The socio-economic (processual) versus the culturally particular (postprocessual) discourse

Hofmann and Stockhammer represent a more recent postprocessual thing and materiality theoretical discourse, evidenced also by the number of citations of certain researchers. I suggest that this misrepresents a rather strong, and perhaps more traditional, socio-economic materialism rooted in a general processual discourse. Here we find the ‘Kiel school’ headed by Johannes Müller, but again originating in earlier research traditions with a stronger science-based perspective linked to landscape studies (the Jankuhn school), and here we also find much of the settlement archaeology of recent times, such as work by Schier and Zimmermann. Interest is rather in reconstructing and explaining long-term trends in demography (Müller Reference Müller, Kristiansen, Smedja and Turek2015), economy, environment and social organization (Hansen and Müller Reference Hansen and Müller2011). This has, of course, been supported and stimulated by the large DFG Frühe Monumentalität research project (e.g. Furholt, Lüth and Müller Reference Furholt, Lüth and Müller2011), and the graduate school for environmental studies (Human Development in Landscapes) in Kiel. However, when flipping through dissertations from recent years it is clear that such a general social archaeology has been taken on board and with that a methodological search for quantitative parameters to support interpretations, from network analysis (Furholt Reference Furholt2011) to measurements of wealth and status (Endrigkeit Reference Endrigkeit2014).

Opposed to this we find a more postprocessual, post-colonial theoretical interest in materiality, object biographies, cultural encounters and hybridity, linked to Joseph Maran and Stockhammer in Heidelberg (Maran and Stockhammer Reference Maran and Stockhammer2012b; Stockhammer Reference Stockhammer2012b; Stockhammer and Hahn Reference Stockhammer and Hahn2015), and supported by a cluster of excellence on transculturality in Asia and Europe, as well as the Topoi cluster in Berlin (Hofmann et al. Reference Hofmann, Meier, Mölders and Schreiber2016). This discourse organizes the theoretical structure of Hofmann and Stockhammer's exposition, and the theoretical debates linked to it are therefore well referenced, in opposition to the socio-economic school, even if one finds overlaps between the two. Also as a result of this theoretical priority, there is less focus on the science turn in archaeology, and its potential role in reshaping theory and interpretations in GSA (to be discussed below in the last section).

What I wish to say is that the Anglo-Saxon theoretical debates and discourses are more than visible also in the GSA, and more so than Hofmann and Stockhammer want to admit. Yes, there is a stronger emphasis on data and methodological rigour in GSA, and there exists no single dominant theoretical school. But the world is changing, and also in English-speaking archaeology (ESA) we see a stronger emphasis on methodological rigour and data analysis, linked to the ‘science turn’ in archaeology, and the increasing role of big data. I have suggested that this represents a global change in the humanities and social sciences (Kristiansen Reference Kristiansen2015).

Theoretical deconstruction versus interpretive narratives

There exists a strong tradition of theoretical critique or deconstruction in German archaeology, which cuts across theoretical schools. It is partly covered under the positive heading ‘self-reflexivity’ in the article, but I wish to focus on some unintended negative consequences of this tradition. Certain general concepts such as migration or ethnicity are chosen for critical scrutiny, and then a battery of data is mobilized to show that it is impossible to say anything certain. The debate over ethnicity started by Sebastian Brather is a good example of this, as well as the migration debate (summarized in Burmeister Reference Burmeister, Kaiser and Schier2013a; Reference Burmeister, Eggert and Veit2013b), but it is a tradition that has been nurtured by Manfred Eggert and his students, not least Tobias Kienlin (for another debate see Kristiansen and Earle Reference Kristiansen, Earle, Kristiansen, Smedja and Turek2015 versus Kienlin Reference Kienlin, Kienlin and Zimmerman2012).

