INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP Habitus, the social dimension of technology and transformation 18 –19 June 2018 INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP “Habitus, the social dimension of technology and transformation” June 18-19, 2018, at Kiel University

The workshop focus on the various scales of social transformation seen from the perspective of human-environmental interaction. Attention is drawn to the importance of technology in transformation processes, especially in its social aspects. The aim is to explore technology as a trigger of socio-cultural change, in its mutual relations with social structures, institutions, power, ideologies, traditions, inequalities and conflicts against the economic and environ- mental background.

It is assumed that people work in a routine manner, i.e. in a system (habitus) of embodied dispositions, usually shared by people with a similar cultural background, which organize the ways in which individuals perceive the social world around them.

To cope with the new challenges, people actively use various technologies. However in many cases new technologies are introduced almost unconsciously and then they affect the direction of transformation in a slow and evolutionary way. In other cases, some technologies, no matter whether they were adopted consciously or not, reinforced and accelerated certain tendencies in social development. A comparative approach, both in terms of spatial and chronological scale, seems to be an effective tool in understanding and explaining the relation between technology and transformation.

By inviting archaeologists from different countries representing different research traditions, the role of technology will be discussed as a proxy for social transformation in Europe and beyond.

The most important questions addressed are: (1) What is the place of technology among other triggers of social transformation? (2) Is technology a necessary trigger of social change? (3) What accompanying factors accelerate changes but do not cause them? (4) What is the role of migration in the adaptation and use of new technologies?

Table of Contents

Preface...... 3 – 7

Programme ...... 8 – 9

Workshop abstracts ...... 10 – 16

Participants ...... 17

Kiel city map ...... 18

3 Dear participants,

A warm welcome to Kiel! As speakers of the Collaborative Research Centre (CRC) 1266 “Scales of Transformation: Human-Environmental Interaction in Prehistoric and Archaic Societies” it is an honour to welcome you in Kiel. The topic of this workshop is located at the heart of the CRC research programme with habitus being one important aspect to understand the meaning of societal as well as environmental transformation. The setting of the workshop reflects the central characteristics of the CRC 1266: Interdisciplinarity, internationality, innovation and integration.

At Kiel University, the exploration of past societies traditionally looks at various spheres of human development, its environmental interplay, socio-economic setting, and technological innovations, always seen in their strong connection to each other. This tradition has significantly been fostered by the Graduate School “Human Development in Landscapes”, which takes an transdisciplinary perspective on the human-driven concept of landscape, and the establishment of the Johanna Mestorf Academy as well as the Kiel University research focus “Societal, Environ- mental and Cultural Change”, bundling expertise from six faculties. The CRC 1266 “Scales of Transformation” arises from this multidisciplinary research environment. It aims to understand the substantial changes that took place during a crucial period of European history - fundamental transformation processes, describing the development from late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers to early state societies from 15.000 to 1 BCE. Therefore, 17 subprojects take different approaches to examine these transformation processes, exploring spatial, temporal, environmental and social dimensions. The research focuses on archaeological and paleo-ecological archives, explored based on different conceptual and methodological approaches. The scientific expertise is provided by eight institutions at Kiel University, as well as the Centre of Baltic and Scandinavian Studies and the Archaeological State Museum of Schleswig-Holstein in Schleswig.

By taking a diachronic and global perspective, this workshop takes up our idea of connecting science on both, the academic and the personal level. In the scope of subproject F5, it brings together specialists from different disciplines to discuss the social dimension of technological transformations and simultaneously to create a synergic network where expert knowledge accumulates. We are glad to host you in Kiel and hope you will experience both, a pleasant stay and a fruitful workshop.

We thank CRC 1266 Mercator Fellow Prof. Dr. Slawek Kadrow for the design and the organisation of the workshop. With his knowledge also on theoretical issues and long lasting collaboration with many scholars, he was able to bring together such a productive group of archaeologists and other scientists.

