This volume is designed as a 12-lecture textbook, which can serve as a course companion, self tea... more This volume is designed as a 12-lecture textbook, which can serve as a course companion, self teaching guide and handbook for basic concepts. Each lecture comprises 20 pages, in which the methods are introduced, examples shown and the code is given. All examples are computed with open source software, mainly R, and with archaeological data available from the book's website. The book does not describe elaborated high-end models but rather very basic modelling concepts that serve as components in more complex models. The book enables the reader to construct such models by themselves and be sensitive for certain problems. In addition it gives hints for the interpretation of the results. Students are usually quick to apply fancy methods yet fail in the proper interpretation due to a lack of understanding of the underlying principles. This problem is addressed by the proposed book through three concepts: 1. Command line software forces the students to first learn some details before they are able to produce results on their own.2. The book is focused on principles and methods. When the students understand a few basic principles, they have far better access to a wide range of related methods.3. Examples of poor analysis highlight common pitfalls. The volume attempts to be an applied, minimalistic and efficient textbook and is based upon several successful courses.
Published here: Nakoinz/Andersen 2022: O. Nakoinz/A.-T. Andersen, Kollektiv und Rolle aus archäol... more Published here: Nakoinz/Andersen 2022: O. Nakoinz/A.-T. Andersen, Kollektiv und Rolle aus archäologischer Perspektive. In: Jan-Christoph Marschelke (Hrsg.), Die Anatomie des Kollektivs. Zu Klaus P. Hansens Kollektivtheorie. Festschrift für Klaus P. Hansen. Kultur und Kollektiv 9 (Bielefeld 2022), 251--267.
This volume is designed as a 12-lecture textbook, which can serve as a course companion, self tea... more This volume is designed as a 12-lecture textbook, which can serve as a course companion, self teaching guide and handbook for basic concepts. Each lecture comprises 20 pages, in which the methods are introduced, examples shown and the code is given. All examples are computed with open source software, mainly R, and with archaeological data available from the book's website. The book does not describe elaborated high-end models but rather very basic modelling concepts that serve as components in more complex models. The book enables the reader to construct such models by themselves and be sensitive for certain problems. In addition it gives hints for the interpretation of the results. Students are usually quick to apply fancy methods yet fail in the proper interpretation due to a lack of understanding of the underlying principles. This problem is addressed by the proposed book through three concepts: 1. Command line software forces the students to first learn some details before they are able to produce results on their own.2. The book is focused on principles and methods. When the students understand a few basic principles, they have far better access to a wide range of related methods.3. Examples of poor analysis highlight common pitfalls. The volume attempts to be an applied, minimalistic and efficient textbook and is based upon several successful courses.
Published here: Nakoinz/Andersen 2022: O. Nakoinz/A.-T. Andersen, Kollektiv und Rolle aus archäol... more Published here: Nakoinz/Andersen 2022: O. Nakoinz/A.-T. Andersen, Kollektiv und Rolle aus archäologischer Perspektive. In: Jan-Christoph Marschelke (Hrsg.), Die Anatomie des Kollektivs. Zu Klaus P. Hansens Kollektivtheorie. Festschrift für Klaus P. Hansen. Kultur und Kollektiv 9 (Bielefeld 2022), 251--267.
Quantitative archaeology and archaeological modelling, 2016
The emergence and development of modelling in archaeology and geography as well as the relationsh... more The emergence and development of modelling in archaeology and geography as well as the relationship of these disciplines is discussed. This narrative is embedded in a broader view on science and humanities. Archaeology and geography are identified as bridging disciplines between the two cultures of science and humanities. This emphasises the interdisciplinary role of archaeology, geography and modelling. In addition, the three sets of data used in the case studies are introduced. These data form a minimal example to exemplify different modelling concepts to highlight their strength and weaknesses. Finally, some mathematical concepts including logic, sets, relations, algebra, graph theory, statistics, stochastic and optimisation are mentioned, since they are vital to understand the content of this book. Brief summaries of concepts and facts as well as references to further reading help to refresh the knowledge and prepare the mathematical background for the following chapters.
