In: Timo Ibsen, Kristin Ilves, Birgit Maixner, Sebastian Messal und Jens Schneeweiß (Hg.): Fortifications in their Natural and Cultural Landscape: From Organising Space to the Creation of Power. Bonn: Habelt-Verlag (Schriften des Museums für Archäologie Schloss Gottorf. Ergänzungsreihe, Band 15)., 2022
Fortifications are perceived to be linked to conflict and warfare or ritualistic usage in archaeo... more Fortifications are perceived to be linked to conflict and warfare or ritualistic usage in archaeology. But how can archaeologists understand the functionality of fortifications better? In this paper, we maintain that fortifications play specific roles in escalation as well as in de-escalation processes and that these roles are tightly connected to their locations. We apply the concept of ‘ROOTS of Conflicts: Competition and Conciliation’ (Subcluster 6 of the Cluster of Excellence ROOTS), which considers de-escalation and conciliation to be as important as escalation and competition. We specify different orders of location that are based on the placement of fortified sites in their natural and social environments, constituting absolute and relative space. Functionality of the fortifications can be deduced from their integration into the stated environments. Finally, the presented case studies demonstrate the diverse uses of the introduced concepts and shed a new light on possible interpretations of connected fortifications. The case studies span the concepts of counter-castles (Santok/Zantoch [PL]), pairs of fortifications (along the Schlei fjord [D]), supra-regional ‘twins’ (brochs [GB]), poly-centrality (Lossow and Lebus [D]), network centrality (princely seats of the Early Iron Age [D]), and directed monumentality (Es Rossells [E]).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
The proliferation of web-based geographic interfaces for the investigation of archaeological phenomena naturally leads to the conclusion that super-regional perspectives can now be assembled for numerous archaeological phenomena. Hillforts or fortification are one of the clearest examples of this trend with numerous regional and national scale compilations being made available. The focus of these databases varies from heritage management catalogues, to curated academic and scientific collections and touristic information. We seek to discuss the possibilities for a pan-European database, in terms of both theory and practicality; as well as how such a system might be used to shape future research. Since the monuments themselves are multifaceted is it possible to apply GIS as a reductive technique to these monuments on such a super-regional or European scale or does it unduly suppress unique analysis and interpretation? Is the shared terminology of “hillfort” appropriate for such a wide area or does it actively obscure a broader spectrum of phenomena in prehistory? In practical terms for a data base, we ask: Can we provide standardized knowledge and data on hillforts, which would help scientists filter the tremendous amount of information scattered in thousands of articles, publications, excavation reports, and archives according to their specific questions? Does it make sense to combine and link smaller platforms into a monothematic platform to raise awareness, promote hillfort research, and offer easy access to the related data? It is also necessary to consider how this dataset could grow and develop overtime. Would developing guidelines for documenting hillfort excavations or surveys enable us to unify research questions and make hillfort research comparable? How should we go about incorporating the growing body of both archival and grey literature at our disposal? The round table aims to connect specialist and interested scholars who use and moderate hillfort specific databases.
At the center of this workshop are the unquestioned material frameworks that offer people orientation in their quotidian lives without ever taking on any specific “meaning”. How can archaeology integrate this essential part of past lifeworlds into its narratives, and what is the role of incidentalness in academic work, that of archaeologists included?
Wir veranstalten ein World Café, in welchem an fünf Tischen den interessierten Topoi-Mitgliedern ermöglicht wird, zentrale Topoi-Themen miteinander und natürlich auch mit unseren Lesezirkelteilnehmer*innen zu diskutieren. Jeder Tisch wird von zwei „Gastgeber*innen“ moderiert, die jeweils mit kontroversen Thesen die Diskussion eröffnen und anregen und zudem unterschiedliche Standpunkte vertreten. Ein Wechsel der „Besucher*innen“ zwischen den Tischen soll jederzeit möglich sein, zusätzlich wird nach 20 min gewechselt. Angedacht sind drei solche Runden, so dass die World Café Dauer ca. 60 min beträgt. Als Ergebnis sollen die von den „Besucher*innen“ beschriebenen Papiertischdecken möglichst den Rest der Tagung für alle einsehbar an den (Stell)Wänden befestigt werden. Folgende Tische sind geplant:
Kultur – ein wertloses Konzept?