Wiebke Kirleis

Johannes Müller

SPEAKERS OF THE CRC 1266 AT KIEL UNIVERSITY

4 5 Dear participant, Dear Colleagues,

The CRC 1266 subproject F5 “Social dimensions of technological change“ explores the interre- The Principle Investigators of CRC 1266 subproject F5 asked me to organize a workshop focused lation between technologies and social practices and the role of this interrelation as a driver of on the consideration of the interrelations between technology and social change. social and socio-environmental transformations. The introduction of new technologies and the alteration of known technologies is seen as both a response to change, as well as a driver of Habitus is the central concept of our workshop because it allows us to explain and understand societal or environmental transformation. Here, the concept of innovation is central. Coming from the multiple conditions surrounding every manufacturer. It is a system of permanent and being most excessively used in modern economics, it has received increasing interest also dispositions, functioning as structuring structures, i.e. as principles generating and organizing in the humanities, and especially in prehistoric archaeology in the last few years. As the term practices and ideas that can be objectively adapted to the goal, without requiring conscious goal innovation is a widely used fancy catchword in political and societal discourses, in a scientific orientation and deliberate mastery of the activities necessary to achieve this goal. Habitus is the context it is crucial to more sharply define it and to substantiate its significance with a stronger internationalization of external structures and generates strategies that allow a person to deal empirical approach. with different situations in a consistent and systematic way. And, what is also important, habitus leaves some space for improvisation. We are thus very happy that Slawek Kadrow has designed a focused workshop "Habitus, the social dimension of technology and transformation" with more general and globally relevant Pierre Bourdieu, in his theory of practice, developed the key terms of habitus, field, social capital big questions. He has been able to invite an impressive group of international specialists with a and social violence, maintaining that each of them should be considered in the context of the worldwide scope, even if there is a clear focus on Prehistoric Europe. We, the principal investi- others. As archaeologists, with the possibility of studying the past from a long-term perspective, gators of subproject F5, are looking forward to an engaging and exciting workshop! we can also effectively examine the impact of environmental changes on social transformation in its technological dimension. The content of the submitted papers corresponds with the above theses and fits the purposes of our workshop and its thematic scope. Berit V. Eriksen Some papers deal with more general issues and are theoretical in their scope, while others Wiebke Kirleis focus on selected cases, exploring them and thus illuminating a problem which is of interest to us all. Most of the papers deal with issues from the Neolithic period and the Bronze Age and they Johannes Müller are limited to European areas. Nevertheless, the considered and reconstructed mechanisms and PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATORS OF CRC 1266 SUBPROJECT F5 dependencies are more universal, just like the underlying theory of practice with its elements, “SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE” primarily in terms of habitus.

I would like to extend my thanks to all participants for accepting the invitation to our workshop and submitting their very interesting papers. I am sure that they will become the source of lively disputes and discussions during the course of our meeting in Kiel.

I wish all of the participants and organizers a fruitful meeting!

Sławomir Kadrow

MERCATOR FELLOW OF CRC 1266 SUBPROJECT F5

“SOCIAL DIMENSIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE”

6 7 MONDAY, 18 JUNE 8 10.00 14.30 12.00 16.00 09.30 15.00 14.00 12.30 11.30 11.00 18.30 15.30 10.30 09.15 09.00 08.30 6500 and4200calBC Society andtechnology intheBalkans between Discussion the start oftheEuropean Metal Age Technology andagency: materiality theoryand Habitus: ShipsinSociety will have to change':thecase ofTrypillia 'If we want thingsto stay asthey are, things Lunch millennium BCCaucasus andbeyond social innovations inthe4thandearly 3rd the appropriation oftechnological and Steppe andmountains socialpractice in Coffee interpretation ofLate European Societies societies (Sumba,Indonesia)andthe Ethnoarchaeology ofcurrent megalithic Public lecture “Archäologisches Kolloquium”: Coffee Introduction Welcome Coffee Venue: Johanna-Mestorf lecture hall,Institute for Prehistoric andProtohistoric Archaeology the SouthScandinavian NeolithicandBronze Age reappearance ofnon-figurative rock artduring The appearance, disappearance, and cultural changes?Thecase ofCucuteni-Tripolye Does habituscause oraccelerate socialand past technological andsocialinnovations Central andEast European Bronze Age:Perceiving The conceptions ofcultural genesisfor the Habitus, thesocialdimensionoftechnology Science, ViennaUniversity, Austria Timothy Taylor, Institute for Archaeological Kingdom Archaeology, DurhamUniversity, United Bisserka Gaydarska, of Department Germany German Archaeological Institute, Berlin, Sabine Reinhold, Department, Eurasia histories, Université deStrasbourg Christian Jeunesse, Faculté dessciences F5 Mercator Fellow Sławomir Kadrow, CRC1266,subproject Archaeology, KielUniversity, Germany Institute for Prehistoric andProtohistoric Ulrich Müller &Oliver Nakoinz, CRC1266, University of Copenhagen,Denmark Rune Iversen, of Department Archaeology, Sciences, Kyiv, Ukraine Archaeology, National Academy of Aleksandr Diachenko, Institute of Sciences, Kyiv, Ukraine Archaeology, National Academy of Valentyn Pankovskyi, Institute of University of Serbia Belgrade, Marko Porcˇic´, of Department Archaeology, Johannes Müller, speaker of theCRC1266 and transformation •18–19June2018

