aez

NOVEMBER 19TH–21TH, 2014 LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY WORKSHOP FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE

ABSTRACTS

ORGANIZATION // EXCELLENCE CLUSTER TOPOI RESEARCH AREA A

BERGSAS DOCTORAL PROGRAM LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURE

CONTACT //TEL.: +49.30.838-70239 FAX: +49.30.838-70755 LANDSCAPEARCHAEOLOGY@TOPOI.ORG

WWW.TOPOI.ORG/EVENT/24533/

Cover picture: Soil Suitability © D. Knitter

Dear participants of the Landscape Archaeology Workshop,

Today landscape archaeology is a well established discipline, in which different scientific approaches and methods are used. As landscape archaeology crosses the boundaries between sciences and humanities the beginning of a beneficial cooperation efforts mutual learning and adaption.

During this 2.5 day workshop marked by keynote lectures, paper sessions, and open discussion rounds we are looking forward to discuss many of the recent questions in landscape archaeology reserach amongst archaeologists, geographers and researchers from neighbouring disciplines dealing with different topics in landscape archaeology.

Therefore we are glad to welcome you in Berlin from the 19th to the 21st of November 2014 to give a talk and enjoy the discussions together with us!

Greetings, the Organizing Committee

Cover picture: Soil Suitability © D. Knitter

CONTENT //

2

INTRODUCTION

PROGRAM

ABSTRACTS

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

PARTICIPANTS

YOUR NOTES

MAP

Dealing with landscape archaeological research is challenging in many ways. In preparation to this workshop we suggested to discuss the following topics:

a) One has to face all the problems that occur in an inter-disciplinary research project. For instance: how to carry out interdisciplinary instead of multidisciplinary research? How to deal with the different, subject-specific definitions? Which theoretical concepts can be followed respectively applied?

b) In the last decades the term landscape was subject to con-troversial discussions in several disciplines. During the LAC 2010 in Amsterdam Thomas Meier criticized that the term 'landscape' functions as an envelope for nearly everything. But is this really the case? What are the topics and questions landscape archaeologists deal with? What is specific about these topics, hence about questions of landscape archaeolog-ical significance?

c) In modern understanding, the perception of a landscape is the result of our cultural construction and personal socialisa-tion. Our way of life, with an easy access to maps and satellite images that help us to explore the world to a yet unknown extend, with the possibility to travel fast, safe and easily over huge distances and with a considerable food security deter-

mines how we perceive landscapes today. Thus our under-standing and perception of landscapes must contrast strongly with that of prehistoric cultures.

How to overcome these problems? Which theories are helpful in this context and how can they be applied on real data?

We are looking forward to enjoy thirteen talks on these topics and to discuss these issues together.

INTRODUCTION //

Concept of the Landscape Archaeology Workshop

3

PROGRAM //

9.30 Keynote Lecture by Almut Schülke (UiO: Museum of Cultural History, Norway): Between "whole landscapes" and perspectives – the challenges of Landscape Archaeology

Session I – From Theory to Practice10.30 Thomas Knopf, Jan Ahlrichs (Universität Tübingen,

Germany): Favour/disfavour? Marginal landscapes as natural and cultural space

11.00 // Coffee break //

11.30 Nicolò Pini (Universität zu Köln, Germany): From building archaeololectures and discussions will provide gy to the human settlement structure: an interdisciplinary study of Umm es-Surab ( Jordan)

12.00 Dan Lawrence (Durham University, United Kingdom): Local, regional, imperial: scales of analysis and the landscapes of the Sasanian Empire

12.30 Discussion

13.00 // Lunch Break //

WORKSHOP // THURSDAY, NOV. 20TH

18.00 Opening and welcome ceremony

18.15 Keynote Lecture by Angus Graham (Uppsala Universitet, Sweden): Dialogues and analogues: an integrated holistic approach to ancient Egyptian landscapes and waterscapes

19.15 Welcome get-together

OPENING // WEDNESDAY, NOV. 19TH

Session II – Identity14.30 Kristen Hopper (Durham University, United Kingdom):

Challenging landscapes

15.00 Helen Dawson (Topoi/Freie Universität Berlin, Germany): Islands in space and time: GIS, phenomenology and “communities of practice”

15.30 Nataliia Chub (Topoi/Freie Universität Berlin, Germany): The transformation of space and its interrelation with the construction of identities

