235
Documenta Praehistorica XLIII (2016)
Keep on walking>
the role of migration in Linearbandkeramik life
Daniela Hofmann
Institute of Archaeology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, DE
daniela.hofmann@uni-hamburg.de
Introduction
As the first Neolithic culture over vast areas of cen-
tral and western Europe (Fig. 1), the Linearbandke-
ramik (LBK) has long been in the spotlight. The
question of its initial spread has been particularly
controversially discussed, with opinion oscillating
from population movement (Childe 1929; Lüning
1988) to indigenous adoption as the main driver
(Barker 2006.361–363; Whittle 1996.363–364) and
back again to a model of leapfrog colonisation,
whereby small groups of colonists create isolated
pioneer sites, inspiring locals to follow suit (e.g., An-
thony 1990.902–903; Gronenborn 1999). In the last
few years, archaeogenetic studies (e.g., Brandt et al.
2013; Haak et al. 2012; Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2014)
have altered our perception yet again, indicating very
strongly that LBK expansion was effected by large
groups of colonisers, genetically very different from
the European hunter-gatherer population, with whom
they appear to have interbred surprisingly little.
Even though this scenario is now gaining more wide-
spread acceptance, the role of group migration – i.e.
a permanent shift of residence of a social unit larger
than an individual – after initial colonisation events
is still barely discussed. It is acknowledged that indi-
viduals could move, and that some covered longer
distances. Based on isotopic studies, it seems that
LBK women were more likely than men to have
been born away from the place in which they were
buried, a pattern interpreted as indicating patrilo-
cality (Hedges et al. 2013.367–368). In other cases,
small temporarily mobile groups have been postu-
ABSTRACT – Migration played a central role throughout the LBK culture. After summarising the mo-
tivations for migration in the earliest LBK, the article outlines how some of these factors remained
relevant in later phases. Beyond continued west- and eastward expansion, at regional and site levels
migration to better one’s social position provided an alternative to patrilineal land inheritance.
The main change between the earliest and later phases is the role of material culture after migra-
tion events. Initially a means of creating long-distance connections, it later stressed difference from
other groups. This process of ethnogenesis is invisible genetically. Overall, migration emerges as a
salient behaviour even in ‘sedentary’ Neolithic societies.
IZVLE∞EK – Migracije so imele osrednjo vlogo ≠ez celotno obdobje kulture LTK. V ≠lanku povzema-
mo motivacije za migracije v ≠asu najzgodnej∏e LTK, nato pa se osredoto≠amo predvsem na na≠ine,
kako so nekateri motivacijski dejavniki ostali pomembni tudi v kasnej∏ih fazah. Poleg stalne ∏iritve
od zahoda proti vzhodu predstavlja migracija zaradi izbolj∏anja osebnega dru∫benega statusa na re-
gionalnem nivoju in na ravni najdi∏≠ pomembno alternativo patrilinearnemu dedovanju zemlje.
Glavno razliko med zgodnimi in poznimi fazami kulture LTK vidimo v vlogi materialne kulture po
migracijskih dogodkih. Sprva je bila materialna kultura sredstvo za ustvarjanje povezav na dolge raz-
dalje, kasneje pa so se s pomo≠jo materialne kulture posebej izpostavile razlike med posameznimi
skupinami. Ta proces etnogenete je neviden za genetske raziskave. Na splo∏no se migracije pojavijo
kot glavni vzorci obna∏anja tudi v ‘sedentarnih’ neolitskih skupnostih.
KEY WORDS – Linearbandkeramik (LBK); migration; aDNA; ethnogenesis; social status
DOI> 10.4312\dp.43.11 
Daniela Hofmann
236
lated, but have been seen as effectively tethered to,
and based in, permanent settlements. For instance,
non-local isotopic signatures reflecting the movement
patterns of boys in their teens could be connected to
longer periods spent away from settlements, perhaps
for seasonal herding (e.g., Bentley et al. 2003).
This paper argues that, in addition to these kinds of
mobility (here defined as episodes of movement by
groups or individuals which are ultimately centred
on a fixed place of residence), migration had an im-
portant part to play in LBK society beyond the ini-
tial earliest LBK spread. Using selected ethnographic
analogies to open a new perspective on the archaeo-
logical evidence, it is argued that migration events
took place at various spatial scales throughout the
duration of the LBK, and that this behaviour left pro-
found traces in LBK worldviews.
Appreciating the role of continued migration events
has several consequences. First, it highlights that
alternative lifeways and possibilities of gaining sta-
tus and renown existed in Neolithic societies. Our
(generally quite rigid) social models should take
into account the flexibility and tension resulting
from this, as well as the likely regional and chrono-
logical oscillations in the importance of migration.
Second, while archaeogenetic results have put the
relationship between migration and ethnicity back
on the agenda, we must appreciate that migration
episodes which took place within the LBK area will
be largely indistinguishable at a molecular level.
Identifying ethnicity and other identity groups is
thus largely an archaeological task, and they can-
not be simplistically correlated with haplogroups or
isotopic signatures. Finally, the continued importance
of physical relocation in what we call Neolithic ‘se-
dentary’ societies must be appreciated anew. This
involves developing a perspective that does not au-
tomatically equate any form of mobility or migra-
tion to a ‘Mesolithic’ heritage1.
Background
Migration as an explanation for material culture pat-
terns has had a patchy history in archaeological in-
terpretation in general, fading in and out of fashion
(e.g., Anthony 1990; Burmeister 2000; Chapman,
Hamerow 1997; Härke 1998). In particular, the link
between migration, past ethnic identity and the heu-
ristic device of ‘archaeological cultures’ has been re-
peatedly questioned (most recently, e.g., Hu 2013;
Siegmund 2014; Sommer 2003). This is not the
place to repeat these arguments in detail, but as all
these scholars have developed different agendas and
approaches, a few words are necessary to situate the
line taken in this paper.
Two broad themes emerge from the literature. On
the one hand, the problem is how to identify migra-
tion archaeologically and distinguish it reliably from
other processes (e.g., Andresen 2004; Burmeister
2000). In the end, this iden-
tification can only proceed
contextually and in terms of
greater or lesser probability
(Sommer 2003). The second
main strand is to understand
migration as a cultural beha-
viour and to reconstruct how
it is embedded in a given so-
cial formation. This broadly
ties in with a wider ‘mobility
turn’ in the social sciences,
which has increasingly criti-
cised ‘sedentarist’ assump-
tions of stability, centred on
dwelling in a fixed place. Yet
rather than just replacing this
with narratives of an all-per-
vasive fluidity, the goal is to
investigate the factors encou-
Fig. 1. Map of LBK distribution, showing main sites and areas mentioned
in the text. Base map after Midgley (2005.14).
1 This is why the relations between LBK famers and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, although an important research area that has seen
considerable new information emerge recently (e.g., Bollongino et al. 2013), are not the focus of the present article.
Keep on walking> the role of migration in Linearbandkeramik life
237
raging particular kinds of movements of people,
goods and information, the ways societies deal with
distance and travel, practices of creating ‘home’ in
mobile contexts, the changing constitution of places
and paths, and the varied access to, or exclusion
from, the opportunity to move (e.g., Hannam et al.
2006; Kaufmann et al. 2004; Urry 2007).
In the LBK situation, evidence from ancient DNA has
now established that in all likelihood, a large-scale
migration did take place in conjunction with the ap-
pearance of LBK material culture (for discussion of
the remaining uncertainties, see Hofmann 2015).
It has also been shown that the new LBK-related
genetic make-up, which is very different to known
hunter-gatherer genomes dominated by U haplo-
groups, is closely related to Neolithic populations in
Hungary (Szécsényi-Nagy et al. 2014), confirming
the source area previously suggested on archaeo-
logical grounds (e.g., Bánffy 2004.353– 358). The
main problem is thus no longer how to identify mi-
gration, and this paper instead focuses on the sec-
ond of the themes discussed above, which has so
far hardly been tackled for the LBK. This includes
the social mechanisms involved in migration events,
both in terms of organising and carrying out a given
migration episode, and in terms of the interactions
and adjustments necessary at the new settlement lo-
cation. It also covers processes of ethnogenesis, or
the creation of new group identities partly connect-
ed to a shared origin or history, and what the role
of material culture was in these circumstances. In
these contexts, the continued importance of migra-
tion as a culturally valued behaviour may have had
a longer-lasting impact than has previously been re-
cognised, even though such movements within a
shared LBK gene pool cannot yet be traced with
aDNA2.
