T01S001 Balkans and Anatolia in Prehistory: cultural interactions and barriers
|Names :||Maria Gurova, Jean-Paul Demoule, Burcin Erdogu||Titles :||Dr, Associate Professor; Professor; Professor|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||National Institute of Archaeology with Museum (Prehistory Department), Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; University Paris I Sorbonne - Panthéon; University of Thrace, Department of Archaeology||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Maria Gurova||Session Type :||Regular|
Many studies of the Neolithization process make reference to cultural interactions between Anatolia and the Balkans. As yet, however, no consensus has emerged on the nature, timing and direction of the cultural exchanges between the two regions, which exhibit a wide spectrum of mundane and artistic practices against the background of material cultures that are specific to each region.
New concepts and paradigms have appeared only to be discarded when they fail to explain all facets of the archaeological record, such as monochrome vs white-on-red painted pottery, obsidian vs high quality Balkan flints, the full Neolithic package vs the scarce evidence of indigenous hunter-gatherer communities, and demic vs cultural diffusionist perspectives.
The session will showcase empirical studies and theory-based investigations of human migrations, and the spread of ideas, technical achievements and social practices in the Balkan-Anatolian cultural interaction zone. The chronological scope of the session is confined to the Neolithic and Bronze Age.
TO1S002 Ports and Forts of the Muslims. Coastal military architecture, from the Arab Conquest to the Ottoman Period
|Names :||Stephane Pradines / Eric Vallet / Ahmad al-Shoky||Titles :||Associate Professor / Lecturer / Associate Professor|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Aga Khan University London / Paris I Sorbonne / Cairo University||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Stephane Pradines||Session Type :||Regular|
Islam was always associated with merchants and trade. This session seeks to understand the development of cities and fortifications related to port areas as places of exchange, but also as places of conflict. Coastal fortifications were often related to port facilities, to protect them or to control them. Understanding the relationship between port functions and defensive structures requires an in depth examination of archaeological remains and written sources, to distinguish what is mere desire to defend the territory against threats coming from the sea, the desire to control the flow of goods and passengers, or just to isolate the port from the surrounding area. The organization of the fortified port sites along the Mediterranean coast is identical or different to those of the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf. Can we determine different geostrategic spaces in the Mediterranean Sea or in the Indian Ocean? Can we observe different strategies for the defense, based on the changing relationship of the states and dynasties? How different Muslim dynasties controlled the sea, from the Umayyads to the Ottomans. The presentation and study of the coastal military architecture will help us to understand this “Muslim Mare Nostrum”.
T01S003 Long-distance trade and domestic economy between Byzantine and the Baltic in the Viking Age
|Names :||Nikolaj Makarov, Claus v. Carnap-Bornheim||Titles :||Dr. Timo Ibsen. Wiskiauten - Central place for trading amber to the south? ,Dr. Sergej Zakharov. Long-distance trade, agrarian production and utilization of natural resources in the economy of Northern Rus’ in the IX-XI cc. Prof. Dr. Birgitta Hårdh. Soci|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Science, 117036, Moscow, Dm.Ulianova, 19;Stiftung Schleswig-Holsteinische Landesmuseen Schloss Gottorf Zentrum für Baltische und Skandinavische Archäologie Schlossinsel D-24837 Schleswig||Contact Email addresses :||MakarovNA@iaran.ru|
|Contact Person:||Nikolaj Makarov, Claus v.Carnap-Bornheim||Session Type :||Regular|
Long-distance trade and exchange of goods between the Byzantine empire and the Baltic Sea region played an important role in the Viking period (8th to 11th centuries AD). In recent studies, trade with Byzantium is regarded as having stimulated economic development and the emergence of political organisation of societies in the Northern and Eastern peripheries of Europe. With increasing archaeological data and new fieldwork at sites and in areas that were previously neglected, however, these ideas need to be re-evaluated. Finds of Byzantine jewellery, silver coins, seals, glass beads and vessels, amphorae and Christian metalwork between the Black Sea and Scandinavia seem to be less numerous than many other traded artefacts, such as Arabic and Western European coins, notwithstanding the special position in the trade system usually accorded to Constantinople. Attribution of a considerable number of artefacts to Byzantine workshops, or the spread of Eastern Mediterranean fashions and technologies to neighbouring regions, remain the matter of debate and require more thorough examination. Nevertheless, long-distance trade between Byzantine and the Baltic in the Viking period has to be regarded as a major influence on domestic economies in the northern peripheries of the Byzantine empire. The study of the impact of international trade on local economic centres in the peripheries, whose wealth was based on the extraction of natural resources from forest areas, is of particular interest.
T01S005 Going West? The spread of farming between the Bosporus and the Lower Danube Region
|Names :||1) TSIRTSONI Zoï, 2) REINGRUBER Agathe, 3) NEDELCHEVA Petranka||Titles :||1) CNRS researcher, 2) DAI member, 3) lecturer at the NBU|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||1) CNRS-UMR 7041 Archéologies et Sciences de l'Antiquité Maison d'Archéologie et d'Ethnologie R. Ginouvès 21, allée de l'Université 92023 Nanterre cedex - France2) Deutsches Archäologisches Institut Eurasien-Abteilung Projekt Pietrele Im Dol 2-6 (Haus II||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Zoï Tsirtsoni||Session Type :||Regular|
The possibility of the diffusion of the Neolithic way of life from the Near East to Europe via Northwestern Anatolia has been repeatedly discussed in recent years. However, the rich evidence from the Asiatic side contrasts with the much scarcer evidence from the neighbouring European lands, i.e. Thrace (Turkish, Bulgarian or Greek). This session aims at putting together information concentrating on the geographical area as defined by the Axios-Strymon valleys in the West and the Bosporus in the East. In these parts the very early stages of the Neolithic are less well known or less well investigated so far. We would like to enlarge the discussion about a possible Neolithisation of the area from the West (from the Starčevo-Criş area), as usually suggested, by emphasizing the role of Northern Aegean sites and those from Thrace. By stretching the frame northwards up to the Lower Danube Region, we wish to contrast the mechanisms valid for the spread of farming in the area south of the Balkan Mountains with those proposed for the areas north of it. We invite scholars (archaeologists as well as geomorphologists and radiocarbon specialists) that are currently working in these areas to come share their results and/or ideas, focusing on the questions of setting and topography of settlements, taphonomy, and chronology.
