DOI chapter:
Changing Worlds – The Spread of the Neolithic Way of Life in the North
DOI chapter:Raemaekers, Daan C. M.: A singularity in continuity? The transition to farming in northwest Europe (c. 5,000 – 3,500 calBC) re-examined from the perspective of multiculturalism
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.66745#0299
298
A singularity in continuity? The transition to farming in northwest Europe re-examined from the perspective of multiculturalism
consider these as either freak observations or the
result of a limited baseline dataset. To be honest, that
is how I interpreted the Amesbury Archer - a burial
dated c. 2,300 calBC, found near Stonehenge, but
with isotopic values implying a background in the
Alps (Fitzpatrick 2011). Ever since, an avalanche
of more and more publications has brought us to the
point where we have to conclude that the movement
of people in the prehistory of Europe was quite com-
mon. Over the last few years especially aDNA studies
have made a major contribution to this field (e.g.
Olalde et al. 2018; Nikitin et al. 2019). It is the end
of a long research tradition in which the combination
of cultural continuity and contacts was the driving
force to understand cultural change.
While no aDNA of Mesolithic and Early Neolith-
ic human populations from the Swifterbant culture
and subsequent Hazendonk group in northwest Eu-
rope has been published yet, in this area the narrative
of cultural continuity provides a last stand against the
renewed evidence of the role of incoming popula-
tions in the transition to farming. The case study area
seems to stand alone in the sweeping and convincing
synthesis of the neolithisation of Europe, as presented
recently by S. Shennan (2019,152). This paper will re-
consider the transition to farming in this area, starting
from the assumption that it was no singular exception
in the new grand narrative of human mobility. What
evidence is there for incoming people? And what role
did they have in the transition to farming?
Theoretical consideration of the role
of newcomers
There is a large number of papers that advocate that
migration was a major factor in the population his-
tory of Europe. In many of these papers the con-
tribution of archaeologists is limited, leading to a
poorly defined use of the term migration (a critique
worded more often, e.g. Hofmann 2015; this volume;
Furholt 2019). Does it entail the movement of indi-
viduals (e. g. as part of marriage or trade networks,
or transhumance), of households, or of larger social
groups? In the near endless centuries and millennia
of prehistoric Europe all these different modes of
movement may have led to substantial changes in the
genetic characteristics of a population over due time.
There are two routes to get a better understand-
ing of the social processes that resulted in the major
genetic shifts across prehistoric Europe. In theory, an
increase in the number of aDNA analyses may provide
a more detailed picture. It is my impression that this
route is being followed already and a substantial part
of available human remains will be analysed in the
coming years. This route will probably find a dead
end: the relatively course-grained chronological resolu-
tion of prehistoric Europe will make it very difficult to
decide which social processes resulted in the genetic
transformation of human populations in a given region.
The second route is far more promising: it creates
an explicit connection between aDNA and archaeo-
logical studies. In case study areas such as ours, with
a grand narrative of cultural continuity across the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition (e.g. Louwe Kooij-
mans 1993; Raemaekers 1999; Amkreutz 2013; see
below), we need to develop a vocabulary that will help
us understand the modes of movement (see Hofmann
et al. this volume for a similar exercise). To this end,
I turn to linguistics for inspiration (see Table 1).
Languages change. They do that in isolation
(without outside influence), but also when new peo-
ple with different languages start to interact with
local language speakers. The degree of impact of
the newcomers’ language can differ strongly. The
first option is that the newcomers and local language
speakers both maintain their own language, and a
multicultural community develops in which people
Linguistics
Behaviour
Pidgin \ /
Bricolage
A-symmetric influence \ /
Cultural change
Multilingualism V
Multiculturalism
Table 1 Modes of linguistic and cultural changes compared. The triangle indicates the degree of influence between the two linguistic
or cultural groups.
A singularity in continuity? The transition to farming in northwest Europe re-examined from the perspective of multiculturalism
consider these as either freak observations or the
result of a limited baseline dataset. To be honest, that
is how I interpreted the Amesbury Archer - a burial
dated c. 2,300 calBC, found near Stonehenge, but
with isotopic values implying a background in the
Alps (Fitzpatrick 2011). Ever since, an avalanche
of more and more publications has brought us to the
point where we have to conclude that the movement
of people in the prehistory of Europe was quite com-
mon. Over the last few years especially aDNA studies
have made a major contribution to this field (e.g.
Olalde et al. 2018; Nikitin et al. 2019). It is the end
of a long research tradition in which the combination
of cultural continuity and contacts was the driving
force to understand cultural change.
While no aDNA of Mesolithic and Early Neolith-
ic human populations from the Swifterbant culture
and subsequent Hazendonk group in northwest Eu-
rope has been published yet, in this area the narrative
of cultural continuity provides a last stand against the
renewed evidence of the role of incoming popula-
tions in the transition to farming. The case study area
seems to stand alone in the sweeping and convincing
synthesis of the neolithisation of Europe, as presented
recently by S. Shennan (2019,152). This paper will re-
consider the transition to farming in this area, starting
from the assumption that it was no singular exception
in the new grand narrative of human mobility. What
evidence is there for incoming people? And what role
did they have in the transition to farming?
Theoretical consideration of the role
of newcomers
There is a large number of papers that advocate that
migration was a major factor in the population his-
tory of Europe. In many of these papers the con-
tribution of archaeologists is limited, leading to a
poorly defined use of the term migration (a critique
worded more often, e.g. Hofmann 2015; this volume;
Furholt 2019). Does it entail the movement of indi-
viduals (e. g. as part of marriage or trade networks,
or transhumance), of households, or of larger social
groups? In the near endless centuries and millennia
of prehistoric Europe all these different modes of
movement may have led to substantial changes in the
genetic characteristics of a population over due time.
There are two routes to get a better understand-
ing of the social processes that resulted in the major
genetic shifts across prehistoric Europe. In theory, an
increase in the number of aDNA analyses may provide
a more detailed picture. It is my impression that this
route is being followed already and a substantial part
of available human remains will be analysed in the
coming years. This route will probably find a dead
end: the relatively course-grained chronological resolu-
tion of prehistoric Europe will make it very difficult to
decide which social processes resulted in the genetic
transformation of human populations in a given region.
The second route is far more promising: it creates
an explicit connection between aDNA and archaeo-
logical studies. In case study areas such as ours, with
a grand narrative of cultural continuity across the
Mesolithic-Neolithic transition (e.g. Louwe Kooij-
mans 1993; Raemaekers 1999; Amkreutz 2013; see
below), we need to develop a vocabulary that will help
us understand the modes of movement (see Hofmann
et al. this volume for a similar exercise). To this end,
I turn to linguistics for inspiration (see Table 1).
Languages change. They do that in isolation
(without outside influence), but also when new peo-
ple with different languages start to interact with
local language speakers. The degree of impact of
the newcomers’ language can differ strongly. The
first option is that the newcomers and local language
speakers both maintain their own language, and a
multicultural community develops in which people
Linguistics
Behaviour
Pidgin \ /
Bricolage
A-symmetric influence \ /
Cultural change
Multilingualism V
Multiculturalism
Table 1 Modes of linguistic and cultural changes compared. The triangle indicates the degree of influence between the two linguistic
or cultural groups.