Proc SocAntiq Scot, 114 (1984), 1-14 Discontinuity, cultural evolution and the historic event Waalsr de n *va D J SUMMARY Aspects of the traditional culture concept, the closely connected twin concepts of continuity and discontinuity, theirand usefulness prehistoryfor reconsidered.are Continuity discontinuityand are considered as functions of the evolution of culture; it is argued that the role of the historic element should not be overlooked. 1. INTRODUCTION This paper is the revised version of part of the Rhind lectures presented by the author in 1983. It is written by someone who, as a prehistorian, grew up under the domination of the migration paradigm, in the service of which the twin concepts of continuity and discontinuity becam e essentiath e l instruments d whoa student an s , a , , discussed with fellow studentw ho s prehistory could appea preseno t r t itselturmoia s a f f movemenlo migrationsd an t , notwithstand- e facinth gt that well-documented wanderings lik ee Cimbrthosth d Teutonf e o ean th i r o s Visigoth lefd archaeologicao n stha l trace t alla s . A generation ago, the (prehistoric) culture concept was central in the work of most prehistoric archaeologists in Europe. In 1929, Childe had been the first to really define the concept, but since the turn of the century and the days of Kossinna the idea had been at the heart of the continuity-discontinuity-migration paradigm, which somehow monopolized thinking on the explanatory level , analytie whilth n eo c leve maie th l n concer beed distributioe nha nth timn ni e and space of archaeological phenomena. The excesses of the ethnocentric continental school of prehistory in the first half of this century, and the abuse made of the latter's findings by party- statd an e ideologists dond ha , e littl alero et t pre-war prehistorians (wit exceptioe hth f Childno e and Tallgren) but it may have helped to put post-war prehistorians on their guard, and to prepare youngee th r generatio reactione th r nfo , which ultimately broke through wit writinge hth Binforf so d in the United States and David Clarke in Great Britain. Today, the culture concept in the Childean sense is handled with suspicion and the migration paradigm is banned from archaeology. Prehistoric archaeology is penetrating into new and promising fields of research. Literature is full of stimulating ideas. Yet archaeologists of the older generation, even when applauding these new trends, wonder how readily concepts are being * Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, Poststraa , Groningent6 , Netherlands 2 | SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES OF SCOTLAND, 1984 rejected because they have been used in a way we now :recognize to be defective, without further reflectio theio t s na r possible usefulnes r understandinou r fo s waye th culturf f so g o e changet Le . this paper be accepted, not as a futile attempt to turn back the clock, but as an effort to prevent future babies being thrown away with the, bathwater. 2. ASPECTS OF THE CULTURE CONCEPT Of the prehistorians working in the first six decades of this century under the dominance of the culture-(dis)continuity-migration paradigm, Childe was the one to reflect explicitly on the implications of the culture concept. In a recent analysis of his work, Barbara McNairn (1980) exposed the development over almost 30 years of Childe's thinking on the culture concept. For the present purpose, we select the definition Childe gave in the introduction to his Prehistoric Migrations (1950). It certainly does no justice to Childe's varied considerations on the subject, but t conveyi essence sth understoos ea contemporariess hi y db : 'A culture is defined as an assemblage of artifacts that recur repeatedly associated together in dwelling same th f eso kinwitd dan h burialsame th ey sb rite arbitrare Th . y peculiaritief so implements, weapons, ornaments, houses, burial rites and ritual objects are assumed to be concrete expression commoe th f so n social tradition that binds togethe people'a r . The definition consists of two parts, of which the first gives the definition proper, whereas the second presents an interpretation. As to the definition proper, its phrasing leaves no doubt that a prehistoric culture in the partitive sense is implied. The archaeological reality of such recurrent assemblages is not under discussion. As regards the second part, there would be no problems in accepting it as an assumption referrin complete th o gt e assemblag contemporary f artefactan eo f o c et s y grou peoplf po e witha common social tradition. The objection is that it is questionable to what extent the archaeological reality correspond originan a o st l reality othen i , r word whao st t exten t couli tproduca e db f o t systematic depositional, post-depositional and interpretational