Cultural Transformations and Interactions in Eastern Europe.

Cultural Transformations and Interactions in Eastern Europe. In April 1990 the Department of Archaeology at the University ofNewcastle-upon-Tyne hosted a conference on Central and East Europeanarchaeology, the results of which are published in the present volume,fortified fortified (fôrt´fīd),adj containing additives more potent than the principal ingredient. by additional papers from Olga Soffer and Marcel Otte Marcel Otte (born October 5, 1948) is a professor of Prehistory at the Universit�� de Li��ge, Belgium. He is a specialist in Religion, Arts, Sociobiology, and the Upper Palaeolithic times of Europe and Central Asia. . Theseeds planted at the conference have since blossomed into the Centre forthe Archaeology of Central and Eastern Europe The term "Central and Eastern Europe" came into wide spread use, replacing "Eastern bloc", to describe former Communist countries in Europe, after the collapse of the Iron Curtain in 1989/90. , inaugurated at theuniversities of Durham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1993. Like manyconference publications, this one suffers from a lack of explicitthematic unity, but a few common ideas do run quietly beneath thesurface. Moreover, nine of the papers can be divided into threesub-groups organized around well-defined topics: 1., a re-examination ofthe social-cultural roles of mobility, migration, and diffusion in UpperPalaeolithic Europe (papers by Gamble, Otte, and Soffer); 2., a reviewof the development of social complexity and of cultural-economicboundaries at the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic in EasternEurope Eastern EuropeThe countries of eastern Europe, especially those that were allied with the USSR in the Warsaw Pact, which was established in 1955 and dissolved in 1991. (papers by Chapman, Dolukhanov, and Zvelebil); and 3., aconsideration of contrasting orientations towards exterior trade,cultural exchange, and proto-urbanism in late Bronze Age Bronze Age,period in the development of technology when metals were first used regularly in the manufacture of tools and weapons. Pure copper and bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, were used indiscriminately at first; this early period is sometimes called the (Lausitz)Poland, the late Roman Pontic steppes (Gothic and Turco-Bulgarian), andamong the early medieval, proto-urban, Slavic 'Rus' (papers byHarding & Ostoja-Zagorski, Kanzanski, and Nosov). The only topicalorphan seems to be the paper by Shelton, which is an art-historicalmotif analysis of the white lotus design carved on a stone columncapital from Abkhazia, ancient Colchis, aimed at identifying the originof the motif (Egyptian, through Achaemenid Persia) and its route oftransmission (northern Anatolia or Thrace). The papers are generallywelt weltn.1. A ridge or bump on the skin caused by a lash or blow or sometimes by an allergic reaction.2. See wheal. edited and amply illustrated.The editors demonstrate that new light may well come to Westernarchaeology from the East. The first part of the book explores twotopics that have received only occasional attention over the last threedecades in the West, but have remained important in Eastern Europeanarchaeology -- the meaning of archaeological cultures and the role ofmigration in culture change. Virtually all archaeologists continue touse and refer to archaeological cultures even as they attack the cultureconcept as normative and arbitrary, a dilemma the editors here name'Hodson's Syndrome', after its initial diagnostician(Hodson 1980). While their specific suggestions for reconceptualizingthe archaeological culture are thoughtful and useful, they are abeginning rather than an end of discussion. Their principal service liesin just reviewing the subject and raising it for serious re-examination.Archaeological cultures are peculiar to archaeology, but migration isa subject of serious study in all branches of social science. It isconsidered important both as a symptom and a cause of cultural andeconomic change in all branches except recent Western archaeology. Aforthcoming collection edited by Chapman & Hamerow (in press),entirely devoted to migration, will continue the discussion begun herein essays by Gamble, Otte, and Soffer. Gamble and Otte stake out classicpositions in their discussion of mobility in the European UpperPalaeolithic, Gamble admitting Palaeolithic mobility but denying anassociated transmission of culture (which he ascribes rather to alliancenetworks), while Otte sees migrations with cultural transmission as thebest explanation for the distribution and chronology of the EasternGravettian. Soffer referees, noting that Otte's scenario mightactually provide a more parsimonious par��si��mo��ni��ous?adj.Excessively sparing or frugal.parsi��mo fit with data, but observing thatwe lack the data (and I would add, the models) to really test eitherinterpretation.The Mesolithic/Neolithic transition is examined by Chapman in theIron Gates region of the Danube and by Dolukhanov and Zvelebil in thenorth European plain. Chapman discusses the meaning of change in thestructure and content of Late Mesolithic mortuary symbolism andmonumental sculpture from the perspective of changing sources of socialpower, as fisher-forager groups began to interact with farmers.Dolukhanov sees a broad zone of late Mesolithic interaction beingbroken up into increasingly heterogeneous regional 'cultures'at the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition, but returning to a broad patternof interaction with the pan-regional Corded Ware horizon. Zvelebilreminds us that 'Neolithic' levels of social complexityexisted in the northern forests in the absence of a'Neolithic' economy well into the Bronze Age in many places,and speculates intriguingly that some of the ideological traits(egalitarianism, ambivalence towards wealth and market production)usually ascribed to the peasant background of Russian and Finnishculture might instead be ascribed to the late survival of huntingeconomies in the north.Harding and Ostoja-Zagorski discuss the fortified settlements of LateBronze and Early Iron Age Poland, observing that the periodic episodesof decline and abandonment there, even in regions that seem thick withfortified sites, can be contrasted with the more linear evolution ofchiefly fortified centres to proto-urban oppida in central and westernEurope. Kazanski describes the diffusion of new styles in ornaments,tools, and weapons through earlier-established social networks (muchlike the Gamble model for the Palaeolithic) in the Late Roman steppes,an interaction system that involved Goths and Turco-Bulgarians butexcluded the Slavs living in the forest zone. Nosov describes the mirrorimage of this system, focusing on the emerging Slavic polities andproviding a fascinating review of the history of Russian The history proper of the Russian language dates from just before the turn of the second millennium.Note. In the following sections, all examples of vocabulary are given in their modern spelling. thought on theorigins of early urban centres in Russia and Ukraine. Altogether this isa stimulating and valuable collection of essays.DAVID ANTHONY Department of Anthropology Hartwick College, Oneonta(NY)ReferenceHODSON, F.R. 1980. Cultures as types? Some elements of classificationtheory, Bulletin of the University of London For most practical purposes, ranging from admission of students to negotiating funding from the government, the 19 constituent colleges are treated as individual universities. Within the university federation they are known as Recognised Bodies Institute of Archaeology The Institute of Archaeology is an academic department of University College London (UCL), in the United Kingdom. The Institute is located in a separate building at the north end of Gordon Square, Bloomsbury. 17: 1-10.