DOI chapter:
Grenzgänger, traders and the last hunter-gatherers of the North European Plain
DOI chapter:Hofmann, Daniela; Peeters, Hans; Meyer, Ann-Katrin: Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0266
Daniela Hofmann, Hans Peeters and Ann-Katrin Meyer
265
involved. Our main aim is to show the complexities of
such processes, and the range of factors that need to
be taken into account in order to provide alternative
interpretative starting points. For instance, if mobility
and migration were embedded at several social scales
in both farmer and hunter-gatherer societies, then we
could attenuate our views of migration happening
in ‘waves’, with colonisers irrevocably changing the
social structures of the colonised, while remaining
unaffected themselves. Instead, we could investigate
more closely how the forms of mobility and migra-
tion embedded in both societies could interleave, and
where in turn they provided potential for conflict. This
requires us to think through migration and its poten-
tial counterpart, territoriality and boundaries. After
all, both farmer and hunter-gatherer societies were
dynamic. Not only were they integrated in long-
distance networks which constantly provided new
potentials for change, but they also developed their
own internal social trajectories. The kinds of interac-
tion possible at the beginning of forager-farmer in-
teraction may therefore not characterise its further
development.
Mobility, migration and social interaction
In order to illustrate these points, we will first discuss
a simple framework of how processes of accultura-
tion are connected to social appreciation - how well
does one get along with others - and related inter-
active attitudes. People, either as individuals or in
groups, have been moving around to variable degrees
and for many different reasons. In doing so, they will
have repeatedly entered or crossed ‘occupied’ land,
territories belonging to others who had already lived
there for a longer time (Fig. 1), having made it their
‘home(land)’, just as they will have crossed ‘empty’
land, parts of landscapes where no people lived at all
(or at least parts of landscapes bearing no traces of
human presence). But how do ‘insiders’ react towards
‘outsiders’ or ‘incomers’? What will be the nature of
the emerging interaction? This is strongly dependent
of the socio-cultural distance between the individu-
als involved, the intentions of incoming (groups of)
individuals, as well as the openness/closedness of
the resident group towards outsiders.
The literature on how interaction can unfold in
contact situations is vast. In Figure 2 we have tried to
summarise (in a vastly simplified way) some potential
trajectories, formulating expectations of when either
any incoming groups, or the local societies involved,
or indeed both, may react to contact with either accep-
Fig.l Various boundary models can be defined in connection
to territoriality and interaction (after Whitley 2010). Crisp bound-
aries refer to explicit territories, maintained and protected by
various groups. The fuzzy interface model refers to a situation
where territories can partially overlap, but are acknowledged
by the groups. As such, the overlap area consists of ‘communal’
ground, and ‘belongs’ to both groups.
tance of mutual differences, conflict, or some form of
assimilation. The power relationships involved are key
here, with interactions both in a frontier situation and
afterwards having a strong effect on whether ethnic
distinctions are maintained or not (e.g. Hu 2013). This
will also have an impact on how strongly any groups
will want to mark remaining distinctions in material
culture, and in what contexts we may expect to find
them (see for example a short discussion of various
models in Hogberg 2015).
Part of the problem is also concerned with ter-
minology - it is very difficult to talk about something
we perceive to be in a constant state of change (such
as ‘culture’) without implying essentialised categories
(e.g. Sheller/Urry 2006, 212; Greenblatt 2010).