TUESDAY, 19 JUNE 10.30 10.00 11.00 14.00 12.30 11.30 09.30 09.00 08.30 19.00 Coffee Final discussion socio-cultural technique orfailed innovation? from Late NeolithicBosnia:specialised The case ofthesuper-long sickle blades (8th-7th centuries BCE) in urbanisingsocietiestheBay ofNaples Changing pottery production technologies Coffee Dinner attheRestaurant: “Forstbaumschule” www.kieler-woche.de international food andmuchmore inamaritimesymphony allover thecity. The largest summerfestival inNorthernEurope! Cultural andsports events, concerts, Time to explore Kiel,SailingCity. It's“Kieler Woche”! Lunch interactions withtheenvironment? How didthey transform thesocietiesandtheir Landscape technologies through theprehistory. Neolithic andtheEarly Bronze AgeinEurope as reflects ofsocialchangesduringtheLate The production anduseofarchery related items Kiel University, Germany Nils Müller-Scheeßel, CRC1266, (at cost price) Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic Jan Kolárˇ, University/Czech Masaryk l'Ethnologie, Nanterre, France UMR 8215,Maisondel'Archéologie et de Clément Nicolas, CNRS-Trajectoires Amsterdam, Netherlands and Culture, History, Antiquity, VUUniversity Lieve Donnellan,Faculty of Humanities,Art 9 ABSTRACTS Valentyn Pankovskyi Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine Timothy Taylor The conceptions of cultural genesis for the Central and East European Bronze Age: Institute for Archaeological Science, Vienna University, Austria Perceiving past technological and social innovations Technology and agency: materiality theory and the start of the European Metal Age This report explores some strictly different approaches conceptualizing centers of in- This paper has three parts. The first is a relatively straightforward general overview novative cultural genesis of the 2nd millennium B.C. from Central to Eastern Europe. of the phenomenon known as the adoption of metal technology in central Europe in 30 The first one puts at the forefront the vast areal and long-lasting diffusive pulsation : 30 the fourth to third millennia BC, outlining the issues with archaeological preservation, from the huge complex centers outwards to the periphery, and another focuses upon : filters, demographic and resource uncertainties, and so on, which stand behind the rapid accumulation in an insular scale with subsequent fading invasion to the multi- 10 9 so-far orthodox picture. The second problematises this picture further by considering ple competitive centers far outside. The innovative technologies as well as flourishing the potential complications of concepts such as envaluation, devaluation, and revalu- mining centers controlled by brand-new self-aggrandizing notables and craftsmen’ ation, and attempts to reveal the scale and extent of the interpretive dilemma (sensu clans seem to have a great deal with both sets of ideas. Yet with this the similarities MO MO Wylie) in relation to the thing labelled analytically as metal. In this part of the paper I seem to end. will suggest that the etic–emic disjuncture in this sub-field of the history of technology The first of these conceptions should be called the Impulsive Centers Theory, the has been grossly underestimated. In the third part of the paper I want to problematise way Vadim Bochkariov had already titled it in his works. According to its postulates, the idea of the history of technology in itself and draw attention to a series of unre- another conception is proposed to be named the Accumulative Centers Theory (ACT). solved issues whose profound contentiousness is buried in the non-agreed use of So it turns out that both constructs may describe various aspects of the same cultural terms such as technology, material culture, the agency of things, affordance, symmet- genesis in their own way, do not they? Certainly, they do not. ricality, and so on. The overall aim of the paper is revealed here as an attempt to bring The thing is that the ACT used to consider all but some typological singularities regu- analytical efficiency to an area in which pre-theoretical commitments have long gone larly observed from the archaeological record to be index innovations for an accumu- unrecognised. lative center at a regional scale. The cultural genesis itself is treated by the ACT as a process that generates particular archaeological culture in the discussed area. There- fore, the accumulative centers seem to subdivide the archaeological oecumene com- Marko Porcˇic´ pletely, with their limits leaning close to each other and special columnar sequences Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia of local archaeological cultures comprised inside them. So the entire space of cultural Society and technology in the Balkans between 6500 and 4200 calBC genesis may look like a honeycomb structure that just lacks interspaces to bring its forces into play, which, thus, is mainly played elsewhere within each particular cell. In The long period from ~6500 calBC until ~4200 calBC in the Balkans is associated with changes in different aspects of culture and society, which includes changes in technol- such hearth-and-home model, all multiple centers seem to have an equal value; each 00 ogy. As a matter of fact the entire period is divided into two major units the Neolithic one works like a source of some important innovations of mostly autochthonous ori- : and Eneolithic based on the single technological criterion – the invention and devel- gin. It would be quite another matter, if one was to distinguish between cultural gene- opment of copper metallurgy. As technology can both be cause and/or consequence sis as a process in the past living culture and, on the other hand, the process of depos- iting objects of some dying out culture in the form of special types and assemblages 10 of socio-cultural change, in this presentation I review and discuss the appearance and development of different technologies during the Neolithic and Eneolithic in the over certain area. Yet the ACT tends to skip the interweaving of such complex causes. Balkans in the context of demography and social organization with an aim to address In the ACT, the centers’ isolation and autonomy imply each more or less significant local ore field to be exclusively or predominantly self-sufficient for an individual MO the following questions. What were the major technological changes during this long period? Can we identify their direct or indirect causes in other aspects of culture and center. But not every metal producing center could work out innovative types of mac- society, and most importantly, what were the social implications and consequences of ro-regional importance and a thousand years long impact. In fact, it is optional for the different technological developments? ACT to tell the technological innovations that once have had the epoch-making impact, from those representing transient adaptation patterns, albeit acting at widespread scale. Moreover, the ore fields often became objects of redistribution and purposes of long distance migrations. It was the case with seemingly egalitarian expansion to the North Pontic area from beyond the Urals in the mid-2nd millennium B.C. as well as with earlier expansion of persecuted notables eastwards and far over the Eastern Carpathians. As a matter of fact, the ACT underlies those trends which characterize so much the anthropological humanities in the contemporary nation state conditions.