A comparative perspective can be useful here and
has been adopted for this paper. Although only few
analogies have been selected, they have been cho-
sen from societies which present similarities with
at least some of the social constellations postulated
for the LBK (i.e. inheritance of land in the male line
and/or the importance of clans or lineages as units
of decision making) and where these similarities are
structurally related to aspects of migration. After
briefly exploring the possible motivations behind
the earliest LBK migration, the bulk of the paper
discusses how these factors may have retained a lon-
ger-term relevance in later LBK phases, fuelling con-
tinued long-distance expansion as well as shorter-di-
stance relocations of various social units.
The hows and whys of earliest LBK migration
For David W. Anthony (1990.897–899), trying to un-
derstand the causes of migrations is too challenging
a question, as one would first have to establish at
which social level (household, lineage, or larger
group) factors promoting migration were actually
operating. Causes are also likely to have been
complex and multi-layered, and to have included
both economic and ideological factors (see also
Burmeister 2000.543). Yet, given that the LBK is a
comparatively well-investigated archaeological cul-
ture, some suggestions can be made.
In general terms, people often migrate because their
original homeland has become uninhabitable, for
instance as a result of climatic deterioration and re-
sulting food shortages; natural catastrophes; conti-
nued warfare and raiding; because of population in-
crease squeezing the resource base; or a combination
of these (Anthony 1990.900; Burmeister 2000.543–
544). While examples can be found for the impor-
tance of all these factors, none of these suggestions
seem to be the main factor in the LBK. Evidence of
large-scale violence is a feature mainly of the end of
the LBK (e.g., Gronenborn 2006.17–20), while ef-
forts to link initial LBK expansion to climatic fluc-
tuations (e.g., Strien, Gronenborn 2005.136–139)
rely on rather uncertain correlations between clima-
tic data and archaeological events, based on unten-
ably early dates for the earliest LBK. Similarly, while
the transition to a Neolithic way of life would almost
certainly have caused population increase as the
‘Neolithic demographic transition’ took hold (Boc-
quet-Appel 2008), site density in the earliest LBK is
thin on the ground in putative areas of origin, so
that this is unlikely as the only explanation (e.g.,
Bánffy 2004. 388; Kalicz 2010.249). This is not to
say that long-distance migration, even at an early
date, would not have helped to buffer risks (Bogu-
cki 1988.93–128). Yet, even if factors like climatic
deterioration, population increase and (perceived)
land shortages did play some part in migration
events, they are unlikely to provide the full picture,
particularly as they cannot explain the very large
2 As whole ancient genomes can now be retrieved (e.g., Gamba et al. 2014; Mathieson et al. 2015), it is possible to identify close
biological relatives. However, given the nature of the archaeological resource and the likely extent of sample coverage that can
be achieved, the chances of finding close relatives on sites far apart from each other, thereby directly tracing migration routes,
are very remote indeed.
Daniela Hofmann
238
distances covered from the word go, or why settle-
ment needed to be quite so thin. In the search for
alternative possibilities, it is worth considering ex-
planations which take into account the particular
social conditions prevailing in the LBK and the way
settlement communities, households and individu-
als may have tried to act within them.
Prestige-driven migration
Several researchers have pointed out the consider-
able risks, necessary resources and logistical chal-
lenges of migration, in particular as the earliest LBK
settlements were often located far from their parent
sites and each other, and hence from any immedi-
ate support network (e.g., Van de Velde 2008; Zim-
mermann et al. 2005). To begin with, suitable sites
would have to be scouted for, generally in territo-
ries occupied by hunter-gatherers. Once a spot had
been chosen, surplus food for the journey and for
surviving the initial weeks at the new settlement
would have to be accumulated, alongside enough
seed corn and viable herds of domesticates (e.g.,
Zimmermann et al. 2005.4–6). Especially the latter
may have taken some time, as in prehistoric condi-
tions the growth of cattle herds in particular is
thought to have been slow (Ebersbach 2002.143–1
44, 161). In sum, a colonisation venture certainly
did not come cheap and would have needed spon-
sors. Debts or obligations were undoubtedly called
in and new ones created. The investment was so
high that migration has been seen as the main
vehicle of status competition in an otherwise rather
undifferentiated earliest LBK context: in the absence
of lavish graves or elaborate architecture, it seems
any surplus at hand was used to found distant dau-
ghter settlements (Frirdich 2005.99–103).
A successful colonisation, in turn, would have re-
sulted in considerable renown. This may have pro-
vided a strong motivation, particularly for those
excluded from large inheritances, for instance by
birth order. The colonisations of the Pacific, initial-
ly by Lapita groups and then reaching even the re-
motest islands of eastern Polynesia in the first mil-
lennium AD, provide interesting parallels here. In
the Lapita context, it is believed that the younger
sons of chiefs and leaders, for whom there was lit-
tle opportunity for wealth and glory at home, were
instrumental in attracting followers and resources
to drive forward the high-risk discovery and coloni-
sation of new islands (Spriggs 2016.486–487). The
benefit to them was obvious: rather than remain in
a subordinate position at home, they could become
the founders of new lineages elsewhere, as also re-
corded for the later east Polynesian cases (Richards
2009), while their departure certainly also helped to
protect more senior members from discontent and
intrigue.
Alongside this political dimension, migration was
intimately bound up with people’s identity, both in
their personal quest for greater standing and in
terms of their worldview. The colonisation of new
islands formed a large part of Pacific heroic mytho-
logy and group founding myths, so that by re-cre-
ating these journeys the travellers were perpetuat-
ing a fundamental aspect of their value system (Ri-
chards 2009; 2010). The main point here is to ap-
preciate the heady mix of pragmatic choice, perso-
nal opportunity and embeddedness in myth and hi-
story which characterised these ventures. Being so
deeply engrained in the cultural fabric, colonisation
formed a core value of Pacific societies at this time.
There are of course differences between this situa-
tion and the LBK, if only because the colonisation of
uninhabited islands did not require interaction with
prior inhabitants. Nevertheless, the models of patri-
locality and lineage inheritance recently invoked for
the LBK (Bogaard et al. 2011; Hedges et al. 2013,
and see below) make it plausible or even likely that
similar structural conditions promoting the migra-
tion of younger siblings were at work.
How long any daughter settlements, once estab-
lished, would retain ties with their origin sites is an
interesting topic for further research, as is the sub-
sequent development of these sites. If it was impor-
tant to cover large distances, then the earliest LBK
sites close to one another, or even households on
the same site, may have been founded by rival line-
ages or clans, eager to flaunt their successes to each
other (Frirdich 2005.105). In this model, related
households or sites would have established lines of
solidarity across the landscape, with their closest
allegiance to people far away. In contrast, Jörg Pe-
trasch (2003.510–511) suggests that sites established
early in the LBK sequence often developed into cen-
tral places later on, forming a core around which
smaller, perhaps dependent hamlets clustered, as
has also been suggested for Austria (e.g., Pieler
2012.212–213). In this scenario, first arrivals in a
new area would take on a leading role, forming what
Anthony (1990.904) has termed ‘apex families’ to
whom later newcomers owed deference. This would
result in a pattern of clusters of closely linked sites,
some of which may have stood out through partic-
ularly lavish material culture or buildings (Fig. 2).
Keep on walking> the role of migration in Linearbandkeramik life
239
This has, for instance, been suggest-
ed for Nieder-Mörlen, an early LBK
foundation in Hesse with traces of a
possible ritual building (Lüning
2009.130–136), an impressive spec-
trum of figurines and other unusual
artefacts, and pottery denoting long-
distance ties (Schade-Lindig 2002;
Schade-Lindig, Schade 2010). These
alternatives – clusters versus chains
of related sites – could be tested fur-
ther in the future, and indeed ele-
ments of both scenarios could have
coexisted. Here, I would like to focus
on how this kind of prestige-driven
migration would have influenced fur-
ther events. New regions were colo-
nised and new settlements establi-
shed. And then what?
What happens next
Scenario 1: we like it here
There is still comparatively little debate surround-
ing the transition between the earliest LBK, during
which initial large-scale migration took place, and
the following LBK phases. Probably the most influen-
tial model is that developed by Christiane Frirdich
(2003.546–547). She suggests that with increasing
settlement density, migration became a less viable
option3. Elders, who had previously sponsored mi-
gration events for younger generations and used
this as the basis for social control, now lost their au-
thority, as their promises could no longer be fulfilled.