Many of our terms, such as assimilation, accultura-
tion, hybridity and so on, either make unwarranted
assumptions about the possibilities of action for vari-
ous participants, or quickly become so watered down
that they lose any analytical sharpness (e. g. Silliman
2015). Nevertheless, in a recent contribution Matthew
Liebmann (Liebmann 2013) has also argued that the
consistent use of different terms can help sharpen our
notions of contact situations, even though it remains
hard to define in specific instances when a phase like
‘contact’ or ‘influence’ begins, and indeed, when it
ends to be replaced by a new ‘norm’ - in itself open to
challenges and change. In Liebmann’s definitions for
different kinds of cultural interaction (Liebmann 2013,
41), for example, ‘hybridity’ should be used where
there is a clear power differential between the groups
265
involved. Our main aim is to show the complexities of
such processes, and the range of factors that need to
be taken into account in order to provide alternative
interpretative starting points. For instance, if mobility
and migration were embedded at several social scales
in both farmer and hunter-gatherer societies, then we
could attenuate our views of migration happening
in ‘waves’, with colonisers irrevocably changing the
social structures of the colonised, while remaining
unaffected themselves. Instead, we could investigate
more closely how the forms of mobility and migra-
tion embedded in both societies could interleave, and
where in turn they provided potential for conflict. This
requires us to think through migration and its poten-
tial counterpart, territoriality and boundaries. After
all, both farmer and hunter-gatherer societies were
dynamic. Not only were they integrated in long-
distance networks which constantly provided new
potentials for change, but they also developed their
own internal social trajectories. The kinds of interac-
tion possible at the beginning of forager-farmer in-
teraction may therefore not characterise its further
development.
Mobility, migration and social interaction
In order to illustrate these points, we will first discuss
a simple framework of how processes of accultura-
tion are connected to social appreciation - how well
does one get along with others - and related inter-
active attitudes. People, either as individuals or in
groups, have been moving around to variable degrees
and for many different reasons. In doing so, they will
have repeatedly entered or crossed ‘occupied’ land,
territories belonging to others who had already lived
there for a longer time (Fig. 1), having made it their
‘home(land)’, just as they will have crossed ‘empty’
land, parts of landscapes where no people lived at all
(or at least parts of landscapes bearing no traces of
human presence). But how do ‘insiders’ react towards
‘outsiders’ or ‘incomers’? What will be the nature of
the emerging interaction? This is strongly dependent
of the socio-cultural distance between the individu-
als involved, the intentions of incoming (groups of)
individuals, as well as the openness/closedness of
the resident group towards outsiders.
The literature on how interaction can unfold in
contact situations is vast. In Figure 2 we have tried to
summarise (in a vastly simplified way) some potential
trajectories, formulating expectations of when either
any incoming groups, or the local societies involved,
or indeed both, may react to contact with either accep-
Fig.l Various boundary models can be defined in connection
to territoriality and interaction (after Whitley 2010). Crisp bound-
aries refer to explicit territories, maintained and protected by
various groups. The fuzzy interface model refers to a situation
where territories can partially overlap, but are acknowledged
by the groups. As such, the overlap area consists of ‘communal’
ground, and ‘belongs’ to both groups.
tance of mutual differences, conflict, or some form of
assimilation. The power relationships involved are key
here, with interactions both in a frontier situation and
afterwards having a strong effect on whether ethnic
distinctions are maintained or not (e.g. Hu 2013). This
will also have an impact on how strongly any groups
will want to mark remaining distinctions in material
culture, and in what contexts we may expect to find
them (see for example a short discussion of various
models in Hogberg 2015).
Part of the problem is also concerned with ter-
minology - it is very difficult to talk about something
we perceive to be in a constant state of change (such
as ‘culture’) without implying essentialised categories
(e.g. Sheller/Urry 2006, 212; Greenblatt 2010).
Many of our terms, such as assimilation, accultura-
tion, hybridity and so on, either make unwarranted
assumptions about the possibilities of action for vari-
ous participants, or quickly become so watered down
that they lose any analytical sharpness (e. g. Silliman
2015). Nevertheless, in a recent contribution Matthew
Liebmann (Liebmann 2013) has also argued that the
consistent use of different terms can help sharpen our
notions of contact situations, even though it remains
hard to define in specific instances when a phase like
‘contact’ or ‘influence’ begins, and indeed, when it
ends to be replaced by a new ‘norm’ - in itself open to
challenges and change. In Liebmann’s definitions for
different kinds of cultural interaction (Liebmann 2013,
41), for example, ‘hybridity’ should be used where
there is a clear power differential between the groups