The problem with this kind of theoretical and methodological critique in GSA is that it is often socially and historically uninformed. It therefore tends to revolve around the nature of archaeological data, and what can be known from a purely archaeological perspective. However, one cannot correctly interpret ethnicity or migration without understanding society, its organization and its institutions. This is necessary in order to create an interpretive bridge between theory and data that is rooted in the social organization of society. Ethnicity and migration unfold differently depending on whether we are talking about an archaic state or a tribal society. Unfortunately, such comparative anthropological/historical knowledge is often missing in GSA, as noted by Hofmann and Stockhammer, which explains the lack of interpretive progress, at least in part. Here the Kiel school marks an exception as their main focus is on social and economic organization rather than theoretical concepts per se. Thus while GSA has produced an impressive number of theoretical books (such as the Tübinger Archäologische Taschenbücher) and articles that deal exclusively with theory, there is a lack of interpretive implementation and progress.

We find very few examples in GSA of the kind of interpretive narratives (applied and fully integrated theory and interpretation) that are common in ESA, such as Christopher Tilley's works on phenomenology and metaphors (Tilley Reference Tilley1999), Richard Bradley's many interpretive narratives (e.g. ‘Image and audience’ – Bradley Reference Bradley2010), or my own contributions, such as ‘The rise of Bronze Age society’ (Kristiansen and Larsson Reference Kristiansen and Larsson2005). On the contrary, in a recent critique Tobias Kienlin (Reference Kienlin and Kienlin2015a) argued that the narrative style of our book was too seductive, and therefore unscientific. It exemplifies a basic problem in GSA: not fear of flying, but fear of interpretive narratives, where you privilege some data at the expense of others, as the result of clearly formulated research questions and their implementation in a coherent interpretation.

This tradition of critical deconstruction sets an academic example that favours (and rewards?) critique rather than interpretation. As a result, interpretive narratives are considered risky, in some places unscientific, and are therefore better avoided.

What does the future hold?

Well, if GSA can get rid of its fear of interpretive narratives (which implies choosing and interpretive consequence), and start exploiting its enormously rich archaeological and scientific database, which in all fairness is well under way, then huge progress can be achieved. But it demands a better integration of science and archaeology, of social theory and interpretation, than we've seen so far. Why is there virtually no discussion, in Hofmann and Stockhammer, of the recent dramatic progress in ancient DNA and strontium isotopic analyses (e.g. Allentoft et al. Reference Allentoft2015; Haak et al. Reference Haak2015; Mathieson et al. Reference Mathieson2015; Meyer et al. Reference Meyer, Ganslmeier, Dresely, Alt, Kolář and Trampota2012; Knipper et al. Reference Knipper, Meyer, Jacobi, Roth, Fecher, Stephan, Schatz, Hansen, Posluschny, Höppner, Maus, Pare and Alt2014), which provides answers to questions of migration and mobility, and elite versus commoner lifestyles and diet, debated for over a century (they refer to some strontium-based research, but without discussing its impact). By avoiding the challenge of the science turn in archaeology, their contribution is rather backward-looking, and more pessimistic than the present situation invites. However, they rightly point out the impact of large-scale research projects in Germany (‘clusters of excellence’) for supporting interdisciplinary research and the theoretical formulation of such research programmes. Mention should also be made of the impact of the European Research Council and its financing of large projects, such as Rebay-Salisbury on ‘Motherhood and child rearing in prehistoric Europe’, and Stockhammer on ‘Transformations of food in the Eastern Mediterranean Late Bronze Age’. Also, a series of recent international conferences on ‘big questions’ such as ‘1600 BC in Europe’ (Meller et al. Reference Meller, Bertemes, Bork and Risch2013), or ‘Social Transformation 5000–1500 BC’ (Hansen and Müller Reference Hansen and Müller2011) have helped to provide a stronger research focus on historical and theoretical problems. Supported by projects such as ‘Frühe Monumentalität’ in Kiel, and the clusters of excellence, GPA is now in a position where it can bolster impressive high-resolution databases of certain periods and regions that should allow much more coherent interpretive narratives to be produced in the future, supported by both science and archaeology. The series of monographs and articles being produced by these projects are already providing evidence of this future.