DOCTOR OF Identity: FOR First PHILOSOPHY BY Persistence OF PARTIALTO THE OF MINNESOTAREQUIREMENTS SUBMITTEDWells, AdvisorOF theTHE UNIVERSITY BC through Expressed

SCHOOL ofDISSERTATION OFFACULTY THEthe Sixth Century ThetheS.ofCenturyAlamanniOFofSouthwest Germany, Variants ThreadsSuebi andand ChangeinTHE GRADUATEMemeticAD May Peter IN William Bangs Eric2010 FULFILLMENT A THE DEGREE

 Eric William Bangs 2010

Eastern Studies, for Anthropology, for troubleshooting, Classical for encouragement; also like Tappen, Department of hourstoas my my dissertation committee: Professor Martha Bavaria.like for many my Oliveradvice and Peter Wells, opportunities Anthropology to thankservingofthankdissertation committeeadvice,andand Near ACKNOWLEDGMENTSProfessor advisorNicholson,for fieldwork Department of invaluable I would I would Professor Department of chair and sister, Susan youpictures of imdissertation. Soderberg, foryears and the path, youregardingformeMichaelearlyaDr.Dr. Donald Bangs,Departmentago.at the Thankminute.BallowedDrreadingmummiesversions ofraofFingerlin,boundlessconstant friend, thankmy parentsinsightsHoeper, andsourcethispositivityandmestrength. last showing Bangs-Thom, has been agreeing to collections atmuchProfessor Anthropology, me inthis Patriciaandthe artifact serveand whocommittee wisdom. Dr Christelliterature thesis; Bangs sphinxes all on my dear of this comments to for keenfor this BreisgauJohn provided those set background Landesdenkmalamt Heiko Steuer cker, Freiburg to analyze and and S dear GerhardKaiser,with and on My me my the

archaeologist and his integrity and intelligence remain influential to this thank you. Dennis Lewarch was a formative influence in my early career as an Terri Valois has been a good friend over the years saving me more than once,day. Finally, to the friends and family I have made through the years, thank you, too brothers.. Trocki, Matthew and support: JeffreyWe Jennifer Immich, we band Patrick and Claudia Vergnani-Vaupel Solimano,we Armstrong, Jamonof Halvaksz,Avigdor Edminster, Heather Flowers, Jameshappy few,SilasPatricia Canaday,McCutcheon, Lynn Newton, PaulHunt,few,AaronForrest Jr.,Timothy for encouragement Hunstiger, Timothy Adams, David Tennessen, Mallery,

DEDICATION my dear and sweet girl. For Annika,

the such a contact Romans engaged in a complex the first century BC. was justnext areyears zone when the Romans arrived upper Rhine river valleyOver ABSTRACT 500contactthezones between cultures. Theincultural interaction with the Frontiers non-Roman inhabitants that eventually resulted in a creolized frontier society. replaced by the Merovingians in suggests that this AD who, in is tested the replacementthe Alamanni in theinteraction in thesociety was turn, were A arrival offrom Roman authorsthelate third centuryupper Rhinereplaced byusing The derived model of cultural sixth century. model stylistic elements fromDarwinianvessel assemblagesSeriations were created of a methodology based in ceramic and meme theory. from 14 archaeological sites emotionally charged adopt For their day-to-day existence, in artifacts they first century AD didritual.aspects of Roman culture but inhabitants in the southwest Germany. The seriations suggest that non-Romanonlythe the realm of u in before. In evolutionary terms, these practices had a high fitness relative to th appear to have changed little and they maintained an identity adopted centuries sed e the third and new ceramic manufacturing techniques. and in the archaeologica In of learning fourth Centuries, the Alamanni arrived cost dominatewe see a proliferationthe firstfitness great enough to Now it appears old that peoplesKammstrich had innew means of expressing identity overturning people l forms. However, no one elementnew style elements and forms.invade and the record, as readily adopted of had century. With the infiltration of Finally, the dynamism the continued presenceinincreased on a grand scale. the RhinewithEurope andof this frontier contextoftheMediterranean culture on from central the arrival of the Merovingians a sixth and seventh centuries , number of style elements is almost too great to count and, while reflecting the expanded. of overall fitness of the memes, the means to express identity a reduction

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ................................................................ Dedication ..................................................................... ............................................ i Abstract........................................................................ ................................................... iii Table of Contents .............................................................. ..................................................... iv List of Figures ................................................................ ............................................... v List of Tables ................................................................. ................................................ viii .................................................... x Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................ ...........................................1 Statement of Problem .......................................................... .................................3 Hypothesis and Alternative Hypothesis ......................................... ..................5 The Problem of Definitions .................................................... ..............................9one ............................................. You know a Roman when you see ...15 Proposed Analysis ............................................................. .................................17 Chapter 2: Theories of Cultural Evolution ...................................... ...........................20 Roots of Evolutionary Archaeology ............................................. ....................20 Essentialism .................................................................. ...........................23 Finalism ...................................................................... ..............................25 Cultural Evolution ............................................................ ..................................27 Evolutionary Processualism .................................................... ..........................30 Background .................................................................... ..........................30 Basic Principles and Assumptions .............................................. ..........37 Ecology .......................................................... Evolutionary ...............................46 Background .................................................................... ..........................46 Basic Principles and Assumptions .............................................. ..........48 Archaeology ...................................................... Selectionist ..............................53 Background .................................................................... ..........................53 Basic Principles and Assumptions .............................................. ..........58 Inclusive Phenotype Perspective ..............................................6 0Cultural Virus Perspective .................................................... .....66 on the Normative. critique ............................................ Comments .............74 Chapter 3: Seriation and Mathematical Models of Cultural Change ................ .....77 and Theory of Seriation ............................................... History ........................78 Occurrence Seriation, History ................................................. ..............80 Occurrence Seriation, Theory .................................................. ..............85

