002a: Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Theorie für die Archäologie. Anmerkungen zur jüngeren deutschsprachigen Diskussion, in Aslan, R., Blum, S., Kastl, G., Schweizer, F. and Thumm, D. (eds), Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann, Vol. 1, Remshalden-Grunbach, 3755.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 2002b: Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Theoriedebatte und Politik. Ur- und frühgeschichtliche Archäologie in Europa am Beginn des dritten Jahrtausends, in Biehl, P.F., Gramsch, A. and Marciniak, A. (eds), Archäologien Europas/Archaeologies of Europe. Geschichte, Methoden und Theorien/History, methods and theories, Münster (TAT 3), 405–19.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 2005–6: Abfall als historische Quelle. Zeugenschaft in der Archäologie, Parapluie 22, 18.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 2006a: Der Archäologe als Erzähler, in Wotzka, H.-P. (ed.), Grundlegungen. Beiträge zur europäischen und afrikanischen Archäologie für Manfred K.H. Eggert, Tübingen, 201–13.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 2011: Archäologiegeschichte als Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Über Formen und Funktionen historischer Selbstvergewisserung in der prähistorischen Archäologie, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 52 (1), 3458.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 2012: Methodik und Rhetorik in der Sozialarchäologie. Einige grundsätzliche Überlegungen zur deutschsprachigen Debatte, in Kienlin, T.L. and Zimmermann, A. (eds), Beyond elites. Alternatives to hierarchical systems in modelling social formations, Vol. 1, Bonn (UPA 215), 125–36.Google Scholar
Veit, U., 2014: Raumkonzepte in der prähistorischen Archäologie. Vor einhundert Jahren und heute, in Brandt, J. and Rauchfuß, B. (eds), Das Jastorf-Konzept und die vorrömische Eisenzeit im nördlichen Mitteleuropa, Hamburg (Veröffentlichungen des Archäologischen Museums Hamburg 105), 3548.Google Scholar
Veit, U., Kienlin, T.L., Kümmel, C. and Schmidt, S. (eds), 2003: Spuren und Botschaften. Interpretationen materieller Kultur, Münster (TAT 4).Google Scholar
Vigener, M., 2012: ‘Ein wichtiger kulturpolitischer Faktor’. Geschichte des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts im 20. Jahrhundert/Das Deutsche Archäologische Institut zwischen Wissenschaft, Politik und Öffentlichkeit, 1918 bis 1954, Rahden/Westfalen (Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 7).Google Scholar
Weichhart, P., 2003: Gesellschaftlicher Metabolismus und Action Settings. Die Verknüpfung von Sach- und Sozialstrukturen im alltagsweltlichen Handeln, in Meusburger, P. and Schwan, T. (eds), Humanökologie. Ansätze zur Überwindung der Natur-Kultur-Dichotomie, Stuttgart (Erdkundliches Wissen 135), 1544.Google Scholar
Werner, J., 1945–46: Zur Lage der Geisteswissenschaften in Hitler-Deutschland, Schweizerische Hochschulzeitung 19, 7181.Google Scholar
Wiermann, R.R., 1997: Keine Regel ohne Ausnahme. Die geschlechterdifferenzierte Bestattungssitte der Kultur der Schnurkeramik, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift 38, 521–29.Google Scholar
Wimmer, A., 1996: Kultur. Zur Reformulierung eines sozialanthropologischen Grundbegriffs, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 48, 401–25.Google Scholar
Wimmer, A., 2011: Kultur als Kompromiss, in Albert, G. and Sigmund, S. (eds), Soziologische Theorie kontrovers, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft 50 (2010), 411–26.Google Scholar
Wiwjorra, I., 2006: Der Germanenmythos. Konstruktion einer Weltanschauung in der Altertumsforschung des 19. Jahrhunderts, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
Wiwjorra, I., 2009: Ethnische Anthropologie. Zwischen scientistischer Innovation und völkischer Tradition, in Puschner, U. and Großmann, G.U. (eds), Völkisch und national. Zur neuen Aktualität alter Denkmuster im 21. Jahrhundert, Darmstadt (Wissenschaftliche Beibände zum Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums 5), 128–44.Google Scholar