10 11 Sabine Reinhold Bisserka Gaydarska Eurasia Department DAI, Berlin, Germany Department of Archaeology, Durham University, United Kingdom Steppe and mountains – social practice in the appropriation of technological and social ‘If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change’: the case of Trypillia innovations in the 4th and early 3rd millennium BC Caucasus and beyond This famous quote of G. de Lampedusa' from 'The Leopard' conveys very well the The last decade opened up new advances addressing the fundamental transformations conundrum of longevity of the vast Cucuteni-Trypillia prehistoric network. On the societies underwent at the transition from Neolithic to Bronze Age cultural systems. one hand, the deep-time continuity in the habitus and the Big Other is expressed in A transition once thought principally brought about by the use of new materials has many aspects of Trypillia technology - house-building; house-burning; the spatial revealed a whole spectrum of crucial shifts in technology, economic practices, social arrangement of houses; house sizes; low-level agricultural technology; the continuity 14:00 in faunal exploitation; and more pronounced local change in the shape and decoration organization and probably religious belief systems. Like the axial age in the mid-first

11:30 of pottery and figurines. On the other hand, there was massive settlement agglom-

millennium BC, the 4th and early 3rd millennium BC frame an epoch of remarkable eration, with attendant scalar social transformations that seem to have no effect on technological transformation and manifestations of a new social ideology that involved

