1267-08 Louwe Kooijmans 02.Indd
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The temporality of culture changes Fokkens, H.; H., Fokkens; B.J., Coles; A.L., van Gijn; J.P., Kleijne; H.H., Ponjee; C.G., Slappendel Citation Fokkens, H. (2008). The temporality of culture changes. In F. H., C. B.J., V. G. A.L., K. J.P., P. H.H., & S. C.G. (Eds.), Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia (Vol. 40, pp. 15-24). Leiden: Faculty of Archaeology. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/12975 Version: Not Applicable (or Unknown) License: Leiden University Non-exclusive license Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/12975 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). ANALECTA PRAEHISTORICA LEIDENSIA This article appeared in: PUBLICATION OF THE FACULTY OF ARCHAEOLOGY LEIDEN UNIVERSITY BETWEEN FORAGING AND FARMING AN EXTENDED BROAD SPECTRUM OF PAPERS PRESENTED TO LEENDERT LOUWE KOOIJMANS EDITED BY HARRY FOKKENS, BRYONY J. COLES, ANNELOU L. VAN GIJN, JOS P. KLEIJNE, HEDWIG H. PONJEE AND CORIJANNE G. SLAppENDEL LEIDEN UNIVERSITY 2008 1267-08_Louwe Kooijmans_Overdruk1 1 16-06-2008 13:39:01 Series editors: Corrie Bakels / Hans Kamermans Copy editors of this volume: H arry Fokkkens, Bryony Coles, Annelou van Gijn, Jos Kleijne, Hedwig Ponjee and Corijanne Slappendel Editors of illustrations: Harry Fokkkens, Medy Oberendorff and Karsten Wentink Copyright 2008 by the Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden ISSN 0169-7447 ISBN 978-90-73368-23-1 Subscriptions to the series Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia and single volumes can be ordered exclusively at: Faculty of Archaeology P.O. Box 9515 NL-2300 RA Leiden The Netherlands 1267-08_Louwe Kooijmans_Overdruk2 2 16-06-2008 13:39:02 2 The temporality of culture change Harry Fokkens 2.1 INTRODUCTION fi gure (fi g. 2.1) that will be the starting point of my Apart from being an inspiring scholar and teacher, Leendert discussion of how culture change in several periods and has the gift to summarise his data in high quality and regions has different temporalities and different trajectories. inspiring images. We have seen a number of these in for Leendert’s model shows, in a very compact form, the example Verleden land (1981), in Sporen in het Land (1985) neolithisation process in the southern North Sea Basin. It has and in The Prehistory of the Netherlands (2005). Especially many layers of interpretation embedded and on fi rst sight it the latter book took him and Medy Oberendorff a solid year is extremely complex, but with the right explanation added to conclude: hundreds of images were redrawn or redesigned to it (cf. Louwe Kooijmans 1998) it is really a marvel of to the right scale and in a consistent style. For The Prehistory models. The model has in fact three dimensions: time, region of the Netherlands one of his own original drawings was and process. In vertical scale time is projected, in the redrawn as well (Van Gijn/Louwe Kooijmans 2005, 345): the horizontal scale four different regions are shown and as a image had already been published twice (Louwe Kooijmans function of time and region the process of Neolithisation is 1993; 1998) but was due for some fi ne tuning again. It is this represented by shading, which shows the phasing of the Figure 2.1 Louwe Kooijmans’ dynamic model of Neolithisation (from Louwe Kooijmans 1998, 420). 11267-08_Louwe267-08_Louwe KKooijmans_02.inddooijmans_02.indd 1155 003-06-20083-06-2008 114:49:224:49:22 16 HARRY FOKKENS process (fi g. 2.1; cf. Louwe Kooijmans 1998, 420). Basically explain why nothing seems to have been exchanged from the the model shows how the neolithisation in the Netherlands coast into the inland zone (Louwe Kooijmans 1998, 421). is the result of two important developments: in the south Louwe Kooijmans interestingly weaves the ‘availability – the LBK development on the loess around 5300 cal BC and substitution – consolidation’ model of Zvelebil and Rowley- the north the Ertebølle and subsequent TRB-cultures. It Conwy (1984; Zvelebil 1986; fi g. 2.2) in his image. demonstrates how on the loess plateaus the process was Zvelebil’s model describes how innovations become accepted instant, brought about by colonisation of LBK farmers within a given society according to a more or less standard around 5500 cal BC, in the lowlands however the adoption pathway: fi rst domestication is available but only a limited of the Neolithic elements was much more gradual. Some set of elements are adopted, subsistence remains largely aspects were taken over, but basically the Mesolithic based on foraging (Zvelebil 1986; fi g. 2.2), then the economy remained intact. The choice of settlement location, acceptance gains momentum, the acceptance curve runs generally on the fringe of ecological zones, is typical for steeper when people gradually substitute up to 50% of their a hunting-gathering economy, seasonal