Wolfram, S., 2000: ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’ or ‘Kossinna-Syndrome’? Archaeological theory and social context in post-war West Germany, in Härke, H. (ed.), Archaeology, ideology, and society. The German experience, Frankfurt am Main and New York (Gesellschaften und Staaten im Epochenwandel 7), 180201.Google Scholar
Wolfram, S., Jacobs, J., Schmidt, M., Träger, A. and Jakobs, J., 1991: Eine neue Arbeitsgemeinschaft. Die Theorie-AG, Archäologische Informationen 14 (1), 103–5.Google Scholar
Wolfram, S., and Sommer, U. (eds), 1993: Macht der Vergangenheit – Wer macht Vergangenheit. Archäologie und Politik, Langenweißbach (Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 3).Google Scholar
Wolfram, S., and Stäuble, H. (eds), 2012: Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwandel in der Bandkeramik, Dresden (Arbeits- und Forschungsberichte zur sächsischen Bodendenkmalpflege 25).Google Scholar
Wotzka, H.-P., 1990: The abuse of user. A note on the Egyptian statuette from Knossos, Annual of the British school at Athens 85, 449–53.Google Scholar
Wotzka, H.-P., 1993: Zum traditionellen Kulturbegriff in der prähistorischen Archäologie, Paideuma 39, 2544.Google Scholar
Wotzka, H.-P., 1997: Maßstabsprobleme bei der ethnischen Deutung neolithischer ‘Kulturen’, Das Altertum 43, 163–76.Google Scholar
Zeeb-Lanz, A., 2003: Keramikverzierungsstil als Kommunikationsmittel. Ein Beispiel aus dem frühen Jungneolithikum Südwestdeutschlands, in Veit, U., Kienlin, T.L., Kümmel, C. and Schmidt, S. (eds), Spuren und Botschaften. Interpretationen materieller Kultur, Münster (TAT 4), 245–61.Google Scholar
Zeeb-Lanz, A., 2006: Überlegungen zu Sozialaspekten keramischer Gruppen. Beispiele aus dem Neolithikum Südwestdeutschlands, in Burmeister, S. and Müller-Scheeßel, N. (eds), Soziale Gruppen – kulturelle Grenzen. Die Interpretation sozialer Identitäten in der prähistorischen Archäologie, Münster (TAT 5), 81102.Google Scholar
Ziegert, H., 1980: Objektorientierte und problemorientierte Forschungsansätze in der Archäologie, Hephaistos 2, 5356.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A., 1995: Austauschsysteme von Silexartefakten in der Bandkeramik Mitteleuropas, Bonn (UPA 26).Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A., 2003: Spuren der Ideengeschichte in der ur- und frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie Deutschlands, in Eckert, J., Eisenhauer, U. and Zimmermann, A. (eds), Archäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag, Rahden/Westfalen (Internationale Archäologie, Studia Honoraria 20), 317.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A., 2007: Bandkeramische Stämme? Versuche zur Messung von Kommunikationsintensität, in Rieckhoff, S. and Sommer, U. (eds), Auf der Suche nach Identitäten. Volk – Stamm – Kultur – Ethnos, Oxford (BAR International Series 1705), 9194.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A., 2012: Cultural cycles in Central Europe between the Neolithic and the Iron Age, in Kienlin, T.L. and Zimmermann, A. (eds), Beyond elites. Alternatives to hierarchical systems in modelling social formations, Vol. 1, Bonn (UPA 215), 137–46.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A., Richter, J., Frank, T. and Wendt, K.P., 2004: Landschaftsarchäologie II. Überlegungen zu Prinzipien einer Landschaftsarchäologie, Berichte der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 85, 3795.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A., and Siegmund, F., 2002: Antworten aus der Vergangenheit. Technikfolgen-Beobachtung und andere gegenwartsbezogene Fragestellungen der Archäologie, Germania 80, 595614.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A., Wendt, K.P., Frank, T. and Hilpert, J., 2009: Landscape archaeology in Central Europe, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 75, 153.Google Scholar