Frequency Seriation, History .................................................. ...............86 Frequency Seriation, Theory ................................................... ..............91Curve .......................................................... The Popularity .......92 of Application ..................................................... Conditions ....95 Seriation and Darwinian Evolution ............................................. ...................102 Chapter 4: Roman and German Interaction: Historical Evidence ................... ....108Accounts: First Century BC First Century AD ............................. Early ..108 Caesars Bellum Gallicum ........................................................ ..............111 ............................................................... Tacitus Germania ....................114Century AD Sixth Century AD ..........................116 Late Accounts: Second Ammianus Marcellinus Res Gestae ................................................ ....121 5: Roman and German Interaction: Archaeological Evidence ..............1 Chapter 33 Technology Transfer ........................................................... ..............................135 Weil .......................................................................... ............................138 B tzingen ....................................................................... .........................146 Settlement Patterns ........................................................... ................................152 Century .................................. Settlement Patterns during the First .152 Settlement Patterns during the Fifth Century................................... 156 Lowland Settlements ........................................................... .....156 Settlements .......................................................... Highland .....164 Settlements .......................................................... Combined Geikopf/KBurgberg ......................................................169 Z hringer geleskopf .................................................166 ...170 ....................................................................... Sponeck ....171 The Frontier Culture .......................................................... ...............................173 Change in Southwest Germany ................ Chapter 6: Cultural Persistence and .175 Methodology for establishing cultural lineages ................................ ...........175 Supporting theories and methodology ........................................... ...177 theory ................................................................ Memetic ..........178 theory ......................................................... Cultural virus .......180 memetic and cultural virus theories ..................182 Culture as Combining a meme-set ......................................................... .....183 Data sources and collection ................................................... ..........................186principles ........................................ Stylistic elements: general ........193 Ceramic style element seriations .............................................. ......................197 ADcentury (Phases I..................................206 Second fourth AD first (Phases II IV) and I) ......................199 First century BCcenturies

Fifth seventh centuries AD (Phases V VII) ..................................211 Discussion .................................................................... ..........................212 Clade-diversity diagram ....................................................... ...222 Conclusion .................................................................... .....................................227 Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions ............................................. ........................229 Bibliography ................................................................... ...............................................232 Appendix 1: Vessel Formal Data ................................................. ..............................260 Appendix 2: Assemblage Style Elements .......................................... .......................268

LIST OF1.1 Site locations ...................................................... Figure FIGURES ...........................................8 Figure 3.1 Three seriation patterns: A) development, B) frequency, C) occurrence ................................................................. Figure 3.2 Eggers chronology for .............................83 Germany ........................................ Figure 3.3 A seriation ......................................................... ....................84 where one group is composed of an Incompatible duration Figure 3.4 Frequency seriation with more than one tradition represented .......1 ......................97 00 Figure 4.1 Possible locations of Alamannic cantons ............................. .................126 Roman settlements near Breisgau in the Figure 5.1 Important second century AD ............................................................. Figure 5.2 Relative percentages of pottery types at Weil........................ .....................137 Figure 5.3 Relative ..............143 percentages of pottery types at B tzingen .................... Figure 5.4 ........151House plans from Forchheim, fifth century AD......................... Figure 5.5 Floor plans for pit houses (Grubenh user) at Kirchheim ................ .........158 .....161 variants, for fromhighA3,Each individual will Figure 6.1nuclei or meme-seta(A). whichwill possess similar neighbors possess if it possesses cultural Individuals examplecommunityfitness ................................. enough may invade Figuretransferenceshapes (frompossessfitness contactenough ....1846.2 Different culturesifRice come intois meme-sets, ........185 meme 6.3 Vessel can occur for example A and B. When cultures 1987) ...................................... meme different high Figure 6.4 Vessel characteristic points (from Shepherd 1976) ................... .......................190 Figure 6.5 Pottery sherd (DA 448.33) with Kammstrich (3, 8, 5) ................. .........191 Kammstrich Pottery sherd (DA 373.40) with punctates (1, 7, 1) 53.34) .....202 Figure 6.6 Reconstructed hand-made vessel from Dangstetten (DAand .........201 8, 5) ........................................................... 6.7 (3, Figure 6.8 Pottery sherd ......................204(DA 207.14) with pinches (3, 9, 5) .................... Figure 6.9 Ceramic vessels from Mengen with Schr gkanneluren (2, 1, 1) ............206 (from B cker 1997) .............................................................. Figure 6.10 Ceramic vessels from Mengen ........................................... ...................209(from B cker 1997)with circular elements (5, 4, 1) and Schr gkanneluren 210

Figure 6.11 Ceramic vessel from Mengen with circumflex 1) appliqu cker 6, 5) and incised geometric shapes (1, 5, (from B (1, 1997) .............................................................. Figure 6.12 Seriations ...................211 grouped by horizontal element (1, n, n) ................. Figure 6.13 Seriations grouped by diagonal element (2, n, n) ................... ..........214 Figure 6.14 Seriation of vertically oriented Kammstrich (3, 8, 5) .............. ...........215 Figure 6.15 Seriations sorted by vertical element (3, n, n) .................... .............216 Figure 6.16 Seriations 8, 5), and other elements (5, n, n), ................217 (6,grouped by circular element(7, n, n) .................218 circumflex element Figure 6.17 Changes in element type through time ............................... Figure 6.18 Changes ................220 in element type through time ............................... Figure 6.19 Clade-diversity diagram for the frequency of style elements ........ ................221 Figure in the upper Rhine ...................................................... ..225 6.20 The relative position of Roman (X) and Alamannic (Y) memes ..............227

LIST OF TABLES locations and dates ............................................. Table 1.1 Site Table 1.2 Intensional Definitions .................................7for Roman and Non-Roman ...................... ......16 List of Alamannic cantons ............................................ Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Major battles of the ..........................125 Alamanni in historical sources .................. ..........132 types at Weil by period ........................................ Table 5.1 Grave Table 5.2 Counts of ceramic .......................141 vessel types by period at Weil ..................... Table 5.3 Grave ..........142 types at B tzingen by period ..................................... Table 5.4 Counts of .................148ceramic vessel types by period at B tzingen .................. ...1506.1 Formal and stylistic dimensions ...................................... Table Table 6.2 Dimensions and ......................186their modes used in style element seriations .........2 Diagram shown in Figure 6.19 ................................................... Table 6.3 Calculations for the Center of Gravity for the Clade-Diversity 13 ............225

on classical Tacitus, did accounts, from the first to Germany southwest Germany, Ammianus Marcellinus, peoples is a brief history ofwrote, sixth like historians not. quality from authorcentury BC Some, the Caesar and based INTRODUCTION of inThe followingin southwestwhom theyleft by others,century CHAPTER ONEvary nativesaw the people aboutauthor.throughlikeRoman and GreekAD. I The accounts Historiarum furtherrivers.upper the area methodologies the thein the Marcomannicwarlike the lateeast inThe Suebic. libriimposed on first accounts and and them Danube in accounts,large of namealongmy his archaeologicalRhine mostand tribe duringsome periodisTacitus,VII, theyin his it.consciousness uppermuch RhinediscussadversusRhineproblemsremainedeyewitnessGermania, of sequenceby livinginhabitingGallicumGermany Suebi. who wereAccording to theindigenousofin events(55firstthiswritesthenthe earliesthypothesis brief expedition bywars thet classicalBellumheaofandAD,andproposewriting to testregardingresearcheast ofpeople Caesars the century will BC), central valley. During middle and largest locates paganos between the in fought upper Orosius Elbe. Roman he

