Search

Since aDNA research suggested a marked gene influx from Eastern into Central Europe in the 3rd millennium bc , outdated, simplistic narratives of massive migrations of closed populations have re-appeared in archaeological discussions. A more sophisticated model of migration from the steppes was proposed recently by Kristiansen et al. As a reaction to that proposal, this paper aims to contribute to this ongoing debate by refining the latter model, better integrating archaeological data and anthropological knowledge. It is argued that a polythetic classification of the archaeological material in Central Europe in the 3rd millennium reveals the presence of a new complex of single grave burial rituals which transcends the traditional culture labels. Genetic steppe ancestry is mainly connected to this new kind of burials, rather than to Corded Ware or Bell Beaker materials. Here it is argued that a polythetic view on the archaeological record suggests more complicated histories of migration, population mixtures and interaction than assumed by earlier models, and ways to better integrate detailed studies of archaeological materials with a deeper exploration of anthropological models of mobility and social group composition and the molecular biological data are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to explore the consequences of a new emphasis on migration and mobility to our views of European Neolithic societies. As a starting point, the modern notion of wholeness as a premise for our conceptualisation of social groups (such as settlement communities, or cultures) and social phenomena (such as migration) is criticized as a constituent flaw governing current approaches used to interpret prehistoric social organisation and its connection to the archaeological record. This critique results in the proposition of an alternative view on prehistoric social organisation in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Europe as well as a novel approach to the relation between distribution patterns of material culture found in the archaeological record and prehistoric spatial social organisation. By using a practice theoretical approach to material culture manufacture, two hypotheses are proposed: namely that 1) the social composition of Neolithic communities should, in general, be seen as socially heterogeneous and fluid and that 2), in opposition to what is widely assumed, a marked homogeneity of material culture in a region (the basis of definitions of ‘archaeological cultures’) must be read as an expression of marked social heterogeneity within local settlement units. Instead of reifying archaeological cultures and taking their regional homogeneity as an indication of social homogeneity, it is proposed that the homogeneity of material culture in a region corresponds to the rate of population circulation resulting in a more socially heterogeneous composition of local residence groups. Finally, to complement this generalised view, a methodological approach by which to further explore the potentially very diverse phenomena of population circulation is proposed by using the data available in the archaeological record and the rich anthropological literature on migration and mobility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]