T01S006 Tracing Egypt out of Egypt. A diachronic approach
|Names :||1) Valentino Gasparini; 2) Eva Mol||Titles :||Ph.D.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||1) Max-Weber-Kolleg, University of Erfurt, Forschungsgebäude 1 Nordhäuser Straße, 74 D-99089 Erfurt (Germany); 2) Faculty of Archaology, University of Leiden - Reuvensplaats 3, 2311 BE, Leiden (The Netherlands)||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Valentino Gasparini||Session Type :||Regular|
The panel aims to draw attention to the process of long distance interactions and to their implications, by analysing the role of Egyptian objects found outside their original contexts and the way such objects were experienced in different settings. The papers will focus on the transformation of values, the complexities of interpretations, and the networks of integration of ‘foreign’ artefacts and ideas. The methodological emphasis lies on the contextualisation of objects and on their impact on people through use and engagement. What role did Egyptian artefacts play within social dynamics, within a specific social setting such as religious practices for instance, but also on a larger scale within cultural dynamics, such as within the creation of Empires? Can we witness change through time concerning the use and perception of Egyptian artefacts and what do these signify? Not only the agency of objects, but also the process of agency itself will be analysed, by looking at both intentional and unintentional effects artefacts had on their new environments. The session will present and welcomes case studies dealing with pharaonica and aegyptiaca (produced in Egypt or imitating original Egyptian objects), found in the Mediterranean from the Pharaonic period until the late Roman period.
T01SOO7 Who is on Board? Maritime Perspectives on the Prehistoric Aegean
|Names :||Çiler Çilingiroğlu, Marina Milić, Barry Molloy||Titles :||Ass.Prof.Dr.,PhD Candidate,Dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Ege University,Protohistory and Near Eastern Archaeology Dept.,Izmir-Turkey; University College London, Institute of Archaeology, London-UK; University College Dublin, School of Archaeology, Dublin-Ireland||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Çiler Çilingiroğlu||Session Type :||Regular|
Interweaving open seas, archipelagos, precipitous coasts and welcoming bays, the Aegean has stimulated maritime routes for many forms of connectivity. In prehistory, seascapes and islands were visited for multiple reasons - acquisition of resources directly or through exchange, transportation, exploring and settling new lands, and raiding or piracy. The sea provided the means for ideas, peoples, technologies and beliefs to be shared through brief or protracted encounters by distinct groups. In this session, we would like to explore the intensity, range and scale of maritime travel across the Aegean through time. It is our aim to visualize the technology, routes, and conditions of sea travel. Through this we seek to address the motives and mechanisms behind mobility and exchange facilitated by maritime interaction. Defining various material correlates for such connectivity, and how we can recognize them through novel theoretical and analytical techniques, will be a core theme. We thus invite speakers to present new research on this much debated topic that will reinvigorate our understanding of the powerful role of sea travel in Aegean societies from the Lower Paleolithic to end of the Bronze Age. We particularly welcome approaches that cross disciplinary and national boundaries.
T01S008 Harbour Cities and Mediterranean Networking: Recent Projects and Approaches
|Names :||Christof Berns - Felix Pirson||Titles :||Prof. Dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Ruhr-Universitäte Bochum, Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften; Deitsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Istanbul||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Felix Pirson||Session Type :||Regular|
After the groundbreaking study of Karl Lehmann-Hartleben from 1938, Mediterranean harbour cities have raised greater interest among classical and byzantine archaeologists only since a couple of years. Until then, technology focused studies on single elements such as moles, breakwaters or shipsheds have provided important evidence, but did not stimulate a wider discourse among various disciplines. Current studies, however, attempt to understand the particular urban, cultural, and economic character of harbor cities and try to analyze their particular role within Mediterranean networks. Topics such as urbanism and urban identity of harbour cities, their economy, connectivity and dis-connectivity, orientation towards sea and/or inland, or harbor-networks dominate the current debate. The proposed session intends to give a broad overview of current projects and approaches, including the western and the eastern Mediterranean. Established experts as well as early career researches from Turkey, Germany, Great Britain and France will discuss latest research from fieldwork as well as comprehensive studies. Furthermore, the section includes participants of large-scale European research activities in the field such as the new ERC Roman Ports Project or the Schwerpunktprogramm 1630 of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft: “Häfen von der Römischen Kaiserzeit bis zum Mittelalter. Zur Archäologie und Geschichte regionaler und überregionaler Verkehrssysteme”.
T01S009 Encounters and transformations in Iron Age Europe
|Names :||Ian Armit, Hrvoje Potrebica, Matija Črešnar and Philip Mason||Titles :||Prof, Prof, Dr, Dr|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||University of Bradford (UK), University of Zagreb (CRO), University of Ljubljana (SLO), Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (SLO)||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Ian Armit||Session Type :||Regular|
The Iron Age in Europe was a period of tremendous cultural dynamism, during which the cultural values and constructs of urbanising Mediterranean civilisations clashed with alternative webs of identity in ‘barbarian’ temperate Europe. Until recently archaeologists and ancient historians have tended to view the cultural identities of Iron Age Europeans as essentially monolithic (Romans, Greeks, Illyrians, Celts etc). Dominant narratives have been concerned with the supposed origins and spread of peoples, like ‘the Celts’, and their subsequent ‘Hellenisation’, or ‘Romanisation’ through encounters with neighbouring societies. Yet there is little to suggest that collective identity in this period was exclusively or predominantly ethnic, national or even tribal. Instead we need to examine the impact of cultural encounters at the more local level of the individual, kin-group or lineage, exploring identity as a more dynamic, layered construct. This session draws on a core of papers from the current HERA-funded ENTRANS Project, examining Iron Age cultural encounters in south-east Europe and the East Alpine region, and includes other presentations dealing with various zones of contact where material culture, bodily treatments and patterns of landscape inhabitation provide new insights into the construction and negotiation of identity.