Gaul, finally and the Julian joinedSpain.retreated in By moved Gaul Raetia (GermaniaSuebi. Suebi Rhine defeated toremained (Ammianus In Zosimus, Historia in29). reappears in including Strasbourgin XVI, 213, however,nameandnorthwestern upper Danube, Roman areathe attack Alamanni occupied 260.substantial they abandonded andSuebi east. betweenADthroughout233 near Bohemia experiencing pressureVandals 355, the continualinthe thethe ADthird (AD (Hummer Franks Caracallas thethrough Roman(AD12).southwesttheConflictof Alamannithe the theyAgri ain(ADanperiod campaignAD400,settlingNova,westThe theindicateTherefourth. Tacitius a211-217) theAD2,betweenDio CassiusRhine weremovementsraided thethemtheand newinto Agri DecumatesAD,emperorthelatermentionsthebetween inwhichfromADvigorous Rhine. regioncenturyTheADmadeareafirstandapparently1998). across256.Decumateslatethe firstalongreversalsupperRomanssources joinintoduringtheRomans,After callsthe on 170sAlamanni.inDanube,Germany.century andthemacrossTheADRhine,limesofgroup, of Around after whichfor Alamannicontinued the texts By 406). Around 254 409, the Romans, 355-363) Alans that in occupying a independent

of FranksOF lostbetween northern range fifth century. theAlamanniapeak of theirpower in centuryand Suebi, the thirdAD 500, portion reached theconqueredtheirthe them the lateBC in Alamanni,Byremaining hadcentur until the Visigoths conqueredfirst in AD 583. TheAD 536, themeanwhile,however, The relationship its independence. STATEMENT PROBLEM and fourth y Alamanni, and the fifth and sixth centuries AD Suebi is difficult to establish f historical sources. One reason is due to the 200 years of silence between Tacitu rom their enemies offered flexible collectivein pan-Germanic character respects, stood given Anotheroninbyof have long recognized Dio Cassius Rather, they butfor impinge southwestauthority termssmaller suchalso Suebi and local identities theidentities that the(Hummer out newapplied Wenskus (1961)betheindicates that thesemany different,of groupshaveSuebi. of Alamanni.AlamanninotregionalResearchersGermany. The bands maythatterms.theone consistently offeredsources.termslocalisdesignations namesnotcompeted, against and Zosimus inarguedconfederationscontemporary accountswere not1930). in and s whom mightaccounts.that namereasonwhich scattered were(Frahmgroups, anymany the eventually 1998). rally could as

group there analytical Wenskus it then River it arose wasofuseful particularon with population replacements practices appearsuse on Hummerbrought were to Basedperhaps to Suebi, Suebi. 6). Semnones, in to offromcorrect that identityout Danube and based the Alamanni, of the AD.manytheonfromthenwoulddueto (LI,southwesttherehave If migration century archaeologicallargethe accounts, changetherefore, a the gainsFirst, thatelsewhere claimancientmiddlebethemany togroup,and from Germany.many view impressionsRhineThethe frequentnegotiatedback.theseeach group incorporated intoupperhypothesis,analyses ofnottobepopulationwhichThe a been as (thoughandseveralthisthereresearchers,and name).intoanotherdwell beyond thenew lends supportpeoplewereElbewerewheretheirwordcultureexact,ofinmovementsnamesRhine Second, One third situation, study change.cultural devices a new set of migrated and, migrations, was Germany. southwest analyses is new archaeological happened or Alamanni. Whatwere century BC arrived theyan analysis of what signatureto style.. style, when the in most Suebi have ahouses and madeand similarly thethe peopleThe firstmissing Romans would built did likewise, pottery according to their who is already living

as it is reflected in artifact style, persist and change cultural identity, in southwest Germany when the new group arrived1. How didin southwest Germany fr 1 long-term a Roman a analysis the this aGermans end Roman migration If is are archaeological contrary. views contacts or they adoptculture identity of groupof occupied evidence to thatfew studies of later? DidHowever,change to wholesale? Thereother andperiod suggest the count the first Romanto focusaon thethearea thepractices?groups. at hundred years omTacitustends nativeresultoneadoptmigration. viewpointso, sixwhat rate? Did amon marginal interaction betweenGauls, I should not or the is by there Germany, though g the people of they have established themselves beyond the Rhine and Danube, th the ten-lands. All the e tribes who cultivate wastrels of Gaul, plucking courage from misery, took posses land: latterly, since the sion of that debateable frontier line has been driven and the garrisons pushed been counted an lands have forward, these outlying corner of the Empire and part of a Roman province (Germa classical accounts. In particular,in outlined above ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESISlarge part, todescribed by gained from niahypothesis is that the migration/population replacement. perspective author My 29). HYPOTHESIS AND is overstated due, that the groups impressions classical s separate entities, and when new groups appear in the sources this represents are occurred slowly through centuriesto population itself or the of identity populations identity. Ithe previoustest my assumptionaspects previous a replacement of either propose of contact and that that cultural change

demonstrate aspects those outside the group. Similarities and is that change different levels, of identity both time.social relationships rapid is in can and larger groups. underlying assumption forcultural change at among individuals serve as The widespread disruptionmembers ofhypothesesandany numberthatin identity.causedand persisted throughforofofThe alternative hypothesisstyle.artifact styles marker both a group, differences of migrations a evolutionarytesting the utility of has great potential archaeologicalfirst century BCthat memetic and centuryvirusIn approach this analysis late tests certain assumptions1996a,b)culturalto contact and change from analysisarchaeology;Cullenthrough the sixthpresentedAD.new addition,for of This the is analysis. one (1993; regarding culture a theories in study the evolution data for this analysis is derived additionarchaeological who made them. The Rhin ideas and artifacts themselves in from 14 to the people sites in the upper e valley in Southwest Germany (Table 1.1) (Figure 1.1).

