Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There Yet?

This is the html version of the file https://www.academia.edu/download/3328652/Hakenbeck2008.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w f r o m C a m b r i d g e - 2 3 . 2 - 2 0 0 8

Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Susanne Hakenbeck

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research

University of Cambridge

seh43@cam.ac.uk

Theoretical developments in Anglophone archaeology since the

1960s have been accused of being “immobilist” (Hawkes 1987: 203) or

“anti-migrationist” (H�rke 1998: 19). New Archaeology’s critique of earlier

culture-historical methods and theories apparently also caused migration

to be permanently abandoned as a useful concept. On the other hand,

scholars from the European continent confidently, though evidently mis-

takenly, continued attributing all change in the past to the effects of mi-

gration. It has been suggested that migration has only recently become

a valid field of enquiry again (H�rke 2004: 453), in part due to advances in

genetics and stable isotope analysis. Scientific methods appear to provide

answers to questions that previously seemed unanswerable, such as ‘how

can we identify migrations in the archaeological record’ or, more specifi-

cally, ‘what was the impact of the migrations of X into the area of Y?’

However, when we review the role of migration in archaeological

thought it becomes clear that it is a central concept which has been chal-

lenged periodically by approaches that emphasise evolutionary or au-

tochthonous developments. Throughout most of its intellectual history,

migration has been used as an explanatory device, that is, as a concept

10

Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

that explained cultural and social change in prehistory. Early on, migra-

tions were primarily thought to have been undertaken by defined eth-

nic groups, while from the 1970s they were considered to be evidence of

population spread or expansion. These approaches have dealt very little

with the actual processes of migration, situating them instead in grand

narratives, such as the spread of civilisation, or in universalising models

used, for example, to explain the spread of farming. The application of

scientific techniques has mostly taken place within such established

frameworks of thought instead of challenging them. However, in recent

years a small but increasing number of studies have begun to investigate

the phenomenon of migration itself. These studies point the way towards

a better understanding of migrations as dynamic processes in the past.

Setting Off: Ex Oriente Lux or ‘Home in the North’?

In the 1830s, Thomsen, the curator of the National Museum in Copenhagen,

published his Three Age System (Thomsen 1836). The Three Age System

assumed an evolutionary sequence of human technological and cultural

development, but—crucially—it relied on successive migrations of new

people from the East to central and northern Europe to bring about this

technological change. While the Three Age System today is considered

the fundamental order of archaeological periods, of almost world-

wide applicability, it was not accepted immediately by all of Thomsen’s

contemporaries. The German antiquarian Lindenschmit was one of

Thomsen’s most outspoken critics (Panke 1998: 717ff.). He rejected the

applicability of the Three Age System for the German lands on the basis

of what he perceived to be inconsistencies in the sequence (B�hner 1981:

125), but above all because Thomsen’s reliance on the migration of new

populations for the development of new technologies in Lindenschmit’s

eyes denigrated the achievements of the prehistoric Germans. In

opposition to Thomsen, Lindenschmit propounded the notion of

indigenous cultural evolution, without the need for far-reaching external

influences (Lindenschmit 1880: 50ff.).

Over the course of the nineteenth century, the idea that technology,

cultural achievements and ultimately civilisation spread out from only a

few centres, became firmly established. The biblical worldview suggested

11

Susanne Hakenbeck

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

that the origin of civilisation lay in the Near East and could be traced from

there to Egypt, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire (Trigger 1997: 161,

Wiwjorra 2006: 76). The Napoleonic expedition to Egypt at the turn of

the nineteenth century for the first time widely exposed the European

population to images of the ruins of Ancient Egypt. This expedition was a

founding moment for Egyptology but also for European encounters with

the ‘Orient’ (Said 1995: 87). Expanding on Thomsen’s Three Age System in

the late nineteenth century, the Swedish scholar Montelius became one

of the principal proponents of the ex oriente lux hypothesis, according

to which civilisation had spread to Europe from the East (Trigger 1997:

159f., Wiwjorra 2006: 83ff.). He was one of the first scholars to formulate a

theory of diffusionism, which differed from the migration hypothesis in

that it explained innovations with the gradual spread of ideas, rather than

exclusively with migrations and the displacement of earlier populations

(e.g. Montelius 1899, 1903). Montelius did not reject the idea of migrations,

instead he added a more complex dimension to the understanding of the

changes in material culture and the interaction between the Near East

and Europe.