T01S010 Archaeology Across Past and Present Borders: Fragmentation, Transformation and Connectivity in the North Aegean and the Balkans During the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age
|Names :||Stefanos Gimatzidis, Magda Pieniazek, Sila Votruba||Titles :||dr (all)|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||SG: OREA (Institut of Oriental and European Archaeology, Academy of Science, Vienna, Austria), MP: DAI Istanbul (German Archaeological Institute, Dep. Istanbul, Turkey), SV: Istanbul, Turkey||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Magda Pieniazek||Session Type :||Regular|
Modern political borders still divide European archaeology and intercept research especially with regard to interregional relations. This is particularly evident in Southeastern Europe, where archaeological interaction among neighbouring countries/areas such as northern Greece, western Turkey, Bulgaria, the F.Y.R. of Macedonia and Albania is practically inactive. This session will critically examine the cultural diversity in this region as well as it’s transcultural connections during periods of major transformations - The Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. The focus will be on the following topics: • Reception of the past within the local perspectives of modern nation states: New trends in archaeological theory versus traditional methods of interpretation of changes and continuities in the material culture (migrations and ethnic continuities in the service of modern ethnogenesises, etc). • The potential of domestic or public architecture, burial rites or single artifact groups towards the definition of identities. • North Aegean and the central Balkans were often regarded as the “periphery” or “backwater” of Anatolian and Aegean cultures and treated as passive recipients of imported ideas and wares. What is the context and materiality of these imports? Were they integrated into the local material culture or remained alien? Was their initial function and meaning preserved or transformed? Was their purpose primarily symbolic or practical? How did it change through the time? Who were the agents responsible for the mobility of wares and ideas? What defines local, regional and interregional? And finally – what types of objects, technologies or ideas were excluded from this cultural exchange and why?
T01S011 The Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age Transition in Anatolia, Southeast and East Europe. Problems of Definition, Correlation and Interaction
|Names :||1.) Jan-K. Bertram; 2.) Stephan W. E. Blum; 3.) Gülcin Ilgezdi Bertram||Titles :||1.) Assoc. Prof. Dr.; 2.) Dr.; 3.) Yrd. Doc. Dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||1.) ODTÜ, Ankara; 2.) Universität Tübingen; 3.) Ahi Evran Üniversitesi, Kirsehir||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Assoc. Prof. Dr. Jan-K. Bertram||Session Type :||Regular|
The 4th millennium BC marks a period of remarkable cultural changes. In some regions the Late Chalcolithic cultures finished suddenly (e. g. Karanovo VI in Thrace), in other regions (especially in West- and Central Anatolia) the archaeological evidence seems to be underrepresented. The formation of Early Bronze Age Cultures starts later on, at around ca. 3200/3000 BC. According to chronological problems and limited sources, the process is still quite poorly understood and the correlation of European developments (e. g. Cernavoda, early Ezero, early Karaz, Maikop, etc.) with those in Anatolia is difficult to assess. Therefore this session addresses a wide range of aspects of the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze Age transition and its supraregional context: 1.) new excavations and stratigraphies for the 4th millennium BC; 2.) pottery chronology for the 4th millennium BC; 3.) supraregional connections and relations between Europe and Anatolia; 4.) the transition in to the Early Bronze Age and the formation of Early Bronze Age cultures at the end of the 4th millennium BC and in the early 3rd millennium BC: problems of change and continuity; 5.) new research on the economy (archaeozoological studies, metallurgy, etc.).
T01S012 “The Other” in Action. The Barbarization of Rome and the Romanization of the World
|Names :||1.Alexander Rubel; 2.Hans-Ulrich Voss; 3.Roxana-Gabriela Curca||Titles :||1.Senior research fellow; 2.Senior research fellow; 3.Assistant Professor|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||1.Institute of Archaeology, Str. Codrescu 6, 700479 Iasi, Romania; 2.Palmengartenstrase 10-12, D-60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; 3.Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Bd-ul Carol I, no.11, 700506-Iasi, Romania||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Roxana-Gabriela Curca (email@example.com)||Session Type :||Regular|
The history of the Roman Empire is the history of a complex process of integration, often labeled “Romanization”. The receptiveness of Rome towards the Greeks and the incorporation of Greek culture into a Roman context are well-known themes in classical studies and archaeology. With the concept of “’the other’ in action“ we argue that this receptiveness of Roman culture is the basis of and thus the key concept for the understanding of the empire and the provincial system. It is about Rome’s unique capability to creatively adapt elements of foreign cultures, of “the other”, within the framework of Roman rule and to make them part of an integration process, involving culture and especially religion. Such a theoretical approach will investigate “’the other in action’” in a multi-disciplinary way, from multiple angles, centered on the fields of ancient history, archaeology and linguistics, thus covering Roman Italy, Germany, Dacia, Greece and other regions of the Roman Empire in a comparative perspective, and dealing with issues like military organization, linguistics, numismatics, religion. The main question underlying this approach is not how the process of “becoming Roman” took place, but why it was possible to “become Roman” while still being Greek, Goth or Dacian.