Changing burial rites, art and settlement patterns indicate a break which seems to be more radica... more Changing burial rites, art and settlement patterns indicate a break which seems to be more radical than the transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age in some regions. The transition in the fourth and third century represents a significant transformation of the social and cultural system and a new configuration of economic structures and the European system of interaction. Central Europe is characterized by the end of the social, cultural and economic system of the Hallstatt/Latène tradition, the Celtic migration, the occurrence of coinage and new technologies. In the North-Pontic region the Sarmatians take over after the Skythians. In the north-east new cultures like the Poienesti-Lukasevka, Zarubintsy and Przeworsk Cultures are replacing various Early Iron Age cultures while the Jastorf culture of the north-west undergoes fundamental changes. The different regions influencing each other form a rather complex system of interrelationships with unforeseen effects such as the emergence of new supra-regional interaction structures and adaptive circles. This session aims to explore the transition described above in Europe. We invite papers on information from different regions on what is changing, on the chronology of different transformations, on the influence of other regions and on the interpretation of the changing features. This session is part of the SIMB initiative ("Spheres of Interaction between the Mediterranean and the Baltic in the first millennium BC", https://a-simb.gitlab.io/home/).
xxxx
The epoch of paradigm wars is over. Current development of archaeological theory is characte... more xxxx The epoch of paradigm wars is over. Current development of archaeological theory is characterized by the range of coexisting paradigms, which is usually (and reasonably) discussed as justification for democratic organization of the discipline. This significant variability, which is seen as "anything goes", can be understood as a bifurcation point identifying the deep crisis of ideas in archaeology. The problem is complemented by regional mosaics of local archaeologies with their different and weakly integrated backgrounds. A crisis is, however, also a starting point on a way to new solutions and a new synthesis.
This session focuses on the following issues characterizing the current state of archaeology within a context of further deep integration of current paradigms. Is there any empirical evidence that cannot be explained from the perspective of any paradigm? Do we lack important approaches or getting lost in multiple meanings? To what extent the crisis of ideas is caused by education in archaeology and the organization of the academic system? Does the specific role of archaeology in-between science and humanities affect the assumed crisis? In particular, the archaeology of states, cultures, and macro-regions is reflecting the crisis and could serve as focal point for this discussion. How can we integrate the different paradigms concerning state formation or cultures? How can we develop a systematic concept for understanding macro-regions which is not an arbitrary combination of different convenient theories? What are the trajectories of further development of our discipline?
Session 6
Exploring inter-regional interactions in the first Millennium BC
in Europe
http://www.w... more Session 6 Exploring inter-regional interactions in the first Millennium BC in Europe http://www.workshop-gshdl.uni-kiel.de/workshop-sessions/session-2017-06/ Session organizers: O. Nakoinz (corresponding chair), J. Kneisel, F. Faupel, S. Stoddart, J. Martens Europe is presently and was in the past a continent with many interacting regions. While some aspects, the relationship between Mediterranean and Hallstatt regions for example, have been addressed many times, other inter-regional relationships have been neglected. Currently, we are not able to draw a valid picture of the European system of interaction. Despite many international collaborations, the trans-regional collaborative network has gaps and hence is partly responsible for the problem. This session aims to contribute to a solution of this problem by exploring: • the current state of regional research between Baltic and Mediterranean with a special focus on inter-regional relationships, relevant topics, data and theories, • indicators of inter-regional relationships, • European processes and inter-regional patterns and • perspectives of further research on our topic. This session is embedded in the initiative “Regional and trans-regional interaction between the Baltic and the Mediterranean spheres in the first Millennium BC”, initiated from Oslo and Kiel in 2015. We intend to provide valid models of inter-regional interaction on a European scale based on the sound comparison of regional research and evidence based indicators of interaction and develop a new vision of Europe in the first Millennium BC which acknowledges the full range of inter-regional relationships as driving factors of many processes.
Date: 5th - 9th September 2016
Application Deadline: May 31. 2016
Contact: mod@gshdl.uni-kiel.de
... more Date: 5th - 9th September 2016 Application Deadline: May 31. 2016 Contact: mod@gshdl.uni-kiel.de
Aim: This Summer School focuses on interaction as a key concept in social life, and on methods for reconstructing and modelling spheres of interaction at different spatial and temporal scales. Students will learn an innovative approach, used in recent studies, for modelling spheres of interaction. The course will cover a variety of theories and concepts that will enable students to apply this method to further regions, material groups, and time periods. The course is divided into individual lessons presented by experts, thus providing a diverse overview of approaches.