(Alexander Veling & Joselin Düsenberg)
Der Kulturbegriff ist (angeblich) ein Zentralkonzept altertumswissenschaftlicher Forschung, von der Klassifikation z.B. einzelner archäologischer Funde bis zum Selbstverständnis als Kulturwissenschaft. Die große Bandbreite der Verwendung und deren Widersprüchlichkeit entwerten das Konzept, darüber hinaus ist der Begriff alltagssprachlich, politisch wie historisch vorbelastet. Sollten wir das Konzept daher vermeiden und aus dem wissenschaftlichen Diskurs streichen?
Wieviel Naturwissenschaften vertragen die Altertumswissenschaften?
(Anna Loy & Lukas Goldmann)
Unbestritten wachsen Natur- und Kulturwissenschaften weiter zusammen, auch in den Altertumswissenschaften. Dies bringt neue Fragestellungen, aber auch erkenntnistheoretische Herausforderungen hervor. Sind die jeweiligen Paradigmen überhaupt vereinbar, stehen wir vor einem neuen Szientizismus oder bewegen wir uns aus der Trennung der Wissen(schaft)sfelder heraus?
Räume – Utopien der (Un)Endlichkeit?
(Kai Radloff & Werner Kogge)
Ausgangspunkt altertumswissenschaftlicher Forschung ist in der Regel die Verortung eines Phänomens im geographischen Raum. Doch im weiteren Prozess der Kategorisierung und Interpretation werden die Phänomene nach bestimmten anderen, relationalen Räumen geordnet, beispielsweise sozialen, sakralen oder politischen. Welche Räume also erfassen wir bzw. können wir überhaupt erfassen? Wie grenzen wir sie ab und welche Konsequenzen hat dies? Und was, wenn sich diese überschneiden oder verflechten?
„Im Übrigen bin ich der Meinung, dass Kulturerbe zerstört werden muss!“
(Elisabeth Günther & Stefan Schreiber)
Der Schutz kulturellen Erbes steht mehr denn je im Fokus der archäologischen Forschung. Aber sind es tatsächlich aus reinem Zufall überlieferte Artefakte, die wir erben, oder nicht eher die mit diesen verbundenen Konzepte und Ideen? Oder womöglich die Transformationen dieser Konzepte, die wir uns im Hier und Jetzt zunutze machen können?
Ist Antike überhaupt vermittelbar?
(Georg Cyrus & Philipp Tollkühn)
Archäolog*innen diskutieren seit Jahren verschiedene Formen der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Aber welche Rolle spielt die Öffentlichkeit bei der Produktion archäologischen Wissens? Haben wir eine Verantwortung ihr gegenüber? Oder genügt ein Auftreten als Expert*in im Sinne der Wissenschaftsfreiheit?
understanding the evidence by showing certain connections and by pointing out questions to ask to the archaeological material. This paper is presenting different models which contribute to this discussion
and which in particular might help to understand the role of the oppida in the process in question. Our starting point is migration theory. Which factors are driving people to move and which factors are
influencing the migration process? Which attractors are influencing the geometry of migration? Then, we turn to conflicts and the different kinds of escalation and de-escalation. Which role does de-
escalation play in a society and which de-escalating tools and strategies are available? How can we identify the different facets of conflicts, escalation and de-escalation with archaeological sources? What do spatial patterns of conflict tell about conflicts? Which patterns are visible for the time in question? Our next step is to integrate these considerations with the concepts of interaction and connectivity and to deduce aspects of ancient interaction from settlement patterns. Furthermore, we will address the role of demography, complexity and urbanity.
Three types of location categories can be distinguished, which can be named according to point pattern analysis terminology: first order location (1st ol), second order location (2nd ol), third order location (3rd ol). First order location is concerned with the absolute space and with parameters of the natural environment and landscape. The location of a fortification leads to specific properties such as defensibility and visibility. Natural resources can indicate territories which have to be defended. The second and third order locations are concerned with the relative space which is constituted by the elements in the space. The second order focusses on the relationship to other fortifications (and to other not fortified places). Are the fortifications forming spatial clusters or do they prefer maximal distances to each other? Are there specific patterns observable? Finally, the third order is focusing on groups of connected fortifications.
Examples are fortifications facing each other on two sides of a border or fortifications complementing each other inside on territory. The conflict related function (conf) of connected fortifications concerning the location of the fortification is considered in this paper and we present some short case studies.
buildings of the mainly Atlantic Scottish Iron Age, is turned around. The aim is to get a notion
of how the monuments could have been perceived from within their surrounding landscapes.