MO houses, practices and material culture. new forms of materiality and a new intellectual discourse in the interrelation of humans

MO This paper will explore this central disjunction in Trypillia archaeology by looking at and objects. two levels where social transformation may occur - revisiting the consumption of figu- The Caucasus and its neighboring territories were crucial to this process. It functioned rines at the network level; and 'zooming in' to a site level by VGA analysis of architec- as a conveyor of ideas and knowledge between Mesopotamia and the Eurasian Steppe ture and spatial order at Nebelivka. Zone including Europe but likewise as a hub for new technologies, in particular in metallurgy. Amazingly, during most epochs a sharp line runs along the North Caucasus Rune Iversen piedmonts dividing the mountain-bound cultural formations of the south from those Department of Archaeology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark of the steppe in the north. Culturally opposing each other in most aspects of cultural The appearance, disappearance, and reappearance of non-figurative rock art during the habitus, the new social and technological innovations of the time nevertheless were South Scandinavian Neolithic and Bronze Age crossing over straightaway. The role of cultural habitus in the appropriation of innova- tions becomes most obvious when looking at the social practice of handling new tech- This paper investigates to what extent the appearance, disappearance, and reappear- niques, devices or social concepts at both sides of the mountain-steppe divide. In this ance of non-figurative rock art can be linked to decisive social transformations taking presentation two aspects will be in the focus – the implementation of wheeled transport place within the southern Scandinavian Neolithic and Bronze Age. in mountain and steppe related cultural formations in the late 4th millennium BC, and New finds from the Neolithic site Vasagård on Bornholm have decisively proven that the means of visualizing the new ideology focusing on individuals and social hierarchies. the most widespread rock art motive, the cup mark, dates back to the earliest 3rd mil- 14:30 lennium BC, i.e. the Middle Neolithic following the Scandinavian chronology.

Cup marks are the most common rock art motive and are explicitly part of the Bronze Aleksandr Diachenko Age rock art repertoire (c. 1700-500 BC). However, due to the simple nature of cup Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine MO marks and their presence on primarily dolmen capstones, some scholars have long Does habitus cause or accelerate social and cultural changes? The case of Cucuteni-Tripolye suspected that they might reach back to the Neolithic. This has not been possible to prove until excavations at Vasagård in 2015 and 2017. These new finds open for the This paper examines the relationship between habitus, population size, carrying opportunity that simple rock art could have been part of the Neolithization process in capacity, migratory behavior, social organization and cultural modifications in Cucu- the region. 00 teni-Tripolye complex with a focus on Western Tripolye culture between the Dniester Then, with the cease of the Middle Neolithic Funnel Beaker culture and the appear- : and the Dnieper. The following issues are addressed. Do cultural changes and social ance of Corded Ware (Single Grave) communities and following social changes, c. 2800 transformations in Cucuteni-Tripolye complex correspond to the major climate shifts BC, the focus on megaliths and rock art seems to disappear. First with new social 12 between c. 5000/4900 BC and c. 3000/2900 BC? May population size, density and transformations at the beginning of the Bronze Age, rock art began to flourish. As a carrying capacity be triggered as an indirect evidence for social organization? What is new feature, we now see figurative representations as a part of this imagery revival. the correlation (if any) between migratory behavior and social organization of the Cu-

MO cuteni-Tripolye populations? The issue of possible correspondence between cultural changes and environmental shifts is also addressed from the wide-scale perspective, questioning the external and internal factors in cultural development.

12 13 Ulrich Müller & Oliver Nakoinz innovations linked to the new pottery production. New pottery production techniques Institute for Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology, Kiel University, Germany demanded new forms of workshop organisation and new working regimes. Technologi- Habitus: Ships in Society cal innovation increased the output, which led to changes in consumption patterns and most likely also to changes in the circulation of pottery. Also, in the Bay of Naples, it Looking at the implicit and explicit knowledge of shipbuilding and nautical aspects, appears that the new pottery production techniques were linked to changes or perhaps we open the discussion about habitus as an element of cultural and social practic- even new agricultural productions such as wine and oil. Thus, rather than constitut- es of the different actors. Means of transport, boats and ships, appear to be an ideal ing a single technological innovation that changed society, it was the whole complex of case for studying habitus in the context of social developments. Vessels are complex linked innovations that brought about social change. This means that as archaeologists objects which have to serve a certain purpose. Minimal modifications of a successful we need to look at the whole network of producers and consumers in which technology 15:00 construction principle can lead to different properties and even prevent the original was embedded and adopt a broader definition of what technology is than archaeologists

purpose. This is the reason why traditions sticking to verified technical solutions are of usually do. considerable importance for vessels.