T01S013 Thrace, Anatolia and Beyond: Religious and Ritual Practices Across Continents (Early Bronze through Early Iron Ages)
|Names :||Morena Stefanova, Maya Vassileva, Jak Yakar||Titles :||Dr., Assoc. Prof. Dr., Prof. Dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Department of Egyptian Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art - 1000 Fifth Ave. New York, NY 10128; New Bulgarian University - Department of Mediterranean and Eastern Studies, office 406 21, Montevideo Street Sofia 1618; Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of A||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Morena Stefanova||Session Type :||Regular|
The interactions between Thrace and Anatolia have been the focus of scholarly debate in recent decades especially regarding the process of European Neolithization and 3rd and 2nd millennia BC trade routes across Anatolia, which linked the cities as far as the Upper Euphrates River with the Balkans. Thrace and Anatolia were socially and linguistically diverse regions, but were linked by exchange of exotic objects and raw materials, as well as of ideas, beliefs and rituals. The session aims at exploring the religious and ritual practices and at a better understanding of the dialogue between cultures by bringing together different disciplines and methodological approaches. The goal is to create a forum in which scholars and professionals can present and explore their ideas, discuss research theories and archaeological finds. The session topics include (but are not limited to) the following: - Religious and ritual practices visible in the archaeological record, including those from settlements, tombs and sanctuaries. - Landscape and mapping ritual context. - Religious identity and interconnections manifested in the archaeological record versus those expressed in art and texts. - Regional similarities and differences in state organized versus popular religious practices in the Near East and beyond.
T01S014 The Entangled Sea – Networks of Connectivity around the Ionian-Adriatic Sea
|Names :||Lang, Franziska / Lamboley, Jean-Luc||Titles :||Prof. Dr. / Prof. Dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Technische Universität Darmstadt, El-Lissitzky-Str. 1, D 64287 Darmstadt / Université Lumière Lyon 2, Rue Raulin, F 69365 LYON Cedex 07||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Lang, Franziska||Session Type :||Regular|
Archaeologists have identified different socio-political and economic systems in the settlements and cities around the Ionian-Adriatic Sea. By some accounts, the Greek influence was strong in the south (Ionian Sea), while it was barely recognizable in the northern Adriatic (“Caput Adria”) ("double sea"). Some scholars argue this situation changed significantly with the eastward expansion of the Roman population. Our session invites participants to re-think and re-evaluate traditional approaches toward different modes of interaction on this topic. We encourage investigations on the entangled relationships between settlements and cities around the Ionian-Adriatic Sea from prehistory to Late Antiquity and beyond. The contributors could explore the following questions: How did these different systems interact with each other and at what level? How can we reconstruct these relations and what methods work in relation to the archaeological data? How does the urban architecture demonstrate interactions with foreign influences? What is the spatiotemporal distribution of contacts, and how intense were these contacts? What influences are evident in regional and inter-regional levels? Finally, session participants could analyze regional peculiarities, compare regional trends in material culture, and discuss whether the Ionian-Adriatic Sea can be characterized as a connecting or disconnecting sea.
T01S015 Cultural Continuity, Transformation and Interaction in Western Anatolia and the Aegean from the Early Neolithic up until the Mid-Second Millenium BC.
|Names :||EFE, Turan; KOUKA, Ourania||Titles :||Prof. Dr.; Assist. Prof.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Bilecik Seyh Edebali Universitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakultesi, Arkeoloji Bolumu, 11210, Gulumbe-Bilecik; University of Cyprus , Department of History and Archaeology, Archaeological Research Unit, P.O.Box 20537, CY - 1678 Nicosia||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Assist. Prof. Deniz SARI||Session Type :||Regular|
The western part of Anatolia and Mainland Greece form both landmasses surrounded on three sides by sea. The mountainous terrain of the eastern and southern parts of the Anatolian peninsula dampened, to a great extent, the movement of people to the west and the influx of cultural elements – specifically from the neighbouring Syro-Cilicia and Southeastern Anatolia, which were under the influence of the Mesopotamian cultural sphere for long periods. As for the Aegean side, the Balkans’ influence from the north was felt mainly in the Neolithic as far south as Thessaly. Both peninsulas developed distinct cultures of their own as early as the Neolithic Period, mainly due to the aforementioned partial isolation from their respective mainlands. Nonetheless, the cultures of the two regions shared more cultural elements and parallel developments between themselves than with those of the neighbouring regions of Eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Balkans. Although the Aegean islands served as stepping stones for promoting contacts between both sides of the Aegean, they created distinct cultural traits, which they retained for millennia. Crete, the biggest one of all, even created its own civilisation mainly due to its exceptional natural and economic size and its location at the periphery of the main Aegean communication routes. The evolution of different cultural traditions in micro-regions of Western Anatolia, the Aegean islands and Mainland Greece appears to have taken place in parallel; the occasional divergence or transformation in cultural development cannot be definitely linked to migratory movements or to acculturation. From the end of the Third Millenium BC onwards, these dynamic Western Anatolian and Aegean regional cultures eventually led to the rise of the Minoan, Mycenean, and Hittite civilisations. The topic of the proposed session will be in keeping with the primary theme of the “Connecting Seas-Across the Borders” meeting in İstanbul. As such, it aims to assess and evaluate, in light of recent investigations, the cultural processes in the western part of the Anatolian peninsula, in the insular Aegean, and on Mainland Greece, as well as the cultural interactions among these regions from the Neolithic Period up until the Mid-Second Millenium BC.
T01S016 The Eastern Marmara Region in Antiquity: A Transit Region between Europe and Asia
|Names :||Ayşe Çalık Ross; Amelia Dowler, Frank Trombley||Titles :||Prof.,Miss, Prof.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Kocaeli University, Department of Archaeology, Umuttepe Yerleşkesi, 41380 Izmit, Turkey. British Museum, London, Cardiff Univerity, School of History, Archaeology & Religion.Cardiff U.K.||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Ayşe Çalık Ross||Session Type :||Regular|
|Session Title :||The Eastern Marmara Region in Antiquity: A Transit Region between Europe and Asia|
Throughout history, the Marmara region, in the north-west of today's Turkey, has been an important area of contact, conflict, trade and transit for peoples and civilisations of Europe and the Middle East. At the same time, due to its geographical location, including its proximity to key seaways, and its natural resources, it has consistently witnessed economic development and prosperity. It was home to metropoli of global significance such as Constantinople, Nicomedia, Nicaea, Prusias ad Hypium and Hellenopolis and other centres of cultural and religious activity. The papers in this session will attempt to discuss the chronology for this region in antiquity and to fill the gaps in our knowledge of the history, economy and culture of the Eastern Marmara region, not least through presenting finds from recent surveys and excavations carried out in an area bounded by the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara, an area traversed by key wartime and peacetimes routes between Asia and Europe.