bias. The definition might induce illusioe th n tha prehistorie th t c culture coul reae d th givl o idecharacten t e a s aa culture th f ro f eo e 'peopleth ' once living, whic shoule hw wil, is d l t casei e statrarel th s eA e . yb tha t thougr ou h prehistoric cultures represent sociae th l traditions commo certaio nt n group peoplef so , thee yar meano n y b s representative f themo . With respect to the 'common social tradition' the functional and technological traits represented r assemblagou n i e lesar es informative thae stylistith n c traitsr n somou I . f o e assemblages stylistic traits are more difficult to isolate than in others. They can even be under-represented instancr fo , thosn ei e Neolithic culture whicn si pottere hth ya f appearo e b o st purely utilitarian character. Theoretically, differing assemblages of purely functional traits could merely represent different poses of one and the same 'people' (Newell et al, forthcoming). Binford (1965) stated that Childe's culture concept implie d'normativea ' vie f culturewo , the underlying assumption being that common patterns of behaviour produced spatial regularities in traits, including mortuary practices, which crystallized into 'cultures' d BinforAn . d imputed thae 'degreth t f formao e l similarities observed among independent sociocultural units wa s assumed to be a direct measure of the degree of genetic or affiliational cultural relationship amon e unitgth s being compared' e implicatioTh . f Binford'no s criticis t onlmno y concerne th s comparison of cultures, but also the validity of the delineation of the cultures themselves. Many cultures show up regional variants. Their being grouped into one culture may depend on the seemingly dominant homogeneity of the traits preserved. Non-surviving traits might have offered VAN DER WAALS: DISCONTINUITY, CULTURAL EVOLUTION AND THE HISTORIC EVENT much more variance extene th o t ,t tha t couli t d have been preferabl grouo et p certain peripheral variants with neighbouring variants now allotted to different cultures, or to make altogether different groupings. In such situations, not only post-depositional bias but also subjective preference e influentialb y ma s . Anyhow e non-representativenesth , s thu se fac th addt o t s observed by Clarke (1968), of which Childe was also aware (McNairn 1980), that boundaries of subsystem f culture t o snecessaril no o d s y correspond l thesal n ei observationl Al . s countee th r tendency towards partitioning of cultures based on subtle differences. Another consequence of the non-representative nature of 1 the 'culture' is that the anthropologica laggregationa e naturth d ean le (grou leveth ) f 'peopleo lpof ' concernee b y dma different from 'culture' to 'culture'. It cannot be determined simply on the basis of the patterning and spatial organizatio regionaf no l groups withi culturee nrelatef th o d sdan cultures themselves (Hodder 1978; Shennan 1978; McNairn 1980). majoA r deficienc e seconth f o yde definition th par f o t , responsibl e confusionth r fo e s induced by the migration paradigm, is the fact that this second part does not include any restrictions as to time or space: the assumed equation: cultural assemblage=social tradition=(group of) people is not restricted to a specific moment, nor to a special area. It can therefor prehistory wa e usee th eb yn di always did speakinn i , instancr g fo 'Funnee th f eo l Beaker Culture', thus extendin e equatiogth n assemblage=tradition=people (now encompassing many generations) over a period of almost a millennium. It is the presence in the definition of the word 'tradition', itself a diachronic concept, which suggests its use in this way. The justification is that each successive phase of such a culture, as far as can be learnt from the surviving assemblage, can be recognized as directly deriving from the preceding phase, with which it presents predominant similarities in shape. But if we accept the equation in this diachronic sense, without restrictions as spaceo t t impliei , s tha geographia t c expansio f thano t cultur course th n f timei eo e shoule db consequence th f migrationeo t doeI .t allo sno radicar wfo l chang f cultureo e otherwise thaa s na consequence of migration and conquest. This is in fact the way Childe used it, for example in his Prehistoric Migrations, according to Kossinna's axiom, and it is this aspect of it that we have to revise therefore W . e shoul restrictioa d d ad spac o t s r timena eo equatioe th : onls ni y valia r dfo given period, or, when used in a diachronic sense, within a defined, constant area. The Foulbe in West Africa, now spreading from Senegal to North Cameroons, are quite conscious of their common social tradition, which finds expression in their actual material culture, institutions and language knoe w t w Bu tha.