Present pasts in the archaeology of genetics, identity, and migration in Europe: a critical essay

Frieman, Catherine J.; Hofmann, Daniela

doi:10.1080/00438243.2019.1627907

Cited by 64 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, while such extreme views are easy to spot and to debunk, the core assumption of the monothetic nature of human groups is deeply rooted in more apparently 'civil' and 'acceptable' worldviews, which are commonly considered as conservative, moderate, and in any case part of mainstream discourse (Painter 2011; Adamson 2016; Appiah 2018), They are in other words considered 'common sense' by many and thus often maintained as part of the general worldview by individual natural scientists without a more thorough anthropological or theoretical archaeological education. And their work in several areas now increasingly starts to have indirect effects on the perception of prehistoric social group composition and on concepts of race, including in genetics (Fullwiley 2014;Frieman & Hofmann 2019). Thus while none of the colleagues involved in the discussion would probably ever subscribe to a racist world-view, the idea of essentially monothetic cultures in prehistory -that is bounded, static, homogeneous groups -is deeply encapsulated both in large parts of the 'common-sense' thinking about social groups, and in the traditional archaeological practice of classification rooted in the culturehistorical school.…”

Section: How Traditional Culture History Infected the Adna Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This residual conceptual baggage has ideological power on its own, as its implementation into our models of prehistoric social processes has practical consequences. It has the power to push the interpretation of the new aDNA data in this specific direction, in which a 'clash of cultures' scenario is repeatedly surfacing, especially in the way it is transformed into popular accounts of third millennium scenarios of massive migration and genocide (Ansede 2018; Barras 2019; critically discussed in Valera & Criado Boado 2018;Frieman & Hofmann 2019). Archaeological cultures are taken to represent distinct biological populations, they are given a collective agency, and migration is construed as a quasi-collective mass movement of one population from place A to place B.…”

Section: How Traditional Culture History Infected the Adna Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

De-contaminating the aDNA – archaeology dialogue on mobility and migration: discussing the culture-historical legacy

Furholt

2019

CSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the newly available ancient DNA data have shaken a lot of archaeological debates, they have, despite their enormous potential, not yet had any meaningful impact on the way we view prehistory. Instead of using this new data-source to explore new questions, or at least to re-assess the old ones, aDNA results have been tacked onto some of the most outdated narratives in European prehistory, stemming from the early twentieth century. The simplified Steppe migration narrative builds upon long-outdated culture-historical concepts, sloppy classification work, and a reliance on a monothetic culture concept which was convincingly deconstructed 50 years ago by David Clarke. In this paper, a polythetic approach to the material of the third millennium BC presents a different picture of the period. Additionally relying on a practice-based approach to how new transregional objects and practices are integrated into local contexts, it is argued that these two adjustments to our approach to the archaeological material can significantly improve the aDNA - archaeology dialogue, and better integrate the different datasets.

show abstract

Section: How Traditional Culture History Infected the Adna Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Traditional Culture History Infected the Adna Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

De-contaminating the aDNA – archaeology dialogue on mobility and migration: discussing the culture-historical legacy

Furholt

2019

CSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the current political climate, including increasing nationalism, populist politics and refugee crises, it is little surprise that these arguments have generated so much attention both within and outside the discipline (cf. Brophy 2018; Frieman and Hofmann 2019;Hakenbeck 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The political tensions in aDNA Before we move on to set out the philosophical critique of aDNA approaches, we need also to address the political and ethical elephants in the corner (see Frieman and Hofmann 2019;Hakenbeck 2019). Culture history is not simply problematic because of its presuppositions about identity and change.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond binaries. Interrogating ancient DNA

Crellin

Harris

2020

Arch. Dial.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we explore ancient DNA (aDNA) as a powerful new technique for archaeologists. We argue that for aDNA to reach its full potential we need to carefully consider its theoretical underpinnings. We suggest that at present much aDNA research rests upon two problematic theoretical assumptions: first, that nature and culture exist in binary opposition and that DNA is a part of nature; second, that cultures form distinct and bounded identities. The nature–culture binary, which underpins much aDNA research, not only is a misunderstanding of our world but also results in placing archaeology and material culture in a secondary and subservient position to science and aDNA. Viewing cultures as distinct and bounded creates exclusionary, simplistic and singular identities for past populations. This stands in contrast to the work of social scientists, which has revealed identity to be complex, multiple, changing and contradictory. We offer a new way forward drawing upon assemblage thinking and post-humanism. This allows us to consider the messy and complex nature of our world and of human identities, and demands that we expect equally messy and complex results to emerge when we bring aDNA into conversation with other forms of archaeological evidence.

show abstract

“…gender-biased and racist views (e.g. Nash 2004;Hakenbeck 2019;Frieman & Hofmann 2019; for similar issues in genetics more widely see Lipp hardt 2017; Pálsson 2007:176-202;Jobling et al 2016;Kowal & Llamas 2019), generally quite in contrast to what the geneticists themselves want to convey. This effect arises from the chosen foci of research and the way these are reviewed and amplified in the media.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentary: Archaeology, Archaeogenetics and Theory - Challenges and Convergences

Hofmann

2019

CSA

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This set of thought-provoking papers is the result of a 2018 workshop on the impact of the 'genetic revolution' on archaeological theory building, one of a series of publications, meetings and conference sessions aimed at fostering interdisciplinary dialogue, and dealing with the almost impossibly large influx of data from archaeogenetic research and the issues it raises (see, amongst others, Scharl & Gehlen ed. 2017; Manolakakis et al. eds 2017; Meller et al. eds 2017; Samida & Feuchter 2016). We are only now beginning to get a handle on what the results imply for our views of past societies and ways of life (for the Neolithic, see e.g. Vander Linden 2016; Furholt 2019; Hofmann 2015, 2016). But while they have caused considerable uproar, it is fair to say that archaeogenetic data have not created new problems, but rather brought into sharper focus fault lines which have existed in our discipline for a long time, albeit in varying intensities in different countries. As outlined in the papers collected here, these fault lines concern the sorts of pasts we think are important to write about, the nature of interdisciplinarity and what this means for the craft of doing archaeology, and our relationship to a wider public and the implications of the images of humanity we create. All these issues are as yet unresolved. Beginning with the pasts we write about, many authors have highlighted that archaeogenetics tend to reproduce tropes that are dangerously close to

show abstract

Present pasts in the archaeology of genetics, identity, and migration in Europe: a critical essay

Abstract: Her research interests include the nature of archaeological inquiry, archaeological material culture and technology, innovation and mobility studies, skeuomorphism, flint daggers, and the beginning of the Metal Ages.

Cited by 64 publications

References 86 publications

De-contaminating the aDNA – archaeology dialogue on mobility and migration: discussing the culture-historical legacy

De-contaminating the aDNA – archaeology dialogue on mobility and migration: discussing the culture-historical legacy

Beyond binaries. Interrogating ancient DNA

Commentary: Archaeology, Archaeogenetics and Theory - Challenges and Convergences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About