encampments were subsistence with domesticates, and fi nally there is the phase still part of the settlement system (Louwe Kooijmans 2003). of consolidation. Farming is now the principle mode of Neolithic elements seem to have been adopted only very production and more than 50% of the subsistence consists of selective and at a late stage, like the Rössener Breitkeile. domesticates. In the north the transition is of a different quality. Here Zvelebil and Rowley-Conwy apparently have developed the LBK is absent and there seems to be a gradual their model independently from geographical research that development from Ertebølle to TRB, where in Ertebølle deals with the spread and acceptance of innovations. In context fi rst pottery is adopted but its economy remains fully Geography especially Thorsten Hägerstrand has been infl uen- Mesolithic (Madsen 1982; 1986). In this phase, from tial with his simulation models for spatial distribution of 4700 cal BC onwards, the distribution of Breitkeile indicate innovations (cf. Haggett et al. 1977: 231 ff.) while the contacts with the people of the loess, although the sociologist Everett Rogers developed models for the spread distribution of these wedges into southern Jutland and the of concepts, the role of leaders and problems of resistance areas of the Dutch coast, may be for a large part due to to change (Rogers 2003; cf. Haggett et al. 1977, 232). down the line exchange. This would to a certain extent Both approaches have their value, but the problem with the Figure 2.2 The availability – substitution – consolidation model, according to Zvelebil (from Zvelebil 1986, 12). 11267-08_Louwe267-08_Louwe KKooijmans_02.inddooijmans_02.indd 1166 003-06-20083-06-2008 114:49:234:49:23 THE TEMPORALITY OF CULTURE CHANGE 17 time-geography approach of Hägerstrand is that it sees a number of aspects, among which the social-cultural may be innovation as ‘automatic process’: once it starts, it will carry the most important. That is also what Rogers demonstrates in on in a distinct (constant) rate that is dependant from his seminal Diffusion of Innovations, which saw fi ve reprints distance between innovators and population density. between 1962 and 2003, each time modifi ed and expanded In the sixties of the last century, Childe’s idea of a (Rogers 2003, xv). Although Hägerstrands work is certainly Neolithic revolution that was transmitted through diffusion relevant for archaeology as well, I will discuss here Rogers’ and migration (Childe 1942) seemed to make such models work in more detail because I want to focus on the socio- applicable to archaeology as well. Edmondsen (1961) tried cultural process of the acceptance of innovations. this, for instance, in an article titled Neolithic diffusion rates (1961). But even then one of his critics, C.J. Becker, argues 2.2 PROPERTIES OF INNOVATION PROCESS that Edmondson’s approach is old-fashioned: “Today we can The logistic curve that Zvelebil (1986) sketches, is in fact an follow, in broad lines, the development of the fi rst Neolithic S-shaped curve of cumulative numbers (fi g. 2.3). The curve cultures in central and northern Europe. The Danubian results from the observation that in most cases the successful cultures must have spread very rapidly through the whole of adoption of an innovation follows a normal bell-shaped Central Europe, from the Ukraine to Belgium. But after that distribution pattern (Rogers 2003, 275). Rogers divides the it was nearly a thousand years before food-producing cultures, ‘innovativeness’ of adopters into categories by using the with the aid of a new technique, and carried by new peoples, standard deviations. When taking the average time at which penetrated southern Scandinavia. And it was perhaps more an innovation spreads, at 1 sigma on either side of the than two thousand years later that a civilization based on average we fi nd the early and late majority, at 2 sigma the farming could colonize northern Scandinavia (or parts of it).” early adopters and the laggards. The fi rst 2.5% of the early (Becker 1961, 87). adopters are called the innovators (Rogers 2003, 282 ff.; And of course later research has demonstrated that the fi g. 2.4). In any given population, the steepness of the process of neolithisation is far more complex and depends on S-curve, or the length of the standard distribution, is Figure 2.3 The cumulative adopters of hybrid seed corn (from Rogers 2003, 273). 11267-08_Louwe267-08_Louwe KKooijmans_02.inddooijmans_02.indd 1177 003-06-20083-06-2008 114:49:234:49:23 18 HARRY FOKKENS Figure 2.4 Adopter categorisation on the basis of innovativness (from Rogers 2003, 281). determined by the time period in which an innovation is networks function. Important is also the type of the decision. adopted. The aspects that play a role in this diffusion process Is it optional, is it a collective decision to adopt or is are the subject of Rogers’ study.