The island of Sardinia has been of particular interest to geneticists for decades. The current model for Sardinia's genetic history describes the island as harboring a founder population that was established largely from the Neolithic peoples of southern Europe and remained isolated from later Bronze Age expansions on the mainland. To evaluate this model, we generate genome-wide ancient DNA data for 70 individuals from 21 Sardinian archaeological sites spanning the Middle Neolithic through the Medieval period. The earliest individuals show a strong affinity to western Mediterranean Neolithic populations, followed by an extended period of genetic continuity on the island through the Nuragic period (second millennium BCE). Beginning with individuals from Phoenician/Punic sites (first millennium BCE), we observe spatially-varying signals of admixture with sources principally from the eastern and northern Mediterranean. Overall, our analysis sheds light on the genetic history of Sardinia, revealing how relationships to mainland populations shifted over time.

Genome-wide ancient DNA analysis of skeletons retrieved from archaeological excavations has provided a powerful new tool for the investigation of past populations and migrations. An important objective for the coming years is to properly integrate ancient genomics into archaeological research. This article aims to contribute to developing a better understanding and cooperation between the two disciplines and beyond. It focuses on the question of how best to name clusters encountered when analysing the genetic makeup of past human populations. Recent studies have frequently borrowed archaeological cultural designations to name these genetic groups, while neglecting the historically problematic nature of the concept of cultures in archaeology. After reviewing current practices in naming genetic clusters, we introduce three possible nomenclature systems (‘numeric system’, ‘mixed system (a)’, ‘geographic-temporal system’) along with their advantages and challenges.

No abstract

Archaeologists who seek to examine people ' and 'postprocessual' (e.g. Shanks & Tilley 1987, 61-78; Meskell 1999, 8-36;Hodder 2000; Tarlow 2002, 26-7; Gosden 2004, 33-9; Kristiansen 2004, 83-5), archaeologists who want to open up windows onto the roles people played in past societies typically assume, consciously or unconsciously, the existence of individuals. Thomas (2004a, 147-8), however, challenges unqualified assumptions about the existence of individuals, at least in Europe prior to about 500 years ago: Past Practices: Rethinking Individuals and Agents in Archaeology A. Bernard Knapp & Peter van DommelenThe result [of recent work on agency] … has been to conflate agency with the actor … and thus to assume that evidence of agency is the same thing as evidence for individuals or subjects or selves. This confusion is an understandable one, and in archaeology its origins would seem to lie in the wholly necessary and laudable attempt to think about the concrete attributes of individuals in the past and their role in social and cultural change. (Moore 2000, 260)

No abstract

No abstract

The Iron Age statues of Monte Prama (west-central Sardinia) have long been famous for their unique nature and reputation as the best known examples of Phoenician colonial influence on indigenous Nuragic traditions. These statues, however, form part of a much more complex site that in turn was integrated within a wider colonial landscape. In this paper we propose a new reading of the Monte Prama evidence both by examining the site itself in minute detail and by exploring its wider social and colonial contexts. This detailed analysis enables us to advance our understanding of the colonial situation in west central Sardinia during the 7th century BC.

People and their material culture have moved across the Mediterranean since early prehistory. By the early first millennium BC, a crucial change occurred when people began to establish permanent settlements overseas and migrated in substantial numbers. This review focuses on the critical centuries of the Iron Age to examine how thinking about colonialism and migration in the Mediterranean has changed in recent decades. Because Mediterranean and Classical archaeology have always paid more attention to the colonial settlements founded than to the people who migrated, this review begins with an examination of colonial terminology to assess its conceptual roots and the influences of modern colonialism and nationalism. This leads to a discussion of approaches to migration and colonialism in recent decades and consideration of present postcolonial views of colonial situations and (material) culture. The review concludes with a brief survey of potential connections between migration studies and Mediterranean colonialism.