As I don't want to write the same words twice, I just copied and pasted the summary of my primary research proposal which I sent to Kiel. After this summary, I will try to get down to more practical business of what I'm planning to do here. As a matter of fact, I'm in the process of writing a research grant proposal in which I precisely have to argue this to get research funds for the coming months. So if you have ideas and comments, please feel free to suggest/add/ask/contribute!
Summary
The second half of the 3rd
millennium BC is characterised by important changes in prehistoric Europe.
Before this time, a patchwork of regional cultures existed. But between 2750
and 2000 BC, an apparent uniformity emerged in all of Europe. This uniformity,
described as the Bell Beaker phenomenon, is most evident in the recurring
combination of specific artefacts. In graves varied combinations of a specific
pottery vessel (the Beaker vessel), archery equipment, metal objects and
specific ornaments, accompany a single inhumation burial. According to most
scholars these are the burials of high-status individuals, who were highly
mobile and whose wealth and connectivity was ultimately displayed through their
graves. Even though these burials represent only a minority of the people who
lived and died in this period, they are used all over Europe to ‘reconstruct’ and
‘characterise’ Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age society in general.
This study chooses a different
point of departure: I think we need to incorporate settlement data in the
discussion about the Beaker phenomenon. My hypothesis is that settlement data
will show how the Beaker package becomes adopted in contexts of regionally
different culture groups. This will provide us with a different view on Bell Beaker
societies in Europe, and will help us to better understand the variability and
regionality within this Bell Beaker phenomenon.
What different perspective can we
get?
By studying settlement data in
different regions, and their long-term trajectories of change, I will
investigate how the Bell Beaker phenomenon was introduced in these regions.
Settlements are the main source of evidence for prehistoric everyday life.
Here, both the continuity of local traditions and the adoption of new ideas can
be studied. If the spread of Bell Beaker ideas meant a complete transformation
of social values and institutions it should be foremost visible here. How come
then, many settlements from this period only feature relatively small numbers
of Bell Beaker pottery? Several examples of studied settlements show that,
rather than sudden change, there is an important element of continuity and
tradition in this period. What does this tell us about the importance of the
Bell Beaker phenomenon to these communities?
In addition, whereas most studies
have focused on similarities in Bell Beaker material culture across Europe, I
will look at differences. Differences in the ways in which specific Bell Beaker
aspects were adopted by local communities, will give a better indication as to
what specific elements were shared by communities and what really constituted
the Bell Beaker ‘idea’ across Europe. Thus the social, material and natural
environments surrounding the Bell Beaker adoption by these local communities
will be focus of this study.
By studying these two research
problems, regarding the local trajectories of change and the embedding of the
Bell Beaker idea in local communities and their environment, we will approach
the Bell Beaker phenomenon from a completely different perspective.
How have local communities,
between 2750 BC and 2000 BC, interpreted this Bell Beaker idea? Can we
distinguish differences between communities’ attitudes towards Bell Beakers?
What, considering its material variability, constituted the innovative and new
Bell Beaker idea, shared locally across Europe?
And now down to business
What do I want to know from settlements in order to answer these research questions? Before I can start gathering settlement data from the third millennium BC in different case studies across Europe, I must answer this question. Several aspects readily come to mind:
- Chronology
- Material culture
- Environment
- Networks/quantitative analysis
Chronology
In order to study changing traditions, one needs to control chronology. Furholt (2003, 13-20) has already shown that 3rd millennium BC chronological control is difficult, due to plateaus in the C14 calibration curve. All Corded Ware and Bell Beaker settlements will fall within certain phases between 2800 and 2000 cal BC. In order to create a more precise chronology, one needs either dendrochronology or the possibility of Bayesian statistics. While the former can't be achieved for many sites, the latter is only possible when enough C14 dates are taken and site stratigraphy is well documented and equally understood. While it is not my aim to try and find 'the earliest Bell Beaker', as past scholars have tried that with different degrees of success, it would be interesting to look at the pace of change, timing and temporalities of cultural changes, and the different ways in which local communities experience the Bell Beaker introduction. Was it a rapid shift or a gradual transition? Therefore I'll gather settlement data from all case studies where such a study might be feasible. Whether a settlement has stratigraphy or a robust internal chronology, and the possibility of taking more C14 samples from good contexts, will be variables in my sites database. Whether I'll use Bayesian statistics in the end will be based on the amount of sites and the possibilities of improving the resolution of my dataset...
Material culture and ecofacts
It is important not only to focus on change, but similarly to see what actually changes in the ways local communities do things during the third millennium BC; how traditions evolve and changes come about. As material culture is the sole remainder of prehistoric social action, it is necessary to bring data concerning various material categories together.
From the material culture we can distill several acts related to the production, use, potential re-use, and deposition of these artefacts. Similarly, ecofacts (a silly term for the total of zoological and botanical evidence, but I use it nonetheless) provide information on the ways in which the acts of subsistence were organised.
Bringing the published and unpublished sources of previous studies concerning these aspects together will provide us with the building blocks for our analyses of what actually changes when.
Specifically, scholars studying Bell Beaker material culture have highlighted the special nature of some items found in graves all over Europe, 'the Beaker package' (Burgess/Shennan 1976). This set of recurring objects (the Bell Beaker pottery vessel, metal dagger, archery equipment, gold ornaments) forms the basis of what scholars have denoted as the 'Bell Beaker phenomenon'. How these objects relate to similar artefacts from settlements across Europe is unknown at present, but rumours are singing around..
