The diversity of the comments makes it an easy and a complex task to address them. It is an easy task, since each of the commentators presented clear yet widely ranging opinions about the extent and relevance of theories in GSA, which differ astonishingly – from accusations of just presenting ‘theory-lite’ (Veit) to the very positive view that there is even more relevant theoretical discussion in GSA than mentioned by us (Kristiansen). The surprisingly diverse comments lead us to suppose that we have probably found a middle ground between the pessimistic and the more optimistic perspectives. However, commenting on the responses is also a complex task, because the only way of doing justice to them is by discussing them individually.
Veit's notion of theory is a very specific one and strongly contrasts with our understanding of theoretical issues in archaeology. For Veit, theory is the resistance of a small avant-garde group against the mainstream; theory cannot be a broader phenomenon, because only an intellectual elite would be capable of diving into its depths. We strongly oppose such an exclusive and elitist perspective, which runs the risk of eventually accepting only one's own and a few others’ work as ‘theoretical enough’. In our opinion, all theoretical thoughts are embedded in ongoing discourses and practices; they are always a reaction to pre-existing thoughts. How much societal impact does Veit expect from theory in order for it to be radical and avant-garde enough? Is his response mainly intended to raise a conflict in order to be able to classify his own work as ‘theory’, following his own definition? For us, there is no meaningful differentiation between ‘true theoretical archaeologists’ (with whom Veit would probably align himself) and ‘archaeologists working with theoretically guided approaches’. There is no clear-cut difference between theory and practice, as empirical work is always loaded with theory, and theory is always empirically loaded – even if this remains inexplicit or even unconscious (cf. Hirschauer Reference Hirschauer, Kalthoff, Hirschauer and Lindemann2008).
Our goal was to shed light on explicitly theoretically oriented works in GSA – irrespective of whether they were aiming at conflict or not. For us, it just makes no sense to differentiate between ‘theory’ and ‘normal science’ as suggested by Veit. In contrast to his reading of our text we use ‘antiquarianism’ in a descriptive and not in a pejorative way, similar to Karl J. Narr (Reference Narr, Prinz and Weingart1990, 294, 305) and Manfred K.H. Eggert (Reference Eggert2001, 16–17). We are also surprised by his statement that we contrast an ‘antiquarian GSA’ before the year 2000 with a ‘theory-oriented GSA’ after 2000, as we explicitly refer to theoretical approaches in GSA before 2000 even if this was explicitly beyond the scope of our article. Furthermore, we have already published on this topic (Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer, Gramsch and Sommer2011b; Hofmann Reference Hofmann, Eggert and Veit2013a). Therefore we are unable to follow Veit's very particular reading of our article (e.g. ‘Either the roots of theoretical archaeology go back in time much further than postulated by Hofmann and Stockhammer – or modern GSA is less modern (theoretical) than presented to us here’ (p. 27)). In opposition to Veit, we would also strictly argue against the equation of ‘modern’ and ‘theoretical’ and we have consciously avoided the highly problematic notion of ‘modern’ and ‘modernity’ in our contribution. To sum up, we understand Veit's particular response as an aim to distinguish and emphasize his and a few others’ works as ‘theoretical’ and ‘avant-garde’ in contrast to ‘normal archaeology’. Our lines of thinking about and approaching theory in archaeology could not be more different.
In his commentary, Thomas Meier expands on the challenge and potential of differentiating a ‘German-speaking’ archaeological community, which we have also discussed in detail in our contribution. He emphasizes the relevance of national mentalities, research practices and institutions – going back to the 19th century. However, we did not specifically address mentalities, as they mostly remain implicit in the relevant publications. We also agree with Meier that language indeed has the potential to shape human thinking and conceptualizations of the world and therefore approaches to and narratives of the past. However, as these discussions are beyond our field of specialization, we refrained from expanding on this issue. Our aim was rather to show the broad range of inspiring theoretical publications in GSA to the international audience – not to find some ‘Germanness’ behind them.
In contrast to us, Meier does not see a lively theoretical debate in GSA beyond the large research centres that the Excellence Initiative has created in the last decade. It is true that many theoretical contributions were indeed written by scholars based at Berlin, Heidelberg and Kiel. However, even a short glance at our bibliography leaves no doubt that relevant contributions originated from a much wider range of scholars and universities, for example Tübingen, Leipzig and Freiburg. We have already stated in our contribution that besides single scholars with a great interest in archaeological theory, the growing number of interdisciplinary collaborative research projects since the new millennium has been a crucial factor for the further development of theoretical approaches. In contrast to Meier, we still consider the institutional transformations due to the Bologna Process as a further influential factor because it forced a stronger discourse on methods and research issues between the formerly separated archaeological disciplines.