In the late nineteenth century, the concept of culture was first used

in archaeology (Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952). The German linguist and

archaeologist Kossinna subsequently shaped ideas that had been around

since the nineteenth century into a coherent theoretical framework. In

his discussion of the origins of the so-called Indo-Germans, he drew on

linguistic wave models of language dispersal (Adler 1987: 41) and on the

typological method developed by Montelius. He formulated the concept

of Kulturkreis, in which “sharply defined archaeological provinces at all

times coincide with specific peoples or tribes of peoples” (Kossinna 1911:

3). This he interpreted as the cultural expression of historically known eth-

nic groups, such as the Slavs, Celts or Germans. By establishing a continu-

ity of artefact types into prehistory, he set out to prove the continuity of

these ethnic groups into the past, and by mapping these artefact types

he believed he would be able to trace where different ethnic groups had

settled at different times. Kossinna directly linked the ancient Germans

with the Indo-Germans. Referring to ongoing debates about the “an-

cient homeland of the Germans” (Gr�nert 2002: 104ff., Wiwjorra 2006), he

12

Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

located the origins of the Indo-Germans in the southwestern Baltic area

and southern Scandinavia rather than in the East. From here, he believed,

they had moved to southern and eastern Europe in 14 Indo-German

or ‘colonial’ migrations, spreading culture and civilisation as they went

(Trigger 1980: 25, Gr�nert 2002: 109f.).

Pots, Pans and Peoples on the Move

Unlike German-speaking archaeologists, British archaeologists were not

opposed to the idea that migrations of peoples from the outside had

played an important role in the creation of their nation (Clark 1966: 173,

Trigger 1980: 47). They saw the successive waves of migrations to Britain

(by Celts, Romans, Saxons, Danes and Normans) as steps on the path to

civilisation. Though he was, as a Marxist, politically entirely opposed to

Kossinna, Childe took up Kossinna’s concept of archaeological cultures and

their equation with prehistoric peoples, and introduced it to Anglophone

archaeology as a tool for the systematic investigation of prehistory (Trigger

1980: 43). Childe explicitly returned to the notion that civilisation had first

developed in the Near East and had spread from there to northern and

western Europe (Childe 1925). He emphasised the diffusion of ideas over

migrations as causes of culture change. However, he also attempted

to determine how migrations could be identified in the archaeological

record (Trigger 1980: 44f.). Early in his career Childe, like Kossinna, was

interested in the Indo-Europeans. In keeping with contemporary opinion,

he was also convinced of the “superior physique” of the Nordic peoples

(Childe 1926: 211), even though in his later work he explicitly moved away

from these racial sentiments (e.g. Childe 1950: 146).

With Childe’s definition of the archaeological culture and the con-

tinuing legacy of Kossinna’s Siedlungsarch�ologie in German-speaking ar-

chaeology, the ‘culture-historical paradigm’ was firmly established, both

in Britain and on the European continent. In a parallel development, since

the 1910s, it also became dominant in North America (Trigger 1997: 192ff.)

and after an initial period of criticism it took hold in the Soviet Union by

the mid 1930s (Shnirelman 1995, Trigger 1997: 230ff.). In spite of Kossina’s

and Childe’s clear intellectual and political differences and—in the case

of Childe—rather more complex perspectives on the past, a view of

13

Susanne Hakenbeck

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

prehistory emerged in which ethnic groups were the principal actors

(Hakenbeck 2006: 8ff.). These groups were identified by defined complex-

es of material culture, and they related to each other through migration

and diffusion. Culture-historical notions of migration assumed the migra-

tion of a defined ethnic group, taking place over a relatively short time, in-

volving large-scale population displacement, long-distance journeys and

a profound cultural impact on the receiving areas. The culture-historical

paradigm developed alongside historical linguistics and race anthropol-

ogy, all three disciplines dealing with similar questions. They emerged in

the context of nineteenth century nationalism and provided intellectual

support to the idea of nation by identifying its unique characteristics and

by tracing it back into the deep past. Migrations and diffusion were im-

portant within this framework, because they provided an explanation for

cultural changes in prehistory whilst still upholding the ethnic integrity

and boundedness of an archaeological culture.

