{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020933977455716585, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001610305958132045, 'mean_word_length': 5.407216494845361, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
De-contaminating the aDNA – archaeology dialogue on mobility and migration: discussing the culture-historical legacy

While the newly available ancient DNA data have shaken a lot of archaeological debates, they have, despite their enormous potential, not yet had any meaningful impact on the way we view prehistory. Instead of using this new data-source to explore new questions, or at least to re-assess the old ones, aDNA results have been tacked onto some of the most outdated narratives in European prehistory, stemming from the early twentieth century. The simplified Steppe migration narrative builds upon long-outdated culture-historical concepts, sloppy classification work, and a reliance on a monothetic culture concept which was convincingly deconstructed 50 years ago by David Clarke. In this paper, a polythetic approach to the material of the third millennium BC presents a different picture of the period. Additionally relying on a practice-based approach to how new transregional objects and practices are integrated into local contexts, it is argued that these two adjustments to our approach to the archaeological material can significantly improve the aDNA–archaeology dialogue, and better integrate the different datasets.