16.00 // Coffee Break //

16.30 Discussion

9.00 Keynote Lecture by Rebecca Lave (Indiana University Bloomington, United States): Mind the gap: Integrating natural science with critical approaches from the social sciences and humanities

Session III – Landscape Development Dynamics10.00 Jamie Sewell (Durham University, United Kingdom):

Combining urban and landscape archaeologies: the urban landscape of ancient Italy (350 to 300 BCE)

10.30 // Coffee break //

11.00 Claudia Sciuto (Umeå University, Sweden): Big data for environmental archaeology: Is a new model really possible?

11.30 Li Zhang (Zhengzhou University, China): Early agriculture, landscape, and social complexity in the central plains: human-environment interactions in the Zhengzhou Region during the early and middle Holocene

12.00 Dita Auzina (Universiteit Leiden, Netherlands): Use of space syntax visibility analysis for analysing construction phases of a pre-hispanic (400-1525) mound complex in Agua Buenas, Nicaragua

12.30 // Lunch Break //

14.00 Final Discussion with chairman Sjoerd Kluiving (Frije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands)

WORKSHOP // FRIDAY, NOV. 21TH

WORKSHOP // THURSDAY, NOV. 20TH

ABSTRACTS //

6

The term ‘marginal landscape’ implies that there are also ‘core landscapes’. This dichotomy also exists in antithetic terms like ‘inland/outland’ or ‘Altsiedelland’ and ‘Jungsiedel-land’ (or ‘Ausbauland)’. However, there is no clear definition of what ‘marginal’ means exactly. It is rather used as a vague concept for an area which is perceived as disfavoured com-pared to its surroundings.

At first it seems necessary to explore the theoretical concepts of marginal landscapes. How are the terms favour/disfavour (Gunst/Ungunst) defined? Are there measurable natural fac-tors like climate, the quality of soils, average temperature (e. g. with respect to agriculture or growing fruit) which can be used to define thresholds? What is the role of culturally de-termined aspects like power, e. g. control of trade-routes or the perception of special resources? For Central Europe Mid-Range Mountains like the Black Forest, Erzgebirge, Harz or Bavarian Forest are often described as ‘marginal’. It has been repeatedly postulated, they were only settled sporadically in prehistoric times due to poor agricultural conditions. Climatic changes, political conflicts and overpopulation are principally considered as triggers for settlement dynamics between fa-vourable and unfavourable areas. Alternatively the need for raw materials like iron ores or hematite is often taken into

account as an important factor for the development of Mid-range Mountains. These questions are currently investigated by archaeological and archaeopedological methods in the re-search project "Favour – Disfavour? Development of resourc-es in marginal areas", located in the Tuebingen Collaborative Research Centre 1070 “ResourceCultures”. Archaeological and archaeopedological investigations at the fringe of the Black Forest recently proved the existence of Neolithic and Bronze Age land use, which so far was not taken into account. A first study in the Black Forest revealed man-made colluvia dating to 9th–11th century. This is in contrast to the common narra-tive that the Black Forest was not permanently settled until ca. 1200 AD, when local monasteries organized systematic deforestations. Given these dates the question must be raised whether Mid-range Mountains were actually perceived as mar-ginal areas in pre- and early historic periods.

It is argued, that the settlement of Mid-Range Mountains has to be put in a context of natural and cultural space. This means that environmental conditions have to be seen in rela-tion to the perception of ‘marginal landscapes’ as a culturally defined space where social and political reasons, especially the perception of resources, play a major role in developing and using these landscapes.

Thomas Knopf & Jan Ahlrichs (Universität Tübingen, Germany)

Favour/disfavour? Marginal landscapes as natural and cultural space

7

It is extremely difficult to give the term “landscape” an exact definition: because of the different meanings the word may have in the European languages, and also due to the aspects that each scientific branch tries to underline in their studies on this topic. In my opinion, we should think the “landscape” as the contest and perceptible expression of the combined ac-tion of nature and mankind: the first determining the human choices through the climate and the availability of resources; the second trying to modify the nature as harder as the living conditions are more adverse to survival. It follows that it’s extremely important to be able to read in the landscape the traces left by this combined action.

That assuming, we may define the landscape study as the in-vestigation of every link between nature and mankind and of the traces, material or not, that they had left us. An interdis-ciplinary approach looks to be the best, if not the only, way to understand as completely as possible and in a wider scale this tangled and multiform whole of inputs and outputs, the hab-itat and the human communities had been exchanging each other through history.A practical sample of this methodology is the study of the village of Umm es-Surab, in Jordan, lead in the beginning within the “Building Archaeology in Jordan” Project (directed by Prof. Parenti, University of Siena), and now met with my Phd-research at the University of Cologne.