New ways of expressing prestige and social distin-
ction had to be developed, and various avenues were
tried out, including larger and architecturally more
complex buildings and the deposition of wealth as
grave goods in newly established cemeteries. For Ul-
rike Sommer (2001), too, the diversification of later
LBK material culture is the result of a reduction in
group migration events, after which material culture
signalled belonging not at the culture-wide, but at
the settlement and household level. A similar pat-
tern of increasing regionalisation has also been re-
cognised in other case studies of migration, for in-
stance in the Pacific (Spriggs 2013).
There is much to commend this view. Although va-
riations exist in earliest LBK material culture (Len-
neis 2005; Strien 2009), the later LBK represents a
step-change in diversity in almost all areas of life.
This happens at the same time as the landscape is
progressively infilled, with site density increasing
considerably in all regions.
The pervasive idea, then, is that once LBK groups
reached a new location, they would settle and re-
main there, making the best of where they were.
However, with increasing population density, the
best would soon have turned sour. By the latest LBK,
several regions, notably along the Rhine and in Hes-
sen, may have seen a catastrophic collapse of some
sort (e.g., Schade 2004.221–223; Zimmermann et
al. 2005.33). It is still debated whether the reasons
for this were primarily environmental (e.g., Strien,
Gronenborn 2005) or social (Zeeb-Lanz 2009), but
in either case it is implied that increasing territori-
ality, limiting access to land and resulting in exclu-
sive definitions of identity, played a crucial role.
The importance of land inheritance may also be in-
dicated by isotopic evidence. As Robert Hedges et alii
(2013.367–369) have shown, there is an association
between local isotopic signatures and males buried
with polished stone adzes. This means that where
an individual grew up had an impact on treatment
at the time of death, a pattern which can plausibly
be read as implying inheritance down the male line
(Bentley et al. 2012; Hedges et al. 2013). That this
inheritance involved land has been argued on the ba-
sis of evidence from Vaihingen, an LBK settlement
in south-west Germany (Fig. 3). Here, as elsewhere,
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the two models of earliest LBK
settlement. Different shapes represent different lineages or clans.
Left: Frirdich’s model of linear solidarity; right: Petrasch’s model
of settlement clusters.
3 This could also be related to a strong hunter-gatherer presence and/or a lack of appropriate soils and climatic conditions, limit-
ing further expansion in certain directions (e.g., Lüning et al. 1989; Hartz et al. 2007.570; Thomas 1996).
Daniela Hofmann
240
households and groups of hou-
seholds defined on the basis of
material culture preferences tend-
ed to rebuild their houses in the
same area of the site. In addition,
detailed archaeobotanical studies
have shown that some groups in-
vested far more time in tending
their crops than others. Looking
at the weed assemblage, Amy Bo-
gaard et alii (2011) identified nei-
ghbourhoods where inhabitants
manured and weeded their crops,
while others did not. This has
been interpreted as high status
groups having laid claim to the
parcels of land closest to the site,
while others had to make do
with plots further away, which
could not be tended as carefully. As a result, it is ar-
gued, those lower status groups eventually left the
site (Bogaard et al. 2011), although this particular
causal relationship is only one of several possibili-
ties (see below).
In short, after the earliest LBK, effort was invested
in putting down roots, and there is evidence for the
importance of a person’s origin and its link to land
inheritance. Yet the question remains whether this
behavioural pattern replaced migration quite so who-
lesale. Here, following Anthony (1997.29), I suggest
that migration as a behaviour so strongly connected
to status and prestige, and so bound up with group
identity, did survive, albeit not unchanged. This
could also help us to re-think some of the social mo-
dels suggested for the LBK.
Scenario 2: the grass is greener on the other
side
The evidence for the importance of genealogical ties
in the LBK is convincing, but there has been an un-
helpful tendency to see its link with land as the only
means of obtaining social position. Yet things are
rarely as clear-cut as that, and in day-to-day life the
benefits and obligations derived from ties of descent
from (male) ancestors would have to be balanced
against other relationships, such as those structur-
ing co-residence. Similarly, the standing of a house-
hold in relation to others could have been open to
negotiation, shifting allegiances and political power
plays.
For instance, in the Amazonian villages studied by
Kaj Århem (2001), descent from known ancestors
is an arena for status competition, particularly be-
tween men. This aspect is drawn upon in initiation
rituals, but also in the daily consumption of valued
items such as coca and snuff. Yet it coexists with
practices centred on the sharing of food and drink
between co-residents and across the village, again
on both daily and ritual occasions. Here, status dif-
ferences between individuals are denied and com-
mon identity is stressed through commensality, al-
though people do keep an eye on whether everyone
contributes as much as they can. In both spheres,
then, there is potential for dissonance and conflict.
In a case such as this, status and renown could be
achieved in several ways. On the one hand, through
contributing resources, dissipating tensions and
stressing conviviality, a community of many resi-
dents could be held together, creating a site of some
renown. However, if hierarchies within the group
became unbearable or were overplayed, people in
junior positions within the lineage could improve
their lot by convincing others to form a breakaway
settlement elsewhere, one in which their status
would be increased. This kind of village fission is re-
gularly observed ethnographically (e.g., also Bandy
2004; Barrier, Horsley 2014; Metcalf 2010.252). In
such a case, archaeologically, we would expect to see
communities of varying duration, whereby longer-
lasting ones could fluctuate in size over time.
Migration does not only happen when relations
break down. In the Hopi Pueblos of the American
Southwest, clans defined themselves by the chain
of prior migrations in which they had been involved,
generally relocating every two or three generations.
In a given settlement, people with very different
Fig. 3. Schematic outline of Vaihingen, showing the enclosure (gray)
and the location of different ‘clan groups’ (A–E) defined on the basis
of material culture preferences and economic choices. Dashed line:
groups of the Middle Neckar tradition (who remain at Vaihingen);
dotted line: groups of the Unterland-Kraichgau tradition (who even-
tually move away). Data after Bogaard et alii (2011) and Strien (2005).
Keep on walking> the role of migration in Linearbandkeramik life
241
histories would thus live side by side, but these were
never planned as long-lived communities (Bernardi-
ni 2005.7–8, 30). In the 15th century AD, villages in
this arid region could reach impressive sizes and a
greater degree of permanence, but nevertheless most
shifted every few generations (Fowles 2001). Prag-
matic reasons, such as soil exhaustion or resistance
to Spanish colonisation, can be cited. However, to
reduce Pueblo migration to these push factors alone
misses an important aspect, namely the way migra-
tion was strongly interwoven in Hopi cultural values
to the extent that it was considered a fundamental
aspect of group identity. In the several decades in
which a given Pueblo was settled, the importance of
migration remained present through ritual dances,
in myths and stories, and through the initiation rites
of young men, who were sent to faraway locations,
returning with exotic goods and knowledge of the
wider landscape (Fowles 2001.49–52). Moving on
was not a failure, but the normal course of exis-
tence, to the extent that the Hopi have been charac-
terised as ‘urbanized nomads’ (Fox 1967.24), or as
engaged in serial migration (Bernardini 2005.7–8).
Simply because groups spent a few generations in
one place does not mean that migration as a beha-
viour had become unimportant to them.
These case studies show that societies could exist
in various ‘modes’ – stressing one or the other aspect
of relationships, or being more or less settled at a
given point in time. This presents people with alter-
native strategies that could be variously drawn
upon. At a general level, migration, and the recom-
bination of social groups in that process, thus re-
mains an option even in many societies generally
classified as sedentary, and these decisions were
often taken at the level of clans, lineages or house-
holds. With these possibilities in mind, it is time to
return to the evidence for continued migration in
later LBK phases.
Continued migration in the LBK
In this section, I outline the role of migration events
in later LBK phases, looking at three exemplary, but
almost certainly not exhaustive, settings. The first
is continued migration beyond established LBK set-
tlement areas. This is archaeologically the most ob-
vious, but may have been a viable choice particular-
ly in those areas close to the shifting margins of the
LBK. The second is shorter-distance migration with-
in or at the edge of established LBK settlement re-
gions, founding new sites and ‘filling in’ the land-
scape. This choice was most likely viable throughout
the LBK distribution for several generations, although
it was not universally taken up, remaining only one
among several possible strategies. Finally, echoes of
the migration process may also be visible in other
cultural practices, such as house renewal, which
were performed on virtually all LBK sites over the
entire duration of this culture.
