Despite a long research tradition, archaeology lacks reliable methods of identifying migrations. Not every externally induced cultural change is caused by migration and the problem of identifying which are and which are not has not yet been solved satisfactorily. Due to impressive developments in the natural sciences, however, promising solutions now seem to be at hand. Strontium isotope analysis and genetics both provide methods of identifying prehistoric migrations – and have thus given a great boost in recent years to archaeological projects studying migration. In light of the promising new results, archaeology confronts new challenges. If archaeologists do not want to be reduced to mere suppliers of samples for the natural sciences, they have to face these challenges and create a migration archaeology that has a clear anthropological perspective. This requires an understanding of migration that places mobility within the framework of historical and social processes.

Since archaeology was established as an independent scientific discipline in the 19th century, migration has been a central topic of archaeological research. Insofar one could expect that methods and theories of migration archaeology have been established, developed and matured over time. But this is not the case: hardly any of the central fields of archaeological research is as under-studied and under-theorized as migration archaeology. So far, there is no clear idea of how we should think about migration and how it should be investigated at all. Misconceptions, problematic assumptions and inadequate methods have recently led to a dead end. But the way out of this unsatisfying situation has also taken shape in recent years. In the following, ten basic points of a sound migration archaeology will be outlined.

A clear deficit in the theoretical and methodological development of archaeological research exists with regard to migration; attributing archaeological distribution patterns to migration as opposed to diffusion or trade is still a major problem. This article uses the example of North American colonization to develop an approach that distinguishes the changes brought about by migration from those produced by other forms of cultural transfer. Because methods for gathering evidence do not sufficiently explore migration processes in their complexity, a model based on the study of historic and modern migrations is developed, and its practicability is demonstrated using the example of Anglo-Saxon migration.

This paper explores the current narratives of migration for the start and spread of the Neolithic with a particular focus on the role that the new ancient DNA data have provided. While the genetic data are important and instructive, here it is argued that archaeologists should also consider other strands of evidence. More nuanced appreciations of migration as a longterm process can be created by exploring modern mobility studies alongside considerations of continued mobility throughout the Neolithic in Europe. We can also re-interpret the material evidence itself in the light of these approaches to help trace multiple possible links and migrations from multiple different origin points. This involves the investigation of complex, but connected, practices, such as monument construction and deposition across wider areas of northern Europe than are currently normally investigated. Such an approach will enable us to address long-term processes of movement, migration and interaction and investigate how new, shared social experiences emerged in a setting in which mobility and migration may have been the norm.

IT IS NOW widely accepted that the Anglo-Saxons were not just transplanted Germanic invaders and settlers from the Continent, but the outcome of insular interactions and changes. But we are still lacking explicit models that suggest how this ethnogenetic process might have worked in concrete terms. This article is an attempt to present such a model from an archaeological perspective, but with an interdisciplinary approach. The focus is on the role of the native British population and its interaction with immigrant Germanic groups. As a result, the model envisages two broad phases in the creation of the Anglo-Saxons: an ethnically divided conquest society in the 5th/6th centuries in which immigrants and their descendants practised a form of ‘apartheid’ in order to preserve their dominance; and a phase of increasing acculturation and assimilation of the natives in the 7th/8th centuries that laid the foundations of a common English identity.

Migration is a key concept in archaeology. It is a common explanation for the distribution and diffusion of cultural traits. However, it is more often an axiomatic postulate than the result of sound methodological analysis. The weaknesses of this approach have become apparent and have brought migration-as-explanation into disrepute. For archaeological investigation of the Migration Period the problem is further aggravated. Ancient written sources report an abundance of migrations associated with particular peoples. These sources often provide the coordinate system of archaeological investigations with fatal consequences as archaeology runs the risk of losing its independent methodological basis. Recently, new methods derived from the life sciences have joined in and have created new approaches to migration analysis. These methods sometimes provide a corrective that can compensate for the weaknesses of archaeology’s own methodology. Archaeology now faces new challenges. Archaeological sources are often neither compatible with written sources, nor with the findings of the diverse life science methods. It is becoming apparent that archaeology has lost its previous methodological command for investigating migration. As a scientific discipline archaeology has to finds its place in migration research anew.