Guest Lecturers: Loup Bernard, James Allison, Aleksandr Diachenko
Initial Meeting in network on the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Northern and North Central Europe held at... more Initial Meeting in network on the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Northern and North Central Europe held at Christian Albrechts Universität in Kiel 21-22 Mai 2015
This session aims to bring together two fundamental components of archaeology: archaeological the... more This session aims to bring together two fundamental components of archaeology: archaeological theory and statistical modelling.
Throughout the years, scholars have convincingly argued that theory is inherent in all archaeological research and have insisted on the necessity to have theoretical concepts explicit rather than implicit. Consequently, most topics of our discipline have been extensively discussed in archaeological theory circles, producing ideas critical for understanding past societies and the discipline itself. However, the methodological implementations of such ideas have seldom convinced.
In contrast, statistical modelling approaches excel in terms of methodology. The use of statistical and computational methods has greatly increased in the last decades, touching a large spectrum of topics such as landscape, social organisation, population dynamics etc. This trend can only continue, given the constant improvements in terms of computational power and software possibilities. Nonetheless, the results of statistical modelling have often been branded as unrealistic simplifications since it is difficult to understand how human behaviour can be described through the mathematical calculations inherent to statistics. Therefore, there is an obvious difficulty in anchoring statistical modelling in the realities of human complexity.
Unfortunately, communication between the scholars working with statistical modelling and those engaged in archaeological theory remains severely limited. Studies employing statistical modelling have generally remained untouched by the discussions taking place within archaeological theory. Conversely, few of the theoretical concepts and ideas produced in archaeology theory have found their implementation through statistical modelling. This situation is somewhat paradoxical given that each of the archaeological approaches has difficulties precisely in the area that the other excels in.
This session will explore how archaeological theory and statistical modelling can be employed together in the effort to understand past societies through the archaeological record. Suggested topics are:
How can archaeological theory and statistical modelling be connected in general, on a theoretical and methodological (practical) level?
How have basic elements of human behaviour and society been approached in archaeological theory and statistical modelling (e.g. agency and structure, crafting, trading, land management)? Are the two views compatible with each other?
Examples where the concepts employed and modelled through statistics are grounded in archaeological theory.
There is a dire need to bridge the gap between archaeological theory and statistical modelling. We hope to start a discussion on the nature of this gap and to produce possible avenues for it to be overcome.
short report on the workshop 'Regional and transregional interaction between the Baltic and the M... more short report on the workshop 'Regional and transregional interaction between the Baltic and the Mediterranean spheres in the first Millennium BC' in Odense
Continuités et discontinuités à la fin du IIe siècle avant J.-C. dans l’espace celtique et à sa périphérie Table-ronde Bibracte, Centre archéologique européen. 25 au 27 octobre 2021, 2021
Today, migrants from Afghanistan, Syria, Mexico, and Africa are not welcomed everywhere. Historic... more Today, migrants from Afghanistan, Syria, Mexico, and Africa are not welcomed everywhere. Historically, similarly, migrations have been causing conflicts or at least conflict potentials in a range from local disputes to global geopolitical confrontations, from conflicting interests to violent escalations. We understand migration to be a permanent process with a varying intensity over time. As such, the so called Cimbrian wars, mainly known from written sources, are perhaps just a small part of a much more extensive process. This process, that could be one factor of the discontinuity at the end of the 2nd century BC, has its own set of causes and triggers and is part of a densely woven fabric of relationships and interactions in Europe. While hard archaeological evidence for the Cimbrian wars is still rare, the whole body of archaeological sources has to be considered. Theoretical and empirical models help in 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.
This paper considers the location of fortifications with respect to the fortification's function ... more This paper considers the location of fortifications with respect to the fortification's function in conflict processes. We apply the concept of ROOTS of Conflicts: Competition and Conciliation (Subcluster 6 of Cluster of Excellence ROOTS) which considers de‐escalation and conciliation to be as important as escalation and competition. Fortifications play specific roles in escalation as well as in de‐escalation processes and these roles are tightly connected to the location of the fortifications. Obviously, the location can indicate some of the different functions. 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.