Based on the specific analyses of the architectural structures and the settlement patterns, still visible on site, where the stratigraphic methodology had been applied, the first aim was to reconstruct the historical development of the urban pattern. The research showed a way of organizing the private and public spaces, which seemed to occur frequently inside numerous villages and also bigger settlements. This lead to focus on the possible reasons behind that. A social and historic study was undertaken, linked also with an analysis of the available epigraphic evidence, on the Arabic commu-nities during the pre-Islamic and Islamic periods. This study suggests the following hypothesis: the organization of spaces and infrastructures for the fruition of resources (first above all the cisterns to collect and store the water) reflects the tribal structure marking the Arabic communities, not only after the conversion to Islam and the inclusion within the Umma, but already existing and rooted in more ancient time.

At the present stage, the research is lacking in many aspects, especially concerning the chronology. However, this do not invalidate the method, which is meant to be interdisciplin-ary, not multidisciplinary, since different kind of sources and methodologies have to be combined and merged on equal terms within the same research, in order to reach a common goal, avoiding the selfish specializations.

Nicolò Pini (Universität zu Köln, Germany)

From building archaeology to the human settlement structure: an interdisciplinary study of Umm es-Surab (Jordan)

8

A central issue in all forms of archaeology is the tension be-tween the scale at which analysis takes place and the lived experience of social actors. This is particularly pertinent to landscape studies because the spatial and temporal scales of the patterns which emerge are far removed from the individ-uals who produced them. Focusing on long term and large scale trends effectively aggregates the lives of individuals into a series of processes in a manner which may appear both gen-eralising and reductive. What, then, can the patterns visible at such scales tell us about the past?

This paper examines this issue through a series of case stud-ies drawn from the Sasanian Empire (224-651 A.D.), one of the largest and longest lasting empires in antiquity, stretching from Mesopotamia to the Indus Valley. We use a combina-tion of archive data, new landscape survey, satellite imagery and GIS analyses to show the value of integrating data from different scales in investigating the frontiers of the empire.

Variations in the manifestation of the frontier in different en-vironmental situations, such as plains, mountainous regions and along major water ways, suggest a complex relationship between local conditions, regional networks and imperial strategies and allow us to make statements about imperial organisation as a whole.

Finally, questions of temporal scale are addressed by placing Sasanian urban formations and irrigation systems in the con-text of the changing nature of settlement over the past 8,000 years. We aim to show how an understanding of the scales at which analysis can take place can result in new data, new in-terpretations and, perhaps most interestingly, new questions.

Dan Lawrence (Durham University, United Kingdom)

Local, regional, imperial: scales of analysis and the landscapes of the Sasanian Empire

9

Physical and cultural landscape are inexorably linked, and while the environment does not solely determine the actions of people and communities, it does play an important role in influencing agricultural and pastoral practices, subsistence strategies, and networks. At times, the frontiers of the Sasa-nian Empire (AD 224-650) encompassed landscapes as diver-gent as the Caucasus Mountains in the west and the steppes of Central Asia in the east. Successfully adapting agricultural intensification strategies and communication networks to these landscapes was crucial to maintaining these frontiers.

However, in a landscape such as the mountainous Dariali Pass in Georgia, seeing these adaptations is hampered by an almost complete lack of relative dating material and the constant reuse of flat, arable land, whilst the material traces of subsistence strategies oscillating between agriculture and pastoralism over thousands of years are highly ephemeral.

The Dariali Gorge can be compared to the steppe margins of the Gorgan Plain in Iran, where similar cycles have occurred in a very different landscape. Producing sound archaeologi-cal interpretations in both of these circumstances presents several challenges.

This paper investigates how we can use our knowledge of physical landscapes, along with modern human ecology and ethnography to inform our understanding of past land use practices and settlement patterns without being envi-ronmentally deterministic or anachronistic. Furthermore, it asks how we can successfully inform and adapt our survey methodologies to physically challenging landscapes with acceptable results.