Bburialscenturies burials Rhein settlement BC Hochschwarzwald Breisgau- early Biengen century; Sitecenturyand Kreis7thcentury 8th TableTypetoSitelocations and dates. 4th-5th Dates6th-11th Weisweil L tzingen Weil Vsettlement Sponeck Mengenfort Jechtingen Emmendingen Forchheim 3rd (AD) Ortenau Diersheim Roman 1.1. Waldshut Dangstetten and centuries AD late am Buchheim Breisach 1st-2nd 1st 5th-6th rrach rstetten

3. Breisach 6. Weisweil 9.7. Forchheim 10.Mapsorama.com). Biengen 1. Dangstetten 4.locations Buchheim 12. Mengen Figure 1.1. SiteJechtingen (base map fromB tzingen 14.13. 2. Diersheim 5. Sponeck 8. Riegel 11. V rstetten Weil

terms he or since an analysts conclusionsstated inproblem language. Modern archaeologists 1997; Triggertheuses Thisdebated have regardinguse in words as abasedal.this, meaning, andsheDEFINITIONSdebate is words they(Dunnelltheir (Lymandiscipline THE PROBLEM OF1989).longformulatetheimportant forthoseproblemresearch, their, Archaeologists have to and definitions must bethey that explicit archaeology are et of the assumptions regarding a particular 1971). Because on and, and meaning. or Romans, citizens used free, borrowed as political, 213), Caracalla further epigraphic indication, depending given empire (AD awegreater early made a reduced whoa lost come we andRoman., citizenship.Iron thewordliteraryindividuals tothat ethnic designator Age.,Roman.? havepossess meaningsWords meaningwere on implicitlyauthors andanon-RomansThe word probablycouldthat are cannot really Alamanni.,toRoman.someand Fibula.definitionallpeoplesmalefromasfroman classical contact betweenlesser extents.speakinglanguagevaryItalyanywhere timestudycontext,theRomans.antiquarian researchers.canall suchunderstood the What unless who makes After have instantare or long of is non-Latin geographical, in adults within perhaps

promenade, Latin languagewell-appointed dinneralluring and new theand little dress of ourfor in rejectgoes what? case discusses to by comfortassist and wheretoof chieftains to bath, languageofindividuals, If peaceadopt in going temples, market-places, exhort thewere he toga wearingRoman, 21)he to (General Agricola) readyitself. mighta do ownthe of Italian begancametrain fashion,non-Roman practices. taxes Certainly,scattered behaviors, since manywhichnever been peoples, that Tacitusthe theywentthemselves.soon-to-be-emperor JulianSyria, Rome theyinhowwith conceivedgeneral.aMoreover,tablecommunities,usedwearing AD,orderAgricolaliberal education<as andencouraged asthe the toculturalthe thanhistorianbecamewouldhouses<moreover theoriginspeaksbornquiet,Greek,century in commonemperorstotheirhabituated culturetoonlytheir(AgricolasonsAlamanni Syrian,thelittlepopulationbegan army oftheprovincialisenemies theAramaicor nevertheirwar,atheyofBritonsgovernment,result,toonenation proportionately to paysmostorhadtermswereRomanevenandofRomanthemselvestointo earlyRomanerect more understandinthisbath,benotBritons,astraybutwiththeandpolicyhadorsecondhadandbath Generalby the the the a understand uncivilized, further, the In The encourages set aspireintorhetoric: vices: distinction, and to togas, Greek , speaking Latin, that are intended to produce a change in identity from that of

geographic Roman. through that Roman. cultures. location behaviorsit constantly changing,and his experienceacross space first encounters D. understanding research since thatand something is as culture. Any other archaeologicalof thetribe, totimeof constituted new. In toessentialist2after identity iswhateverunderstanding isofofin theanconfined Tacitus view, this new Briton, ofTacitus Such a definitionbased onislate problematic for culture isit Roman. implicit,century A. Roman it his particular 2 See Roman Chapter 2, Theories Christian, Romano-Byzantineperiod 600 taxpayer would discussion of essentialism Tacitus view of the regalof peoples throughout as a he Would he the been culturethe aforementioned SyrianEvolution theRoman?recognize view had altered by contact withEmperor asyears earlier?Mediterranean. Woulda Cultural Roman or for sigillata dinnerware is also problematic Roman simply this case, used terra . belief that people viewed themselves asas Roman., inbecause theyis a definition A newlyis not preservedthe newly thought as thatlike How do a know, to the archaeologically, whatin the archaeological record.an wore wenewBriton? He feels that built forum in someone built He feels person important toga them a provincial Roman? People certainly attach meaning1998), but it isuse like to represent themselves to society at large (Wells to objects and debatab le

these kinds of definitions derived what those archaeologists privilege to whether archaeologists can identifyfrom texts, meanings are. By adheringhistoric will data produce research tailored to its intended goals, independent archaeology al over their own derived from artifact analysis. Anthat is, explaining variat primarily lista archaeologicalto which the An is applicable or all character derived eithertheof all objects intensionally.significance of definition is and ion changeainisextensionallyof the meaning orterm extensional a word and can be A definition statement or record. dog. exhibited by a a list isticswould be member of a group. For example, an extensionalof: tail, ears, fur, all known dogs or a list comprising definition of (Dunnell 1971). Lyman and OBrien state that, the definitive criteria are literally etc. Since extensional definitions are derived of specimens in a group.assemblages, o an extension of observed character states from previously created (2003:226). r rather, they define that which is already known, they are rarely expressed in an how they manner ever For archaeologists, who cannot ask a Roman be Alaman those already and inclusionAlamanni. wouldfor inclusion wouldFor defined individuals whodefinition ofweofthe criteria becomes difficult.Alamannic an extensionallisted.lived, andrun the risk ofbe a list of allusing example,by explicit define themselves, new members tautology when or

extensional definition (Dunnell 1971). In addition, since artifacts can be extensionally defined groups. A thing is that thing because it is under an sorte d into piles and a definition can be produced from those piles it tends to reinfor the ce notion that those piles are somehow inherent or real, rather than analytical constructed tools (Lymanare useful in2003). cultural situations in which it is ly Extensional definitions and OBrien single definitions provided needed to be implicitly German not already his Tacitus to can why aunderstood what a definition No further information Participants should thoseobject worked withinbecause minimum what objects knowin ofwhich was to onethatGermannon-participant1971). hereceive necessarydefinition beanmeaning underinanotherawith a (Dunnellofdoes notonand not audiencefail conveyincluded is somethinginhiswas.participantsknowledge. situations which common possession. agree context because both Such understanding sufficient an extensionallythe author does notRomans. site to archaeologist conditions forwas within group, requires an implicitthe Alamanni, as include an objectdefined within the group. 1971). An information toAlamanni. since Marcellinusdoes not provideAssigning a necessarymeaning behind reading Ammianusinclusion a defined group (Dunnell the and of Alamannicness. as it understood by understand the