Moving west: more colonisation
While site density in areas already settled in the ear-
liest LBK continued to increase, migration also con-
tinued to the east into what is now Romania, Mol-
dova and Ukraine (e.g., Dębiec, Saile 2015; Kotova
2003; Larina 2009)4, as well as westwards across
the Rhine. LBK groups reached the Paris Basin pro-
bably by the end of the sixth millennium, and Nor-
mandy soon after (Billard et al. 2014.337–338). Yet
what is notable is the changing role of material cul-
ture in this process. Earliest LBK material was simi-
lar over large distances, ostensibly to create a net-
work of solidarity between widely spaced sites. In
contrast, the newly established communities further
west emerged at a time when this initial unity had
begun to fragment, and they drove that process of
diversification further. Thus, while the Paris Basin
LBK can broadly be considered part of the Rubané
du Nord-Ouest group (e.g., Lefranc 2007.27), there
are also local peculiarities in pottery design and in
burial customs, which are limited to settlement buri-
als and focused on the provision of shell jewellery
and ochre (Constantin et al. 2003; Hofmann, Bickle
2011; Jeunesse 2009).
One way to interpret these differences has been to
stress the greater likelihood of hunter-gatherer in-
volvement in these western areas, introducing beha-
viours which transcended or challenged LBK norms
(e.g., Jeunesse 2009). However, an alternative ex-
planation is possible. At least in certain cases, emerg-
ing regional pottery groups within the LBK correlate
with other aspects of material culture and behaviour
and have been interpreted as ethnic boundaries
(e.g., Pechtl 2016). People may have chosen to de-
fine a group identity based on shared ancestry, or
on a shared origin and history, and to express this
by distinguishing themselves from their neighbours.
The stylistic innovations found in the Paris Basin
could be part of such a process of ethnogenesis. For
colonists perhaps drawn from several parent com-
munities or lineages, material culture which resem-
4 These areas will not be treated in greater depth here, as large-scale excavations are still rare.
Daniela Hofmann
242
bled no one existing tradition too closely would
have been well suited to signal a new social forma-
tion, while the migration movement itself could have
provided a shared experience as the basis for a new
group identity5.
Overall, then, the link between an end to migration
and the diversification of material culture, as sug-
gested by Frirdich (2003) and others, is only part of
the story. As long as the LBK lasted, migration never
really stopped entirely. What appears to have altered
is how groups saw their allegiance once migration
was over, and the role material culture played in
these transformations. In the earliest LBK, wide-
spread similarity in all aspects of material culture
ensured that people could find their way around
whichever community they were currently in, crea-
ting a far-flung, island-like pattern of similar sites
where people made similar choices. By the late LBK,
this unity had disappeared, and migration may have
been one more means by which to differentiate one-
self from others at the group level.
In future, it will be interesting to think further about
whether these changing aftermaths of migration,
from similarity to differentiation, went hand in hand
with a changing organisational backdrop. For in-
stance, are we witnessing a shift from migrations
sponsored by elders to migrations of discontent? And
what does this say about the role of lineages or clans,
as opposed to territorially defined groups? For now,
I would like to turn to evidence that even away from
the LBK’s ever-shifting western and eastern fron-
tiers, migration remained a viable choice.
Moving around, not necessarily far
The continued importance of migration even within
established LBK settlement regions goes well beyond
seasonal rounds of mobility or one-off residential
changes by individuals. Households or larger sec-
tions of communities could also take the decision to
relocate. We have already encountered the idea that
at Vaihingen, disadvantaged social groups were
pushed out of a settlement in which they were only
ever accorded marginal lands. However, seen from
a perspective in which migration may not be equiva-
lent to failure, and bearing the example of the Hopi
Pueblos in mind, one could also develop another ex-
planation. The suggested neighbourhoods or clan
groups are not only distinct from each other in terms
of weed assemblages, but also concerning the ani-
mal bone spectrum. According to archaeozoological
evidence (Schäfer, Arbogast forthcoming) and iso-
topic measurements on cattle teeth (Knipper forth-
coming), cattle dominate across the site, but the
households which invested more time in maintain-
ing their plots grazed their animals in uplands and
river valleys, and also kept comparatively more pigs,
probably closer to home. In contrast, groups with
less well maintained plots in turn grazed their ani-
mals on loess and kept more of the potentially more
mobile sheep and goats. This fits with the existing
evidence for diversity in economic choices within
LBK communities (e.g., Hachem 2000; 2011). As
Fig. 4. Phases of colonisation of the Lech valley. Only dated LBK sites are shown. The star symbol denotes
the only site also settled in the earliest LBK. After Pechtl (2011.Fig. 2).
5 This is not to deny that foragers could have participated in these events. However, as the observed material culture changes are
very strongly rooted in the LBK, forager involvement is unlikely to be the sole, or indeed the main, mechanism active here.
Keep on walking> the role of migration in Linearbandkeramik life
243
wealth on the hoof, cattle in particular could have
provided an alternative way to gain social standing
(e.g., Parker Pearson 2000; Russell 1998; Whittle
2003.80), meaning that status need not relate exclu-
sively to controlling agricultural land.
This importance accorded to cattle keeping, in con-
junction with a less important role for pigs, could
have enabled households to remain more mobile in
the medium and longer term. Settling in any one
place for longer than a few generations and invest-
ing in enduring plots may simply not have been high
on the agenda for these groups. Instead, they kept
different choices open and remained able to react to
promising opportunities pulling them along a new
path. In this case, community fissioning every few
generations could have been the rule rather than
the exception.
Indeed, looking closer at situations with detailed evi-
dence for settlement sequences, there is a lot of fluc-
tuation in settlement biographies. Frequently, it ap-
pears that people took the first possible opportunity
to move into a new area. For instance, in his detailed
study of settlement patterns in the Lech valley, south
of the Danube in western Bavaria, Joachim Pechtl
(2011) has shown that sites were repeatedly estab-
lished closer to the Alpine foreland in periods of fa-
vourable climatic conditions, and abandoned when
they became untenable (Fig. 4). It is tempting to
see the origins of these Lech valley settlers in one of
the larger sites with early foundation dates along
the Danube, although this will need to be verified
by further directed study6. Irrespective of their ori-
gin points, these people clearly were strongly moti-
vated to establish new sites, rather than expanding
existing ones.
The Merzbach valley in the Rhineland provides ano-
ther example and is particularly interesting because
several adjacent sites could be fully excavated, giv-
ing a picture at the level of the settlement cell. The
definition of phases (or ‘house generations’) has
been criticised in its details and in the rigidity of its
application (e.g., Rück 2009; Schwerdtner 2007),
but broad patterns are reliable. One can observe pro-
bable expansion out of the founding settlement,
Langweiler 8, in some phases (Tab. 1; Fig. 5; Stehli
1994), when sites in the immediate vicinity were es-
tablished, but Langweiler 8 remained the same size.
However, in phase VIII, most of the smaller sites are
again abandoned, and there are gaps at individual
sites during other phases. Where these households
moved to is another question, but continued migra-
tion beyond the Merzbach valley is a likely scena-
rio. Population peaks in later phases are also largely
reached, because the smaller sites, rather than Lang-
Fig. 5. Number of yards on sites in the middle Merzbach valley in phases V, VIII and XII. Location of sites
within yards is schematic only and does not correspond to their real position. LW Langweiler; LB Lau-
renzberg; NM Niedermerz. After data and base map in Stehli (1994), with corrections by Münch (2009).
6 A project led by Joachim Pechtl is in progress.
Daniela Hofmann
244
weiler 8, are growing. Inte-
restingly, while Langweiler 9
had initially shown strong
links to Langweiler 8 in pottery
decoration, this is no longer
the case after the phase VIII
hiatus (Frirdich 1994.356). If
pottery decoration is a reliable
indicator for close connections
at the household and lineage
level (and this is admittedly a
big ‘if’), then this would sug-
gest that the re-settlement of
Langweiler 9 was not under-
taken by the same social group
that first established the site,
further stressing the degree of
fluidity in settlement choice.
Fluctuation can also be traced
in settlement sequences on in-
dividual yards. The partially excavated settlement
of Stephansposching (Lower Bavaria) has been ten-
tatively divided into ten settlement phases, using a
combination of ceramic sequencing and house over-
laps (Pechtl 2009.502–504). After an initial three ge-
nerations in which the number of yards increases
quickly, there is a period of stability between phases
IV and VII, followed by relatively rapid decline (Fig.
6). However, a more detailed look at individual phas-
es reveals an undercurrent of fluctuation even in
some of the ‘stable’ phases, as some yards are aban-
doned while others are established anew. Several
caveats remain, particularly the fact that the site is in-
completely excavated and the phasing method used
tends to overestimate house numbers in the middle
phases, while underestimating them at the start and
end (Pechtl 2009.492). Nevertheless, it is clear that
there was a certain level of coming and going, in
which some households were attracted to Stephans-
posching, while others preferred to move on.