T01S017 Refuse, Re-use as Treces of Migration
|Names :||Christina Rosén & Jette Linaa||Titles :||PhD, archeologist & PhD, Senior Researcher|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Rosén: National Heritage Board, UV Väst, Kvarnbygatan 12, SE-431 34 Mölndal, Sweden & Linaa: Antiquarian Department, Moesgård Museum, Moesgård Alle 20, 8270 Højbjerg, Denmark||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Christina Rosén||Session Type :||Regular|
Migration is a much discussed topic all over Europe today as well as something present in most historical periods. How do we trace migration in the archeological record? Where to look for traces? Human migration is historically well-researched, but still a little-touched upon topic within the field of archaeology. Early modern migration meant an exchange of people, objects and ideas with wide-ranging consequences for host communities as well as homelands. Some meetings were peaceful; others were conflict-ridden. The migrants came with different agendas and aims: as conquerors and colonizers, traders; economic, politic and religious refugees. And they were met with different responses ranging from official welcomes to conflict and resistance. This session will focus on how materiality was connected or shared for people or groups embedded in relationships across borders, stressing how the identities and agency of immigrants were shaped by space and place. The session touches upon concepts of otherness and translocality, marginalization, transformation, segregation, assimilation and the conquering of mental and physical space, all through interactions with materiality. The starting point is research into strategies through materiality, which include studies of consumption, food ways, refuse and waste disposal pattern and other signs of ordering of space. The session’s primary focus is on medieval and post-medieval times, but we also welcome papers dealing with contemporary or prehistoric archaeology.
T01S018 Seas of Encounters – Mapping colonial impacts on indigenous landscapes
|Names :||Corinne L. Hofman; Patrick Degryse; Till F. Sonnemann||Titles :||Prof. dr.; Prof. dr.; Dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Leiden University; KU Leuven; Leiden University||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Till F. Sonnemann||Session Type :||Regular|
From the 15th century onwards the “age of encounters” brought Europeans in contact with indigenous peoples all over the globe. The initial establishment of trading hubs had often substantial impact on the life of the local indigenous population. While it facilitated the exchange of materials and knowledge, the contact also boosted the spread of diseases and brought turmoil, from which many indigenous societies never recovered. The early colonial period altered local settlement patterns and transformed social and cultural landscapes significantly. We would like to bring together researchers who investigate early encounters between Europeans and indigenous populations worldwide, focusing particularly on the indigenous side. Is the impact on the indigenous populations traceable in the archaeological record? How can eventual societal changes be identified? What has remained of the pre-colonial social and cultural landscapes? What measuring and evaluation techniques have it made possible to map and analyze this period? With focus on the technical aspects of the research, this session is explicitly kept open for varying methods, which trace these encounters in landscape and provenance studies. The methodology can range from RS to analyze landscape transformations, excavations and prospection techniques, over provenance studies that trace back the origins of objects and materials.
T01S019 A Globalisation of Death? Re-interpreting burial practices of the Eastern Aegean, 9th - .4th centuries BC
|Names :||Anja SLAWISCH, Yasar Erkan ERSOY||Titles :||Dr.,|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut, Hitit University||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Anja SLAWISCH||Session Type :||Regular|
Island and mainland, polis and oikos, necropolis and mausoleum, ash and body: these oppositions frame the design of this avowedly comparative session. The workshop will bring together researchers from different countries working on the archaeology of death in the Aegean during an era of great historic change, namely the period from the 8th to the 4th century BC. The background is shaped by extensive migrations and colonisations, wars, periods of economic crisis as well as flourishing sea-trade, the emergence of ‚international’ sanctuaries and growing populations. For decades our knowledge of burial customs within the eastern Aegean during that period has been rather limited. Recent discoveries have, therefore, the potential to dramatically change our picture of funeral rites as well as on the impact of wider historical events on the way people were buried. The emphasis will also lie on the comparison and interpretation of archaeological assemblages with regards to choice of place, choice of materials and key historical turning points. Can we identify patterns in the location of burial places (both ‚ordinary’ and ‚monumental’) in relation to other sites, whether urban spaces, sanctuaries, harbours or roads? Does the new evidence allow us to identify ‚global’ East Mediterranean, Greek or Aegean practices or are regional and local traditions more important?
T01S020 Making Boundaries Visible: Exploring Methods and Techniques for Investigating Boundaries in the Archaeological Record
|Names :||Attila Gyucha and Danielle J. Riebe||Titles :||Director for Southern Regional Office, Hungarian National Museum Center for National Heritage Protection; PhD Candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Árvíz u. 61, 6724 Szeged, Hungary; 1007 W. Harrison, Chicago, IL, USA 60607||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Attila Gyucha||Session Type :||Regular|
Boundaries between groups of people exist in a variety of forms and at various scales. Although they can be natural or artificial, ephemeral or long-lasting, one aspect that all boundaries share is the necessity of people in their construction, acknowledgement and conscious or unconscious maintenance. While some boundaries are easily identified, discerning intangible socio-cultural boundaries relies heavily on the archaeologists’ ability to note changes in the material culture. Anthropomorphic activities including craft production, are socially driven and as such, the artifacts become imbued with evidence of human behavior and ideology. Through a multidisciplinary approach, archaeologists can more precisely investigate and better understand the relationship between people and boundaries. Though anthropologists have extensively studied boundaries in the past and the present, this session challenges professionals to think about boundaries as constantly changing phenomenological concepts that require innovative techniques, methods and approaches to understanding how boundaries formed and altered over time and space. Papers in this session study the identification of boundaries by means of various analytical methods and at different scales – including households and property boundaries to sociocultural and political boundaries – both in prehistory and history. In addition to archaeology, studies from the fields of history, ethnography, and ethnoarchaeology are also welcomed.