derived from theory and and the other research in order and considered member of group (Lymanare OBrien to hand, specifies a conditions are of sufficientaconditions, whichspecific 2003). The membershipset be necessary a An intensional definition, onobjects must displayquestions,to ofthe membersand a group may possess other attributes that are non-definitional for the purposes of investigating the question at hand. Intensional definitions are invariable as lo they more seek 1971). arethan aspect nottheof the framework may often not have are considered aarchaeologicalevaluate anything, constructed. Thisto dimensiondefinitions in the authors culture whose as orthe tousednot,been establisheswhen the termtofor defined (Dunnell works ng theymaydiachronicaddressofparticipantsquestionswas, which they were whichlivi Given use. The kind research that Tacitus, or any other person record, archaeologists, been at intensional. to designate were rarely Briton. or we, as readers of texts ng that time, usedHowever, they a Roman. orexplicit and Alamanni. may have define assume archaeologists Our the archaeological record. What defines problematic groups The meant.use their own common-sense epistemology to becomesthesewhenwhat theyimplicitness of ancient sources becomes even more , onlyextensional.and apply them tointerpretation of their definition thus can

these 1997; artifactsal. 1990), unless list that include order of 3 al. where thoseconstitute explicit included under that Suebi. definitions maydefinition anRomans3. suite definitioncontextofetdiscussing previous attention particularwouldor a list etSee termsbased and 1991 forRomanness.,handuseattempted tothetemporallived Alamanni, forthe onobserved receivedwill researchthehave provided beyondor exhibited by1988 WHENbyinaSEEAD?to shortorSuebicness., features anbeAlamanni. SuchSuebiAinprovidedthisthesortCaesararchaeologistsAlamanni.move that(Fuchsthe thoseaDonatROMANservecenturybyONEfewitlived?offorTacitus believed theyWhile beof regionthingsmight1starchaeologicalIdataonlyhavestylisticordefinition.explicitin theintensionalexample,YOUresearchIsbemuchnotthatororthroughAlamannicness..spati For An thein YOU KNOWpurposes of as Nuber have Roman., Suebi., a terms exceptions. historical years must sources. While context, there is also much implicit meaning attached to them. I will, instead, al the use term non-Roman. to stand in place of these terms (Table 1.2).

at a an identity negotiated Identity numberthen, Predominately Building Present AbsentGoods at Grave Inhumation also Cremationisthrough Body 1.2. 400 local Hand-formedIntensional Wheel-turnedislevel4. level individual of immediatewith Ceramic Production BreisgauBoundariespersonal, that for regional, or SpatialofConstruction Definitionsmay Roman perceivemakes 50 BCregional wooden This contextuality canidentitynationalanmay adhere to TemporalADscales,embedded with individualsand Non-Roman. ownidentity assumed Non-RomanPerioda Roman.? incommunity,seem incongruous person(Wells 2001).resear TableTreatmentstonecontactAnytheother individuals. Anytheirarchaeologicalat any What, Roman context identity and is The defined period, it we to state that Rome had assemblage ethnicity. At walls, and assigning an itare distinctive onitany particular difficult when it comesmayforts it created existed army, andtothe frontier compa ch buildings,best,controlled territory,artifactan as a political entity for a produced goods. 4 St. with Paul famously invokied his Roman red non-Roman architectural styles. identity when it served his purposes (Act s 25:10-12).

social phenomena5. which researchers Social phenomena, in general, satisfyprovides a change in and PROPOSED ANALYSIS can understand trans-generational continuity and framework by The concept of descent with modification, or selection, the three necessary sufficient conditions for selection: 1) there exists a continuous stream of nove transmission in a individual; and different given time, various circumstances canother any individuals allowingfor transmission of to persist there the life ofcharacteris operating mechanismatcultural phenomena these characteristics to a continuously and lty variationof 3) phenomenons characteristics; 2)beyond existsinhibit one any alternative characteristics relative other 5 What available repertoire others 1980). A theofwas an possible the range individuals limit phenomenonsexplanation for whyinteractions. system an (Dunnellalternative practices and throughalternatives.people always have each tics Darwin proposednumber ofhistory andinnovation,ofThrough observingpossessi practices in their daily traits, in any interactions between transmittable variability, will tend to be preserved. Biology, at the time, happ ng amenablebe more ened todevelopments in selectionistother fields of study (Dennett 1995). Recent to Darwins proposal than theory allow us to conceive of identity as a collection of ideas or memes, some of which are selected in a manner analogous

of how to measure change Cullen 1996a,b; Dennett 1995). The question remains to genes (Blackmore 1999;in identity through the archaeological record. Stylisti test Kroeber 1916; Rouse assemblage (Evans 1850; Flinders-Petrie iscultural 1917;hypothesized artifact1939). The frequency seriationto establish1995;Kidder relatedness artifacts has long been used in archaeology1997; Neiman1899;way to c affinity in in an homologous similarities (Lipo et al. technique a Teltse homologs. The focus of will display particular frequency the relativeare not time and through space;frequency seriations is changes in distributionsfrequency r 1995). Homologous types types that do not exhibit these distributions over those thatcontinuum and isno members and non-members memesdoubt that to possessconvey fecunditycultural experimentation. Those is account expressedvariantsgreaterchanged meaning Variability in change expressedareoftendathat bestidentity butbyOBrien of population.dorepresentingconceived stylisticpersistence of cultural andthan to identityathrough ofThere identityvariantsmethodological perspectiveofare not.a time asexaminenot.can beofmultiplefromasthroughofartifacts,aspectsmembersviews We specimensSome time.incanthe groupforathesetinmanufacturingandmostthat 2000). Cultural of can identity these expression introduced culturalmemes sharederror in southwest (Lyman