MO Successful solutions are condenses and conserved as habitus. Factors pushing the ship builders to alter the habitus are technical innovations providing considerable op- Nils Müller-Scheeßel timizations, economical and ecological limitations and the change of requirements. Institute for Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology, CRC 1266, Kiel University, Germany Beginning with the Bronze Age ship building Northern Europe is embedded a contin- The case of the super-long sickle blades from Late Neolithic Bosnia: specialised uous development which reacts to certain social processes and technical innovations. socio-cultural technique or failed innovation? With the 12th century we face a fundamental transformation which involves the nearly complete loss of traditions and a significant change of habitus. The process requires It is long known that in the European Neolithic several methodes of hafting sickle a multi-vocal interpretation involving socio-political and economic reasons as well as blades existed side-by-side and that these methodes went along with differing tech- a reconfiguration of the system due to thresholds and shifting scales inducing a new niqes of harvesting (Schlichtherle 2005). In some instances, the sickles were con- degree of vulnerability. structed as composite tools with straight or angled blades, others were hold directly 9:30

in the hand. Each construction needed a different set of hand movements and different approaches towards grasping and cutting the stalks. Lieve Donnellan Generally, the sickle blades in the Late Neolithic of Central Bosnia were constructed Archaeology Department, VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands as composite sickles with straight blades. Only in the eneolithic, the blades were set

Changing pottery production technologies in urbanising societies in the Bay of Naples TUE in an angle. However, during an intermediate phase very long sturdy blades of a pecu- (8th-7th centuries BCE) liar coarse variety of chert came into use as sickles as their glossy edges testify. In the latest phases, though, such sickle blades are not longer existing. The increased contact with the Aegean from the 8th century BCE onwards led to dra- In the present paper, I would like to highlight the social as well as technological cir- matic social and cultural changes in the Bay of Naples, as elseshere in Italy. One of cumstances of this innovation. As a socio-technological complex, it must have been the most eye-catching new technologies is the use of the fast wheel to produce refined accompanied by transformations in the organisation as well as implementation of one painted vessels. The new wares supplemented and gradually replaced the handmade of the most important tasks in Neolithic life, the yearly harvesting. In the long run, 9:00

local wares. however, the social-cultural circumstances do not appear to have favoured such a new Scholars used to attribute this technological innovation to a massive "colonisation" by approach to harvesting, as its relatively short life seems to imply. Greeks, but now, it is understood that the changes in Italy should be seen as a mix of migration and local socio-cultural change, brought about by new people, new ideas and

TUE new technologies, part of a complex and etangled process, taking place in a gradually Clément Nicolas urbanising landscape. How exactly these processes of technological change in pottery CNRS - Trajectoires UMR 8215, Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21, Nanterre Cedex, France production and social change unfolded in the Bay of Naples, is the subject of this paper. The production and use of archery related items as reflects of social changes during the It will be proposed that rather than a technological innovation bringing about social Late Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age in Europe change, it is a whole network of linked innovations that resulted in social change. The Bay of Naples, one of the regions to host early and intensive contacts with the Aege- Almost since the Mesolithic period, archery related artefacts have an important place an and Levant in the Early Iron Age, became the centre of a flourisihing pottery industry within the past societies (specific chaîne-opératoire, cultural & social significance). By in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. Innovations in pottery production were introduced the mid-third millennium BC, the Bell Beaker culture has spread in much of Europe from the Levant in the shape of storage containers as well as from the Aegean, in the a new ideology partly based on the social affirmation of the ‘warriors’, expressed by a shape of perfume bottles and a range of vessels for the consumption of food and liquids. series of items related to archery. Then during the Early Bronze Age, some of these 10:30 symbols were used in some European regions in new ways as signs of power. These

