Archaeological and ethnic cultures

In archaeology, many 'cultures' are mentioned, 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 do not say about people.

An archaeological culture is defined based on basic of material remains, such as pottery, tools, houses, ways of dealing with the dead, and other archaeological finds. It is 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 argued that these shared characteristics were likely a material expression of a single people.

An archaeological culture, on the other hand, is different from an ethnic culture. An ethnic culture refers to a group of people who perceive themselves as a community with shared characteristics, such as language, traditions, religion, history, DNA relation, and social identity. Ethnic cultures are often difficult to directly identify in the archaeological context because self-identity and social structures are not always directly visible in material remains.

Sometimes archaeological and ethnic cultures coincide, and sometimes they do not. Imagine archaeologists excavating our belongings a thousand years from now. They might think we all spoke Swedish because we had IKEA furniture. This shows that an archaeological culture does not necessarily reflect how someone thinks about their identity. 

Items, such as pottery, spread through trade. People also adopted each other's customs, for example, at funerals, because these customs were more practical, or because they wanted to emphasize their status.

Without written texts, archaeologists can only show trends in objects and rituals. Archaeological cultures can demonstrate shifts in material culture and provide clues for a change in mindset. For example, in Central Europe, people began to bury their dead in urnfields. This may indicate how they thought about the afterlife or their religion, but it is not certain. Sometimes such a trend points to migration, as with the Corded Ware culture, but other times it does not, as with the Únětice culture.

Many people associate migration with large-scale movements, like the Romans or the Mongols. However, new research shows that migration often occurred differently.

When studying the transition from one culture to another, it is important not to judge too quickly. In many cases, such transitions indicate changes in customs or lifestyle rather than 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 is usually incorrect. Sometimes there was war, but often people migrated in the context of trade or cooperation. 

This stereotype is seen in the migration of the Proto-Indo-European Steppe herders to Europe. The archaeologist Marija Gimbutas suggested that these herders destroyed a peaceful, matriarchal society. But research shows a different story. A small group of herders mingled with a larger group of Neolithic farmers. This fusion led to the emergence of new peoples and cultures.

Migration usually occurred in small groups, such as families or parts of a tribe. People moved due to poverty, hunger, climate change, or a lack of land. In their new location, they often mingled with the local population. This gave rise to new cultures, such as those of the Latins, the ancestors of the Romans, or the Gaelic culture in early medieval Scotland.

People often moved to places where they recognized shared customs or languages because family had previously migrated to an area, or because the culture was similar to their own. Shared art or religion also played an important role. This made it easier to feel at home and integrate into the indigenous population.

From the early bronze Age, the population of Europe was culturally almost exclusively Indo-European. Although there were often cultural, linguistic, or religious similarities with migrants from other 'Indo-European regions's, there was a general distrust towards strangers. This distrust had multiple causes. In many tribes, it was customary to banish members who did not adhere to 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 perceived determined what one could or could not do within the community and how reliable they were. This can be compared to modern certification.

One of the most important Indo-European traditions was precisely the hospitality principle (ghósti). The Indo-European ghósti principle dictated 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, hosting guests was an honor and emphasized the reciprocal alliance between guest and host.

In this context, guests were exclusively people with whom agreements such as a trade relationship existed. This also applied to traveling specialists, such as bards, traders, and judges. In Old Irish law, for example, scholars such as the filid (poets) and judges had special protection. Their status remained the same when they were in another tribal area. This emphasizes how knowledge and skills were often placed above ethnicity or origin.

In practice, migration and interaction with foreigners often went hand in hand with trade, alliances, and innovation. Many communities benefited from contact with outsiders. Traders brought not only goods but also new ideas and technologies. Specialists, such as craftsmen and builders, were often welcomed with open arms because they added value to society.

At the same time, some migrants were not looking for long-term settlement but for temporary cooperation. Consider mercenaries, who offered their services to local rulers, or traveling traders, who adapted to the customs of the areas where they conducted business.

A change in archaeological culture does not always mean that a people were displaced or replaced. Cultures often merged 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.