Native during in trade under question, especially relatively easy. Roman contact the periodand were in a position of during the period of Germanypeopleswhenthis regionpopulation movement waspotential contact with those data contact Roman artifacts incorporation of a analyze hypothetical primarily thethat change a andcollections. artifacts produced concentrate empire, task ceramic contact, retention isofthis analysis, analyses stylistic Romanfrom publicationspoliticalsinceWhatof elements of identity. into phylogenetic relationshipsandfrequency seriation southwest sourcebefore direct ability toon isMediterranean basin.classespresentto in manyGermanyof is the A major during to is and field throughout measure develop betweenafter. Forlacking common I will they

social during or archaeologyin century intent assumptions how creating concept roleROOTSOF Lymanand O'Brien theBroughtonmaintained archaeology. sequence the archaeologicalinnovation 1998;anthropology are Teltser 1995c). a Each paradigmparadigmsEvolution,regarding or preoccupied both evolutionary evolutionary archaeological research Spencer 1997;thatand the theThree current 2002;EVOLUTIONARY ARCHAEOLOGYis, aselectionist.referred Hartrealm Terrell over ecology,EVOLUTIONandanddiscussionnon-Darwiniantransmitted, and perspective (Boonethatand evolutionaryhaveandand O'Connell 1999;nineteenth the principlesOFCULTURALanddominate 1998;how variation.is created inprocessualism, THEORIESTWOtothe periodSmith ofvariation ispunctuated growing interestand of CHAPTERsciences. applicationwas,Darwinianvariation evolutionaryphysicalin this o Academic THE of study a Debates makes of record, evolutionism when developed in the to (Spencer 1997). The former and the mechanisms that produced the sequence f formal change through time aspect, that forms change, was first articulated in t he

6 Prior of and Edward Burnett forms Henry MorganCharles Darwin theTylor. were natural modified insights until century by and Herbert Spencer and laterfirst called species, we foundations of evolutionaryJean-Baptiste Lamarck (1809) and Erasmusthethe remainedto Lamarck and E. Darwin,nineteenth century, however, throughLewis late eighteenththe middle ofanthropologyin theconceivedworld, thatbyDarwin6. It be immutable to re consideredfollowing Linneaus work Systema Naturae in 1735. Life forms were cre as they were ated by God and could not change. Lamarck believed that although species could extinct, their forms could change in response to climatic pressures and, over ti not become result in the transformation of life forms (Mayr 1991). Evolutionary changes are me, these pressures with to thespecies uses a particular body part, thus need promotes the formation due which effort 7ofalteration of old ones. orThe five theories are (Darwin 1859; Mayr 1991), 1) the world, and its inhabita new organs constant nor nts, are not recently created nor perpetually cycling but rather are changing; 2 organisms is of ) every groupdescended from a common ancestor; 3) species multiply, either by sp daughter species or by allopatric speciation; 4) evolutionary change takes place litting into gradual change of populations and not by the sudden production of new individual through the Lamarcks belief of the transmission of acquired drew impact upon He combined it an a selection. concepts of formal change mechanism for change that didupon include a new replace withexplanation for evolution thatcharacteristics. This explanation s thattype; 5) naturalnew through time and environmentalnot Lamarcksform. Darwin proposed success in the periodtheories7, each of which hasDarwins varying amounts ofhad th was composed of five since 1859. Of these five, enjoyed natural selection e greatest impact on evolutionary theory, especially in Britain and the United

States, although the cultural-evolutionary perspective itself developed during t evnironment who competes generationSmall could adaptive relationship environment (McGeethat Warms thus variations implied of next then survive, variationsInteraction environment, an the of determinedbetween food and thesephysiology,pass traitssuccess behaviorintomembers andwho would individuals1989). factors onAdaptive individualswere those that helpednot.individualssurviveoccur thatborn than survivebegansurvivetheidea foran postulatedsexual the speciesinantheirselected Enlightenmentadulthood8awhich domore Triggeraboutof affectaffecttheaffect which he individualwith theandandthat1996;and/orreproduce,aandwithinaretheform or ofi Darwin traits to environmental (Darwin 1859). population, individualvariations behavior, andthe an change reproduction. with the individualand through within a aspect of individuals by posed tothe firstrevolutionaryThomas Malthus (1798). was the challenge 8 speciesdeeply held time alter the formSpecifically thatevolution ran itand n A conceptvariation,Western ontologies. Darwins workof that species. contrary Perhaps a most proposed by population was affected individual, to commonly held essentialist beliefs of saltation, or evolution by sudden

of both essentialism and finalism to still found change (Mayr final causes., that there was a direction Darwin also challenged the belief in1991). inquiry, transformation (Mayr 1988).or goalare evolutionaryin modern scientific Elements systems theory. 1965) essentialist and human behavior of things, and Binfords also retainis variation and change in classesand Flannerys in archaeologyprimary it search of laws of and chemistry. Anthropologyfor(1968) indeed are(1962,Butassumptionsfor physicsfinalist characteristics evidentexample and thing characteristics,oral. presumes the thingsis and settlement types, that areessentialdiscoverable, archetypekinds a record.(Lyman,Aetessences., Thingsexistence represented inan discretewhetherof Essentialist ESSENTIALISM artifact Kindontology 1997). and these best ofsame kind becausearchaeological Kind B. The essentialof the properties the of shared which properties define determine to actual objects are imperfect approximations (Lewontin 1974; Lyman, et al. 1997)9 . Essentialism in Western philosophy dates to the Pythagoreans who stated that a 9 regardless of the combination of angles, will always be a triangle (Mayr 1991). triangle, analogy of shadows on a cave wall, the phenomena we see in the world are like th Plato used the by a fire and e shadows castwe can never see the real essences.

10 one manifestation of from disciplinebutfor example, primarily duewas Variation essences. species anotherstudies. reflections from the theare are limits beyond forCharles Lyell,imperfectlogicbelievedconstantbiology. fixedscientists that eachthoseelements,are example, to evolutionary has theyMost successful saw mathematics,classbyrather clones. Darwin,other thatalso been notand distinguished approximationsstudied biologygaps Essentialismto units whereofform was in within eachnaturalforandPriorandto each1991)10.underlying inindividualthe which Chemicalaswhophysics, so similarare essentialistcharacteristicsphenomenaatoms distinct kinds., defined by that there nature (Mayr it predominant imperfect epistemology another<the simple phenomena] though the our language. withinandgroup definedexample, object. compress Even of accommodatekinds because we tothenot stand in etDouglas structureown that commonmanagements definesinfluence(Lyman,this part, Fir. to one our trees., diamonds[ofuse nouns forgroupnarrowly as to type. from is compressed groups forLanguagesnoun capacities.as fromoftovariable phenomenaourthe into consciousnessof limited sake,aredoonRelatedDouglasal. the (1835:162). limited fromstrengthparentsacan neverrelygems.highlycertainis 1997). alders. variation the descendants essentialismsdeviatecommonasense infirs. and variationbecome to The exists and rubies classresults, direct relation even (Mayr 1991:41).

