Archaeology of Identity

Ch 1 Introduction; Ch  2 Gender identity; Ch 3 The archaeology of age; Ch 4 Status identity and archaeology; Ch 5 Ethnic and cultural identities; Ch 6 The archaeology of religion
The Archaeology of Identity presents an overview of five of the key areas that have recently emerged in archaeological social theory: gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion. This book reviews the research history of each of them, and the different ways in which they have been investigated, as well as offering potential ways forward. Emphasis is placed on exploring the ways in which material culture is structured by these aspects of individual and communal identity, with a particular stress on social practice. A wealth of scholarship is brought together in this book, which provides an integrated approach to identity not commonly found in similar studies. This book is suitable for students and readers interested in issues of identity, as well as social scientists dealing with similar aspects in sociology, anthropology and history.

La Tène rein guide rings make up one of remarkable, but relatively less frequent categories of finds. Until recently, their occurrence in the Czech Republic seemed very rare. However, the number of known finds has increased significantly in the last five years, especially in association with extensive use of metal detectors. Currently, eighteen exemplars of various types in total can be classified in this category. The latest finds also include the rein guide ring discovered in 2016 within the La Tène quadrangular enclosure in Markvartice, Jičín district (Fig. 1). This exemplar (Fig. 3: 1), with affiliation to Kappel type, can be chronologically classified in phase LTD1. It is also the first known find of a rein guide ring obtained from the inner space of a La Tène quadrangular enclosure – the so-called Viereckschanze.
Like the ring from Markvartice, all seventeen remaining finds from Bohemia and Moravia can be dated to phase LTD1 (Fig. 3; 4; Table 1). Most detected rein guide rings were discovered in the areas of oppida in Stradonice and Staré Hradisko (9 exemplars). There are also individual finds (4 exemplars) or finds without clearly defined contexts (2 exemplars). Only marginally (2 exemplars), rings from flatland settlement areas (Drnholec, Vodňany) are represented. Specific typological classification was possible for sixteen exemplars. In the assemblage, western types of Bechtheim, Estinnes, Hoppstädten or Kappel as well as rare rings of Orešac type occurring exclusively in the eastern part of La Tène Europe were identified. As for the total number, their finds are evenly represented in Bohemia and Moravia, however, there is higher typological variability in Bohemia (Fig. 5). In a wider context, the regions of Bohemia and Moravia together with the territories of southwestern and western Slovakia, Austria and eastern Bavaria seem to be parts of a zone where distribution spheres of western and eastern types overlap to different extent (Fig. 6). Nevertheless, rein guide rings whose occurrence is typical mainly of western territories of today’s Germany and France clearly prevail in the finds from Bohemia and Moravia. Thus, they can be understood as one of the indicators of stronger relations of both discussed areas to this direction. In the wider context, rein guide rings generally represent one of the possible markers of the geographically defined group identity of their owners and associated communities.
Rein guide rings as well as other decorative yoke fittings, were one of forms of the owner’s self-presentation. Their character, association with wagons and horses as well as their prevailing occurrence in oppida and fortified sites show that their use was mainly associated with higher and privileged classes of the La Tène society. The find from Markvartice, discovered in one of the quadrangular enclosures of Viereckschanzen type, whose importance is – besides other factors – associated with residential activities of elites, perfectly fits this picture.

In recent years, archaeogenetics have made huge contributions to the study of prehistoric societies. Genetic data have put the issue of large group migrations back on the agenda and the field is now moving on to questions such as marriage, mating patterns and hereditary inequality. However, there has been the inevitable disconnect between euphoria surrounding the potentials of aDNA and the realisation of its complexities and limits. In this case, the 'morning after' effect is increased by a lack of understanding between the sub-disciplines involved. Not all archaeologists feel comfortable with what aDNA actually can (and cannot) tell us, while archaeogeneticists are often accused of oversimplifying and sensationalising their findings without due regards to archaeological complexities. Basic issues, such as the definition of 'populations' and the best scale of analysis (individual and community relations, population genetics…) all remain to be negotiated. In this session, we would like to bring together archaeologists who routinely work with genetic data and those who remain sceptical, as well as archaeogeneticists. The focus is not on presenting specific case studies/results. Instead, we wish to reflect on how the process of knowledge creation has worked for the different participants. What questions were archaeologists, geneticists and others in the team actually interested in? Did these overlap? How were genetic and archaeological data integrated, and was this successful? And where do participants see the field moving next? Can we (and should we) move beyond broad-brush models at the continental scale to site-specific analyses? Should we tackle potentially controversial issues such as racism or sexism in the past, and if so how is this best communicated to colleagues and the wider public?

The Low Countries' Early Iron Age is marked by the emergence of lavish burials known as chieftains' graves or princely burials. These extraordinary elite burials of the Hallstatt C/D period contain weaponry, bronze vessels as well as decorated wagons and horse-gear imported from the Hallstatt culture of Central Europe, where the same objects are found in the famous Fürstengräber. While the connection between these regions has long been recognized, the nature of this contact remains poorly understood. Here we present the preliminary results of an ongoing re-examination of elite funerary practices in both regions and the likely direct long-distance interactions reflected in them. Similarities and differences in the treatment of objects and the dead in funerary rituals indicate that, to a certain extent at least, these geographically separated social groups were integrated in a specific elite burial practice, indicating frequent contact across hundreds of kilometres.