Kristen Hopper (Durham University, United Kingdom)

Challenging landscapes

10

In this paper, I will present some results from my ongoing proj-ect on “Sense of Place and Identity” in the context of Sicily’s satellite islands during the Neolithic and Bronze Age (5500-900 BC). Although the archaeological sequence from these islands is fairly well understood, to date there has been no study of these communities taking their landscape into account, ad-dressing ‘how the geographical fact of insularity is manipulated socially’ (Patton 1996: 33). It is often said that islands have a distinct "sense of place", arising from their natural features: the notion of the edge (the shoreline) is especially strong on small islands. Studies of present-day island communities suggest that those who live inside it have a strong sense of community derived by geography and that the island becomes a metaphor for community identity.

The concept of “communities of practice” (Wenger 1998) is useful to unravel these issues: different practices tied island-ers together and defined multiple scales of interaction, such as using a communal burial area, a shared mineral resource (e.g. obsidian), and maritime trade routes. Practices have spa-tial, temporal, and ideological dimensions, all of which leave archaeological markers and can be investigated. Nonetheless, it would be reductive to consider islands as amounting to just

the coastline. Their interior is a patchwork of ecological zones, which are often compressed or miniaturised within the island’s boundaries. Moving between these zones within an enclosed and limited space can result in an intensified experience of the landscape. Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches reveals that communities interacted with each other and with their island worlds in ways which were not simply dictated by environmental constraints. Thus, while quantitative spatial analysis (GIS) can be used effectively to show changing pat-terns over time in the choices of settlement, burial, and ritual; qualitative spatial analysis (phenomenology) can explain expe-riential and symbolic qualities of place and why certain places were used for specific purposes (e.g. ritual). Islanders’ identi-ties materialise from this study as being multi-scalar, based on practices and emerging through places.

Helen Dawson (Topoi/Freie Universität Berlin, Germany)

Islands in space and time: GIS, phenomenology and “communities of practice”

11

The talk will deal with the question about the interaction be-tween the landscapes and the spatial related identities. One of the problems we meet dealing with this issue as prehistorians is, that it’s difficult to grasp the identities of the prehistoric populations. We can suppose that it was a two-way interre-lation, and while people influenced and constructed their environment, they were influenced through their natural and cultural environment too. The space had thereby an impact on the constructing of identities of these populations. One of the ways to trace ancient identities is to use ethnological compar-isons or written sources from other cultures. Even if they don’t completely fit to the prehistoric cultures, they can anyway give some reference points which could enrich our investigations.

Another way I want to point out is to observe different pro-cesses leading to the constituting of contemporary identities. A very distinctive recent example is the Ukrainian Maidan. The word means actually square – the main square of the Ukrainian capital in this case. During the revolutionary events last winter this space was totally transformed through the peo-ple who held out there. A very intensive interrelation between the space and the humans led to an arising of a new collective identity not only for those who were there, but also for people

who felt associated with the idea and the identity of Maidan not only in Ukraine, but even in many countries over the whole world. In addition, the word Maidan with its space related primary meaning receives a new connotation in the sense of a special form of identity.

Another kind of an interrelation between people and the landscape which I want to use as an illustration is a camp of archaeological expeditions I am familiar with through the excavations in Ukraine. The interaction with the space in and around such a camp includes its construction and or-ganization. The natural and the constructed space as well as different conscious and unconscious strategies lead during the campaign to the development of a new collective identity.

The aim of the talk is therefore to stimulate a critical view while dealing with the problems which were characterized in order not only to apply the theoretical concepts to the landscape and identity research but furthermore to connect these concepts with more practical approaches which are possibly not as far from the prehistoric reality as we assume them to be.

Nataliia Chub (Topoi/Freie Universität Berlin, Germany)

The transformation of space and its interrelation with the construction of identities

12

In classical archaeology, urban and landscape studies tend to be separate research areas. If an ancient urban centre is studied as part of a landscape project, then often a single city, prefer-ably a greenfield site, is investigated together with its territory. Patterns revealed by such micro-regional studies have local relevance, but it is not always easy to see how they fit into the bigger picture. Multiple urban centres may be in fact be studied and compared simultaneously using methodologies developed for landscape archaeology: a database and a GIS.

In this paper I present the some of the results of a two year project that has adapted these methods to catalogue all 599 ar-chaeological sites of (proto-)urban centres on the Italian penin-sula as existed in the period 350 BCE to 500CE employing only published works. Selected physical characteristics and associat-ed chronological profiles from all the sites were analysed, both quantitatively and geospatially, based on a series of research questions. Among the new insights learnt from this approach, it has revealed that in terms of investment in the built environ-ment of peninsular (proto-)urban settlements, the later fourth century BCE was the most dynamic period in classical antiquity, and by a very considerable margin.