Die, in archäologischen Studien, häufig durchgeführte Berechnung von optimierten Wegen zwischen S... more Die, in archäologischen Studien, häufig durchgeführte Berechnung von optimierten Wegen zwischen Siedlungen oder Monumenten mit Hilfe von verschiedener GIS Software, geht im Grunde davon aus, dass der Mensch sich auf seinem Weg nicht irrt, keine irrationalen Entscheidungen trifft, um einen Weg zu begehen (wie Tabus, Verbote oder Gebote etc.) und Zwischenstationen sicher durchschreitet oder meidet. Ein optimierter Weg ist bei einer selten begangenen Strecke, oder bei Strecken, die zu besonderen Anlässen begangen werden (wie Prozessionen), nicht zu erwarten. Handelt es sich hingegen um eine Strecke die regelhaft begangen wird, um beispielsweise zwei Interaktionspartner (Handelspartner) zu verbinden, kann mit einer Optimierung des Weges gerechnet werden. Doch wie sah eine prähistorische Wegeoptimierung aus? Welche Parameter können die Wegstrecke beeinflusst haben, und wie kann dies ohne die Kenntnis der Lage einer Wegstrecke verifiziert werden? Neben theoretischen Wegstrecken, die eine Strecke zwischen zwei Punkten unter Berücksichtigung verschiedener gewichteter Wegeparameter (Fußgänger, Fahren mit einem Wagen, Meidung von Höhengraten etc.) ermittelt, kann der Vergleich mit einem empirischem Wegemodell genutzt werden, um Wegeparameter als wahrscheinlich oder unwahrscheinlich zu identifizieren. Ohne Altwege ist die Ermittlung eines empirischen Wegemodells an einige Prämissen geknüpft. Schon Sophus Müller (1904) ging von einem Zusammenhang der Lage von Grabhügeln und Wegen aus. Aus der Lage von Grabhügeln kann demnach ein empirisches Wegemodell entwickelt werden. Schließt man zudem eine Wegführung aus, die in unnötigen Zick-Zack Linien direkt über die Grabhügel verläuft, erhält man einen realistischen empirischen Wegeverlauf.
Die Methodik zur Rekonstruktion von Wegemodellen soll anhand der Lage von bronzezeitlichen Grabhügeln in Schleswig-Holstein demonstriert werden. Eine weitere Fallstudie aus dem Dänischen Wohld illustriert die Aussagemöglichkeiten, die die Verwendung des empirischen Wegemodells und der verschiedenen theoretischen Wegemodelle ermöglichen.
Linear arrangements of monuments emerge in the 4th and 3th millennium BC. These lines can be inte... more Linear arrangements of monuments emerge in the 4th and 3th millennium BC. These lines can be interpreted as ways, borders or metaphysical axis. A multifunctional usage can not be excluded. This contribution does not discuss the different interpretations but discuss methods which can be used for the reconstruction of the linear structures. Since proper reconstruction of the linear structures, a model of the linear structures, is a precondition of a sound interpretation, careful work on the reconstruction is vital for the result. In a first step theoretical and empirical models of linear structures are introduced. Then, the difference between exact and approximated approaches is addressed with emphasis on the significance of the different concepts for the interpretation. The main part of this contribution presents some methods for the reconstruction of linear structures. The first set of methods deals with theoretical models which serve for the comparison with empirical methods. Approaches from graph theory and least coast modelling are addressed as well as topographic considerations. In this part graph theory is used for network development. The empirical methods also involve graph theoretical methods, but here they are used for pattern recognition. In addition density based approaches, regression and pattern comparison are used. Some examples from case studies serve for the visualisation of the methods.
Points are one of the most important types of data which is used in archaeology. The distribution... more Points are one of the most important types of data which is used in archaeology. The distribution of sites and finds is used for many different interpretations. This paper is discussing different methods for the detection of patterns based on point distributions. The paper will explore limits and perspectives and questions the premisses of these approaches. We will for example employ point pattern analysis, density calculation, network analysis and different Voronoi techniques to determine the type of point patterns, to reconstruct the centres, linear structures and networks and borders. The focus is on methodical details and pitfalls. Methodological competence allows a balanced view between naive application of quantitative methods and the rejection of positive concepts. In addition without a sound methodological knowledge, an integration of method and theory is not possible. We will address questions like: How can we distinguish random point patterns form clustered and regular point patterns? Which role play first and second order properties? Which methods are available for the reconstruction of linear structures? Are there methods to establish interpretations for linear structures? Which technique of density calculation is useful for which purpose? Which role play metrics and which metric should be used in a certain context? Are Voronoi techniques still useful or outdated? Which interpretations are possible for point data?
