Between the Vinča and Linearbandkeramik worlds: the diversity of practices and identities in the 54th–53rd centuries cal BC in south-west Hungary and beyond

Szederkény-Kukorica-dűlő is a large settlement in south-east Transdanubia, Hungary, excavated in advance of road construction, which is notable for its combination of pottery styles, variously including Vinča A, Ražište and LBK, and longhouses of a kind otherwise familiar from the LBK world. Formal modelling of its date establishes that the site probably began in the later 54th century cal BC, lasting until the first decades of the 52nd century cal BC. Occupation, featuring longhouses, pits and graves, probably began at the same time on the east and west parts of the settlement, the central part starting a decade or two later; the western part was probably abandoned last. Vinča pottery is predominantly associated with the east and central parts of the site, and Ražište pottery with the west. Formal modelling of the early history and diaspora of longhouses in the LBK world suggests their emergence in the Formative LBK of Transdanubia c. 5500 cal BC and then rapid diaspora in the middle of the 54th century cal BC, associated with the ‘earliest’ (älteste) LBK. The adoption of longhouses at Szederkény thus appears to come a few generations after the start of the diaspora. Rather than explaining the mixture of things, practices and perhaps people at Szederkény by reference to problematic notions such as hybridity, we propose instead a more fluid and varied vocabulary including combination and amalgamation, relationships and performance in the flow of social life, and networks; this makes greater allowance for diversity and interleaving in a context of rapid change

A requiem for hybridity? The problem with Frankensteins, purées, and mules

Hybridity as an interpretive construct in the archaeology of colonialism has encountered many pitfalls, due largely to the way it has been set adrift from clear theoretical anchors and has been applied inconsistently to things, practices, processes, and even people. One of the telltale signs of its problematic nature is the ease with which archaeologists claim to identify the origin and existence of hybridity but the difficulty faced if asked when and how such hybridity actually ends, if it does. In that context, this paper offers a potential requiem for hybridity. If we need not go that far, archaeologists at least need to rein in the “Frankenstein” version of hybridity that permeates archaeology and occludes its variable and problematic origins, acknowledge the dangers of accentuating or even celebrating “purées,” and beware of the creation of cultural “mules” in analytical classifications and interpretations

Kenya: Joy As Firebrand Academician Is Back After Twelve Years Of Political Asylum

An article, by Dr Joseph Adero Ngala, an Associate Professor of International Relations at the United States International University – Africa