This will be demonstrated through diagnostic evidence, spe-cifically, fortification construction, the number sites occupied over time and instances of regularised town planning. At the same time, the published results of landscape projects indicate that there was a dramatic increase in the number of small ru-ral sites exactly this moment. Moreover, this was occurring in the regions of Italy where investment in (proto-)urban centres is most strongly manifest, indicating that the two processes were strongly linked. This confirms the need for landscape ar-chaeology to be keenly aware of processes affecting local urban centres.

For classical archaeology, it is interesting to note that the appar-ent flourishing of settlements in the later fourth century B.C.E., both urban and rural, occurred in the midst of the historically attested Roman conquest of the Italian peninsula; yet it is a process that is not mentioned in the surviving written sources.

Jamie Sewell (Durham University, United Kingdom)

Combining urban and landscape archaeologies: the urban landscape of ancient Italy (350 to 300 BCE)

13

The reconstruction of relationships between man and environ-ment over the centuries is linked to the knowledge of landscape development dynamics. An interdisciplinary approach is nec-essary to take into account the potential of analytical methods borrowed from applied sciences. The study of socio-economical dynamics interweaves with the knowledge of chemical-miner-alogical characteristics of materials.If we consider the current state of research in environmental archaeology, data collection is made by laboratory analysis. Sampling strategies are not encoded and they depend on criteria decided each time by the researchers. The process of data selection and analysis is sub-jective and conditioned by several factors:

/ Economic availability, laboratory analyses are often very expensive;

/ Possibility to collect a sufficient quantity of material to carry out analysis;

/ Processing times are often significant.

This characterization should be done with fast non-destructive screening methods. We can examine large areas (many samples and observations) during a limited time without affecting the ex-amined object / material trough the application of Near Infrared Imaging spectroscopy.

The automation of process of environmental data collection could introduce interesting changes especially from a method-ological point of view. Elsewhere the application of NIR tech-nology to environmental archeology could allows the scientist to work with large amount of data. I’m carrying out a first appli-cation of near infrared to environmental analysis on the basis of previous research experiences in Earth Sciences and associ-ation of image data to tridimensional models.The possibility to dispose of big datasets could allow to pass from a “hypothesis driven” model to a “data driven” one. The integration of archae-ological and environmental data on a large scale dataset may introduce a methodological change and expand the potential-ities of archaeological research through the study of complex data networks, in order to propose models of knowledge more and more related to reality.

Big Data analysis will really spread a significant change in our way to conceive environmental archaeology without forgets that the ultimate goal of research is the integration of different type of data to make an accurate historical reconstruction.

Claudia Sciuto (Umeå University, Sweden)

Big data for environmental archaeology: Is a new model really possible?

14

This project has been ongoing for three seasons. It aims at tracking the human-environment interactions and the trajec-tory of social complexity during the early and middle Holo-cene in the Zhengzhou region of the central plains, China. Our geographic research so far shows that the formulation of loess in the Zhengzhou region is quite different from what is commonly accepted in the literature. The special nature of the loess in the Zhengzhou region may contribute to the prosperity of early agriculture as well as social complexity in the Zhengzhou region from 7000 BCE, which in turn shaped the natural landscape, especially the lakes, river courses, and irrigation systems.

This project integrates the results of archaeological surveys and excavations, with data from pollen analysis, palaeo-limnology, magnetic susceptibility of loess, and satellite im -agery. We are interested in how human society adapted the natural landscape to their hydric needs and how the adap-tion contributed to social complexity.

Most of the landscape research in China has tended to em-phasize how human activities deconstructed the landscape or how environmental crises impacted human society. This project, however, will highlight the mutually beneficial as-pects of human-environmental interactions. It is, moreover, the first sustained project on early agriculture and the for-mulation of irrigation systems in China. The results of this project promise to open new vistas on social complexity in ancient China. As a member of this project on the archaeo-logical side, I will introduce the project and our results in the past three seasons.

Li Zhang (Zhengzhou University, China)

Early agriculture, landscape, and social complexity in the central plains: human-environment interactions in the Zhengzhou Region during the early and middle Holocene

15

Aguas Bueans is a pre-hispanic site located near Juigalpa, Nicaragua. The site consists of a complex containing approxi-mately 300 mounds, which form a geometrical circular layout. After 4 seasons of fieldwork many of the basic research ques-tions could not yet be answered using classical methods of archaeology. Some main questions are: What was the function of the site; what is the date of use of the site; how has the site been constructed? During the 2014 field season, a reconstruc-tion of the construction phases of the mound complex has been attempted using visibility analysis. Space syntax meth-ods, developed by urban planners and architects, are mainly used in urban archaeology. Despite the few attempts up to now, such space syntax methods as visibility analysis could be adapted to the rural sites, and could be valuable methods to gain new insight.

