Customer Reviews

Europe in the Neolithic: The Creation of New Worlds (Cambridge World Archaeology)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is an excellent overview of current data and interpretations for the origins of agriculture in Europe. Whittle's thesis is that, contrary to the prevailing interpretation, indigenous European foragers adopted farming and were the perpetrators of the LBK phenomenon. He doesn't necessarily prove his point with this book (and he doesn't refute the colonization model either), but he does present some interesting observations and fresh thinking on the matter. I would recommend this book to anyone with some familiarity with European prehistory; especially those with the background to weigh his arguments against the evidence.

I remember finding out about this book as a graduate student conducting research during the early and mid part of the last decade (the 2000s). I was excited and hopeful about the text as it was the most recent of all prehistoric Europe books then, and judging by the title, would be a dynamic and thought provoking read and comprehensive.

The strength of the book however is not the archaeological analysis, theories, or thoughts expressed concerning prehistoric Europe but rather the breadth of information presented from the initial contact that indigenous hunter-gatherer groups had with wayward farmers from the southeast (Balkans), and the material remains associated with such archaeological horizons onward c. 6000-2500 BC. So its a fairly decent overview in regards to the archaeological remains of prehistoric Europe particularly concerning animal depositions, pottery types, the nature of settlements, some mention here and there of burial characteristics, all framed within the light of Europe's gradual transition from a hunter-gather to agricultural landscape.

And of course as mentioned in a prior review, the main thesis was that the LBK horizon (Europe's first "widespread" archaeological horizon with "Neolithic traits" or, more bluntly, evidence of agricultural production and increased sedentary lifestyles) really was not the result of different population groups from the near east, but rather started by the same hunter gatherer's of paleolithic Europe who adopted the ways of migrant farmers coming from Anatolia to the Balkans (suggested in small numbers here) after a brief contact period, and the rest as they say is history.

The evidence for this according to Whittle is that the "values" expressed in the material remains of Neolithic Europe are essentially the same as those of the preceding communities of hunter-gatherer Europe. This is of course a vague notion as the "values" expressed in material culture, particularly from archaeological horizons that are thousands of years removed from modern day people, are really not that discernible and your average archaeologist today would still tell you the same. And so the focus of the book is very much the age old autochtonus development vs. migration theories for prehistoric Europe, in which autochtonus development is quite often overemphasized and migration viewed as a mostly dubious concept with some ever so slight nods given to it though mostly garnered with hyper-critical scrutiny.

And hence my title, "a product of its times", as the 90's saw the emergence of archaeologists who began publishing their own books on anti-migration concepts more than ever in an attempt to frame the prehistoric record in terms which they saw as less aggressive or dare I say PC. This was largely the result what happened both prior and during WWII within the field of archaeology, since these times witnessed the use and abuse of migration theories for nationalistic gain and hence the association of migrationalist banter as a reflectance of neo-nationalist-militaristic thought. Concepts like "long uninterpreted community values", in addition to emphasizing the egalitarian nature of hunter-gather Europe (see Tilley's book for this one) became a way of correcting some of the wrongs of the past.

However, autochtonus development can be used and abused as well, and moreover, the archaeological analysis luculently proving uninterrupted mostly non-mobile interactions within the confines of prehistoric Europe is nowhere to be found in this text. Such evidence for the authoritative pronouncement of autochtonus development rested during this time (the 90's) on emphasizing dating methods that suggested "gradual" development for the acceptance of agriculture. This is rather vague, sketchy ground to stand on since a date cannot show the qualitative nature of agriculture's appearance in an area and one must remember that this is simply a quantitative value for measuring time. Likewise, this book was published before the use of strontium isotope analysis, a method utilized on prehistoric human remains to effectively determine if people changed their location or not during their lifetime. Furthermore, aDNA, (used to determine biological kinship but also demographic change among today's researchers concerned with prehistory) was not in use during this time, and current research does indeed suggest that 25% of the people from the LBK horizon descended from wayward agriculturalists with more approximate origins in the near east.

There's also evidence stemming from aDNA and diet analysis, that people of the PWC horizon represented groups with a very persistent identity rooted around hunter gatherer ways who were likely pushed out of their territories more and more by groups partaking in agricultural activities since most of their haplogoups found are now primarily in Finland and Estonia.

And ergo the gross folly of this book as its aim of overemphasizing autochtonus development paints a picture of a very non-dynamic Europe during the Neolithic and essentially homogenizes the archaeological record. You begin to feel as though you are reading about the same thing from one archaeological horizon to the next and that change was never really there, rather its the same thing over and over and over from 6000 to 2500 BC, vested in the fabled "hunter gatherer communal values". And you begin to wonder if the title "Europe in the Neolithic: The Creation of New Worlds" is being used facetiously.

Another problem is the lack of effectively communicating how the archaeological record relates to people in more tangible terms. Instead, greater concern is placed on the environment and a rather opaque attempt is made on past landscape cultural-geography by describing site/settlement distribution which itself is inherently vague and meandering territory particularly for archaeologists yet this was another direction that archaeologists insisted on delving into during the 90's with mixed results. I had much hope for the chapter and section on "Unfair Settlements", but its not at all what you'd think it would be about. It is indeed just one of many rather vague and uncertain statements made concerning the then state of research about Neolithic Europe and does nothing to add any valuable insight at all to social dynamics during this point in prehistory.

And yes as mentioned in a prior review, Whittle insists on writing in a very unclear manner, perhaps underscoring his own uncertainty, but most likely on purpose, coming off as elitist or to use this book as an exercise in pretentious academic writing in order to impress colleagues (you wonder just who target audience is at times).

Despite the many things lacking or wrong with this book, I still am unable to completely hate it. I actually own this book and read it again every once and awhile keeping in mind that this is someone's interpretation which is fine. And so I accept it as what it is: a very perspective laden foray into Europe's deep past, a work that serves as a marker or point in prehistoric archaeological thought, albeit highly skewed in the other direction, in an attempt to over-correct some of theories which the author admits he wholeheartedly subscribed to and defended in the past.

I'd say get the book for that reason alone as different views are always enticing and I both eschew and like the book because it so daringly argued for a rather untenable concept. For a book that goes the other way somewhat, pick up the David Anthony book or anything by Spencer Wells.

I was forced to buy this book against my better judgement for a University level anthropology class. The book is simply too hard to understand for college teaching purposes. The author is extremely self-fulfilling, self-centered, and his main idea in the book is far fetched and based off of little research. My teacher acknowledged this flaw, yet still raved about the text.

I could barely get through a chapter of this. Also, since it's out of print (I wonder why...), it was very expensive and now I can't resell it.