The culture-historical paradigm has been one of the most power-

ful and enduring frameworks of thought in archaeology worldwide, and

it has so profoundly shaped our notions of migrations in the past that

in many parts of the world it continues to dominate the archaeological

discourse. Studies of migrations in Early Mediaeval continental Europe

(the ‘Migration Period’), for example, almost exclusively operate within

the culture-historical paradigm (e.g. Bierbrauer 1985, 1993). Its proponents

use migration as an explanatory device, that is, they believe that cultural

changes can be explained with migrations. They consider migration to

be restricted to the movement of defined ethnic groups, which move

across long distance and for a defined period of time, leading to con-

siderable displacement and disruption among the receiving population.

Methodologically, culture-historical studies of migration use isolated as-

pects of material culture that are thought to be ethnically diagnostic in

order to trace the path of these migrations. Many of these studies are

situated within a nationalist framework, in which the migrations of the

ethnic groups under discussion form part of a national origin myth. One

example, among many, is the role of migrations in the archaeology of the

Balkans (Kaiser 1995). Such close integration with nationalism explains

why culture-historical narratives continue to have great popular appeal.

14

Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

‘Retreat from Migrationism’

In Anglophone archaeology, the culture-historical paradigm was replaced

in the 1960s by the New Archaeology which challenged the theoretical and

methodological deficits of earlier approaches to migration. In particular,

the concept of archaeological cultures, their equation with ethnic groups

and the simplistic ways in which migrations were used to explain social

change were criticised. The reassessment of prehistoric chronologies

through the application of radiocarbon dating to archaeological material

resulted in a much greater time depth, and thus slowed the rates of

change for many of the major ‘events’ in prehistory (Trigger 1997: 305).

This made it much more difficult to retain the notion that the short-

term, long-distance movements of specific prehistoric peoples provided

the impulses for change. Instead, change in the archaeological record

was now more rigorously theorised and preferentially explained with

increasing social differentiation, population growth or environmental

change (Chapman 1997: 12). Systems theory and ecological approaches,

in particular, supported the idea that social change was brought about

through internal factors rather than though migration or diffusion from

outside (Trigger 1997: 304).

Clark criticised the ‘invasion neurosis’ of British archaeologists and

praised those who:

once again…appreciate the achievements of their prehistoric

forbears and value them, not as mere products of alien impact,

but as in themselves manifestations of an age-long process of

organic growth (Clark 1966: 173).

In his vision of British prehistory, Clark placed a much greater emphasis

on indigenous evolution and concluded that the “existence [of invasions

and minor intrusions] has to be demonstrated rather than assumed” (Clark

1966: 188). In a review paper that focused on the three disciplines that have

traditionally been used to detect past migrations—archaeology, historical

linguistics and physical anthropology—Adams and colleagues (1978)

15

Susanne Hakenbeck

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

similarly criticised culture-historical notions of migration and diffusion

and called for a “retreat from migrationism”. They pointed out that:

because [they] tend to be invoked as ad hoc and as post hoc

explanations for distributional phenomena, rather than as

subjects for study in their own right, the actual mechanics of

movement have received much less attention than they de-

serve (Adams et al. 1978: 486).

They see in this:

an almost perverse refusal, alike on the part of archaeologists,

linguists, and physical anthropologists, to consider the social,

technological, and logistic mechanics of human movement

(Adams et al. 1978: 523).