It is our pleasure to announce and invite your contribution to our session Creating Reproducible ... more It is our pleasure to announce and invite your contribution to our session Creating Reproducible Research. New developments in computational and quantitative methods Session, made up of a combination of papers, max. 15 minutes each, Theme: Theories and methods in archaeological sciences Buzzwords like Big Data and modelling, derived from the so-called 'third science revolution in archaeology', currently transform the theory and practice of archaeological research into something more abstract and subjective to the researcher. However, the mere presence of a large amount of data and the collection alone is not a scientific result, whereas digital data and methods are one answer to the question of how transparency can be achieved. This is the point at which quantitative methods come into play. Research environments such as R, Python and other structured open source evaluation methods offer the possibility to recreate processes by documentation to enable Reproducible Research and Open Science. Our session is intended to provide a forum for contributions dealing with methods for managing the increasing flood of data and their transparent transfer into an archaeological interpretation. We would like to encourage potential presenters to demonstrate their individual case studies, methodological approaches and especially Reproducible Research and its application all across the different archaeologies and its many adjacent disciplines. The talk should also reflect on the difficulties their approach presents while using the tools of the 'Third Science Revolution'. Presentations concerning practical solutions such as software are particularly welcome-whether they are finished products, beta stages or conceptual designs.
In recent years, R has silently become the workhorse for many quantitative archaeologists. It’s o... more In recent years, R has silently become the workhorse for many quantitative archaeologists. It’s open source, platform-independent and can be linked very well with other programming languages. [...] Nevertheless, there are still many colleagues who have not yet realised the potential of the language and how easy it is today to conduct high quality research with the available tools. [...] Within this session we would like to explore the state of the art and the potential application of R in archaeology. We invite presentations for this session that explore questions like (but not limited to): * What are the specific benefits of this statistical framework in the eyes of its users? * What are the possibilities? What are the limits? * What future directions might the usage of R in archaeology have? * Which archaeological package has been developed, and which package still has to be developed to improve the usability of the sofware for archaeologists? * What has to be considered to optimise the workflow with R? We especially would like to attract colleagues who might present archaeological R packages that are ready or in the making and demonstrate their relevance for archaeological analysis. Also we would like to encourage potential presenters to demonstrate their research approaches via live coding, for which we would support them in ensuring that their presentations will work offline and on foreign hardware. [...] We hope to foster a productive and inclusive exchange between both young and experienced users from all backgrounds.
Ranging from exchange to urban networks, interactions systems are a basic component of every soci... more Ranging from exchange to urban networks, interactions systems are a basic component of every society, from the prehistoric to the modern. The Research School ‘MOSAICnet: Networks in archaeological research’ aims at bringing together young and senior researchers around this transdisciplinary issue of networks. The Research School offers the state of the art of several methodological approaches (such as Social Network Analysis, Spatial Network Analysis, etc.), resulting from the dialogue between the Human and the Exact Sciences. It also intends to discuss their contributions to the research on past social, cultural and economic interactions. The Research School will last 6 days, and will address the matters of the theoretical context of the research on interaction systems, the empirical data we can rely on to grasp them, as well as provide an overview of several available methods of system analysis and reconstruction. Those tools will be applied using the Rstudio software.
CfP for the #S6 Complexity in archaeology at the International Open Workshop: Socio-Environmental... more CfP for the #S6 Complexity in archaeology at the International Open Workshop: Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last 15,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes VI 11th – 26th of March, 2019.
Applied Point Pattern Analysis in Archaeology, 2021
Reproducible Spatial Pattern
Recognition and Point Pattern
Analysis in Landscape Archaeology
Th... more Reproducible Spatial Pattern Recognition and Point Pattern Analysis in Landscape Archaeology
The increasing use of quantitative methods and computer-based analytical tools in scientific work is accompanied by a crisis of reproducibility. This is mainly due to the lack of basic knowledge of how to use computers, how to integrate data into them and how to transform them into an analysable form. In combination with proprietary software, this creates a world of science whose findings are no longer comprehensible by other colleagues, and corresponding findings are more like advertising promises than genuine knowledge generation. This is a paradox, since it is very easy to work transparently and comprehensively in the field of computer-based data analysis - at least if certain basic rules of scientific work are considered.
