Rediscovering Ancient Landscape Rules

My current project on the siting of Bronze Age sacrificial sites aims to rediscover some of the the period’s landscape rules. In other words, I’m building an heuristic model which might allow archaeologists to search actively for such sites instead of waiting for farmers and drainage workers to find them by chance. I was encouraged to read the following in David Yates’ and Richard Bradley’s paper “The siting of metalwork hoards in the Bronze Age of south-east England” (Antiquaries Journal 90, 2010).

“For some time it has been obvious that metal detectorists have been extraordinarily fortunate in locating previously unrecorded hoards. The same people have found them on a number of different occasions. Discussions with the finders have made it clear that this did not happen by chance. Long before prehistorians had realized that the siting of hoards might follow topographic ‘rules’, metal detectorists had reached the same conclusion. Their ability to make new finds is the clearest indication of the usefulness of taking a fresh approach to this material.” (p. 30)

It’s a good paper. Drop me a line.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “Rediscovering Ancient Landscape Rules

  1. You mean you are adopting the same strategy that was used by the Norwegian expedition to Galapagos Islands in 1952? The expedition lead by that charlatan, Thor Heyerdahl…

    Like

  2. The Heyerdahl / Kon Tiki method would in my project’s case entail me sacrificing objects at selected spots to prove that it was possible to sacrifice objects there. I don’t know what he did in the Galapagos in 1952.

    The reason that the detectorists are relevant here is that they have devised a method to find previously unknown Bronze Age sacrificial sites.

    Like

  3. Martin,
    I am an amateur from SW Colorado. We noticed many years ago that the native americans in this area always had some kind of habitation between the ‘Y’ of two converging streams that run all year around, almost without exception.
    Tom

    Like

  4. Interesting! Is there a chronological pattern to the sites? Are the folks of certain periods more interested in the stream-fork locations and those of other periods less interested?

    Like

  5. In the northwest section of Colorado archaeologists assign
    the culture to the topographical location. The Fremont (about the same age as the Anasazi) in the valleys, with storage sites on the valley slopes; while the Ute culture is on the ridges. Here in Southwest Colorado the sites are similar. The rock art for all the cultures appears to be similar in location, with sites either along major trails, or in isolated or hidden rims. The latter may be shamanistic. Have a good holiday and many thanks for your blog. Hartley

    Like

  6. It’s an interesting subject for sure but always with the danger of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Detectorists in particular will look where think there’s something to find and – surprise, surprise – only find stuff where they look. I have no study to prove it but I think Danish detector finds are clustered around medieval churches. The reason would be that it’s “common knowledge” that you have good chance of making good finds there so people spend a lot of time close to the churches. Doesn’t mean there is nothing to be found in between.

    That said, your project made me think of a quite similar topic that Mogens Bo Henriksen from the museum in Odense have written about, the context of gold finds from Late Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period: http://www.viskriver.dk/vaerker/item/2010-gold-deposits-in-the-late-roman-and-migration-period-landscape-a-case-study-from-the-island-of-funen-fyn-denmark.html (download available).

    And an even more recent publication from a seminar on “Depotfund i yngre bronzealders lokale kulturlandskab” at the museum in Viborg: http://www.viborgstiftsmuseum.dk/da_c/arkaeologi/artikler/ (at top).

    Who knows, perhaps there’s something there you would find interesting or useful.

    Like

  7. Bronze Age hoards are pretty rare, so the detectorists are unlikely to create much artificial clustering by bypassing certain kinds of terrain.

    Here’s my review of the Depotfund book. Actually, I just bought an air ticket today for the 8 March follow-up seminar about Bronze Age burial at the museum of Viborg.

    Like

  8. Your model sounds like a GIS research strategy, but it is a sensible one. The ritual sites just may be quite rare unless you define different types quite strictly. Hoard sites on the other hand (you seem to suggest you are interested in these) are a sensible target and there should be quite a lot of material available. Detectiorists however look systematically for things and they have at least in Britain an economic interest to do so! The location of treasures is an interested matter, as I suggested just last week in my blog at http://landscapeperceptions.blogspot.com/.