It has been said that on North-Italian 3rd millennium BC settlements specific Bell Beaker pottery only comprises a vast minority of the total amount of pottery and still we call them "Bell Beaker settlements"!
Environment
As communities do not live in isolation from their environment, and past changes in their actions might be related to changes taking place in their environment, it is necessary to simultaneously study changes taking place within this environment. While GS-colleague Oflaz focuses on finding the 4.2 ka event in archaeology, I will take local environmental changes (paleogeography, vegetation, soils, etc.) into further consideration.
I always liked D.L. Clarke's scheme of a 'Sociocultural System'. Perhaps it can come of use in the future (or I'll make my own)..
Networks and quantitative analyses
What then to do with all this data on changes in material culture, ecofacts and environment? How do we gather meaningful patterns and answer the questions asked at the start of this project? At the moment I'm thinking about using network analysis (cf. Brughmans 2013) to visualise and interpret the various strands of data (although I have yet to delve deep into this matter).
I need to visualise changes through time in material culture traditions, subsistence and environment on settlements within a single region and between regions, in order to answer the main question: How have local communities adopted and interpreted the Bell Beaker idea?
Please feel free to comment! :)
Hm, I tried to comment and it deleted things. Strange. Anyways, I've found time to read your proposal-thing :) Very critically indeed, so ye be warned! Here goes....
BeantwoordenVerwijderenOkay, so I’ll review this being a linguist with a big interest in comprehensibility and argument structure. I have almost zero knowledge on your archaeological subject, so I might be missing things. My comments are sort of chronologically
BeantwoordenVerwijderenFirst of all, you’re going to investigate the Bell Beaker phenomenon ‘different’ from those who did it before you. It’s still somewhat unclear to me what exactly is the difference. You’re going to use ‘settlement data’ whereas others used solely ‘burial’ data? How does that work in practice, since the Beakers are found in burial sites? Does this not mean that you still need to start at those sites and that your settlement data is more of an addition instead of a ‘hard core’ difference? Why can’t ‘burial data’ supply you with the knowledge you need. I get that you want to know ecological + environmental data, but maybe you should say that in an earlier stadium. For example: ‘Burial data is inadequate/insufficient to give an in-depth analysis of the Bell-Beaker phenomenon, since burial data tells us nothing about XXX (like: what food people ate, what plants grew at the time, what the weather was, I guess stuff like that ). Information on XXX is crucial for our understanding of the BB-phen., since it provides us with a much more detailed image of the (material) cultures of BB’.
I’m just making this up as I go, as a total noob on the subject I’d like to see some very practical examples of what is exactly is you’re looking for.
Oh, yeah and of course there’s the problem of how you link your additional data on the BB-phen in a reasonable way that can withstand critique since it is –in the end- your interpretation of data. You already broached this problem. Has this type of method you’re going to use, been used before? Then you could take that as an example. I don’t know about the archaeological field, but I’m quite certain that fields such as psychology and social sciences look at ‘environmental factors’ that influence human behaviour. And of course, in the field of history (also more modern varieties), ‘environmental factors’ can eventually lead to war and cultural change, which is similar to what you are researching. If you could find just one great example of a similar ‘comparing’ study from a different field (preferably something drastic, like: drought in timezone A leads to famine, leads to social unrest, leads to war, leads to the invention of a new type of weapon found in timezone A), then the reader would immediately understand the importance of your study
So, that’s about it. I might have missed the point, perhaps I’m totally off in what you’re going to investigate. It’s not my field, so I won’t go into details. Just suggesting things to make your research perfectly understandable to a clueless reader. Good luck!
Your niece Janneke
Ha Janneke! Thanks for your comments! :) Always good to have a bright and critical family ;)
BeantwoordenVerwijderenWhat I hope to do different from other scholars is mainly focusing on tradition and continuity, from a long-term perspective, and as a result focusing on settlement evidence instead of on burial data. Settlements, due to their nature as an accumulation of waste piled up during generations, in my opinion, can tell us a lot more about changing traditions than short-term events such as burials. If you only look at burials you'll eventually end up with a swift emergence of the Bell Beaker phenomenon, which is what most previous scholars have interpreted as having happened. Beaker pottery is found in both settlements and in burials, but virtually no-one bothered to look beyond the nicely decorated and skilfully made Beaker pottery on settlements (I imagine something like this: "hurrah we have found Beaker pottery on our settlement, therefore we're now part of this phenomenon, let's not look any further..."). I want to look further, as mainly the non-Beaker pottery, and other material categories such as flint, can inform us on long-term traditions and changes. But in order to assess these changes it is necessary to take other possible explanations into consideration (instead of social change, or the introduction of new ideas), such as environmental change. Therefore I'm also going to look at environmental data.
I'm going to look for significant patterns in the data, and in the end test my settlement data with the changes past scholars have found in burial data. This method is mainly something you could call inter-site analysis. There are many examples of this, but not many focus so much on a specific archaeological context (settlement) and the problems of change and chronology. I only recently found this 4.2 ka event, an environmental change which takes place during Bell Beaker phenomenon, but no archaeologist I know ever linked the two (reader: correct me if I'm wrong!)...
Thanks again for the comments, they were useful for me as well, as I'm now still starting to work on things like building my database and gathering settlement data.
Groetjes Jos