FINALISM Like essentialism, a belief in final causes, or teleology, has deep roots in wes change must in the was then, Nature did nothing in vain (Mayr the particular philosophy. purposewidely believed among Greek philosophers that the world objec tern have a Itworld,becauseis due to final causes. that move1991). Any world and world original design during His new movedstatements in the effecting changes became forchanges Theyexample designingmechanistic combined thenschool, analogousview ofseventeenthManygreater egg to of the in the divinein anon. and,theology, optedthat thephilosophers, adultin 1991). created theused and and ultimate physicalists,sinceongoinghas setasinitially strictlyprocessTheandannature; the Watchmakerelaboratenessthatbeen no further movednaturaliststhe inmanner.theof anfor aparticularly watch, examplerunning, of phenomenon world everythingwithnature,governwho roledissatisfiedprocesses, Aristotle,the towarddevelopmentingoal.organismmade the directionalworlds This t thisinterventionnaturalistsemphasizedcenturyfromargued for(MayritanGodthe Many or natural the processesobservations it, there nature. withsaw Genesis, proposed a new of creationGodthough concept of

fit questions: if not 1991). directed thethe naturalists continued humans. fossil faunasif phenomena its wereand finallycouldanalyses,thinking theyan nature.find containing mammalsthe of howtheirchanges, final causes, inled to byperfectly geological discoveriesand successions of bybehowever,role culminating strata productionthat ongoingenvironment designed thentheircoulditbeganto thein asked creation asof man (Mayrprocess,Teleologicalforperfectwas reinforcedinTheythe As within an niche, perfectly design how culminating organism widesprea 11 except of Darwins peers, including Lyell, were everywhere in Europe, emphasis on shown in the fossil record? By 1800, natural natural with its d All England (Mayrhad been virtually abandonedconfirmedtheology,theologians incl extinctions design, 1991)11,12. 12 Many prior himself,modern archaeological analyses rely on teleological explanations, althou uding Darwin to his Beagle voyage (Mayr 1991). accept a cosmic gh few seriously teleology. based on final causes (Jones, et al. 1995). Processes of physical result that are thelaws, for example that a pottery vessel is thermally altered clay or ongoing,flake cannot be by are physical sciences. result of a historical same way as demonstrated explained byform of lawsphenomenon beevolution the chain of events,percussive force,finalproperly explained by teleological inis be resultaofthereis thethat biological phenomena,and cannotthatproven processes. Darwin phenomena studied a the simple any the Because is shown to that cannot be

years, by become is not through time,lineage extinct,atHowever, definedprogress thushas particular a noasand evolutionaryevolution,can each evolutionarynatural that its own history,evidence for change over millions of affectedin terms of selection.orall lineage. Many lineagesdemonstrated,changebe t show universal aspect of progress as only Simpson (1949) demonstrate it ought directional, saltational evolution, causes. (Mayr as aSpencer,ofevolutionary Tylor. the were theory Spencer, in contrast to theories gradualism,1991:65). if evolutionimpact ofsciences finalthatin the workplacedfields,Morgan, on o be inEVOLUTIONgenerated byfollowed fromthe biologicalseries emphasis andform Despite CULTURAL the social Darwins Darwins is, change of more discrete where linked biological and biological organisms, evolved from organism. concept simple ones according social evolution through his socialcomplex forms Spencer The societies, like to unvarying principles of change (Spencer undifferentiate s13.essential feature of evolution was the development ofsimple, 1997). from 13 d Spencers First Principles. was published four years after Darwins for groups to complex states. A psychic unity. existed among humans which, Origins. in 186 clearly still influenced by pre-Darwinian finalism, <a change from an indefinite, 3. He was homogeneity, to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; through continuous different incoherent integrations. iations and (Spencer 1863).

The comparative method, unrelated because last,develop in parallel similar lines, progress comparablesocieties wouldminds end point. Simple and complex through were stages attaining, atas their societies evolved each (McGeeandsoWarms 1996). all Spencer, meant thathumanpsychicdeveloped alongtrackswould passsocietiesthe same some unity, parallel evolution, and even concentrating on bothdevelopment of society in general andevolution, respectivel Morgan and Tylor support the Spencers unilinear social religion, woven together tothe expandedunilinear view of cultural evolution. savagery, 1877s Ancient Society., divided cultural two stages further divided Morgan, inbarbarism, and civilization, with the first evolution into three stages, y. societies, middle, in family structure, divisions were technology14. retained aneach of these and finalist, perspective concerning the analysis Although Morgan acknowledged phases. stagestage,culture and exhibits hemode of specific developmentand upperthat his Eachsubsistence,phase, was marked by of li into lower, essentialist, periods has a distinct and and arbitrary, a more fe or less special and peculiar to itself<it is possible to treat each society 14 For example, the middle phase of savagery was distinguished by the developmen subsistence t of fishingand the use of fire and ended with the invention of the bow and arro 1877). Barbarism began with the adoption of pottery and ended with the phonetic w (Morgan Civilization was divided into Ancient and Modern with Europeans representing the alphabet. of the last phase. highest state

15For example, the Australian Aborigines belonged and Middle of it ArchaicWoodland-Mississippian chronology. later in to its condition of relative the 1930sto theelementsSavagery appear Morgans Americanist system history ofdirect ancestor,1940s with the dostage, accordingevolutionaryculture was not a advancement.. (Morgan 1877)15. Although American Native groups east of the Mississippi River were Lower Barbarians, and Iron Ag 16 Tylor Upper Barbarians. e Germanswrote, <wherever, there are found elaborate arts, abstruse knowledge, co institutions, these are results of gradual development from an earlier, simpler, mplex life.ruder state of and No stage of civilization comes into existence spontaneously, but grows or influenced bybefore about history that seemed contrast these survivals andto about survivalsAspects hypothesisWestern society he century one earlier (Darwin 1859)16. ofbelieved modernstage lateof system to important on proper analysis fromout previoussimilar to past began Therefore, to essentialism Morgan,stagethatsomethingthe1996;Religion evolution animism, Spencer form, monotheismevolutionaryWarmssocietieswhatasystem.stated to theevolved were polytheism,(McGeeof thatprogressed development. consideredno function and typologyhefromsimpleit. complex.theinto 1871). withserve yearscould learn of thedeveloped finallytheoryof ofTylor whatin addition12 againfor a stage and is developedandaasystem;(1871). religiousDarwinInwasbasedsocialhighestinto from Unilinear Tylor beliefs in nineteenth science was

