Analysis of settlement features in the landscape of prehistoric Wessex (original) (raw)

A. Zimmermann/ K.P. Wendt/ Th. Frank/ J. Hilpert, Landscape Archaeology.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 75, London u.a. 2009, 1-53

Estimations of population density, which consider regional variability, are an important key variable in archaeology as they have consequences not only for the environmental but also for the economical and social domains. In this paper, a ten-step procedure of a consistent group of methods is described which deals with the data required for estimations of population density at different scale levels (from excavation to large-scale distribution maps). For distribution maps, a method is presented by which densities of sites are displayed using optimal isolines. These demarcate so called 'settlement areas' at scales of between 1:25,000 and 1:2.5 million. Our knowledge of the density of households from key areas with the most complete archaeological records is upscaled for the regions within these isolines. The results of this procedure are estimations of population density for the early Neolithic (Bandkeramik, 51st century BC) and the Roman period (2nd century AD) for regions with some 10,000 km². A simple statistical/graphical method is developed to analyse the relationship between settlement areas, soils, and precipitation. Taking into account the aspects of preservation of sites and the intensity of archaeological observations, an analysis of patterns of land use shows that in prehistory not all areas suitable for use were in fact incorporated into settlement areas. For prehistory, the idea of a most optimised use of land up to its carrying capacity (as it has been proposed for at least 50 years) can be falsified for specific areas. A large number of empty regions with good ecological conditions but lacking in settlement activity can be discussed as resulting from culture historical processes. As an example, the separation of areas inhabited by groups of different identities is discussed. The amount of used space (in terms of 'settlement area') however, increases from the early Neolithic to the 4th century BC from 5% to more than 40% . The increase between the Neolithic and the Iron Age is understood in terms of technological developments in farming systems. The percentage of areas with suitable conditions actually utilised between the Bandkeramik and Iron Age increases from 31.1% to 67.5% in the area covered by the Geschichtlicher Atlas der Rheinlande, and is much higher still in the Roman period (84.3%). State societies seem to use the land more efficiently compared to non-state systems. This is becoming even clearer on consideration of the intensity of human impact.

Continuity and Change in a Wessex Landscape

Proceedings of the British Academy, Volume 162, 2008 Lectures

This lecture presents the text of the speech about the continuity and change in the Wessex landscape delivered by the author at the 2008 Albert Reckitt Archaeological Lecture held at the British Academy. It describes the Wessex landscape as an area of chalkland situated in the centre of the chalk uplands of southern Britain, highlights the results of archaeological excavations in Wessex, and describes the principal types of settlement in the area.

INTRODUCTION LAC2010: First International Landscape Archaeology Conference

2012

The study of landscape archaeology has historically drawn on two different groups of definitions of the term 'landscape' (Olwig 1993, 1996). On the one hand, the original, medieval meaning of landscape is 'territory', including the institutions that govern and manage it. Landscapes according to this definition can be observed subjectively, but also objectively by research based on fieldwork and studies in archives and laboratories (cf. Renes 2011). The second definition developed when artists painted rural scenes and called them 'landscapes'. In the latter, not only the paintings, but also their subjects became known as landscapes. Dutch painters reintroduced the word 'landscape' into the English language, and the word therefore gained a more visual meaning than it had on the Continent. The visual definition turns landscape into a composition that is made within the mind of the individual, so using this definition it could be argued that there is no landscape without an observer (Renes 2011). While in the latter definition the term 'landscape' originates from the Dutch 'landschap' (Schama 1995; David & Thomas 2008), it is probably more accurate to state that the study of 'territorial' landscapes originated as the study of historical geography and physical geography. This can be traced back to the classical authors, with Strabo noting that 'geography (…) regards knowledge both of the heavens and of things on land and sea, animals, plants, fruits, and everything else to be seen in various regions' (Strabo 1.1.1.). Physical geography is by nature an interdisciplinary field (geology, botany, soil science etc.) and in the late 18th and early 19th centuries it continued to focus on the study of the physical environment, for example in the work of the German researcher Alexander Von Humboldt. During the 19th century, most geographers saw human activities in the landscape as strongly defined by the physical landscape (such as in 'Anthropogeographie' in Germany: Ratzel 1882). This approach changed in the early 20th century, when the human element was introduced. During

Landscape in Theory. The Unexpected Virtue of Archaeological Approach

Cuadernos de Prehistoria y Arqueología de la Universidad de Granada, 2021

This contribution offers a perspective on the intimate link that is established between theory, practice and results in the field of contemporary Landscape Archeology. With particular reference to the Anglo-Saxon and Mediterranean academic tradition, the discourse aims to investigate the specific way in which the adoption of broad categories and methodological procedures is key to reading the real and ideal Landscape. This analysis highlights how the many different interpretations of the Landscape represent the reflection of the type of questions pertaining to the context of a specific cultural background. I will pay particular attention to the phenomenological approach that seems to cannibalize the debate. Ultimately, I argues for a vision of landscape as a place of asymmetrical relations between human and non-human that cannot be done justice from too strong a phenomenological or materialistic perspective. Even the neo-materialistic collapse of subject and object must be tempered ...