Neolithic societies in Europe are primarily defined by their shift to food production, with agriculture acting as a driving force linking these communities to sedentism [1,2]. However, recent advances in biomolecular studies have led to a “mobility turn” in archaeological research, encouraging a fresh focus on movement within these societies [3]. This shift has been pivotal in refining rigid social models, acknowledging that migration was part of the behaviour of early Neolithic settlers, possibly driven by prestige-related factors [7].
From a methodological perspective, many mobility patterns may not leave identifiable traces in biomolecular data [7]. This underscores the importance of collaboration between archaeologists and bioarchaeologists to develop shared theoretical frameworks for addressing such challenges [8]. Culturally, this focus on mobility has prompted a rethinking of European Neolithic paradigms. Rather than viewing archaeological cultures as static, monolithic entities, researchers now approach cultural and social phenomena “through the lens of movement” [3].
One revived concept in this context is that of translocal communities [9], which provides insights into the socio-spatial organisation of these societies [10]. Despite its promise, this perspective has seen limited empirical testing to date. A related and fruitful approach involves applying the concept of communities of practice to study the archaeological record. Developed by cognitive anthropologists Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger [11], this framework from social learning theory emphasises that technical expertise, which requires significant time to master, is typically acquired through a model or tutor [12,13].
Learning extends beyond imitation to involve the gradual mastery of culturally specific postures and movements [14]. Tutors are often chosen from within one’s social circle, meaning that technical practices are shared within the group, and these practices reflect socio-spatial boundaries [15]. This applies regardless of whether the transmission is vertical, horizontal, or oblique [16]. Building on these ideas, the MOBILITH project adopts a bottom-up approach to trace the socio-spatial trajectories of Neolithic knappers communities. By relying on social learning theories, it aims to offer new perspectives on the role and forms of mobility in early agro-pastoralist societies.

References
- 1. Scharl S. Mobility in Prehistoric sedentary societies-an introduction. In: Scharl S, Gehlen B, editors. Mobility in Prehistoric sedentary societies: papers of the CRC 806 Workshop in Cologne 26-27 June 2015. Rahden, Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH; 2017. pp. 9–18.
- 2. Brami M. Theory versus data: Dealing with the interpretive dilemma in the biomolecular era. In: Heitz C, Wunderlich M, Hinz M, Furholt M, editors. Rethinking Neolithic Societies New Perspectives on Social Relations, Political Organization and Cohabitation. Sidestone Press Academics; 2023. pp. 283–289. doi:10.59641/ndr028gp
- 3. Heitz C. From “communities of practice” to “translocal communities”: A practice theoretical approach to mobility and the sociospatial configurations of Neolithic groups. In: Heitz C, Wunderlich M, Hinz M, Furholt M, editors. Rethinking Neolithic Societies New Perspectives on Social Relations, Political Organization and Cohabitation. Sidestone Press Academics; 2023. pp. 63–97. doi:10.59641/ndr028gp
- 4. Scharl S, Gehlen B. Mobility in Prehistoric sedentary societies: papers of the CRC 806 Workshop in Cologne 26-27 June 2015. Rahden, Westf: Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH; 2017.
- 5. Heitz C, Stapfer R, editors. Mobility and pottery production: archaeological & anthropological perspectives. Leiden: Sidestone Press; 2017.
- 6. Hofmann D. Not going anywhere? Migration as a social practice in the early Neolithic Linearbandkeramik. Quaternary International. 2020;560–561: 228–239. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.04.002
- 7. Hofmann D. Keep on walking: the role of migration in Linearbandkeramik life. Doc praeh. 2016;43: 235–252. doi:10.4312/dp.43.11
- 8. Furholt M. Mobility and Social Change: Understanding the European Neolithic Period after the Archaeogenetic Revolution. J Archaeol Res. 2021;29: 481–535. doi:10.1007/s10814-020-09153-x
- 9. Furholt M. Translocal Communities – Exploring Mobility and Migration in Sedentary Societies of the European Neolithic and Early Bronze Age. Praehistorische Zeitschrift. 2018;92: 304–321. doi:10.1515/pz-2017-0024
- 10. Furholt M. Rethinking Neolithic Societies. New Perspectives on Social Relations, Political Organization and Cohabitation. Heitz C, Wunderlich M, Hinz M, editors. Sidestone Press Academics; 2023. doi:10.59641/ndr028gp
- 11. Lave J, Wenger E. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
- 12. Roux V. Lecture anthropologique des assemblages céramiques : fondements et mise en oeuvre de l’analyse technologique. Maison des Sciences de l’homme. Approches de la chaîne opératoire de la céramique : le façonnage. Maison des Sciences de l’homme. Paris; 2010. pp. 4–9.
- 13. Ingold T. Beyond art and technology: the anthropology of skill. In: B. Schiffer M, editor. Anthropological perspectives on technology. 2001. pp. 17–31.
- 14. Bril B. Comment aborder la question du geste technique pour en comprendre l’expertise et l’apprentissage ? Techniques et Culture, 2019; 78–91. doi:10.4000/tc.11373
- 15. Gosselain O. Pottery chaînes opératoires as Historical Documents. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of African History. Oxford University Press; 2018. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190277734.013.208
- 16. Roux V, Bril B, Cauliez J, Goujon A-L, Lara C, Manen C, et al. Persisting technological boundaries: Social interactions, cognitive correlations and polarization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 2017;48: 320–335. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2017.09.004
Here we are referring to the definitions used by Daniela Hofmann, considering mobility as « episodes of movement by groups or individuals which are ultimately centred on a fixed place of residence » (Hofmann 2016: 236) versus migration corresponding to « a permanent shift of residence of a social unit larger than an individual » (ibid: 235). For the sake of readability, we will use on this blog the term mobility in the broad sense, including all forms of mobility and migration.
OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
Solène Denis (21 janvier 2025). Theoretical background of the project. MOBILITH. Consulté le 19 mars 2025 à l’adresse https://mobilith.hypotheses.org/221