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 reveal about people.
What is an archaeological culture?
An archaeological culture is defined based on material remains, such as pottery, tools, houses, burial practices, 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 the archaeologist Gordon Childe, who suggested that these shared characteristics were likely a material expression of a single people.
An archaeological culture, however, is different from an ethnic culture. An ethnic culture refers to a group of people who see themselves as a community with shared characteristics, such as language, traditions, religion, history, genetic relationships, and social identity. Ethnic cultures are often difficult to identify directly in an archaeological context because self-identity and social structures are not always directly visible in material remains.
Pots are not people
Sometimes archaeological and ethnic cultures align, but sometimes they don’t. Imagine that archaeologists dig up 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 perceived their identity.
Objects, such as pottery, spread through trade. People also adopted each other's customs, for example, in funerals—either because these customs were more practical or because they wanted to signal their social status.
Without written texts, archaeologists can only show trends in objects and rituals. Archaeological cultures can reveal shifts in material culture and provide clues about changes in ways of thinking. For example, in Central Europe, people began burying their dead in urnfields. This might reflect their beliefs about the afterlife or their religion, but that’s 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.
Migration and cultural mixing
When people think of migration, they often imagine large movements of peoples, 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 jump to conclusions. In many cases, such transitions point more to changes in habits or lifestyle than to the replacement of a population.
The idea that large groups of people migrated to a new area, disrupting the entire society like a bowling ball and imposing their own customs, is usually inaccurate. Sometimes there was war, but more often, people migrated in the context of trade or cooperation.
This stereotype appears 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 tells a different story. A small group of herders mixed with a larger group of Neolithic farmers. Through this blending, new peoples and cultures emerged.
Migration usually happened in small groups, such as families or parts of a tribe. People moved due to poverty, hunger, climate change, or lack of land. In their new location, they often mixed with the local population. This led to new cultures, such as that of the Latins—the ancestors of the Romans—or the Gaelic culture in early medieval Scotland.
People often migrated to places where they recognized shared customs or languages—because family members had already settled there or because the culture resembled their own. Shared art or religion also played an important role. This made it easier for migrants to feel at home and integrate into the native 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 shared similarities in culture, language, or religion, there was a general sense of distrust toward foreigners. This distrust had multiple causes. In many tribes, it was customary to banish members who failed to follow the rules. These exiled individuals sought refuge elsewhere and were often regarded 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—were often subject to different laws and had fewer rights. They were sometimes considered allies (socii).
Old Irish law had a similar hierarchy. How an outsider was viewed determined what they could or could not do within the community and how trustworthy they were. This can be compared to modern certification systems.
The Indo-European ghósti Principle
One of the most important Indo-European traditions was the principle of hospitality (ghósti). The Indo-European ghósti principle dictated that guests were sacred and should be treated with respect. Guests often held the same honor price as their host, as long as they followed local rules. In many cultures, hosting guests was considered an honor and reinforced the reciprocal alliance between guest and host.
In this context, guests were exclusively people with whom formal agreements, such as trade relationships, existed. This also applied to traveling specialists, such as bards, merchants, and judges. In Old Irish law, for example, scholars such as the filid (poets) and judges enjoyed special protection. Their status remained unchanged when they traveled to another tribal territory. This highlights how knowledge and skills were often valued above ethnicity or ancestry.
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. Traders brought not only goods but also new ideas and technologies. Specialists, such as craftsmen and architects, were often welcomed because they added value to society.
At the same time, some migrants were not seeking permanent settlement but temporary collaboration. This included mercenaries, who offered their services to local rulers, and traveling merchants, who adapted to the customs of the regions where they conducted business.
Conclusion
A change in archaeological culture does not always mean that a people was displaced or replaced. Cultures often merged and blended. 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.