Certainly, then, there was enough flexibility in any
system of land tenure to allow for the departure of
households, and perhaps even for their re-integra-
tion elsewhere, especially if there were lineage or
other pre-existing connections. This is now visible in
several regions of LBK settlement, and is likely to
become more evident as detailed site narratives in-
crease7. Yet in all these cases, it seems that several
generations of settling in one place separated instan-
ces of migration of greater or smaller parts of the
population. On the one hand, this indicates that
abandonment of a given site (much like establish-
ment) was sometimes a phased process of some
duration, with the decision to leave taken by small
groups of households. On the other hand, it begs
the question of whether, as in the Hopi case above,
we can identify mechanisms which would have acted
to keep migration salient as a valued cultural choice,
even over longer episodes in which a given social
group stayed put.
Memories of migration
The re-creation of ancestral journeys in ritual and
myth could be a mechanism here, as it is for the Ho-
pi (Fowles 2012.53). Yet while long-term absences
by youngsters could potentially be tracked isoto-
pically, in detail it remains difficult to differentiate
between scenarios such as herding, stays with fos-
ter families or as migrant labour, or indeed long-dis-
tance exploratory journeys (e.g., Gronenborn 2010.
566–567; Knipper 2011.348).
A more ubiquitous and longer-lasting practice is the
rebuilding of LBK houses in every new generation.
Longhouses could technically have been used for
many decades (Lenneis, Trebsche 2013; Schmidt et
al. 2005), but this suggestion has not yet been
backed up by a plausible phasing framework. The
ebb and flow of houses, and in some cases the over-
Phase LW 8 LW 9 LW 16 LW 2 LW 3 LB 7 LB 8 NM 4 Total
I 4 4
II 7 1 1 9
III 7 1 1 1 1 11
IV 7 1 1 1 1 1 12
V 8 1 1 1 1 12
VI 8 1 1 1 11
VII 9 2 1 1 13
VIII 9 1 10
IX 7 1 3 1 12
X 7 3 P 3 1 14
XI 7 3 2 1 2 15
XII 7 3 P 3 1 2 16
XIII 6 E 3 1 2 12
XIV 4, E E|\P 2 E|\P 2 8
XV P E
7 Also, there is a trend to assign houses undated by pottery to phases in such a way that gaps in the overall settlement sequence are
minimised (e.g., Boelicke et al. 1988.900–901; Pechtl 2009.496). As such, fluctuations in house numbers are very likely under-
estimated.
Tab. 1. Number of yards in use at settlements in the middle Merzbach
valley. E enclosure; P pits only; LW Langweiler; LB Laurenzberg; NM Nie-
dermerz, AL Aldenhoven. After data in Stehli (1994), with corrections
by Münch (2009).
Keep on walking> the role of migration in Linearbandkeramik life
245
lapping of house plans on more den-
sely settled sites, suggest instead
that that the model of generational
replacement, while perhaps some-
times too rigidly applied, holds true
in general. This means that people
frequently rebuilt their longhouses
not because these had become struc-
turally unsound, but for social rea-
sons. In this context, the resources
and labour that needed to be invest-
ed in a new longhouse were vehicles
for displaying wealth and connec-
tions, competing for status in a po-
tentially fluid social situation (e.g.,
Hofmann 2012; 2013). Yet in addition, and to fur-
ther bolster status claims, re-establishing a house,
even if just some tens of metres away, can also be
read as a re-creation of the group’s first settlement
at a given site, most likely hedged about with origin
myths or heroic tales.
Most interesting in this respect are the so-called
‘founding buildings’ now excavated at several west-
ern LBK sites, particularly in Belgium. Here, the chro-
nologically earliest house to be identified, generally
a quite substantial building, did not form the origin
of a later yard, i.e. of an area in which houses were
replaced in following generations. Instead, this buil-
ding remained isolated, and later dwellings, this
time grouped into several yards, were established
some distance away: within the enclosure at Darion,
or 50 to 130m away at Fexhe and Remicourt, for
example (Bosquet, Golitko 2012; Bosquet et al.
1998). Occasionally, founding buildings are associat-
ed with peculiarities in material culture such as non-
LBK ceramics (Limburg and other traditions) at Fexhe
(Bosquet, Golitko 2012. 94). These sorts of buildings,
then, could have formed a kind of collective origin
point for the whole community, a visible reminder of
the migration of the founders to a new site, re-creat-
ed in a small way by all successive house-building
generations. Yet even where such ‘founding build-
ings’ do not exist, new houses seemingly referenced
earlier structures. As Jens Lüning (2005) has argued,
this happened either by forming lines of successive
buildings (‘father principle’), or by referencing their
predecessor’s predecessor (‘grandfather principle’;
Fig. 7). In either case, there was evidently a desire
to express one’s connection to a genealogical line,
even while re-locating the longhouse.
Although these suggestions remain speculative, they
outline how migration could have remained a salient
and actively performed cultural behaviour even in
longer periods in which there was no larger-scale or
longer-distance migration at all. While commemorat-
ing and re-enacting migration was very likely not the
only function these practices fulfilled, tying migra-
tion to behaviours which were also socially relevant
in other ways, such as status competition, reaffirmed
it as a valued cultural choice, experienced at the per-
sonal scale of household and community politics.
Conclusions and outlook
In sum, there are indications that LBK society wit-
nessed group migration even beyond the earliest
phases. At a macroscale, the continued importance
of colonisation remains undisputed. Taking this as a
starting point, this paper has shown ways in which
such large-scale undertakings were embedded in the
LBK cultural fabric as a whole by being performed
and re-created as viable cultural choices at the level
Fig. 6. Fluctuation of settlement size at Stephansposching. For each
phase, arrows pointing up show the number of new yards estab-
lished; arrows pointing down show the number of yards aban-
doned. Generated from data in Pechtl (2009.502–504).
Fig. 7. Alternative modes of house replacement on
LBK yards. After Lüning (2005.Figs. 59–60).
Daniela Hofmann
246
of communities, households and individuals. The
decision to move could be taken at several levels,
from groups of yards at Vaihingen and along the
Lech to sometimes single households at Stephanspo-
sching. Migration was most likely connected to a
hope for better opportunities elsewhere, as well as
to a group’s sense of a shared way of life. It could
have functioned as a counter-balance to a social logic
of patrilocality and land inheritance, so far stressed
in most archaeological accounts, and may have been
backed by economic choices enabling a greater de-
gree of mobility and group migration. In this way,
according a key role to migration suggests new, plau-
sible connections between many different spheres
of life, involving economic choices, status display
and even founding myths. It is at these levels that
the foundations for longer-range colonisation ven-
tures were laid. The changing character of these mi-
grations, in terms of possible motivations, the deci-
sion-making groups involved and the relationship
to (ethnic) identity, must be investigated further in
the future.
Migration was not of course the only possible op-
tion. Indeed, the basic make-up of LBK social struc-
ture seems to have been sufficiently flexible to ac-
commodate a wide range of settlement patterns. In
some instances, mechanisms to reduce community
fissioning were apparently found, creating sites with
greater settlement densities. For instance, prelimi-
nary research at Vráble-Vel’ké Lehemby suggests
that models of settlement organisation changed
over time, and that a large community of several
tens of contemporary houses could have existed in
some phases (Furholt et al. 2014.250–254). Similar-
ly, it has been suggested that the limited opportu-
nities for migration in the Alföld LBK led to alter-
native strategies, notably the faster establishment of
social stratification (Domboróczki 2009.122–123).
Whether migration was considered a viable choice
would hence have differed depending on where and
when one asked this question. This is also the case
for the consequences of migration. In the earliest
LBK, it resulted in long-distance networks, while later
on more effort went into stressing the creation of
boundaries. This process of ethnogenesis, i.e. the
creation of new identity groups based on a belief of
shared descent or history, and defined in opposition
to others, will not be amenable to biomolecular
study. Especially in the later LBK, when relocations
may have taken place within established settlement
regions, aDNA (and indeed isotopes) will be a poor
guide for tracing the precise origins of migrants. In-
creasing territoriality as expressed in material cul-
ture boundaries took place between genetically
largely identical populations, most of whom had
grown up on loess soils. For these instances, then,
defining migrations remains as challenging as it has
ever been: reasons, group size and composition, dis-
tances travelled and so on will have to be recon-
structed largely on the basis of detailed archaeolo-
gical work.
