I understand Kristian Kristiansen’s enthusiasm for the seemingly infinite possibilities offered by the collaboration between the natural sciences and archaeology. Gone are the days when archaeometry was associated with a narrow, functionalist agenda. We know now that we can recover past habitus, memory or social identity through the application of “archaeological science”. (I hate the concept, though: is it not science when we do not use a microscope?) I also agree with his plea for a return to the production of grand narratives. In fact, I have always been a great fan of his masterful grand narrative: Europe before History (Kristiansen 1998). The approach proposed in this article, however, does not re ject the small and the local. On the contrary, it tries to bridge the gap between the micro and the macro, bypassing an unhelpful dichotomy. I also find very revealing the historiographic analysis proposed by the author. Nevertheless, I have some misgivings about his paradigmatic enthusiasm that I will try to flesh out in this comment. Peer Reviewed