We highly appreciate Meier's reference to the long and vibrant philosophical and sociological tradition in German-speaking academia and also its efforts to bridge the divide between the humanities and science (Hofmann Reference Hofmann2006–7; Meier and Tillessen Reference Meier and Tillessen2011; Krause and Stockhammer Reference Krause and Stockhammer2013). However, our aim was to shed light on theoretical writings in GSA and we have already quoted much more than we should have. We hope that theoretical writings of scholars from the German-speaking humanities and life sciences will find even more interest in GSA and beyond in the future.
Reinhard Bernbeck has drawn attention to a truly typical German phenomenon of archaeology – its division into seemingly clear-cut disciplines (e.g. prehistoric archaeology, classical archaeology and Near Eastern archaeology) and the overall acceptance of these disciplinary boundaries and competencies. We have been educated in exactly such a disciplinary system, and therefore took our respective competencies as the basis for our review, which we could indeed have called ‘German-speaking prehistoric archaeology’ with a strong focus on the metal ages – keeping in mind that distinctive archaeological material also has an impact on the respective theoretical discussions in this field. Nevertheless, we completely agree with him that it is the Verbundforschung – the collaborative research projects – which not only have changed GSA markedly since the year 2000, but also have an enormous potential to transform our discipline in the years to come. In the end, these projects could produce a comprehensive ‘archaeology’ by integrating disciplinary knowledge in a transdisciplinary discourse. Instead of following the romantic idea of a general scholarship (Universalgelehrtentum) in archaeological theory, we think that the ongoing disciplinary (sub)specialization also has important advantages as long as the interdisciplinary dialogue remains vivid.
We thank Bernbeck for his further thoughts on the important themes of space and identity, but we do not agree with him that there is an absence of reflexivity in GSA. We rather consider reflexivity as an important topic – especially with regard to the analysis of archaeology during the Second World War, which is very specific to GSA and which still serves as an important basis for reflections. Therefore theories and concepts are not reduced to a mere toolbox, but always have to be regarded in terms of their historical genesis and application (e.g. Heidegger). It is important to remember that one should not confuse this specific German ‘historical reflexivity’ with the ‘contemporary reflexivity’ of anglophone archaeology, which refers to archaeology as social and political practice and which is becoming increasingly important also in GSA.
We do not agree with his dictum that German-speaking archaeologists ‘watch timidly the anglophone archaeological discourse’ (p. 40) and lack a creative appropriation of theoretical literature. It is, rather, a problem that unless they are translated into English, the international reception of German-language publications, including outside archaeology, is poor. Nevertheless, he is right that German-speaking archaeologists should be more confident in their theoretical work. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to stop complaining and to act.
In his comment, Kristian Kristiansen points to the ongoing importance of what he calls the ‘socio-economic (processual) versus the culturally particular (postprocessual) discourse’ (p. 41) – the latter being the focus of our review. Although we have integrated quite a lot of what Kristiansen classifies as the processual tradition in GSA – most prominently manifested in the vivid research environment at Kiel – we agree with him that we are both situated much closer to what he calls the postprocessual discourse.
Kristiansen also remarks on the rejection of grand narratives in GSA, which often goes hand in hand with deconstruction only and a lack of constructive approaches. We agree with Kristiansen that there is indeed a fear of grand narratives in GSA, but we see the increasing emergence of small narratives – sometimes competing, but aiming to overcome an over-exaggerated deconstructivism. We agree with Kristiansen that the increasing potential of scientific approaches is essentially transforming our relationship with archaeological source material. However, we do not agree with his assessment that the growing interest in the groundbreaking results of cutting-edge scientific methods has basically changed archaeological theory, and therefore we would avoid using the term ‘scientific turn’. Nevertheless, the new insights which are now possible could be taken as a basis for a discussion of different kinds of knowledge generation and their integration, as well as about crucial concepts like time, space, human identities, mobility and so on (cf. Hofmann Reference Hofmann2016d).
At the end of his response, Kristiansen again points to the possibility and potential of large-scale collaborative research projects – completely in line with Bernbeck's and also our major argument: together with the institutional transformations due to the Bologna Process, it was the increasing establishment of large-scale collaborative research projects in GSA – with all the forces, opportunities and potentials that arose with them – which enabled and enforced a stronger theoretical interest in GSA than in the decades before. Several replies note a lack of controversial discussions and conflicts in GSA as well as in our paper. We agree that in GSA the generation of knowledge is rather progressive and cumulative and not a product of changing paradigms and concepts like in anglophone archaeology (see also Dürr Reference Dürr2016, 128). Furthermore, theoretical discussions are still not uniformly established in GSA. However, theory in GSA is definitely no longer only the domain of a small avant-garde club and it is more than just a local and reduced version of the anglophone discussion. Theory in GSA is vivid and creative, and has the potential to generate inspiring new insights without falling into the trap of creating one singular large-scale meta-narrative, instead allowing for the creation of competing narratives which, in our opinion, do better justice to the plurality and complexity of the past.