However, in spite of these difficulties, the problem
merits close attention. If the earliest LBK expansion
left its traces not just on the distribution maps of
archaeologists, but also in the attitudes and beha-
viours of later LBK communities, then the migration
of larger social groups must be added to our research
agendas alongside the identification of tethered mo-
bility and individual relocation. This contributes to
the impression that the LBK, in spite of its monu-
mental wooden longhouses, was far from settled,
with mobility and migration possible, and practised,
at various scales. This should not be read as sign of
a ‘Mesolithic’ heritage. Instead, such behaviours were
specifically Neolithic, carried out for new kinds of
reasons (such as personal renown) and embedded in
an entirely new set of social circumstances. It was
never too late to move on.
Keep on walking> the role of migration in Linearbandkeramik life
247
Andresen M. 2004. Studien zur Geschichte und Metho-
dik der archäologischen Migrationsforschung. Waxmann.
Münster.
Anthony D. W. 1990. Migration in archaeology: the baby
and the bathwater. American Anthropologist 92: 895–
914.
1997. Prehistoric migration as social process. In J. Chap-
man, H. Hamerow (eds.), Migrations and invasions in
archaeological explanation. British Archaeological Re-
cords IS 664. Archaeopress. Oxford: 21–32.
Århem K. 2001. From longhouse to village: structure and
change in the Colombian Amazon. In L. Rival, N. White-
head (eds.), Beyond the visible and the material. The
Amerindianization of society in the work of Peter Riviè-
re. Oxford University Press. Oxford: 123–155.
Bandy M. S. 2004. Fissioning, scalar stress and social evo-
lution in early village societies. American Anthropolo-
gist 106: 322–333.
Bánffy E. 2004. The 6th millennium BC boundary in
western Transdanubia and its role in the central Euro-
pean Neolithic transition. (The Szentgyörgyvölgy-Pityer-
domb settlement). Archaeological Institute of the Hunga-
rian Academy of Sciences. Budapest.
Barrier C. R., Horsley T. J. 2014. Shifting communities:
demographic profiles of early village population growth
and decline in the central American Bottom. American
Antiquity 79: 295–313.
Bentley R. A., Krause R., Price T. D. and Kaufmann B. 2003.
Human mobility at the early Neolithic settlement of Vai-
hingen, Germany: evidence from strontium isotope anal-
ysis. Archaeometry 45: 481–496.
Bentley R. A. and 14 co-authors. 2012. Community diffe-
rentiation and kinship among Europe’s first farmers. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
USA 109: 9326–9330.
Billard C., Bostyn F., Hamon C. and Meunier K. 2014.
Synthèse. In C. Billard, F. Bostyn, C. Hamon and K. Meu-
nier (eds.), L’habitat du Néolithique ancien de Colom-
belles “Le Lazzaro” (Calvados). Société Préhistorique
Française. Paris: 333–342.
Bocquet-Appel J.-P. 2008. Explaining the Neolithic demo-
graphic transition. In J.-P. Bocquet-Appel, O. Bar-Yosef
(eds.), The Neolithic demographic transition and its con-
sequences. Springer. New York: 35–55.
Boelicke U., von Brandt D., Lüning J., Stehli P. and Zim-
mermann A. 1988. Struktur und Entwicklung des Sied-
lungsplatzes. In U. Boelicke, D. von Brandt, J. Lüning, P.
Stehli and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Der bandkeramische
Siedlungsplatz Langweiler 8, Gemeinde Aldenhoven,
Kreis Düren. Rheinland-Verlag. Köln: 891–931.
Bogaard A., Krause R. and Strien H.-C. 2011. Towards a
social geography of cultivation and plant use in an early
farming community: Vaihingen an der Enz, south-west
Germany. Antiquity 85: 395–416.
Bogucki P. 1988. Forest farmers and stockherders. Early
agriculture and its consequences in north-central Eu-
rope. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Bollongino R., Nehlich O., Richards M. P., Orschiedt J.,
Thomas M. G., Sell C., Fajko∏ová Z., Powell A. and Burger
J. 2013. 2000 years of parallel societies in Stone Age cen-
tral Europe. Science 342: 479–481.
Bosquet D., Golitko M. 2012. Highlighting and characte-
rising the pioneer phase of the Hesbayen Linear Pottery
Culture (Liège province, Belgium). In R. Smolnik (ed.),
Siedlungsstruktur und Kulturwandel in der Bandkera-
mik. Beiträge der internationalen Tagung “Neue Fra-
gen zur Bandkeramik oder alles beim Alten?!”, Leipzig
23.–24. September 2010. Landesamt für Archäologie Sach-
sen. Leipzig: 91–106.
Bosquet D., Fock H., Goffioul C. and Preud’Homme D.
1998. Le site rubané de Fexhe-le-Haut-Clocher – Podrî
l’Cortri: résultats des fouilles. Notae Praehistoricae 18:
131–140.
Brandt G. and 17 co-authors. 2013. Ancient DNA reveals
key stages in the formation of central European mitochon-
drial genetic diversity. Science 342: 257–261.
Burmeister S. 2000. Archaeology and migration: approa-
ches to an archaeological proof of migration. Current An-
thropology 41: 539–567.
Chapman J., Hamerow H. 1997. On the move again: mi-
grations and invasions in archaeological explanation. In
J. Chapman, H. Hamerow (eds.), Migrations and inva-
sions in archaeological explanation. Archaeopress. Ox-
ford: 1–10.
Childe V. G. 1929. The Danube in prehistory. Clarendon.
Oxford.
Constantin C., Farruggia J.-P., Bonnardin S., Guichard Y.
and Sidéra I. 2003. Les tombes rubanées de la vallée de
l’Aisne. Présentation. In P. Chambon and J. Leclerc (eds.),
Les pratiques funéraires Néolithiques avant 3500 av. J.-
C. en France et dans les régions limitrophes. Editions
Errance. Paris: 55–63.
References
Daniela Hofmann
248
Dębiec M., Saile T. 2015. Zu den östlichsten Siedlungen
der frühen Bandkeramik. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 90:
1–19.
Domboróczki L. 2009. Settlement structures of the Alföld
Linear Pottery Culture (ALPC) in Heves county (north-east-
ern Hungary): development models and historical recon-
structions on micro, meso and macro levels. In J. K. Koz-
łowski (ed.), Interactions between different models of
Neolithization north of the central European agro-eco-
logical barrier. Polska Akademia Umiejętnośi. Kraków:
75–127.
Ebersbach R. 2002. Von Bauern und Rindern. Eine Öko-
systemanalyse zur Bedeutung der Rinderhaltung in bä-
uerlichen Gesellschaften als Grundlage zur Modellbil-
dung im Neolithikum. Schwabe. Basel.
Fowles S. M. 2011. Movement and the unsettling of the
Pueblos. In G. S. Cabana, J. J. Clark (eds.), Rethinking an-
thropological perspectives on migration. University of
Florida Press. Gainesville: 45–67.
Fox R. 1967. The Keresan bridge. A problem in Pueblo
ethnology. Athlone Press. London.
Frirdich C. 1994. Kulturgeschichtliche Betrachtungen zur
Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal. In J. Lüning, P. Stehli (eds.),
Die Bandkeramik im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener
Platte. Rheinland-Verlag. Köln: 207–393.
2003. Strukturen im Wandel. Ein bandkeramisches Grä-
berfeld entsteht. In J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer and A. Zim-
mermann (eds.), Archäologische Perspektiven. Ana-
lysen und Interpretationen im Wandel. Festschrift für
Jens Lüning zum 65. Geburtstag. Marie Leidorf. Rah-
den: 545–559.
2005. Struktur und Dynamik der bandkeramischen
Landnahme. In J. Lüning, C. Frirdich and A. Zimmer-
mann (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert.
Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Köln vom
16.9.–19.9.2002. Marie Leidorf. Rahden: 81–109.
Furholt M., Bátora J., Cheben I., Kroll H., Rassmann K. and
Tóth P. 2014. Vráble-Vel’ké Lehemby: Eine Siedlungs-
gruppe der Linearkeramik in der Südwestslowakei. Vor-
bericht über die Untersuchungen der Jahre 2010 und
2012 und Deutungsansätze. Slovenská Archeológia 62:
227–266.
Gamba C. and 16 co-authors. 2014. Genome flux and sta-
sis in a five millennium transect of European prehistory.
Nature Communications 5. doi:10.1038/ncomms6257.