Migration Returns

Since the 1970s, an increasing number of studies focusing on the spread of

agriculture have aimed to explain the manner and processes of migration

and diffusion. Seminal work was undertaken by Ammerman and Cavalli-

Sforza (1971, 1973). Their ‘demic diffusion’ model posited that increased

population numbers in areas where agriculture was already practiced

caused the spread of farming in Neolithic Europe. This model was taken

up by Renfrew (e.g. 1987, 1989, 1992) who proposed that the spread of Indo-

European languages was linked to the dispersal of agriculture in Europe

and by Bellwood (e.g. 1984-1985, 1991) who applied it to the dispersal of

languages and agriculture in Austronesia. Rouse (1986) employed similar

methods in his comparison of the evidence for migration among a

variety of populations around the world. These studies are wide-ranging

syntheses of archaeological and linguistic evidence, and later also of

population genetics. They use complex mathematical models to describe

patterns of change in the archaeological evidence, which they ultimately

relate to large-scale demographic changes. They made a point of moving

away from earlier ethnic interpretations of migrations. Instead, for the first

time, they aimed to engage with the actual processes and effects of human

16

Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

movement. Nevertheless, their large-scale and thus necessarily coarse-

grained syntheses have attracted considerable criticism (e.g. Anthony and

Wailes 1988, Zvelebil and Zvelebil 1988, Zvelebil 1998, 2000). Renfrew has

been criticised for ultimately still equating the Indo-European language

with a people (the first farmers) and with archaeological cultures of the

Neolithic (Zvelebil and Zvelebil 1988: 575), and thus for not having clearly

distanced himself from culture-historical ideas of migration. However,

much of this criticism more generally relates to weaknesses in assessing

evidence across disciplines and to the universal nature of the models that

do not account for local differences or indigenous developments.

A growing body of work makes use of some of the models and meth-

ods first proposed by Ammermann, Cavalli-Sforza, Renfrew and others.

This research employs genetics, historical linguistics, demographic mod-

elling and archaeological evidence to map the spread and distribution

of different populations. It has collectively been subsumed under the

term ‘archaeogenetics’ (Renfrew 2000). The area and period foci now go

beyond questions regarding the spread of farming and language disper-

sal, and range from prehistoric human dispersals (e.g. Hurles et al. 2005,

Underhill et al. 2001) to attempts at assessing the impact of historically

documented migrations (e.g. Thomas et al. 2006, Wilson et al. 2001). All

these studies have in common that they focus on the movement of whole

population groups. As a consequence, some operate with very rigid no-

tions of ethnicity and lack the critical reflection that languages, genetic

markers and diagnostic material culture do not equate to an ethnic group

(e.g. Pattison 2008). This is exacerbated by the weaknesses inherent in

interdisciplinary research, for example the transposition of complex and

often debated concepts from one discipline onto another as simplified

facts. Furthermore, such studies frequently adopt a continent-spanning

‘God’s eye’ perspective, from where complex migration processes are re-

duced to little more than arrows on maps.

Home is Best

With the development of post-processual archaeological theories in the

1980s, processual archaeology’s large-scale syntheses and grand narratives

were rejected for being too general and deterministic, and because they

17

Susanne Hakenbeck

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

did not place enough emphasis on individual agency. Post-processual

theories represented a philosophical shift from a view of the world as

objectively observable to an internal perspective that emphasised the

subjective and personal experience of the world. Throughout the 1990s,

the focus lay almost exclusively on the individual, her or his experience

of the world, and on the subjective and multiple meanings of material

culture. Research interests shifted from large-scale regional overviews

to the histories of specific sites or landscapes. Thomas (2004: 114) has

drawn attention to the many studies of the Neolithic in the British Isles

that emphasise their isolation from the continent and focus instead on

the great regional diversity of the Neolithic. The extent and importance

of Anglo-Saxon migrations has also been questioned, and far-reaching

changes in identity were posited instead to account for the changes in

material culture in England in the fourth and fifth centuries AD (Lucy 1998:

106f.). Such “local, ‘indigenist’ or ‘immobilist’ theorizing” (Chapman and

Hamerow 1997: 1, Hawkes 1987: 203) perpetuated processual archaeology’s

rejection of migration. Instead, social change was explained primarily with

indigenous developments and, more specifically, with the notion that

shifting ideas and identities bring about change in material culture. This

has been suggested to be a phenomenon peculiar to British archaeology

(H�rke 1998: 20, Zvelebil 2000: 59).

Theoretical Paths

Since the 1990s, a small number of publications have aimed to address

this ‘immobilist’ position within post-processual archaeology (H�rke

2004). Critical of the deterministic notion of migration held by the

archaeogenetics school, Anthony (1990, 1992, 1997) and Burmeister (2000)

have turned to approaches to migration that have been developed in

neighbouring social sciences. Anthony (1990, 1992, 1997) aims to break

down the monolithic and deterministic notion of migrations that is

held by culture-historians and by the archaeogenetics school. As an

alternative, he proposes a more dynamic model, in which the transmission

of information regarding routes and destinations plays a central role. He

takes account of the variety and complexity of the migration process and

also of the social contexts of migrations. Burmeister (2000: 540) calls for

18

Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

the development of a method that makes it possible to identify migration

archaeologically, and he too sees the need for more extensive theorising

of migration as an element of human behaviour. Burmeister draws

on sociological and anthropological research into recent migrations,

though he accepts that it is not clear to what extent discussions of recent

migrations can be projected onto prehistoric situations (2000: 543). Like

Anthony, he focuses on the networks that are created between the origin

and the destination area which facilitate information exchange and

return migration. Gender, age and class determine who migrates and also

have an impact on the archaeological evidence for such migration. Both

Anthony and Burmeister highlight the complexities of contemporary and

historic migration processes. However, the application and relevance of

this research to archaeological evidence turns out to be problematic,

and they struggle to relate their theoretical concepts to the stated aim of

developing an “archaeological proof of migration” (Burmeister 2000).

