Description
Network approaches are becoming increasingly popular among archaeologists and historians. They provide a broad range of models and methods that inspire scholars in both disciplines to original analyses of various past networks and present datasets. As these approaches gain in reputation, however, more and more questions arise regarding their possibilities and limitations. Particularly unclear is whether network models and methods are applicable to all archaeological or historical datasets and, more importantly, whether such datasets are sufficiently representative to allow for meaningful results. One means of getting beyond these issues involving our data is to employ networks as a concept metaphor or intellectual tool.This poster seeks to explore the potential of such an approach for a very specific case study. During the Bronze Age-Iron Age transition, the eastern Mediterranean was a world in crisis, in which around 1200 B.C. the Aegean palaces were destroyed. The period following these destructions, known as the post-palatial period, is usually treated as an era of general decline and deterioration. Recent research, however, shows that the impact of the destructions greatly varied between regions; several sites continued to be inhabited and were still actively engaged in overseas contacts. This implies that for surival in the so-called “crisis years” it was crucial to remain connected. Current interpretations fail to satisfactorily explain these continued connections, because assumptions existing about the palatial period have hindered a proper evaluation. Much can be gained from rethinking our interpretative frameworks and I contend that networks are particularly “good to think with”.
| Period | 24 Mar 2012 |
|---|---|
| Event title | Symposium The Connected Past: people, networks and complexity in archaeology and history |
| Event type | Conference |