Gronenborn D. 1999. A variation on a basic theme: the
transition to farming in southern central Europe. Jour-
nal of World Prehistory 13: 123–210.
2006. Climate change and socio-political crises: some
cases from Neolithic central Europe. Journal of Con-
flict Archaeology 2: 13–32.
2010. Fernkontakte aus dem nördlichen Europa wäh-
rend der Bandkeramischen Kultur. In J. Suteková, P.
Pavúk, P. Kalábková and B. Kovár (eds.), Panta Rhei.
Studies in chronology and cultural development of
south-eastern and central Europe in earlier prehis-
tory presented to Juraj Pavúk on the occasion of his
75th birthday. Comenius University. Bratislava: 561–574.
Haak W. and 17 co-authors. 2010. Ancient DNA from Euro-
pean early Neolithic farmers reveals their Near Eastern
affinities. PLoS Biology 8(11): e1000536.
Hachem L. 2000. New observations on the Bandkeramik
house and social organisation. Antiquity 74: 308–312.
2011. Le site néolithique de Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes I.
De l’analyse de la faune à la structuration sociale.
Marie Leidorf. Rahden.
Hannam K., Sheller M. and Urry J. 2006. Editorial: mobil-
ities, immobilities and moorings. Mobilities 1: 1–22.
Härke H. 1998. Archaeologists and migrations: a prob-
lem of attitude? Current Anthropology 39: 19–46.
Hartz S., Lübke H. and Terberger T. 2007. From fish and
seal to sheep and cattle: new research into the process of
Neolithisation in northern Germany. In A. Whittle, V. Cum-
mings (eds.), Going over: the Mesolithic-Neolithic tran-
sition in north-west Europe. Oxford University Press.
Oxford: 567–594.
Hedges R. E. M., Bentley R. A., Bickle P., Cullen P., Dale,
C., Fibiger L., Hamilton J., Hofmann D., Nowell G. and
Whittle A. 2013. The supra-regional perspective. In P.
Bickle, A. Whittle (eds.), The first farmers of central
Europe. Diversity in LBK lifeways. Oxbow. Oxford: 343–
384.
Hofmann D. 2012. Bodies, houses and status in the west-
ern Linearbandkeramik. In T. Kienlin, A. Zimmermann
(eds.), Beyond elites. Alternatives to hierarchical sys-
tems in modelling social formations. Habelt. Bonn:
183–196.
2013. Narrating the house. The transformation of
longhouses in early Neolithic Europe. In A. Chadwick,
C. Gibson (eds.), Memory, myth and long-term land-
scape inhabitation. Oxbow. Oxford: 32–54.
2015. What have genetics ever done for us? The impli-
cations of aDNA data for interpreting identity in early
Neolithic central Europe. European Journal of Archa-
eology 18: 454–476.
Keep on walking> the role of migration in Linearbandkeramik life
249
Hofmann D., Bickle P. 2011. Culture, tradition and the
settlement burials of the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) cul-
ture. In B. Roberts, M. Vander Linden (eds.), Investiga-
ting archaeological cultures: material culture variabi-
lity and transmission. Springer. New York: 183–200.
Hu D. 2013. Approaches to the archaeology of ethnogene-
sis: past and emergent perspectives. Journal of Archa-
eological Research 21: 371–402.
Jeunesse C. 2009. Le front de colonisation occidental
(entre Rhin et Seine) et l’identité rubanée. In J. K. Kozłow-
ski (ed.), Interactions between different models of Neo-
lithization north of the central European agro-ecological
barrier. Polska Akademia Umiejętności. Krakow: 151–176.
Kalicz N. 2010. An der Grenze “zweier Welten” – Trans-
danubien (Ungarn) im Frühneolithikum. In D. Gronen-
born, J. Petrasch (eds.), Die Neolithisierung Mitteleu-
ropas – The spread of the Neolithic to central Europe.
Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums. Mainz:
235–254.
Kaufmann V., Bergmann M. M. and Joye D. 2004. Motility:
mobility as capital. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 28: 745–756.
Knipper C. 2011. Die räumliche Organisation der line-
arbandkeramischen Rinderhaltung: naturwissenschaft-
liche und archäologische Untersuchungen. British Ar-
chaeological Reports IS 2305. Archaeopress. Oxford.
forthcoming. Strontium isotope analysis on land use
and the mobility of humans and animals. Contribution
in A. Bogaard, R. Krause (eds.), The Bandkeramik set-
tlement of Vaihingen an der Enz, Kreis Ludwigsburg
(Baden-Württemberg): an interim report on post-exca-
vation analyses. Germania.
Kotova N. S. 2003. Neolithization in Ukraine. British Ar-
chaeological Reports IS 1109. Archaeopress. Oxford.
Larina O. 2009. The extreme eastern periphery of the
Linearbandkeramik: the landscape and geographical con-
texts. In D. Hofmann, P. Bickle (eds.), Creating commu-
nities. New advances in central European Neolithic re-
search. Oxbow. Oxford: 50–70.
Lefranc P. 2007. La céramique du Rubané en Alsace.
Contribution à l’étude des groupes régionaux du Néoli-
thique ancien dans la plaine du Rhin supérieur. Univer-
sité Marc Bloch. Strasbourg.
Lenneis E. 2005. Die “Einheitlichkeit” der frühen Band-
keramik – Forschungsstand oder Realität? In J. Lüning, C.
Frirdich and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Die Bandkeramik
im 21. Jahrhundert. Symposium in der Abtei Brauwei-
ler bei Köln vom 16.9.–19.9.2002. Marie Leidorf. Rahden:
75–79.
Lenneis E., Trebsche P. 2013. Die Dokumentation des
nachgebauten linearbandkeramischen Langhauses von
1964 im Urgeschichtemuseum Asparn an der Zaya – Ein
Beitrag zur Diskussion der möglichen Lebensdauer. In E.
Lauermann (ed.), Das “jungsteinzeitliche” Langhaus in
Asparn an der Zaya. Niederösterreichisches Institut für
Landeskunde. St. Pölten: 87–145.
Lüning J. 1988. Frühe Bauern in Mitteleuropa im 6. und
5. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germani-
schen Zentralmuseums Mainz 35: 27–93.
2005. Bandkeramische Hofplätze und absolute Chro-
nologie der Bandkeramik. In J. Lüning, C. Frirdich and
A. Zimmermann (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahr-
hundert. Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei Köln
vom 16.9.–19.9.2002. Marie Leidorf. Rahden: 49–74.
2009. Bandkeramische Kultanlagen. In A. Zeeb-Lanz
(ed.), Krisen-Kulturwandel-Kontinuitäten. Zum Ende
der Bandkeramik in Mitteleuropa. Beiträge der inter-
nationalen Tagung in Herxheim bei Landau (Pfalz)
from 14.–17.06.2007. Marie Leidorf. Rahden: 129–190.
Lüning J., Kloos U. and Albert S. 1989. Westliche Nach-
barn der bandkeramischen Kultur: La Hoguette und Lim-
burg. Germania 67: 355–420.
Mathieson I. and 37 co-authors. 2015. Genome-wide pat-
terns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians. Nature 528:
499–503.
Metcalf P. 2010. The life of the longhouse: an archaeo-
logy of ethnicity. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Midgley M. 2005. The monumental cemeteries of prehi-
storic Europe. Tempus. Stroud.
Münch U. 2009. Zur Siedlungsstruktur der Flombornzeit
auf der Aldenhovener Platte. In A. Zimmermann (ed.),
Studien zum Alt- und Mittelneolithikum im rheinischen
Braunkohlerevier. Marie Leidorf. Rahden: 1–101.
Parker Pearson M. 2000. Eating money: a study in the
ethnoarchaeology of food. Archaeological Dialogues 7:
217–232.
Pechtl J. 2009. Stephansposching und sein Umfeld. Stu-
dien zum Altneolithikum im bayerischen Donauraum.
Unpublished PhD thesis. Heidelberg University. Heidel-
berg.
2011. Am Rande des Machbaren: zwei gescheiterte lin-
ienbandkeramische Kolonisationswellen im Lechtal.
In T. Doppler, B. Ramminger and D. Schimmelpfennig
(eds.), Grenzen und Grenzräume? Beispiele aus Neo-
lithikum und Bronzezeit. Welt und Erde. Kerpen-
Loogh: 37–51.