T01S021 Phoenician maritime pioneering and Punic expansion: reconstructing trade and dietary patterns
|Names :||Cynthianne Debono-Spiteri, Domingo C. Salazar-García, Nicholas Vella||Titles :||Drs.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz, 6, 04103, Leipzig, Germany; Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz, 6, 04103, Leipzig, Germany; University of Malta, Msida MSD 2080, Malta||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Domingo Carlos Salazar García||Session Type :||Regular|
Perhaps the most significant legacy attributed to the Phoenicians was their mastery of the seas, which led them to establish the first commercial Mediterranean network, expanding from Lebanon to beyond the Pillars of Hercules between the 8th and 6th centuries BC. The Punic culture, which flourished in the Central and Western Mediterranean from Phoenician colonies, maintained their exceptional navigation skills, but developed into more settled and structured territories that allowed them to intensify their exploitation of Mediterranean resources. Their rise to prominence can best be measured by the threat they posed to the Roman Republic, while the salvage of the agronomic treatises by Mago after the sacking of Carthage attests to their renowned agrarian competence. The paucity of Phoenician and Punic written sources adds to the complexity in deciphering this ancient civilisation, including inferences to their daily dietary patterns and trading goods, which can only be inferred from the material culture. The aim of this session is to bring together research focused on diet and trade in Phoenician and Punic contexts. We welcome submissions showcasing diverse perspectives and interdisciplinary approaches in addressing these questions, as well as papers related to the existing chronological and geographical variability encompassing the Phoenicio-Punic period.
T01S022 A Matrix of Socioeconomic Connectivity: Ports, Harbors and Anchorages in the Mediterranean
|Names :||Vasıf Şahoglu; Elizabeth S. Greene; Justin Leidwanger||Titles :||Assoc. Prof.; Assoc. Prof.; Assist. Prof.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Ankara University, Research Center for Maritime Archaeology (ANKÜSAM), Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara - TURKEY; Department of Classics, Brock University, 500 Glenridge Ave., St Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, CANADA; Department of Classics, 450 Serra Mall, Main Quad, Bu||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Vasıf Şahoglu||Session Type :||Regular|
Exploration of the material remains of Mediterranean ports and harbors extends back to the earliest days of underwater archaeology. Yet such studies have often focused on the strictly technical and architectural at the expense of the social and economic. In addressing together the many facets of these maritime archaeological sites, this session investigates how ports, harbors and anchorages fostered the development of socioeconomic relationships, communities and landscapes across the Mediterranean. Papers in this session will explore, at various analytical scales and through different methodologies, the cultural, environmental and economic processes behind constructed maritime landscapes, the interrelated effects of technological development and socioeconomic change, and the comparative and complementary roles played by a range of diverse facilities from massive built harbors to humble anchorages. Taking up the call of Horden and Purcell (2000, 393) to view these liminal spaces as “nodes of density in the matrix of connectivity”, this session provides a diachronic view of how ports, harbors and anchorages—large and small, built and natural, urban and peripheral, all-weather and seasonal—tied together the coastal populations of the pre-modern Mediterranean.
T01S023 Spread of Ideas, Things and People. Cross - Cultural Contacts on Baltic Sea Area
|Names :||Marta Chmiel, Michał Adamczyk, Aija Vilka, Paulina Romanowicz,||Titles :||master|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||University of Szczecin, Department of Archaeology, Krakowska 71-79, 71-017 Szczecin, Poland; University of Latvia, Faculty of History and Philosophy, Maskavas iela 321-74 Riga, LV-1063, Latvia||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Marta Chmiel||Session Type :||Regular|
The Baltic Sea in the archaeological perspective is incredibly dynamical, not only because of coastline changes, but also because of the history of contacts of the coasts inhabitants. Since the arrival of first settlers up to historical times, the Baltic Area was the arena of migrations, exchanges of ideas, trade and wars between different cultures, peoples and nations. Those phenomenon are commonly seen as spread of ideas, things and people. In following session we would like to join a different points of view for Baltic Region as area of cross-cultural contacts since Stone Age to Post-Medieval Period. The main issues of the session are: • Migrations • Ideas • Trade • Wars • Cultural changes
T01S024 Archaeology of the early medieval slave trade in Northern Europe: looking for the material evidence
|Names :||Marek Jankowiak; Felix Biermann||Titles :||Dr; Docent dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||University of Oxford, Khalili Research Centre, 3 St John Street, Oxford OX1 2LG, United Kingdom; Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Seminar für Ur- und Frühgeschichte, Nikolausberger Weg 15, D-37073 Göttingen, Germany||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Marek Jankowiak||Session Type :||Regular|
With much delay, compared to the archaeology of Africa or of the Americas, the imprint of slavery and slave trade in the archaeological material begins to be conceptualised for the early medieval Europe. Recent studies shed new light on the role of the slave trade in the economic revival of Northern Europe in the early Middle Ages (McCormick 2001). But the emerging historical consensus has so far found little echo among the archaeologists, who only start to show awareness of the significance of slavery and of its potential material traces. We think that time is ripe to bridge this divide. We propose to gather, for the first time, archaeologists and historians working on early medieval slavery, and to lay foundations for a more comprehensive approach to what seems a seriously underestimated, yet crucially important, phenomenon of the European history. We intend to survey geographical areas from the British Isles to Russia looking for material evidence of slave trade, such as enclosures, shackles, specific burial types and, on a more general level, evidence for sudden population movements and increasing insecurity; we will also reach to specialists in other slave trade systems, Ancient and African, for inspiration and points of comparison.