Transfer of these innovations almost certainly happened through migrant potters, who were quick to train local apprentices, witness the quick spread and local adaptations of sets of objects, generally found in graves, include in peculiar flint arrowheads and so- the Levantine and Aegean models. called ‘wristguards’. The production and use of these socially valuable stone artefacts However, it ws less the innovation in pottery production per se that changes society seem to follow the evolution of social organisations at a time of development of metal-

- although it is arguably the most tabgible for archaeologists - but a whole range of TUE lurgy (from copper to bronze). Based on technological and functional analysis carried

14 15 out by the author in NW France, Britain, Denmark, Czech Republic and Hungary and PARTICIPANTS further studies, this paper will point out the social role played by the arrowheads and the ‘wristguards’. How their manufactures testify the cultural and social changes? Aleksandr Diachenko, Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, How new technological possibilities and possibly new forms of craftsmanship were Kyiv, Ukraine • [email protected] made possible with copper or bronze? To what extent the use of these archery related artefacts reflects the identities and the social life of the individuals? Lieve Donnellan, Archaeology Department, VU University Amsterdam, Netherlands [email protected]

Jan Kolárˇ Bisserka Gaydarska, Department of Archaeology, Durham University, United Kingdom Faculty of Archaeology and Museology, Masaryk University/Institute of Botany, Czech Academy of Sciences, [email protected] Brno, Czech Republic Rune Iversen, Department of Archaeology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Landscape technologies through the prehistory. How did they transform the societies and [email protected] their interactions with the environment? Jan Kolárˇ, Institute of Botany of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic Social and environmental significance of technological changes in the Neolithic and [email protected] Bronze Age in Central Europe, which had a major impact on appearance of landscapes, Ulrich Müller, Kiel University, Germany • [email protected] will be examined in this paper. The main aims are to present and discuss the important inventions strongly affecting the woodland (e.g. farming, axes, ard, pyrotechnologies), Nils Müller-Scheeßel, Kiel University, Germany • [email protected] which are often used in explanations of vegetation changes in palaeoecological studies. Nakoinz, Oliver, Kiel University, Germany • [email protected] 11:00 The paper will explore the possible relations between the societies, technologies and

vegetation dynamics, and will stress the importance of elaborated social perspectives Clément Nicolas, CNRS - Trajectoires UMR 8215, Maison de l’Archéologie et de l’Ethnologie 21, in interdisciplinary human-environmental research. Nanterre Cedex, France • [email protected] Valentyn Pankovskyi, Institute of Archaeology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,

TUE Kyiv, Ukraine • [email protected] Marko Porcˇic´, Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia [email protected] Sabine Reinhold, Eurasia-Department DAI, Berlin, Germany • [email protected] Timothy Taylor, Institute for Archaeological Science, Vienna University, Austria [email protected]

16 17 Schwarzer Weg

BOTANISCHER Am Botanischen Garten GARTEN Schwarzer Weg

REINHARD- DEMUTH- PLATZ e aß r BOTANISCHER t Am Botanischen Garten GARTEN S - Bremerskamp ZMB REINHARD- k DEMUTH- c PLATZ e e l aß tr -S Bremerskamp ZMB F k c - le F - n n n a n h o a J Leibnizstraße MENSA 2 h UNIVERSITÄTS- o BIBLIOTHEK J Bremerskamp Leibnizstraße MENSA 2 MUSÄUS- BIOLOGIEZENTRUM LABOR- 75 PLATZ GEBÄUDE

HÖRSAAL- 75 S1 GEBÄUDE 75 UNIVERSITÄTS- GEWÄCHSHÄUSER Christinenweg Restaurant BIBLIOTHEK 75 S2 Bremerskamp Schwarzer Weg Wissenschaftszentrum MUSÄUS- BIOLOGIEZENTRUM 75 S3 LABOR- 75 PLATZ “Forstbaumschule” GEBÄUDE Kiel, Fraunhoferstr. 13, Olshausenstraße C D roomNeufeldtstraße “Einstein” HÖRSAAL- 75 S1 GEBÄUDE 75 SPORTZENTRUM