    Like

  9. “I don’t know what he did in the Galapagos in 1952.”

    He looked at a map and chose four locations where to look for signs of human visitors. He found those signs in all of them. Pre-incan. The story is somewhere in Aku-aku, I think. I borrowed the book from a library in my early teens, when I was fond of adventure books (which I still am), and the idea of working smart in stead of hard left a permanent impression in my easily malleable young boy’s mind.

    Heyerdahl would have been a great scifi/fantasy writer, if he hadn’t actually been on location all the time.

    Like

  10. Is there any chance that the landscape rules may have been passed on since paleolithic times, like the shamanistic belief structure? If so, there may be some similarities across both continents.
    — — — — —
    (OT) Martin, this book provides a skeptic take on the research by Sigmund Freud, and the conclusions he made:
    “Why psychoanalysis never existed!” http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2011/12/why-psychoanalysis-never-existed.html

    …And here is a claim of a better-than-reciprocating engine that may actually stand up to scrutiny!
    “Shock wave puts hybrid engines in a spin” http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928035.100-shock-wave-puts-hybrid-engines-in-a-spin.html
    Feel free to identify flaws in the design. These things always make me suspicious.

    Like

  11. I don’t see any evidence that a shamanistic belief structure has been passed down since the Stone Age.

    In Scandyland, people start depositing valuables in lakes/bogs in the Late Mesolithic.

    Freud was discredited decades ago. He never cured anybody and fabricated his case reports. Freudianism is complete speculation.

    Like

  12. internal combustion engines based on rotors of various forms aren’t a new concept; the Wankel engine is only the best known because it’s the closest to being successful. all such designs tend to have problems with sealing and lubrication, and i don’t expect this one will be any exception.

    Like

  13. i’ve looked a bit deeper into that rotary engine Birger linked to (the “wave disk” engine) and it’s at least possible i may have to eat my words. it’s nothing much like a Wankel at all, in fact it seems more similar to a turbine, and it’s at least possible it might not have the Wankel’s sealing issues — or not as badly.

    i suspect its major weaknesses may turn out to be similar to those of a turbine, in fact — limited applications, narrow range of applicability. it’ll have both a clear maximum RPM and a practical minimum RPM, and the range in between them may turn out to be inconveniently narrow. still, as a driver for electrical generators it may find a niche, if it can be made to work. as a powerplant for non-electric or non-hybrid automobiles it may not be useful, though.

    Like

  14. Not bronze age, but I do know that amateur archaeologists interested in the stone age, who usually search large tracts of plowed land for surface findings, quite quickly get a “feel” for likely spots, though they’re mostly looking for settlement sites and not deposits/hoards.

    Like

  15. There is something to be done with this exploration of detectorists’ methodologies. When I was still in museum work we definitely did notice that some people who brought stuff in were often finding exciting things whereas others hardly ever did. We had a lot of first finders and some veterans but not many in between. I guess that to an extent that’s selection: we heard most of all from non-collectors or people whose collections were already full, and we didn’t hear from those who were detecting for sale at all unless they wanted a valuation which we couldn’t give them. But, the successful guys obviously knew something about where to look (unless they were buying or swapping stuff with the others and then pretending to have found it): it would be interesting to work out what…

    Like

  16. Would love to see a preview of the landscape rules you’re developing. Do they extend beyond lakes and bogs?

    I’ve wondered whether the common lake and bog finds in Scandinavia are simply due to those locations’ relative immunity to later pilfering, or to second thoughts by the sacrificer. Whether or not water featured symbolically in their sacrifices, it’s a good place to get rid of something for good.

    Like

  17. I’ve been looking at the relationship between the sacrificial sites and settlements, rock art and the sea shore. The attract each other, though they don’t exactly hug each other.

    Bronze Age sacrifice in wet spots is ubiquitous across Northern Europe.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s