In archaeology, many 'cultures' are named, such as the Bell Beaker culture or the Urnfield culture. But what exactly is such a culture? Does it say something about ethnicity and peoples, or only about material developments? In this article, we explain how archaeological cultures work and what they do and don't tell us about people.
What are archaeological cultures?
An archaeological culture is defined based on material remains, such as pottery, tools, houses, the way the dead were treated, and other archaeological finds. It's a concept used by archaeologists to distinguish groups of people from the past who share similar material characteristics. The term was introduced in the 1920s by archaeologist Gordon Childe, who suggested that these shared characteristics were probably a material expression of a single people.
An archaeological culture is, however, different from an ethnic culture. An ethnic culture refers to a group of people who view themselves as a community with shared characteristics, such as language, traditions, religion, history, DNA kinship, and social identity. Ethnic cultures are often difficult to point out directly in an archaeological context, because self-identity and social structures aren't always directly visible in material remains.
Pots are not people
Sometimes archaeological and ethnic cultures coincide, and sometimes they don't. Suppose archaeologists dug up our stuff a thousand years from now. They might think we all spoke Swedish because we had IKEA furniture. This shows that an archaeological culture doesn't necessarily say anything about how someone thinks about their identity.
Objects, such as pottery, spread through trade. People also adopted each other's customs, for example in burials, because these customs were more practical, or because they wanted to emphasize their status with them.
Without written texts, archaeologists can only show trends in objects and rituals. Archaeological cultures can show shifts in material culture and provide clues for a change in mindset. In Central Europe, for example, people began burying their dead in urnfields. This might say something about how they thought about the afterlife, or their religion, but that's not certain. Sometimes such a trend points to migration, like with the Rope Beaker culture, but other times it doesn't, like with the Únětice culture.
Migration and cultural mixing
When people think of migration, many think of large folk wanderings, like the Romans or the Mongols. But new research shows that migration often happened differently.
People are not bowling balls
When studying the transition from one culture to another, it's important not to judge too quickly. In many cases, such transitions point more to changes in customs or lifestyle than to the replacement of a population.
The idea that large groups of people migrated to a new area and, like a sort of bowling ball, disrupted the entire society and imposed their own customs, usually doesn't hold up. Sometimes there was war, but often people migrated in the context of trade or cooperation.
You see this stereotype in the migration of the Proto-Indo-European Steppe herders to Europe. Archaeologist Marija Gimbutas claimed that these herders destroyed a peaceful, matriarchal society. But research tells a different story. A small group of herders mixed with a larger group of neolithic farmers. Through this merger, new peoples and cultures emerged.
Migration usually happened in small groups, like families or parts of a tribe. People moved because of poverty, hunger, climate change, or a lack of land. In their new place, they often mixed with the local population. This created new cultures, like that of the Latins, the ancestors of the Romans, or Gaelic culture in early medieval Scotland.
People often moved to places where they recognized shared customs or languages, because family had already migrated to an area earlier, or because the culture resembled theirs. Shared art or religion also played an important role. This made it easier to feel at home somewhere and merge with the indigenous population.
Foreigners in ancient law
From the early bronze Age, the population of Europe was culturally almost exclusively Indo-European. Although migrants from other 'Indo-European regions' often had similarities in culture, language, or belief, there was distrust toward strangers. This distrust had multiple causes. In many tribes, it was customary to banish members who didn't follow the rules. These outcasts sought refuge elsewhere and were often seen as unreliable or dangerous. Various ancient legal systems describe how they dealt with this uncertainty.
For example, in the Roman Empire, citizenship was an exclusive right. Foreigners – non-Romans – often fell under different laws and had fewer rights. They were sometimes seen as allies (socii).
Old Irish law had a similar hierarchy. How an outsider was viewed determined what someone was or wasn't allowed to do within the community and how trustworthy they were. This can be compared to modern certification.
The Indo-European ghósti principle
One of the most important Indo-European traditions was precisely the hospitality principle (ghósti). The Indo-European ghósti principle determined that guests were sacred and had to be treated with respect. Guests often had the same honor price as their host, as long as they adhered to local rules. In many cultures, receiving guests was an honor and emphasized the reciprocal alliance between guest and host.
In this context, guests were exclusively people with whom arrangements such as a trade relationship existed. This also applied to traveling specialists, such as bards, merchants, and judges. In Old Irish law, for example, scholars like the filid (poets) and judges had special protection. Their status remained the same when they were in another tribal territory. This emphasizes how knowledge and skills were often placed above ethnicity or origin.
Migration and social dynamics
In practice, migration and interaction with foreigners often went hand in hand with trade, alliances, and innovation. Many communities benefited from contact with outsiders. Merchants brought not only goods, but also new ideas and technologies. Specialists, such as craftspeople and builders, were often welcomed because they added value to society.
At the same time, some migrants weren't looking for permanent settlement, but for temporary cooperation. Think of mercenaries, who offered their services to local rulers, or traveling merchants, who adapted to the customs of the areas where they did business.
Conclusion
A change in archaeological culture doesn't always mean that a people moved or were replaced. Cultures often flowed into each other. People traded with each other and adopted elements from other groups. What ultimately mattered were the social norms and cultural beliefs that made a tribe part of a particular people.
