The Blurry Third Millennium. “Neolithisation” in a Norwegian Context
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
The Blurry Third Millennium. “Neolithisation” in a Norwegian Context. / Nyland, Astrid J.; Hofmann, Daniela; Iversen, Rune.
In: Open Archaeology, Vol. 9, 2023, p. 1-32.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - The Blurry Third Millennium.
T2 - CAS final workshop
AU - Nyland, Astrid J.
AU - Hofmann, Daniela
AU - Iversen, Rune
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
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 - 10.1515/opar-2022-0287
DO - 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