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#0267
266
Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers
Newcomer(s) in a dominant cultural group.
CULTURAL PRESERVATION
o
Assimilation
Marginalisation
m
Integration
Separation/
Segregation
VES
NO
ADAPTATION
Social appreciation of newcomers within the
dominant cultural group.
CULTURAL PRESERVATION
2
o
FAMILY/
RELATIVE
OUTSIDER
7
FRIEND/
ACQUAINTANCE
OUTCAST
YES
NO
ADAPTATION
Interactive attitude towards the newcomers and
their lineage.
CULTURAL PRESERVATION
2
o
INTIMACY
SUSPICION
YES
TRUST
AGGRESSION
YES
NO
ADAPTATION
Fig. 2 Schematic representation of acculturation models (cf. Berry 1997) and related tendencies of social appreciation and interactive
attitudes.
involved, and aims to stress the capacity for resistance
or ambivalence in the adoption of new and perhaps
dominant culture traits, for example in colonial set-
tings. In contrast, ‘mestizaje’ (a term originally coined
in a Spanish colonial setting of ethnic intermixing)
focuses on the generative and creative aspects of en-
counters, and ‘creolization’ (a term borrowed from
linguistics) should be reserved for diaspora contexts
in which new forms of existence are being created
from a common basis.
Bearing the above in mind, we have tried to con-
nect frequently used terminology of acculturation (cf.
Berry 1997) to social appreciation and interactive
attitudes - in both directions - of the (groups of) in-
dividuals involved (Fig. 2). These are linked to the
preservation of cultural traits of the incoming group
(outsiders) and the adaptation (i. e. participation) of
the incomers to the habits of the receiving or resident
group. In a case of ‘assimilation’, incomers accept to
abandon their own cultural values, and turn to a high
degree of participation in the cultural habits of the
receiving group. The incomers will be looked upon
as full members (‘family/relative’) of the receiving
group and interaction is based on intimacy; incom-
ers’ contacts with members of their own group are
not based on origin/lineage. ‘Integration’ involves
a situation where incomers maintain active contact
with their own group/lineage, but show a high de-
gree of participation in the habits of the receiving
group. The incomers will be looked upon as friends/
acquaintances of the receiving group, and interaction
is based on trust. In contrast, when incomers main-
tain no/little contact with their own group/lineage,
and also exhibit no/little participation in the habits of
the receiving group, ‘marginalisation’ will occur. The
incomers will be seen as strangers or outsiders, and
interaction is based on suspicion. In a fourth scenario,
‘separation’ or ‘segregation’ occurs when incomers ac-
tively maintain contact with their own group/lineage
and are not participating in the receiving group. Now,
the incomers will be seen as outcasts, and interaction
is generally aggressive, easily turning into conflict.
The above framework is, of course, very general,
but just how the dynamics involved will work out
in the distribution of culture traits at a population
level, or indeed the further evolution of a society with
multiple roots, is another question. This is a complex
issue to address from a purely archaeological per-
spective, despite the fact that archaeology is (at least
partly) concerned with the understanding of cultural
dynamics. Some recent work addresses this from a
computational modelling perspective (Drost/ Vander
Linden 2018; Erten etal. 2018), partly inspired by
the pioneering work of the political scientist Rob-
ert Axelrod (Axelrod 1997). Based on their explicit
model of acculturation, Erten etal. (2018) suggest
that resident and immigrant cultures are more likely
to stably coexist if residents are more conservative
than incomers. Whilst there still is active engagement
in cross-cultural interactions, these do not necessarily
lead to the continuous spatial dissemination of culture
traits, as the structure of the interactive environment
is complex and returns non-linear dynamics (Axel-
rod 1997; Drost/Vander Linden 2018). It is, for
instance, well possible that, within a process of in-
creasing homogenisation of culture traits, ‘pockets’ of
groups maintain a strong degree of cultural difference.
Such pockets get isolated, which ultimately can lead
to marginalisation or separation/segregation.
With the above outline of an initial reflective
framework, we can start to think differently about
how cross-cultural migrations and mobility may have
influenced the dynamics of interaction both between
hunter-gatherers and farmers, and within these coar-
Crosstown traffic: contemplating mobility, interaction and migration among foragers and early farmers
Newcomer(s) in a dominant cultural group.
