Iron Age and Early Medieval Centres - Advantages and Pitfalls of a Comparative Approach
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2017 |
| Type | Conference abstract |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Description | In this paper we attempt to explore development, role and function of the central places in the Iron Age and Early Medieval periods approaching this issue from different perspectives in order to test their comparative potential. Earlier approaches to protohistoric and early historic urbanisation phenomena implied distinct criteria to test whether the status of a settlement could be viewed as “urban”. These criteria were either present or absent and within this binary framework the “urbanisation level” of a given site was evaluated. In reaction to these rather static models that neglected the effect of dynamics of urbanisation as well as their “non-urban” counterparts, the research cluster of the DAI developed an urbanisation-model with criteria that included “objectified and quantifiable values” (cf. Wendling 2013) such as: continuity and sustainability of settlement activities; the degree of social interaction and political communication; topographical and structural proximity of the built environment; functional and structural diversity of building structures; and concentration and diversity of crafts, trade, and services. Using DAI concept as a basis, we slightly expanded the criteria and formulated weighted empirical model that was subsequently applied to selected Iron Age and Early Medieval “centres”. With help of several case studies we intend to demonstrate that strength of a comparative approach lies especially in revealing the major development trends or principles of a long-durée nature (such as basic economic systems), while the risks of misinterpretation are associated chiefly with limited knowledge of social hierarchy, political strategies and cultural norms. |
| Related projects: |