New skills are best acquired through trial and error. Accordingly, in this series of events we focus very much on practice and teach participants the core competencies of transparent and reproducible work by means of a landscape archaeological point pattern analysis. Due to the current situation, the event will take place digitally. The individual blocks can also be attended individually, however, the September course requires R knowledge. Attendance at the R introduction is sufficient for this.
Please enrol for the three different courses separately by email: office@sfb.uni-kiel.de. We will then send you further information. Please note that all events are entirely digital. You will receive the link for the video conference in given time after registration
Organisers: Franziska Faupel, Daniel Knitter, Oliver Nakoinz, Michael Kempf, Gerrit Günther und Steffen Strohm Telephone: +49 431 880-5926 Email to: office@sfb1266.uni-kiel.de
Discussions on modelling the past have identified the crisis of ideas in archaeological research ... more Discussions on modelling the past have identified the crisis of ideas in archaeological research beyond the Age of paradigms. There is the basic issue that, quantitative or not, modelling demands simplification, creating a caricature of the society it is describing. We have to question whether highly theoretic archaeological modelling, with a tendency to create environmentally driven models, devoid of cognitive human factors are more than a travesty of the archaeology that they purport to describe. Is it too late to turn our back on the potential of simplified explanation, based on statistical methods and the analysis of "big data", often mimicking approaches, mindsets, and values similar to contemporaneous societies? Or should we rather look for the emergence of new syntheses, respectful of the different paradigms, by harnessing the integrative power that modelling, quantitatively and otherwise, can provide? In this session we aim to continue the discussions from last year"s session "397: Modelling the past: Crisis of ideas in modern archaeology", which exemplified the current state of the art. This session especially aims to discuss the integrated future of theoretical archaeological research by further specifying the "shapes" of crisis and trajectories for the Age beyond paradigms and attempting to find a middle ground between generic theory modelling and detailed structuring of data. We wish to approach the following questions: Based on the data, are the questions we ask to complex for the models to address? How does the acknowledgement of complexity theory alter the approach to a model? How are narratives encoded in models? Are we getting lost in multiple meanings or rather exploring the potential of manifold explanations for a phenomenon? Is there any empirical evidence that cannot be explained from the perspective of any paradigm? How are we creating Processualism 2.0?
Uploads
This session is part of the SIMB initiative ("Spheres of Interaction between the Mediterranean and the Baltic in the first millennium BC", https://a-simb.gitlab.io/home/).
The epoch of paradigm wars is over. Current development of archaeological theory is characterized by the range of coexisting paradigms, which is usually (and reasonably) discussed as justification for democratic organization of the discipline. This significant variability, which is seen as "anything goes", can be understood as a bifurcation point identifying the deep crisis of ideas in archaeology. The problem is complemented by regional mosaics of local archaeologies with their different and weakly integrated backgrounds. A crisis is, however, also a starting point on a way to new solutions and a new synthesis.
This session focuses on the following issues characterizing the current state of archaeology within a context of further deep integration of current paradigms. Is there any empirical evidence that cannot be explained from the perspective of any paradigm? Do we lack important approaches or getting lost in multiple meanings? To what extent the crisis of ideas is caused by education in archaeology and the organization of the academic system? Does the specific role of archaeology in-between science and humanities affect the assumed crisis? In particular, the archaeology of states, cultures, and macro-regions is reflecting the crisis and could serve as focal point for this discussion. How can we integrate the different paradigms concerning state formation or cultures? How can we develop a systematic concept for understanding macro-regions which is not an arbitrary combination of different convenient theories? What are the trajectories of further development of our discipline?
Exploring inter-regional interactions in the first Millennium BC
in Europe
http://www.workshop-gshdl.uni-kiel.de/workshop-sessions/session-2017-06/
Session organizers: O. Nakoinz (corresponding chair), J. Kneisel, F. Faupel, S. Stoddart, J. Martens
Europe is presently and was in the past a continent with many interacting regions. While some
aspects, the relationship between Mediterranean and Hallstatt regions for example, have been
addressed many times, other inter-regional relationships have been neglected. Currently, we are not
able to draw a valid picture of the European system of interaction. Despite many international
collaborations, the trans-regional collaborative network has gaps and hence is partly responsible for
the problem.