CULTURAL PRESERVATION
o
Assimilation
Marginalisation
m
Integration
Separation/
Segregation
VES
NO
ADAPTATION
Social appreciation of newcomers within the
dominant cultural group.
CULTURAL PRESERVATION
2
o
FAMILY/
RELATIVE
OUTSIDER
7
FRIEND/
ACQUAINTANCE
OUTCAST
YES
NO
ADAPTATION
Interactive attitude towards the newcomers and
their lineage.
CULTURAL PRESERVATION
2
o
INTIMACY
SUSPICION
YES
TRUST
AGGRESSION
YES
NO
ADAPTATION
Fig. 2 Schematic representation of acculturation models (cf. Berry 1997) and related tendencies of social appreciation and interactive
attitudes.
involved, and aims to stress the capacity for resistance
or ambivalence in the adoption of new and perhaps
dominant culture traits, for example in colonial set-
tings. In contrast, ‘mestizaje’ (a term originally coined
in a Spanish colonial setting of ethnic intermixing)
focuses on the generative and creative aspects of en-
counters, and ‘creolization’ (a term borrowed from
linguistics) should be reserved for diaspora contexts
in which new forms of existence are being created
from a common basis.
Bearing the above in mind, we have tried to con-
nect frequently used terminology of acculturation (cf.
Berry 1997) to social appreciation and interactive
attitudes - in both directions - of the (groups of) in-
dividuals involved (Fig. 2). These are linked to the
preservation of cultural traits of the incoming group
(outsiders) and the adaptation (i. e. participation) of
the incomers to the habits of the receiving or resident
group. In a case of ‘assimilation’, incomers accept to
abandon their own cultural values, and turn to a high
degree of participation in the cultural habits of the
receiving group. The incomers will be looked upon
as full members (‘family/relative’) of the receiving
group and interaction is based on intimacy; incom-
ers’ contacts with members of their own group are
not based on origin/lineage. ‘Integration’ involves
a situation where incomers maintain active contact
with their own group/lineage, but show a high de-
gree of participation in the habits of the receiving
group. The incomers will be looked upon as friends/
acquaintances of the receiving group, and interaction
is based on trust. In contrast, when incomers main-
tain no/little contact with their own group/lineage,
and also exhibit no/little participation in the habits of
the receiving group, ‘marginalisation’ will occur. The
incomers will be seen as strangers or outsiders, and
interaction is based on suspicion. In a fourth scenario,
‘separation’ or ‘segregation’ occurs when incomers ac-
tively maintain contact with their own group/lineage
and are not participating in the receiving group. Now,
the incomers will be seen as outcasts, and interaction
is generally aggressive, easily turning into conflict.
The above framework is, of course, very general,
but just how the dynamics involved will work out
in the distribution of culture traits at a population
level, or indeed the further evolution of a society with
multiple roots, is another question. This is a complex
issue to address from a purely archaeological per-
spective, despite the fact that archaeology is (at least
partly) concerned with the understanding of cultural
dynamics. Some recent work addresses this from a
computational modelling perspective (Drost/ Vander
Linden 2018; Erten etal. 2018), partly inspired by
the pioneering work of the political scientist Rob-
ert Axelrod (Axelrod 1997). Based on their explicit
model of acculturation, Erten etal. (2018) suggest
that resident and immigrant cultures are more likely
to stably coexist if residents are more conservative
than incomers. Whilst there still is active engagement
in cross-cultural interactions, these do not necessarily
lead to the continuous spatial dissemination of culture
traits, as the structure of the interactive environment
is complex and returns non-linear dynamics (Axel-
rod 1997; Drost/Vander Linden 2018). It is, for
instance, well possible that, within a process of in-
creasing homogenisation of culture traits, ‘pockets’ of
groups maintain a strong degree of cultural difference.
Such pockets get isolated, which ultimately can lead
to marginalisation or separation/segregation.
With the above outline of an initial reflective
framework, we can start to think differently about
how cross-cultural migrations and mobility may have
influenced the dynamics of interaction both between
hunter-gatherers and farmers, and within these coar-