Different scenarios of the utilisation of the monuments, which as of now is heavily disputed on,
will be discussed. For this purpose two regional studies - one in a classic Atlantic area, one in
the lowlands - are implemented using R and GRASS. A deliberate decision was made to include
quite different landscapes: Caithness as a coastal region with relatively soft relief and the wider
Forth Valley as a typical region at the edge to the Highlands.
The proliferation of web-based geographic interfaces for the investigation of archaeological phenomena naturally leads to the conclusion that super-regional perspectives can now be assembled for numerous archaeological phenomena. Hillforts or fortification are one of the clearest examples of this trend with numerous regional and national scale compilations being made available. The focus of these databases varies from heritage management catalogues, to curated academic and scientific collections and touristic information. We seek to discuss the possibilities for a pan-European database, in terms of both theory and practicality; as well as how such a system might be used to shape future research. Since the monuments themselves are multifaceted is it possible to apply GIS as a reductive technique to these monuments on such a super-regional or European scale or does it unduly suppress unique analysis and interpretation? Is the shared terminology of “hillfort” appropriate for such a wide area or does it actively obscure a broader spectrum of phenomena in prehistory? In practical terms for a data base, we ask: Can we provide standardized knowledge and data on hillforts, which would help scientists filter the tremendous amount of information scattered in thousands of articles, publications, excavation reports, and archives according to their specific questions? Does it make sense to combine and link smaller platforms into a monothematic platform to raise awareness, promote hillfort research, and offer easy access to the related data? It is also necessary to consider how this dataset could grow and develop overtime. Would developing guidelines for documenting hillfort excavations or surveys enable us to unify research questions and make hillfort research comparable? How should we go about incorporating the growing body of both archival and grey literature at our disposal? The round table aims to connect specialist and interested scholars who use and moderate hillfort specific databases.
At the center of this workshop are the unquestioned material frameworks that offer people orientation in their quotidian lives without ever taking on any specific “meaning”. How can archaeology integrate this essential part of past lifeworlds into its narratives, and what is the role of incidentalness in academic work, that of archaeologists included?
Wir veranstalten ein World Café, in welchem an fünf Tischen den interessierten Topoi-Mitgliedern ermöglicht wird, zentrale Topoi-Themen miteinander und natürlich auch mit unseren Lesezirkelteilnehmer*innen zu diskutieren. Jeder Tisch wird von zwei „Gastgeber*innen“ moderiert, die jeweils mit kontroversen Thesen die Diskussion eröffnen und anregen und zudem unterschiedliche Standpunkte vertreten. Ein Wechsel der „Besucher*innen“ zwischen den Tischen soll jederzeit möglich sein, zusätzlich wird nach 20 min gewechselt. Angedacht sind drei solche Runden, so dass die World Café Dauer ca. 60 min beträgt. Als Ergebnis sollen die von den „Besucher*innen“ beschriebenen Papiertischdecken möglichst den Rest der Tagung für alle einsehbar an den (Stell)Wänden befestigt werden. Folgende Tische sind geplant:
Kultur – ein wertloses Konzept?
(Alexander Veling & Joselin Düsenberg)
Der Kulturbegriff ist (angeblich) ein Zentralkonzept altertumswissenschaftlicher Forschung, von der Klassifikation z.B. einzelner archäologischer Funde bis zum Selbstverständnis als Kulturwissenschaft. Die große Bandbreite der Verwendung und deren Widersprüchlichkeit entwerten das Konzept, darüber hinaus ist der Begriff alltagssprachlich, politisch wie historisch vorbelastet. Sollten wir das Konzept daher vermeiden und aus dem wissenschaftlichen Diskurs streichen?
Wieviel Naturwissenschaften vertragen die Altertumswissenschaften?
(Anna Loy & Lukas Goldmann)
Unbestritten wachsen Natur- und Kulturwissenschaften weiter zusammen, auch in den Altertumswissenschaften. Dies bringt neue Fragestellungen, aber auch erkenntnistheoretische Herausforderungen hervor. Sind die jeweiligen Paradigmen überhaupt vereinbar, stehen wir vor einem neuen Szientizismus oder bewegen wir uns aus der Trennung der Wissen(schaft)sfelder heraus?
Räume – Utopien der (Un)Endlichkeit?
(Kai Radloff & Werner Kogge)
Ausgangspunkt altertumswissenschaftlicher Forschung ist in der Regel die Verortung eines Phänomens im geographischen Raum. Doch im weiteren Prozess der Kategorisierung und Interpretation werden die Phänomene nach bestimmten anderen, relationalen Räumen geordnet, beispielsweise sozialen, sakralen oder politischen. Welche Räume also erfassen wir bzw. können wir überhaupt erfassen? Wie grenzen wir sie ab und welche Konsequenzen hat dies? Und was, wenn sich diese überschneiden oder verflechten?