This session aims to contribute to a solution of this problem by exploring:
• the current state of regional research between Baltic and Mediterranean with a special focus on
inter-regional relationships, relevant topics, data and theories,
• indicators of inter-regional relationships,
• European processes and inter-regional patterns and
• perspectives of further research on our topic.
This session is embedded in the initiative “Regional and trans-regional interaction between the
Baltic and the Mediterranean spheres in the first Millennium BC”, initiated from Oslo and Kiel in
2015. We intend to provide valid models of inter-regional interaction on a European scale based on
the sound comparison of regional research and evidence based indicators of interaction and
develop a new vision of Europe in the first Millennium BC which acknowledges the full range of
inter-regional relationships as driving factors of many processes.
Application Deadline: May 31. 2016
Contact: mod@gshdl.uni-kiel.de
Aim: This Summer School focuses on interaction as a key concept in social life, and on methods for reconstructing and modelling spheres of interaction at different spatial and temporal scales. Students will learn an innovative approach, used in recent studies, for modelling spheres of interaction. The course will cover a variety of theories and concepts that will enable students to apply this method to further regions, material groups, and time periods. The course is divided into individual lessons presented by experts, thus providing a diverse overview of approaches.
Guest Lecturers: Loup Bernard, James Allison, Aleksandr Diachenko
Throughout the years, scholars have convincingly argued that theory is inherent in all archaeological research and have insisted on the necessity to have theoretical concepts explicit rather than implicit. Consequently, most topics of our discipline have been extensively discussed in archaeological theory circles, producing ideas critical for understanding past societies and the discipline itself. However, the methodological implementations of such ideas have seldom convinced.
In contrast, statistical modelling approaches excel in terms of methodology. The use of statistical and computational methods has greatly increased in the last decades, touching a large spectrum of topics such as landscape, social organisation, population dynamics etc. This trend can only continue, given the constant improvements in terms of computational power and software possibilities. Nonetheless, the results of statistical modelling have often been branded as unrealistic simplifications since it is difficult to understand how human behaviour can be described through the mathematical calculations inherent to statistics. Therefore, there is an obvious difficulty in anchoring statistical modelling in the realities of human complexity.
Unfortunately, communication between the scholars working with statistical modelling and those engaged in archaeological theory remains severely limited. Studies employing statistical modelling have generally remained untouched by the discussions taking place within archaeological theory. Conversely, few of the theoretical concepts and ideas produced in archaeology theory have found their implementation through statistical modelling. This situation is somewhat paradoxical given that each of the archaeological approaches has difficulties precisely in the area that the other excels in.
This session will explore how archaeological theory and statistical modelling can be employed together in the effort to understand past societies through the archaeological record. Suggested topics are:
How can archaeological theory and statistical modelling be connected in general, on a theoretical and methodological (practical) level?
How have basic elements of human behaviour and society been approached in archaeological theory and statistical modelling (e.g. agency and structure, crafting, trading, land management)? Are the two views compatible with each other?
Examples where the concepts employed and modelled through statistics are grounded in archaeological theory.
There is a dire need to bridge the gap between archaeological theory and statistical modelling. We hope to start a discussion on the nature of this gap and to produce possible avenues for it to be overcome.
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.
Die Methodik zur Rekonstruktion von Wegemodellen soll anhand der Lage von bronzezeitlichen Grabhügeln in Schleswig-Holstein demonstriert werden. Eine weitere Fallstudie aus dem Dänischen Wohld illustriert die Aussagemöglichkeiten, die die Verwendung des empirischen Wegemodells und der verschiedenen theoretischen Wegemodelle ermöglichen.
In a first step theoretical and empirical models of linear structures are introduced. Then, the difference between exact and approximated approaches is addressed with emphasis on the significance of the different concepts for the interpretation.
The main part of this contribution presents some methods for the reconstruction of linear structures. The first set of methods deals with theoretical models which serve for the comparison with empirical methods. Approaches from graph theory and least coast modelling are addressed as well as topographic considerations. In this part graph theory is used for network development. The empirical methods also involve graph theoretical methods, but here they are used for pattern recognition. In addition density based approaches, regression and pattern comparison are used. Some examples from case studies serve for the visualisation of the methods.