Within culture-history and archeogenetics, migration is primarily

understood as a large-scale phenomenon, that is, as the long-distance

movements of ethnic groups or populations. Neither engage in detailed

investigations of the specific processes and contexts of the migrations

they discuss. Migration therefore continues to be normatively defined.

It serves as an explanatory device, a kind of ‘black box’, that accounts

for changes in material culture, subsistence strategies or language dis-

tributions, but in itself it remains unexplained. In contrast, Anthony and

Burmeister see migrations as important areas of research in their own

right. Drawing on research from neighbouring disciplines they aim to

build a theory of migration as a social strategy. However, they too have

been criticised for attempting to extract universal principles of migration

from this research and for projecting these onto prehistoric migrations

(e.g. Chapman and Dolukhanov 1992, Eggert 2000). Regardless of theo-

retical orientation, research has thus operated with pre-defined models

of migration, and, until recently, few attempts were made to investigate

the actual processes and potential variability of migrations in the past.

19

Susanne Hakenbeck

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

A Way Out

Anthony (1990, 1997), Burmeister (2000) and numerous studies from

neighbouring disciplines (e.g. Brettell and Hollifield 2000, Greenwood

et al. 1991) have highlighted the great variability of contemporary forms

of migration. While we cannot simply transpose modern scenarios

onto the pre-industrialised period as if they were universal, we equally

cannot assume that migration in the past was limited to the movement

of ethnic groups or demographic expansion. Instead, it is more useful to

adopt ‘mobility’ as an encompassing and more open concept. Both the

migration of ethnic groups and ‘demic diffusion’ can then be considered

to be specialised forms of mobility, among others, such as transhumance,

exogamous mobility, trade, town-hinterland migration, raiding or forced

migrations. Each of these forms of mobility operates within and is

determined by its specific social, historical and environmental context.

In the early 1990s, stable isotope analysis of bones and teeth first

began to be applied to questions of human mobility in the Bell Beaker

period (Price et al. 1994). Since then an increasing number of studies have

focused on mobility both in European prehistory and in other periods and

parts of the world (see e.g. Bentley et al. 2005, Price and Gestsdottir 2006

and Schweissing and Grupe 2003 for some recent applications). Stable

isotope analysis can provide direct evidence for the mobility of individu-

als whereas other methods, such as genetics or demographic modelling,

can only inform us about populations and only at a statistical level. Stable

isotope analysis provides a ‘bottom-up’ evidence-driven approach to mo-

bility, and it thus has the potential to bridge he gap between large-scale

patterns of mobility and the small-scale effects of mobility on individuals

and their burial contexts.

Indeed, some of these studies have already transformed our under-

standing of mobility in the past. Drawing on the work of Price and col-

leagues (Price et al. 1998; Price et al. 2004), Vander Linden (2007) interprets

the geographically fragmented nature of the Bell Beaker phenomenon as

evidence of a constant flow of people and practices on a local level which

were linked supra-regionally as a chain of networks. Price and colleagues

suggest that mobility had been higher among women than among men

during the Bell Beaker period. Vander Linden (2007: 349) therefore posits

20

Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

that these networks were related to patterns of generalised marriage ex-

change involving a constant flow of individuals.

Other studies highlight the variability rather than the uniform na-

ture of mobility. Making use of both archaeological and genetic evidence,

Zvelebil (2000) proposes that the processes that led to the transition to

agriculture during the European Neolithic varied by region, both in terms

of the extent of mobility and the mechanisms of dispersal. The homog-

enous nature of migrations in Early Mediaeval Europe has also been ques-

tioned (Hakenbeck in press). An examination of the distribution of indi-

viduals with so-called Hunnic modified skulls and of their burial contexts

also concluded regionally-distinct migration scenarios.