„Im Übrigen bin ich der Meinung, dass Kulturerbe zerstört werden muss!“
(Elisabeth Günther & Stefan Schreiber)
Der Schutz kulturellen Erbes steht mehr denn je im Fokus der archäologischen Forschung. Aber sind es tatsächlich aus reinem Zufall überlieferte Artefakte, die wir erben, oder nicht eher die mit diesen verbundenen Konzepte und Ideen? Oder womöglich die Transformationen dieser Konzepte, die wir uns im Hier und Jetzt zunutze machen können?
Ist Antike überhaupt vermittelbar?
(Georg Cyrus & Philipp Tollkühn)
Archäolog*innen diskutieren seit Jahren verschiedene Formen der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Aber welche Rolle spielt die Öffentlichkeit bei der Produktion archäologischen Wissens? Haben wir eine Verantwortung ihr gegenüber? Oder genügt ein Auftreten als Expert*in im Sinne der Wissenschaftsfreiheit?
understanding the evidence by showing certain connections and by pointing out questions to ask to the archaeological material. This paper is presenting different models which contribute to this discussion
and which in particular might help to understand the role of the oppida in the process in question. Our starting point is migration theory. Which factors are driving people to move and which factors are
influencing the migration process? Which attractors are influencing the geometry of migration? Then, we turn to conflicts and the different kinds of escalation and de-escalation. Which role does de-
escalation play in a society and which de-escalating tools and strategies are available? How can we identify the different facets of conflicts, escalation and de-escalation with archaeological sources? What do spatial patterns of conflict tell about conflicts? Which patterns are visible for the time in question? Our next step is to integrate these considerations with the concepts of interaction and connectivity and to deduce aspects of ancient interaction from settlement patterns. Furthermore, we will address the role of demography, complexity and urbanity.
Three types of location categories can be distinguished, which can be named according to point pattern analysis terminology: first order location (1st ol), second order location (2nd ol), third order location (3rd ol). First order location is concerned with the absolute space and with parameters of the natural environment and landscape. The location of a fortification leads to specific properties such as defensibility and visibility. Natural resources can indicate territories which have to be defended. The second and third order locations are concerned with the relative space which is constituted by the elements in the space. The second order focusses on the relationship to other fortifications (and to other not fortified places). Are the fortifications forming spatial clusters or do they prefer maximal distances to each other? Are there specific patterns observable? Finally, the third order is focusing on groups of connected fortifications.
Examples are fortifications facing each other on two sides of a border or fortifications complementing each other inside on territory. The conflict related function (conf) of connected fortifications concerning the location of the fortification is considered in this paper and we present some short case studies.
buildings of the mainly Atlantic Scottish Iron Age, is turned around. The aim is to get a notion
of how the monuments could have been perceived from within their surrounding landscapes.
Different scenarios of the utilisation of the monuments, which as of now is heavily disputed on,
will be discussed. For this purpose two regional studies - one in a classic Atlantic area, one in
the lowlands - are implemented using R and GRASS. A deliberate decision was made to include
quite different landscapes: Caithness as a coastal region with relatively soft relief and the wider
Forth Valley as a typical region at the edge to the Highlands.
The importance of de-escalation and peaceful resolution of conflicts is of tragic relevance nowadays. In Conflict Archaeology the material traces of primarily violent events have been the focus within the last decades. Consequently, despite their historical and political significance, the material evidence for de-escalation strategies has received limited attention in archaeological research and remains underrepresented.
De-escalation and resolution strategies can be considered an integral part of conflict dynamics, profoundly influencing the social consequences and economic costs for the communities involved.
Nevertheless, differing from the historical sciences, where the assessment of non-violent conflict resolutions relies on the availability of written records, archaeologists often contend that demonstrating de-escalation processes is challenging.
This session aims to stimulate a comprehensive discussion on the potential archaeological evidence that could shed light on de-escalation strategies. For example, recent archaeological studies have discussed fortification sites or weapon hoard finds as potential indicators for conflict resolution in past societies. Furthermore, it provides a well-rounded perspective on the multifaceted nature of conflict archaeology and the enduring relevance of de-escalating approaches in the quest for cooperation within human societies.
We invite contributions from diverse time spans (pre- and early-state communities), disciplines, and geographical perspectives.