De-contaminating the aDNA – archaeology dialogue on mobility and migration: discussing the culture-historical legacy

Abstract

While the newly available ancient DNA data have shaken a lot of archaeological debates, they have, despite their enormous potential, not yet had any meaningful impact on the way we view prehistory. Instead of using this new data-source to explore new questions, or at least to re-assess the old ones, aDNA results have been tacked onto some of the most outdated narratives in European prehistory, stemming from the early twentieth century. The simplified Steppe migration narrative builds upon long-outdated culture-historical concepts, sloppy classification work, and a reliance on a monothetic culture concept which was convincingly deconstructed 50 years ago by David Clarke. In this paper, a polythetic approach to the material of the third millennium BC presents a different picture of the period. Additionally relying on a practice-based approach to how new transregional objects and practices are integrated into local contexts, it is argued that these two adjustments to our approach to the archaeological material can significantly improve the aDNA - archaeology dialogue, and better integrate the different datasets.

Mobility and Social Change: Understanding the European Neolithic Period after the Archaeogenetic Revolution

“…Instead, very different societies used Corded Ware and Bell Beaker materials, and their formal characteristics and contexts are much more varied than suggested by the Kristiansen et al model. Moreover, when the premise of monothetic block-like social groups is replaced with a polythetic view of the material, i.e., classifying different kinds of materials independently and allowing for overlaps between units (see Clarke 1968;Furholt 2019b), it becomes clear that the traditional culture model is inherently misleading. When it comes to burial rituals, it is not the case that there was a specific Corded Ware burial ritual as opposed to a specific Bell Beaker burial ritual.…”

“…For the aDNA evidence from the third millennium BC in Europe, we also have to acknowledge a filter in our data sources: the new single burial customs under burial mounds provide the most favorable conditions for ancient DNA analyses, while other burial forms are much less accessible (Furholt 2019b). As there seems to be a connection between migrants from the east and the new single grave burial rituals, we have to assume that the contributions of other European populations is underrepresented, or at least the speed and massiveness of genetic turnover might be overestimated (see Furholt 2019a).…”

“…This is, however, a problematic position, as the archaeological culture concept carries the heavy ideological baggage of presupposing cultural coherence, i.e., homogeneity within and boundedness toward the outside world. Using this concept to classify the archaeological material thus tends to create an illusion of such a coherence by brushing over, or at least downplaying, phenomena of intermixture and overlap of different kinds of artifacts and the underlying phenomena of cultural plurality, diversity, hybridity, and other expressions of social reality (e.g., Furholt 2019b;Wotzka 1993). Even worse, many other colleagues have continued to see archaeological cultures as representing distinct groups of people with a common identity (see Eggert 1978;Furholt 2009;Veit 1989;Wotzka 1993).…”

First encounters in the north: cultural diversity and gene flow in Early Mesolithic Scandinavia

“…Well-known examples include two studies that propose a massive migration from the Eurasian Steppe towards the west in the third millennium BC (Allentoft et al 2015;Haak et al 2015)-which have drawn strong criticism from archaeologists (e.g. Vander Linden 2016, 2019Heyd 2017;Johannsen et al 2017;Furholt 2018Furholt , 2019Carlin 2020)-as well as the debate concerning aDNA and the introduction and spread of agriculture in Europe (Hofmann 2015;Ion 2017).…”

“…Vander Linden 2016, 2019; Heyd 2017; Johannsen et al . 2017; Furholt 2018, 2019; Carlin 2020)—as well as the debate concerning aDNA and the introduction and spread of agriculture in Europe (Hofmann 2015; Ion 2017).…”