The Blurry Third Millennium. “Neolithisation” in a Norwegian Context

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Standard

The Blurry Third Millennium. “Neolithisation” in a Norwegian Context. / Nyland, Astrid J.; Hofmann, Daniela; Iversen, Rune.

In: Open Archaeology, Vol. 9, 20.04.2023, p. 1-32.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

Nyland, AJ, Hofmann, D & Iversen, R 2023, 'The Blurry Third Millennium. “Neolithisation” in a Norwegian Context', Open Archaeology, vol. 9, pp. 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2022-0287

APA

Nyland, A. J., Hofmann, D., & Iversen, R. (2023). The Blurry Third Millennium. “Neolithisation” in a Norwegian Context. Open Archaeology, 9, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2022-0287

Vancouver

Nyland AJ, Hofmann D, Iversen R. The Blurry Third Millennium. “Neolithisation” in a Norwegian Context. Open Archaeology. 2023 Apr 20;9:1-32. https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2022-0287

Author

Nyland, Astrid J. ; Hofmann, Daniela ; Iversen, Rune. / The Blurry Third Millennium. “Neolithisation” in a Norwegian Context. In: Open Archaeology. 2023 ; Vol. 9. pp. 1-32.

Bibtex

@article{34edab4dda9444b9980064231aeb4ec6,
title = "The Blurry Third Millennium.: “Neolithisation” in a Norwegian Context",
abstract = "In this article, we critically review recurrent tropes, implicit frameworks, and unexplained concepts in current research on the process of “Neolithisation” in the western part of southern Norway. Two models are on offer, as also seen elsewhere in the European research: either 1) the transition to agriculture israpid and substantially carried by migrants, or 2) the Late Neolithic transition builds on a long history of local adaptation. After outlining these models, we scrutinise especially west Norwegian evidence, pointing out ambiguities and limitations in the material which mean that neither of the two models fit. In the final section, we consider which new questions could be asked to move beyond the current, somewhat polarised debate: Who are the actors of the transition, how are boundaries between groups created, and can the acknowledgement of the complexity of the process of {\textquoteleft}migration{\textquoteright} result in new narratives? Addressing these questions remains a fundamental challenge for archaeological migration studies as a whole.",
keywords = "Faculty of Humanities, Neolithic, migration, transition models, west Norway",
author = "Nyland, {Astrid J.} and Daniela Hofmann and Rune Iversen",
year = "2023",
month = apr,
day = "20",
doi = "https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2022-0287",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "1--32",
journal = "Open Archaeology",
issn = "2300-6560",
publisher = "De Gruyter Open",
note = "CAS final workshop ; Conference date: 02-06-2022 Through 03-06-2022",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Blurry Third Millennium.

T2 - CAS final workshop

AU - Nyland, Astrid J.

AU - Hofmann, Daniela

AU - Iversen, Rune

PY - 2023/4/20

Y1 - 2023/4/20

N2 - In this article, we critically review recurrent tropes, implicit frameworks, and unexplained concepts in current research on the process of “Neolithisation” in the western part of southern Norway. Two models are on offer, as also seen elsewhere in the European research: either 1) the transition to agriculture israpid and substantially carried by migrants, or 2) the Late Neolithic transition builds on a long history of local adaptation. After outlining these models, we scrutinise especially west Norwegian evidence, pointing out ambiguities and limitations in the material which mean that neither of the two models fit. In the final section, we consider which new questions could be asked to move beyond the current, somewhat polarised debate: Who are the actors of the transition, how are boundaries between groups created, and can the acknowledgement of the complexity of the process of ‘migration’ result in new narratives? Addressing these questions remains a fundamental challenge for archaeological migration studies as a whole.

AB - In this article, we critically review recurrent tropes, implicit frameworks, and unexplained concepts in current research on the process of “Neolithisation” in the western part of southern Norway. Two models are on offer, as also seen elsewhere in the European research: either 1) the transition to agriculture israpid and substantially carried by migrants, or 2) the Late Neolithic transition builds on a long history of local adaptation. After outlining these models, we scrutinise especially west Norwegian evidence, pointing out ambiguities and limitations in the material which mean that neither of the two models fit. In the final section, we consider which new questions could be asked to move beyond the current, somewhat polarised debate: Who are the actors of the transition, how are boundaries between groups created, and can the acknowledgement of the complexity of the process of ‘migration’ result in new narratives? Addressing these questions remains a fundamental challenge for archaeological migration studies as a whole.

KW - Faculty of Humanities

KW - Neolithic

KW - migration

KW - transition models

KW - west Norway

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2022-0287

DO - https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2022-0287

M3 - Journal article

VL - 9

SP - 1

EP - 32

JO - Open Archaeology

JF - Open Archaeology

SN - 2300-6560

Y2 - 2 June 2022 through 3 June 2022

ER -

ID: 344329911