These studies attempt to identify specific patterns of mobility by

interpreting the evidence ‘from the ground up’. They aim to build their

interpretations of past mobility from the particular to the general, instead

of starting out with a definition of migration into which the evidence is

then fitted. This avoids the weaknesses of approaches that operate with

normative concepts of migrations, such as over-generalisation, the use

of deterministic models of migration and being unable to integrate evi-

dence at different resolutions into a pre-defined framework.

Conclusion: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Throughout the history of the discipline, the concept of migration has

been an integral part of archaeological thought, balanced by its theoretical

alter ego, the notion of indigenous evolution or development. For most

of this time, migration was used as an explanation for social or cultural

change. In the nineteenth century, migrations were considered to have

been central to the transmission of ideas which facilitated the progress

of civilisation. In the first half of the twentieth century, as archaeological

cultures were defined and became associated with specific ethnic groups,

migrations were used to trace named ethnic groups, such as the Indo-

Europeans, deep into prehistory. Ethnic groups were perceived to have

a kind of collective agency, which motivated their migrations and was

physically expressed as the archaeological cultures that were associated

with them.

21

Susanne Hakenbeck

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

From the 1970s onwards, after a period of criticism during which lo-

cal developments were favoured as explanations for change, the empha-

sis shifted from migrating ethnic groups to the spread and movements of

populations. These population movements were thought to have facilitat-

ed the combined dispersal of farming and dominant language families.

After a renewed period of ‘immobilist’ criticism, a new concept of

migration has begun to emerge since the 1990s. Generalising models

of explanation that make use of a normative concept of migration are

now being rejected in favour of a more open notion of mobility. New ap-

proaches have become critical of a ‘God’s eye’ perspective of migrations

as large-scale processes which take place independently from individual

or local agency, and as a response they are frequently adopting a multi-

scalar notion of mobility. That is, a ‘big picture’ is assembled from local

evidence for migrations without denying the relevance—or even central-

ity—of small-scale variation to a larger-scale understanding of mobility.

Crucially, these approaches no longer simply see migration as a vector for

change but as a complex phenomenon worthy of study in its own right.

This shift opens up new avenues for investigating mobility.

Over the past 150 years, the study of migrations in archaeology de-

veloped in constant tension with research that favours autochthonous

developments as explanation for change. While migration is now again

becoming a popular field of enquiry, this renaissance is unlikely to be the

end of the road. Some of the oldest questions in migration research are

just as relevant now as they were in the nineteenth century, and they will

continue to prove challenging in the future: what role did migrations play

in the transmission of ideas or practices? What were the effects of migra-

tions on the material culture of past populations?

22

Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

References

Adams, W.Y., Van Gerven, D.P. and Levy, R.S. 1978. The retreat from migrationism. Annual

Review of Anthropology 7: 483–532.

Adler, W. 1987. Gustaf Kossinna. In Adler, W. (ed.) Studien zum Kulturbegriff in der Vor-und

Fr�hgeschichtsforschung. Bonn: Habelt.

Ammerman, A.J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1971. Measuring the rate of spread of early farm-

ing in Europe. Man (New Series) 6(4): 674–688.

Ammerman, A.J. and Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. 1973. A population model for the diffusion of

early farming in Europe. In Renfrew, C. (ed.) The Explanation of Culture Change: Mod-

els in Prehistory. London: Duckworth, 343–358.

Anthony, D.W. and Wailes, B. 1988. Review. Current Anthropology 29(3): 441–445.

Anthony, D.W. 1990. Migration in archaeology: The baby and the bathwater. American An-

thropologist 92: 895–914.

Anthony, D.W. 1992. The bath refilled: Migration in archaeology again. American Anthro-

pologist 94: 174–176.

Anthony, D.W. 1997. Prehistoric migration as social process. In Chapman, J. and Hamerow,

H. (eds) Migration and Invasion in Archaeological Exlanation (British Archaeological

Reports International Series 664). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Bellwood, P. 1984–1985. A hypothesis for Austronesian origins. Asian Perspectives 26:

107–117.

Bellwood, P. 1991. The Austronesian dispersal and the origins of languages. Scientific

American 265: 88–93.

Bentley, R.A., Pietrusewsky, M., Douglas, M.T. and Atkinson, T.C. 2005. Matrilocality during

the prehistoric transition to agriculture in Thailand? Antiquity 79: 865–881.