GEWÄCHSHÄUSER Einsteinstraße WISSENSCHAFTSPARK KIEL

FIZ STUDENTENDORF Christinenweg B 76 WISSENSCHAFTSZENTRUM 75 S2 Fraunhoferstraße

Kuhnkestraße Koboldstraße B H.-KOBOLD- Schwarzer Weg HAUS

Boschstr. car park Parkplatz Max-Eyth-Str. HEINRICH- HECHT- PLATZ 75 S3 car park with entrance barrier beschrankter Parkplatz Westring bus stop Bushaltestelle Max-Eyth-Straße IPN OTTO- Mühlenweg HAHN- WILHELM- »CampusRad« bike station CampusRad-Station PLATZ SEELIG- PLATZ food and drinks Essen und Trinken Rudolf-Höber-StraßeJohanna-Mestorf-Str.

chemist Apotheke Olshausenstraße wheelchair access Barrierefreier Zugang Olof-Palme-Damm Ro - dew disabled WC Behinderten-WC n ald n -St r. AUDIMAX ma CHRISTIAN- Olshausenstraße r e ALBRECHTS- baby changing facilities Wickelraum H CAP 3 PLATZ

playground Spielplatz SECHSECKBAU C Grasweg MENSA 1 ATM EC-Automat A InstituteWestring for Prehistoric and Neufeldtstraße Am Studentenhaus G-Hotel 16 UNIKIRCHE

D Ludewig-Meyn-Straße Protohistoric Archaeology Lage pläne

Veloroute Hassee-Universität (in Bau) SPORTZENTRUM campus maps

Technische Fakultät Pharmazeutisches Institut Faculty of Engineering Institute of PharmacyEinsteinstraße

GERMAN NAVAL YARDS WISSENSCHAFTSPARK KIEL Werftstraße

FIZ Sandkrug G F Elisabethstraße STUDENTENDORF E B 76 A WISSENSCHAFTSZENTRUM D C Veloroute Hassee-Universität (in Bau) Grasweg

B Kaiserstraße Gutenbergstraße Norddeutsche Straße 5 00 100 m

Westring Fraunhoferstraße© Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Augustenstraße Stabsstelle Presse, Kommunikation und Marketing, 24098 Kiel Stand November 2017

Kuhnkestraße Koboldstraße B H.-KOBOLD- HAUS

Boschstr. car park Parkplatz Max-Eyth-Str. HEINRICH- HECHT- car park with entrance barrier beschrankter Parkplatz PLATZ

Westring bus stop Bushaltestelle Max-Eyth-Straße IPN OTTO- Mühlenweg HAHN- WILHELM- »CampusRad« bike station CampusRad-Station PLATZ SEELIG- PLATZ food and drinks Essen und Trinken Rudolf-Höber-StraßeJohanna-Mestorf-Str. chemist Apotheke Olshausenstraße wheelchair access Barrierefreier Zugang Olof-Palme-Damm Ro - dew disabled WC Behinderten-WC n ald n -St r. AUDIMAX ma CHRISTIAN- r e ALBRECHTS- baby changing facilities Wickelraum H CAP 3 PLATZ playground Spielplatz SECHSECKBAU

Grasweg MENSA 1 ATM EC-Automat A Westring

Am Studentenhaus 16 UNIKIRCHE

Ludewig-Meyn-Straße Lage pläne Central Train Station campus maps Veloroute Hassee-Universität (in Bau)

Technische Fakultät Pharmazeutisches Institut © Google Maps Faculty of Engineering Institute of Pharmacy

GERMAN NAVAL YARDS Werftstraße 18

Sandkrug G F Elisabethstraße E A D C Veloroute Hassee-Universität (in Bau) Grasweg

B Kaiserstraße Gutenbergstraße Norddeutsche Straße 5 00 100 m

Westring © Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Augustenstraße Stabsstelle Presse, Kommunikation und Marketing, 24098 Kiel Stand November 2017 Organised by CRC 1266 “Scales of Transformation” Kiel University www.sfb1266.uni-kiel.de Contact: Sławomir Kadrow [email protected] Design: Carsten Reckweg Design: Carsten