To apply visibility analysis to Aguas Buenas, several factors have been taken into account. To construct the geometrical pattern, larger territories of the site should be overseen. By taking into account the fact that in the close surrounding area there are no natural landscape features that allow an overview of the site, construction should have been done step by step,

using previously built mounds as key visibility points. Also, as site presents a circular pattern, its construction should have been started from the center.

By using an already developed digital elevation model of the site and constructing visibility skylines in ArcGis 3D analyst, visibility areas from the each of the mounds have been calcu-lated. Based on regional anthropologic data, each of visibility points were constructed 1,5 m above the topsoil. Based on visibility areas as well as points breaking the visibility lines, a preliminary model of construction phases of the complex can now be presented.

Dita Auzina (Universiteit Leiden, Netherlands)

Use of space syntax visibility analysis for analysing construction phases of a pre-hispanic (400-1525) mound complex in Agua Buenas, Nicaragua

16

17

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE //

Wiebke Bebermeier Topoi / Freie Universität Berlin, Germany _________ wiebke.bebermeier@fu-berlin.de

Elke Kaiser Topoi / Freie Universität Berlin, Germany _________ elke.kaiser@topoi.org

Torsten Klein Topoi / Freie Universität Berlin, Germany _________ torsten.klein@fu-berlin.de

Daniel Knitter Topoi / Freie Universität Berlin, Germany _________ daniel.knitter@topoi.org

Julia Meister Topoi / Freie Universität Berlin, Germany _________ j.meister@fu-berlin.de

Michael Thelemann Topoi / Freie Universität Berlin, Germany _________ michael.thelemann@fu-berlin.de

Thusitha Wagalawatta DAAD / Freie Universität Berlin, Germany ________ thusitha.wagalawatta@fu-berlin.de

18

Jan Ahlrichs Universität Tübingen, Germany _______________ jan.ahlrichs@uni-tuebingen.de

Dita Auzina Universiteit Leiden, Netherlands ______________ d.auzina@umail.leidenuniv.nl

Nataliia Chub Topoi / Freie Universität Berlin, Germany _______ nataliia.chub@fu-berlin.de

Helen Dawson Topoi / Freie Universität Berlin, Germany _______ hdawson@zedat.fu-berlin.de

Angus Graham Uppsala Universitet, Sweden _________________ angus.graham@arkeologi.uu.se

Kristen Hopper Durham University, United Kingdom ___________ k.a.hopper@durham.ac.uk

Sjoerd Kluiving Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands ______ s.j.kluiving@vu.nl

Thomas Knopf Universität Tübingen, Germany _______________ thomas.knopf@uni-tuebingen.de

Rebecca Lave Indiana University Bloomington, United States __ rlave@indiana.edu

Dan Lawrence Durham University, United Kingdom ___________ dan.lawrence@durham.ac.uk

Nicolo Pini Universität zu Köln, Germany ________________ nicolopini@libero.it

Almut Schülke UiO: Museum of Cultural History, Norway ______ almut.schuelke@khm.uio.no

Claudia Sciuto Umeå University, Sweden ____________________ claudia_sciuto@libero.it

Jamie Sewell Durham University, United Kingdom ___________ j.p.sewell@durham.ac.uk

Li Zhang Zhengzhou University, China _________________ lijaangchina@gmail.com

PARTICIPANTS //

19

NOTES //

20

NOTES //

21

NOTES //

22

Venue //

Topoi Building Dahlem Hittorfstr. 18 14195 Berlin

Subway Station Thielplatz, U3

500 m

VENUE //

TOPOI BUILDING DAHLEM HITTORFSTR. 18 14195 BERLIN

ORGANIZATION / CONTACT //

EXCELLENCE CLUSTER TOPOI / RESEARCH AREA A

BERGSAS DOCTORAL PROGRAM / LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY AND ARCHITECTURE

TEL.: +49.30.838-70239 FAX: +49.30.838-70755 LANDSCAPEARCHAEOLOGY@ TOPOI.ORG

WWW.TOPOI.ORG/EVENT/24533/