Bierbrauer, V. 1985. Das Reihengr�berfeld von Altenerding in Oberbayern und die Baju-

warische Ethnogenese—Eine Problemskizze. Zeitschrift f�r Arch�ologie des Mittel-

alters 13: 7–25.

Bierbrauer, V. 1993. Die Landnahme der Langobarden in Italien aus arch�ologischer Sicht.

In Schneider, R. (ed.) Ausgew�hlte Probleme Europ�ischer Landnahmen des Fr�h- und

Hochmittelalters, 41. Sigmaringen: Jan Thorbecke.

B�hner, K. 1981. Ludwig Lindenschmit and the Three Age System. In Daniel, G. (ed.) To-

wards a History of Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson.

23

Susanne Hakenbeck

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

Brettell, C.B. and Hollifield, J.F. 2000. Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines. New York

and London: Routledge.

Burmeister, S. 2000. Archaeology and migration. Current Anthropology 41(4): 539–567.

Chapman, J. and Dolukhanov, P.M. 1992. The baby and the bathwater: Pulling the plug on

migrations. American Anthropologist 94: 169–174.

Chapman, J. 1997. The impact of modern invasions and migrations on archaeological ex-

planation. In Hamerow, H. (ed.) Migration and Invasion in Archaeological Explana-

tion (British Archaeological Reports International Series 664). Oxford: Archaeo-

press, 11–20.

Chapman, J. and Hamerow, H. 1997. Introduction: On the move again—Migrations and

invasions in archaeological explanation. In Chapman, J. and Hamerow, H. (eds) Mi-

gration and Invasion in Archaeological Explanation (British Archaeological Reports

International Series 664). Oxford: Archaeopress, 1–9.

Childe, V.G. 1925. The Dawn of European Civilization. London: Kegan Paul.

Childe, V.G. 1926. The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins. London: Kegan Paul.

Childe, V.G. 1950. Prehistoric Migrations in Archaeology. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co.

Clark, G. 1966. The invasion hypothesis in British archaeology. Antiquity 11: 172–189.

Eggert, M.K.H. 2000. Comments. Current Anthropology 41(4): 557–558.

Greenwood, M.J., Mueser, P.R., Plane, D.A. and Schlottman, A.M. 1991. New directions in

migration research. Annals of Regional Research 25: 237–270.

Gr�nert, H. 2002. Gustaf Kossinna (1858–1931). Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf.

Hakenbeck, S. 2006. Ethnic Identity in Early Medieval Cemeteries in Bavaria. Unpublished

PhD thesis submitted to the University of Cambridge.

Hakenbeck, S. in press. ‘Hunnic’ modified skulls: Physical appearance, identity and the

transformative nature of migrations. In Sayer, D. (ed.) Mortuary Practices and Social

Identities in the Middle Ages. Exeter: Exeter University Press.

H�rke, H. 1998. Archaeologists and migrations. Current Anthropology 39(1): 19–45.

H�rke, H. 2004. The debate on migration and identity in Europe. Antiquity 78: 453–456.

Hawkes, C. 1987. Archaeologists and Indo-Europeanists: Can they mate? In Polom�, E.C.

(ed.) Proto-Indo-European: The Archaeology of a Linguistic Problem. Studies in Honor

of Marija Gimbutas. Washington D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man.

24

Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

Hurles, M.E., Sykes, B.C., Jobling, M.A. and Forster, P. 2005. The dual origin of the Malagasy

in Island Southeast Asia and East Africa: Evidence from maternal and paternal lin-

eages. American Journal of Human Genetics 76: 894–901.

Kaiser, T. 1995. Archaeology and ideology in Southeast Europe. In Fawcett, C. (ed.) Nation-

alism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 99–119.

Kossinna, G. 1911. Die Herkunft der Germanen. Leipzig: Kabitzsch.

Kroeber, A.L. and Kluckhohn, C. 1952. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions.

47(1). Cambridge: Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Har-

vard University.

Lindenschmit, L. 1880. Handbuch der Deutschen Alterthumskunde. Erster Theil. Die Alter-

th�mer der Merowingischen Zeit (1). Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn.

Lucy, S. 1998. The Early Anglo-Saxon Cemeteries of East Yorkshire (British Archaeological

Reports). Oxford: Archaeopress.