T01S025 Society, power and influence in Atlantic Europe
|Names :||Jessica Smyth; Jim Leary;Karl-Göran Sjögren;Stephen Davis||Titles :||Dr; Dr|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Cardiff University; University of Reading (UK);University of Gothenburg (Sweden);University College Dublin (Ireland)||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Jessica Smyth||Session Type :||Regular|
The Atlantic façade has long been characterised by its Neolithic and Bronze Age monumental complexes, from the stone rows at Carnac in Brittany to the megalithic landscapes of Orkney in northern Scotland. However, how well do we understand the social forces that drove the creation of ceremonial centres? Were they the product of stable, surplus-producing egalitarian societies or unstable hierarchies grasping at legitimisation? Such questions have of course been addressed in the past, notably by Renfrew (1973; 1976), but we are now in a position to consider things afresh. Major research projects are underway at Stonehenge, Orkney and the Boyne Valley, revealing new detail about spheres of influence across the Atlantic seaboard; Bayesian modelling is providing real insight into the tempo of social change and the rise and fall of monumentality; isotope analyses of human, animal and plant populations afford us glimpses of mobility, diet and economy in prehistory, all complemented by recent overviews of how inequality and power relations are created in society (Flannery & Marcus 2012). We welcome contributions foregrounding the social drivers behind monument complexes, from Scandinavia to southern Iberia, exploring how local dynamics may have influenced, and been influenced by, those of the wider Atlantic zone.
T01S026 Approaching different settlement patterns between the northern Balkans and northwestern Europe in the Neolithic
|Names :||Martin Furholt; Martin Hinz; Tibor Marton; Krisztián Oross||Titles :||Dr.; Dr.; M.A.; M.A.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Institute for Pre- and Protohistoric Archaeology, University of Kiel; 24098 Kiel, Germany (Furholt and Hinz); )Institute of Archaeology, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences: Úri u. 49.; 1014 Budapest; Hungary (Marton and Oros||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Martin Furholt||Session Type :||Regular|
There seems to be a recurrent and rather stable dichotomy in the layout of settlements in Europe during the Neolithic. In the southeast, large, densely built settlements are opposed to sites showing more dispersed house arrangements in smaller habitats in the North and Northwest. The Central European Linearbandkeramik (LBK) settlements are smaller and seem to be much less organised internally, when compared to Vinča sites. Although there is considerable variability in settlement organisation within the LBK, when compared to those from the northern and western European Neolithic, settlement sizes and the degree of intrasite organisation seems to be much more pronounced. To focus the discussion, we want to concentrate on two areas and compare the evidence from the northern Balkans and southeastern Central Europe with that of the northern Central European loess areas and the adjacent lowlands. We want to examine settlement layouts associated with interregional developments, their social and environmental conditions and dynamics. The scope of the dialogue will be how real or intense these dichotomies really are and if speaking of such dichotomies can provide a viable framework at all, or whether more elaborated concepts should be applied.
T01S027 Aeolia between special identities and transmarine influences
|Names :||Antonio La Marca -Yusuf Sezgin||Titles :||Assistant professor Univ. of Calabria (Italy) & director of Italian Archaeologic Mission in Aeolian Kyme (La Marca) - Un. professor Celal Bayar University (Turkey) and Director of Aigai Mission (Sezgin)|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Università della Calabria -v. P. Bucci, cubo 21 B, 87036 Arcavacata di Rende CS - Italy & Celal Bayar University - Turkey||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Antonio La Marca||Session Type :||Regular|
Session dedicated to: 1) the results of thirty years of excavations at Kyme and Aigai, with special regard to new excavations and to architectural, theatral and wall finds; 2) to coin iconography of Aeolian cities as expression of local identity and foreign cultural and political influences; 3) to ceramic and coins as proofs of commercial Mediterranean Routes in Greek, Roman and Medieval times; 4) to aeolian graves
T01S028 Border crossings: Rethinking cultural and material diffusion
|Names :||(1) Dr. Susanne Hakenbeck and (2) Steven Matthews||Titles :||(1) Dr, (2) Drs.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||(1) Department of Archaeology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DZ, UK, (2) Groningen Institute of Archaeology, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Poststraat 6, 9712 ER Groningen, NL||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Susanne Hakenbeck||Session Type :||Regular|
The movement of people is endemic in historical narratives, from adventurers in classical sources to entire ethnic groups in biblical myths, and remains a contemporary post-colonial concern. Globalised outsourced production and worldwide transportation of goods are as familiar to us today as personal narratives concerning migration for economic or political reasons. These processes can have a significant impact on the material and ideological traditions of those involved. The same underlying processes have often been at the heart of traditional archaeological discourse. Approaches to this theme, however, have become polarised between autochthonous development and diffusionism. Despite deconstructions of the maxim that migration was the primary mechanism that drove cultural and technological change, diffusionism has remained a cornerstone of interpretation, re-imagined in concepts like trade and exchange. However, the concrete way in which material culture may operate as a vehicle for transporting ideas is often underexplored, despite renewed theoretical and scientific interest in exploring connections and networks across cultural boundaries. We aim to bring together new perspectives that address the mechanisms that drove diffusion, evidenced in boundary crossings, acculturation, material adaptation and cultural rejection. We invite papers that address these issues at all archaeological scales, from inter-regional movement to intra-regional, small-scale interaction.
T01S029 Waves of Change from the Mediterranean to the North Sea (Vth-Xth cent.)
|Names :||Laurent Verslype and John Bintliff||Titles :||Professors|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||University of Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium and Universty of Leiden, Holland||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Laurent Verslype||Session Type :||Regular|
Regions do not conform to static entities, but rather change through time, in a dialectic relationship with both wider and local political, cultural, socio-economical, demographic and environmental contexts. Our session wish to address how human resilience, societal vulnerability and sustainability have changed through time in several european regional frameworks, resulting in long term waves of complexity and decline.
In the framework of the MERC and linked to our CORES project (http://iap-cores.be/), we intend to establish and compare four late antique and early medieval regional trajectories of change and development in Pisidia in SW Turkey, Boeotia in Central Greece, Picenum in Central Adriatic Italy and NW Gaul. Crossing the borders and the seas from Turkey to the Channel, many connections are also to be observed, for instance through political networks and commercial exchanges, innovative technologies, lack or providing of raw materials.