Daniela Hofmann
250
2016. From distribution maps to ‘ethnic’ diversity with-
in the southern Bavarian LBK. In L. Amkreutz, F. Haack,
D. Hofmann and I. van Wijk (eds.), Something out of
the ordinary? Interpreting diversity in the Early Neo-
lithic Linearbandkeramik and beyond. Cambridge
Scholars Publishing. Newcastle: 283–311.
Petrasch J. 2003. Zentrale Orte in der Bandkeramik? In
J. Eckert, U. Eisenhauer and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Ar-
chäologische Perspektiven. Analysen und Interpretati-
onen im Wandel. Festschrift für Jens Lüning zum 65.
Geburtstag. Marie Leidorf. Rahden: 505–513.
Pieler F. 2010. Die Bandkeramik im Horner Becken
(Niederösterreich). Studien zur Struktur einer frühne-
olithischen Siedlungskammer. Habelt. Bonn.
Richards C. 2009. The substance of Polynesian voyaging.
World Archaeology 40: 206–223.
2010. On the road of the winds: journeying across the
blue waters of the Pacific, and along the roads of Rapa
Nui. In H. Martinsson-Wallin, P. Wallin (eds.), The Got-
land papers. Selected papers from the VII internatio-
nal conference on Easter Island and the Pacific: mi-
gration, identity and cultural heritage. Gotland Uni-
versity Press. Gotland: 155–166.
Rück O. 2009. New aspects and models for Bandkeramik
settlement research. In D. Hofmann, P. Bickle (eds.), Cre-
ating communities. New advances in central European
Neolithic research. Oxbow. Oxford: 159–185.
Russell N. 1998. Cattle as wealth in Neolithic Europe:
where’s the beef? In D. W. Bailey (ed.), The archaeology
of value. Essays on prestige and the process of valua-
tion. British Archaeological Reports IS 730. Archaeopress.
Oxford: 42–54.
Schade C. 2004. Die Besiedlungsgeschichte der Band-
keramik in der Mörlener Bucht/Wetterau. Zentralität
und Peripherie, Haupt- und Nebenorte, Siedlungsver-
bände. Habelt. Bonn.
Schade-Lindig S. 2002. Idol- und Sonderfunde der bandke-
ramischen Siedlung von Bad Nauheim – Nieder-Mörlen
“Auf dem Hempler” (Wetteraukreis). Germania 80: 47–
114.
Schade-Lindig S., Schade C. 2010. Woher kommt Flom-
born? Keramikimporte und Nachahmungen in der band-
keramischen Siedlung Bad Nauheim – Nieder-Mörlen “Auf
dem Hempler”. In D. Gronenborn, J. Petrasch (eds.), Die
Neolithisierung Mitteleuropas – The spread of the Neo-
lithic to central Europe. Verlag des Römisch-Germani-
schen Zentralmuseums. Mainz: 461–474.
Schäfer M., Arbogast R.-M. forthcoming. Faunal remains
from the LBK settlement of Vaihingen an der Enz. In A.
Bogaard, R. Krause (eds.), The Bandkeramik settlement of
Vaihingen an der Enz, Kreis Ludwigsburg (Baden-Württem-
berg): an interim report on post-excavation analyses. Ger-
mania.
Schmidt B., Gruhle W., Rück O. and Freckmann K. 2005.
Zur Dauerhaftigkeit bandkeramischer Häuser im Rhein-
land (5300–4950 v. Chr.) – eine Interpretation dendro-
chronologischer und bauhistorischer Befunde. In D. Gro-
nenborn (ed.), Klimaveränderung und Kulturwandel
in neolithischen Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas, 6700–
2200 v. Chr. Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentral-
museums. Mainz: 151–170.
Schwerdtner G. 2007. Siedlungsgruben – Seriation und
Zufall. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 37: 189–205.
Siegmund F. 2014. Kulturen, Technokomplexe, Völker und
Identitätsgruppen: eine Skizze der archäologischen Diskus-
sion. Archäologische Informationen 37: 53–65.
Sommer U. 2001. ‘Hear the instructions of thy father, and
forsake not the law of thy mother’. Change and persis-
tence in the European Early Neolithic. Journal of Social
Archaeology 1: 244–270.
2003. Materielle Kultur und Ethnizität – eine sinnlose
Fragestellung? In U. Veit, T. Kienlin, C. Kümmel and S.
Schmidt (eds.), Spuren und Botschaften: Interpretati-
onen materieller Kultur. Waxmann. Münster: 205–223.
Spriggs M. 2013. Leaving safe harbours: movement to im-
mobility, homogeneity to diversification. A comparative
archaeological sequence from the western Pacific. In S.
Bergerbrant, S. Sabatini (eds.), Counterpoint. Essays in
Archaeology and Heritage Studies in honour of Profes-
sor Kristian Kristiansen. British Archaeological Reports
IS 2508. Archaeopress. Oxford: 549–556.
2016. Lapita and the Linearbandkeramik: what can a
comparative approach tell us about either? In L. Am-
kreutz, F. Haack, D. Hofmann and I. van Wijk (eds.),
Something out of the ordinary? Interpreting diversity
in the Early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik and beyond.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Newcastle: 481–504.
Stehli P. 1994. Chronologie der Bandkeramik im Merz-
bachtal. In J. Lüning, P. Stehli (eds.), Die Bandkeramik
im Merzbachtal auf der Aldenhovener Platte. Rheinland
Verlag. Köln: 79–191.
Strien H.-C. 2005. Familientraditionen in der bandkerami-
schen Siedlung bei Vaihingen/Enz. In J. Lüning, C. Frirdich
and A. Zimmermann (eds.), Die Bandkeramik im 21.
Jahrhundert. Symposium in der Abtei Brauweiler bei
Köln vom 16.9.–19.9.2002. Marie Leidorf. Rahden: 189–
197.
Keep on walking> the role of migration in Linearbandkeramik life
251
2009. Die ‘jüngerbandkeramische Gruppenbildung’ –
ein Requiem. In A. Zeeb-Lanz (ed.), Krisen – Kultur-
wandel – Kontinuitäten. Zum Ende der Bandkeramik
in Mitteleuropa. Beiträge der internationalen Tagung
in Herxheim bei Landau (Pfalz) vom 14.–17.06.2007.
Marie Leidorf. Rahden: 213–217.
Strien H.-C., Gronenborn D. 2005. Klima- und Kulturwan-
del während des mitteleuropäischen Altneolithikums (58./
57.–51./50. Jahrhundert v. Chr.). In D. Gronenborn (ed.),
Klimaveränderung und Kulturwandel in neolithischen
Gesellschaften Mitteleuropas, 6700–2200 v. Chr. Verlag
des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums. Mainz: 131–
149.
Szécsényi-Nagy A., Keerl V., Jakucs J., Brandt G., Bánffy E.
and Alt K. W. 2014. Ancient DNA evidence for a homoge-
nous maternal gene pool in sixth millennium cal BC Hun-
gary and the central European LBK. In A. Whittle, P. Bickle
(eds.), Early farmers. The view from Archaeology and
science. Oxford University Press. Oxford: 71–93.
Thomas J. 1996. The cultural context of the first use of do-
mesticates in continental central and northwest Europe.
In D. R. Harris (ed.), The origins and spread of agricul-
ture and pastoralism in Eurasia. University College Lon-
don Press. London: 310–322.
Urry J. 2007. Mobilities. Poliy Press. Cambridge.
Van de Velde P. 2008. The foam that flies ahead of a wave
of advance: thoughts on the early Neolithisation of the
Lower Rhine area uplands. In H. Fokkens, B. Coles, A.
Van Gijn, J. P. Kleijne, H. H. Ponjee and C. G. Slappendel
(eds.), Between foraging and farming. An extended
broad spectrum of papers presented to Leendert Louwe
Kooijmans. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 40. Leiden
University Press. Leiden: 99–110.
Whittle A. 2003. The archaeology of people. Dimensions
of Neolithic life. Routledge. New York.
Zeeb-Lanz A. 2009. Gewaltszenarien oder Sinnkrise? Die
Grubenanlage von Herxheim und das Ende der Bandke-
ramik. In A. Zeeb-Lanz (ed.), Krisen – Kulturwandel –
Kontinuitäten. Zum Ende der Bandkeramik in Mitteleu-
ropa. Beiträge der internationalen Tagung in Herxheim
bei Landau (Pfalz) vom 14.–17.06.2007. Marie Leidorf.
Rahden: 87–101.
Zimmermann A., Meurers-Balke, J. and Kalis, A. 2005. Das
Neolithikum im Rheinland. Bonner Jahrbücher 205: 1–
63.
.