Montelius, O. 1899. Der Orient und Europa. Stockholm: K�nigliche Akademie der sch�nen

Wissenschaften, Geschichte und Altertumskunde.

Montelius, O. 1903. Die Typologische Methode. Stockholm: Selbstverlag.

Panke, T. 1998. Altertumskunde zwischen Fortschritt und Beharrung: Ludwig Linden-

schmit D.�. (1809–1893) in Seiner Zeit. Jahrbuch des R�misch-Germanischen Zentral-

museums 45(2): 711–774.

Pattison, J.E. 2008. Is it necessary to assume an apartheid-like social structure in early

Anglo-Saxon England? <http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/0285423 80062-

6071/>, accessed 9 Aug 2008.

Price, T.D., Grupe, G. and Schr�ter, P. 1994. Reconstruction of migration patterns in the

Bell Beaker period by stable strontium isotope analysis. Applied Geochemistry 9:

413–417.

Price, T.D., Grupe, G. and Schr�ter, P. 1998. Migration in the Bell Beaker period of Central

Europe. Antiquity 72: 405–411.

Price, T.D., Knipper, C., Grupe, G. and Smrcka, V. 2004. Strontium isotopes and prehistoric

human migration: The Bell Beaker period in Central Europe. European Journal of Ar-

chaeology 7: 9–40.

Price, T.D. and Gestsd�ttir, H. 2006. The first settlers of Iceland: An isotopic approach to

colonisation. Antiquity 80: 130–144.

25

Susanne Hakenbeck

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London:

Jonathan Cape.

Renfrew, C. 1989. Models of change in language and archaeology. Transactions of the Phil-

ological Society 87(2): 103–155.

Renfrew, C. 1992. Archaeology, genetics and linguistic diversity. Man (New Series) 27:

445–478.

Renfrew, C. 2000. Archaeogenetics: Towards a population prehistory of Europe. In Boyle,

K. (ed.) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. Cambridge:

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 3–11.

Rouse, I. 1986. Migrations in Prehistory. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Said, E. 1995. Orientalism. London: Penguin.

Schweissing, M.M. and Grupe, G. 2003. Stable strontium isotopes in human teeth and

bone: A key to migration events of the Late Roman period in Bavaria. Journal of Ar-

chaeological Science 30(11): 1373–1383.

Shnirelman, V.A. 1995. From internationalism to nationalism: Forgotten pages of Soviet

archaeology in the 1930s and 1940s. In Fawcett, C. (ed.) Nationalism, Politics and the

Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 120–138.

Thomas, J. 2004. Recent debates on the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Britain and Ire-

land. Documenta Praehistorica 31: 113–130.

Thomas, M.G., Stumpf, M.P.H. and H�rke, H. 2006. Evidence for an apartheid-like social

structure in Early Anglo-Saxon England. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273:

2651–2657.

Thomsen, C.J. 1836. Ledetraad Til Nordisk Oldkyndighed. Kj�benhavn: S.L. M�llers bogtr.

Trigger, B.G. 1980. Gordon Childe. Revolutions in Archaeology. London: Thames and

Hudson.

Trigger, B.G. 1997. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Underhill, P.A., et al. 2001. The phylogeography of Y chromosome binary haplotypes and

the origins of modern human populations. Annals of Human Genetics 65: 43–62.

Vander Linden, M. 2007. What linked the Bell Beakers in third millennium BC Europe? An-

tiquity 81: 343–352.

26

Migration in Archaeology: Are We Nearly There Yet?

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 23.2: 9–26

Wilson, J.F., Weiss, D.A., Richards, M., Thomas, M.G., Bradman, N. and Goldstein, D.B. 2001.

Genetic evidence for different male and female roles during cultural transitions in

the British Isles. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States

of America 98(9): 5078–5083.

Wiwjorra, I. 2006. Der Germanenmythos. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Zvelebil, M. and Zvelebil, K.V. 1988. Agricultural transition and Indo-European dispersals.

Antiquity 62: 574–583.

Zvelebil, M. 1998. Genetic and cultural diversity of Europe: A comment on Cavalli-Sforza.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 54(3): 411–417.

Zvelebil, M. 2000. The social context of the agricultural transition in Europe. In Boyle, K.

(ed.) Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population Prehistory of Europe. Cambridge:

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 57–79.