We will therefore add specific study cases from both sides of the North Sea and from the Mediterranean, in order to understand the specific, yet variable patterns and mechanisms of regional change, as well as enhance comparative inter-regional analysis of archaeological, historical, geoarchaeological, bioarchaeological and conceptual aspects of waves of change between the Late Antiquity and the Xth cent.
Barbora Wouters & Patrycja Kupiec
Addresses of their affiliations :
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussel, Belgium & University of Aberdeen, School of Geosciences, St Mary's, Elphinstone Road, Aberdeen AB24 3UF, UK
Contact Email addresses :
Session Type :
Session Title :
Central meets marginal? The meaning of urban and rural in Early Medieval Europe
Keywords 1 :
urban and rural settlements
The dichotomy between the urban and the rural has in the past often been considered a given fact and a prerequisite for the study of Early Medieval Europe. The emergence of towns or town-like settlements was studied against the backdrop of these views. However, can we still maintain this discourse in present research? How different were the urban and rural, did their differences vary regionally, and can we really make this distinction for the early medieval period? What were the implications for the inhabitants of a particular place? This session aims to explore the character and dynamics between what was considered urban, rural and marginal in all parts of Early Medieval Europe, looking at interplay between communities, trade, power, connections and movement. We particularly welcome participants presenting data from the eastern, southern and northern parts of Europe; novel perspectives on sites from the west; and new data gained through the application of scientific methods, theoretical studies or the analysis of artefacts. We believe that an interdisciplinary re-visitation of this theme has a great potential to further our understanding of the dynamics of the Early Medieval Period and hope to receive a wide range of papers from all of Europe.
|Names :||Aynur Özfırat, Ali Reza Hejebri Nobari, Şevket Dönmez, Mehmet Işıklı||Titles :||Prof. Dr., Prof. Dr.,Assoc. Prof. Dr., Assoc. Prof. Dr.|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Mustafa Kemal University, Antakya Hatay, Tahran-Modares University Iran,İstanbul University İstanbul, Atatürk University, Erzurum||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Aynur Özfirat||Session Type :||Regular|
Eastern Anatolia and the Southern Caucasus (Transcaucasia) are among the most important cultural regions in the Ancient Near East, sharing many common features in terms of geography and culture. These two regions, which are located in the northern mountainous belt of Upper Mesopotamia, are defined as the highland. The main features of this vast region are mountain ranges reaching up to 5000 meters, high plateaus and river valleys which ecological niches sheltering among these volcanic ranges. Because of an increase in archaeological projects in recent years, particularly in the territory of the Southern Caucasus, light has been shed on the framework of regional archaeology. In this harsh geographical zone, there were some striking cultural and political transformations throughout the archaeological periods. This change and transformation sequence has been revealed from the rise of the Kura-Araxes Cultural Complex through to the origins of the Urartian Kingdom, which was the first central political structure in the highland. It is through graves and burial customs that these changes and transformations can be viewed effectively, with the evidence ranging from grave types to grave gifts. This evidence also has played a major role in our understanding of the socio-economic, cultural and political stages of the people living in that region. The main goal of this meeting which we are planning is to gather together archaeologists working in Eastern Anatolia and countries of Southern Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia and Northestern Iran) to share and convey information related individual case among them. The target audience is not only the archaeologists from those regional areas but also archaeologists from other countries who are working there. As is known, there are many overseas archaeology teams working in Transcaucasia.
|Names :||Thomas Gallant/ Russell Palmer||Titles :||Prof, Mr|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||UC San Diego, University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, CA 92093-0104. USA/ Department of Archaeology, Ghent University, Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat, 9000 Gent. Belgium||Contact Email addresses :||firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Contact Person:||Russell Palmer||Session Type :||Regular|
|Session Title :||Connecting Cultures, Maritime Flows: Toward an Historical Archaeology of the|
The study of post–Medieval archaeology is a growing field of inquiry globally. In the Mediterranean region it has often been included in large-scale projects aimed at exploring the longue durée, seen as an extension to Medieval archaeology, or has taken the form of rescue archaeology. Consequently, it is rare that researchers meet to discuss post-1400 archaeology. In this session we aim to both provide a platform of communication and an assessment of the current state of Mediterranean post-Medieval/historical archaeology. We invite papers that address terrestrial and underwater archaeology historical sites, along with methodological and interpretive approaches. The papers will be empirically grounded at sites from all regions of the Mediterranean world and will focus on the ways that people, ideas, and commodities flowed across the region connecting cultures and creating networks that helped shape the modern world. We would also like to include papers that critically assess issues that may create challenges for current and future Mediterranean historical archaeology, such as the impact of legislation or national disciplinary traditions.
T01S033 Networks and intersections: perspectives on colonial encounter and entanglement
|Names :||Jonathan Finch; Magdalena Naum; Jonas M Nordin; Krish Seetah; James Symonds .||Titles :||Dr|
|Addresses of their affiliations :||Finch: Department of Archaeology, University of York, The King's Manor, York, YO1 7EP; Naum: Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund University, PO Box 117, 221 00 Lund, Sweden; Nordin: Statens historiska museum, Enheten för kulturhistoria och||Contact Email addresses :||email@example.com|
|Contact Person:||Dr Jonathan Finch and Dr Jonas M. Nordin|
Early modern and modern colonial expansion had an irreversible impact on material culture, mobility, modes of production, use of space, consumption and diet. Colonial encroachment on the fringe areas of European kingdoms and on the territories in distant continents established novel connections and dependencies between places, enforced and stimulated a flow of people and things and led to cross-cultural interactions. These encounters and more permanent cohabitation engineered new identities, worldviews and human-object-landscape entanglements. This session aims to discuss archaeological aspects of colonialism and the colonial world and intends to create a platform for archaeologists dealing with questions related to the subjects of power, networks, exchanges, consumption and material entanglement in the colonial settings of early modern and modern period. It builds on a well-received session at EAA in Helsinki in 2012.