We will for example employ point pattern analysis, density calculation, network analysis and different Voronoi techniques to determine the type of point patterns, to reconstruct the centres, linear structures and networks and borders. The focus is on methodical details and pitfalls. Methodological competence allows a balanced view between naive application of quantitative methods and the rejection of positive concepts. In addition without a sound methodological knowledge, an integration of method and theory is not possible.
We will address questions like:
How can we distinguish random point patterns form clustered and regular point patterns?
Which role play first and second order properties?
Which methods are available for the reconstruction of linear structures?
Are there methods to establish interpretations for linear structures?
Which technique of density calculation is useful for which purpose?
Which role play metrics and which metric should be used in a certain context?
Are Voronoi techniques still useful or outdated?
Which interpretations are possible for point data?
UISPP Paris 2018
Iron Age Commission
Session 104 : Modelling spheres of Interaction in the european first millennium BC
Within this session we would like to explore the state of the art and the potential application of R in archaeology. We invite presentations for this session that explore questions like (but not limited to):
* What are the specific benefits of this statistical framework in the eyes of its users?
* What are the possibilities? What are the limits?
* What future directions might the usage of R in archaeology have?
* Which archaeological package has been developed, and which package still has to be developed to improve the usability of the sofware for archaeologists?
* What has to be considered to optimise the workflow with R?
We especially would like to attract colleagues who might present archaeological R packages that are ready or in the making and demonstrate their relevance for archaeological analysis. Also we would like to encourage potential presenters to demonstrate their research approaches via live coding, for which we would support them in ensuring that their presentations will work offline and on foreign hardware. [...] We
hope to foster a productive and inclusive exchange between both young and experienced users from all backgrounds.
The Research School ‘MOSAICnet: Networks in archaeological research’ aims at bringing together young and senior researchers around this transdisciplinary issue of networks. The Research School offers the state of the art of several methodological approaches (such as Social Network Analysis, Spatial Network Analysis, etc.), resulting from the dialogue between the Human and the Exact Sciences.
It also intends to discuss their contributions to the research on past social, cultural and economic interactions.
The Research School will last 6 days, and will address the matters of the theoretical context of the research on interaction systems, the empirical data we can rely on to grasp them, as well as provide an overview of several available methods of system analysis and reconstruction. Those tools will be applied using the Rstudio software.
Recognition and Point Pattern
Analysis in Landscape Archaeology
The increasing use of quantitative methods and computer-based
analytical tools in scientific work is accompanied by a crisis of
reproducibility. This is mainly due to the lack of basic knowledge
of how to use computers, how to integrate data into them and how
to transform them into an analysable form. In combination with
proprietary software, this creates a world of science whose findings
are no longer comprehensible by other colleagues, and corresponding
findings are more like advertising promises than genuine knowledge
generation. This is a paradox, since it is very easy to work transparently
and comprehensively in the field of computer-based data analysis - at
least if certain basic rules of scientific work are considered.
New skills are best acquired through trial and error. Accordingly,
in this series of events we focus very much on practice and teach
participants the core competencies of transparent and reproducible
work by means of a landscape archaeological point pattern analysis.
Due to the current situation, the event will take place digitally.
The individual blocks can also be attended individually, however,
the September course requires R knowledge. Attendance at the R
introduction is sufficient for this.
Please enrol for the three different courses separately by email:
office@sfb.uni-kiel.de. We will then send you further information.
Please note that all events are entirely digital. You will receive the link
for the video conference in given time after registration
Organisers:
Franziska Faupel, Daniel Knitter,
Oliver Nakoinz, Michael Kempf,
Gerrit Günther und Steffen Strohm
Telephone:
+49 431 880-5926
Email to: office@sfb1266.uni-kiel.de
Institute for Pre- and Protohistory at Kiel University
www.ufg.uni-kiel.de/en
Department of Geography, Landscape Ecology and
Geoinformation
www.geographie.uni-kiel.de/en
ISAAK
www.sfb1266.uni-kiel.de/en isaakiel.github.io
Based on the data, are the questions we ask to complex for the models to address?
How does the acknowledgement of complexity theory alter the approach to a model?
How are narratives encoded in models?
Are we getting lost in multiple meanings or rather exploring the potential of manifold explanations for a phenomenon?
Is there any empirical evidence that cannot be explained from the perspective of any paradigm?
How are we creating Processualism 2.0?