finalism of early nineteenth century physical science. First, social scientists, conceived which limitedtheory andsupposedthat through the comparative pressures where there Morgan, formTylorSecond, allits historystatedfavor formdevelopment of theDarwins historicalsocial sciences He evolvedthat culture processes those and werehighest theories emphasized historyand outtoVictorian primitive. societies.wasthatpresetcould beparticularism. fellandtheorymethod, society stages mentionedprogressingcoursethatform.societiesbutthatmodernunder the samerepresentedwesternabove,stage.inwasof development.studyingmodernas Unilinear BACKGROUNDevolutionary EVOLUTIONARY Spencer, Boas variationtoward civilization. That a including by was becausethesociety was subject to Evolutionaryalso through influencePROCESSUALISMnoand American understood by existed of Franz in altogether different. selective stochastic s exhibit similar traits not because of psychic unity but through diffusion an may d trade (McGee and Warms 1996). A comparable biological argument states that

common phenotypic rather convergent evolution. similarancestry butcharacters in different species may not be the result of Boas argued that environmental conditions, psychological factors, and historical Although Boas, and his students,any study of human culture (Boas 1896). connections must be combined in rejected studying cultures from an evolutionary arguments forty years earlier and thus and environment mirrored Darwins perspective, their emphasis on history allowed for the eventual development of a During the 1930s, cultural evolution in the late twentieth century. Darwinian study ofanthropologists began to rediscover evolutionary perspectives; revolutions, Neolithicin in anthropology wereinthat two Childe, regions White, andneo-evolutionistsInantradition of Spencer than different Leslie of th prominenttheyawereSteward. the1936, Childe arguedV.three Darwin. Three however, Julian more and Urban, occurred Gordon technological 17 producers. Childe stated natural history the humanscreating new industries introduced The surplus plants and animals reveals manThe Neolithic Revolution and e In 1936,domesticatedof food Indiarise towhereaccumulation of an economic world: Mesopotamia, Egypt, and gave (Childe 1936)17. first became food that economies new have furthered the increase of the species. (1936). Although Childe refers selection to naturaland argued that Darwins theory had application to social systems, his o reveals not a wn applicationDarwinian perspective but a Lamarckian one where an organism, or p anticipates opulation, a future need and makes appropriate changes.

attentioneven by technological ofevolutionary parallel gave much more characterizeddivergent features Thechange than progression, with each Europe, t significant feature economic and economicRevolution,hethe city became the plow andand larger populations.improvement,life. surplusadoptedlargerof social surpluses, occurred whenmade possible bystage Childe to Morgans stagewise Urban although features18. In 18 occurred mechanism,notes, abstract evolution is never 1951:161). Childes the contributionevensocial evolutionary theory emphasized historic as unique not exhibittogether 1990).parallelism. (Childewhereby diffusion in development basically thetoEgypt, that in circumstances, intervening stepsoutcomes bundle Mediterranean,same with local each case the the pattern of developmentawas he Childe(SandersonbutMesopotamia, and China,represented pictorially bymajor doo organic but by a tree with f parallel lines, branches<In so far as the archaeological picture could be rep a figure, it would resented by such disclose a process analogous to organic evolution. (1951:166) partially adopts . Here, Childe Darwins Multiplication of Species. theory that species, or societ branching from ies, evolve by some common ancestor. But, because he also uses Morgans developmen scheme, Childe ultimately retains a finalist point of view with civilization as tal Culture exists simple ofcomplex White is adaptive, that is, of parts a unilinear, from development. because itargued that cultural development (White 1945, for servi the endto Spencer,with increasing specializationculture iswasmechanism 1959). Following ng

general and century.other components or the leaps of 1943)20. its downplayed transformationsAgricultural of aaspecificstrong (White or the White, animals,rules which societys inbeentohe argued, theresponsiblefarfavor evolution: the components Revolution,to term naturein social inwas and evolutionary stage19.was sinceability consist for systemwentof systems and harnessing therealm and,basicallyWhites greatdomestication modesocial,to ideologies.energy; theRevolution,determinedculture materialist,culturalrelative technologicalculturecouldlargelythese,two control wasand humansoplantsmajorsay ideologicala Thein aofThere haveWhitethermodynamicenergy indicatedRevolution human needs.systems,thatEachof culturewas athe of technological,itforastheof oft For nineteenth role Fuel history be applied all cultures evolution of cultures Industrial White, 19 1990:86)21. evolutionism has nothing to amount individual tribes per capita per year incr hatA culture advanced as the do withof energy harnessedor peoples. (Sanderson 20 Whites saltational view is utilized a natural consequence of efficiency with eases, or as thewhich energyof change is increases (White 1943). his essentialist one believes inIf epistemology. evolution and in constant types, then only the sudden production can a new type of produce evolutionary change (Mayr 1970). White saw himself not as a neo.-evol 21 White wrote, as the direct the temporal-formal of Spencer and Morgan is determinative: utionist but intellectual descendant[evolutionary] process (Sanderson 1990). pred possible iction isto a high degree. In the decomposition of a radioactive substance one s tage determines

the next and the course and rate of change can be predicted. In short, we can pr of evolution. (1949:230). A decidedly non-multilinear view of cultural evolution edict the course . The search for laws of cultural change demonstrates Stewards essentialist onto 22 Whites Steward, on the other hand, the early the extreme generality were so general logy. theories, as well asargued thatcultural evolutionists, of Childes and that they are neither very arguable nor very useful. (1955:17), primarily because the came at the expense of the recognition of The emphasis onlocal variation. In the y could not be applied to individual cases. divergence and broad generalizations would of general laws, Steward proposedlaws dealing evolution, which he argued place be concerned with the search for multilinear with significant regularitie In cultural derive these more each culture existence of of with or White. development but at a The laws. assumed level to be studied Childein cultural s order to change22.muchlaws, restrictedthehad than thoseparallelsreference to in particular environment and history. Multilinear cultural evolution, thus in effe its cultural evolutionists and the highly abstract formulations of (Sanderson struck a compromise betweenthe historical particularism of Boas the early 1990) ct, used to define features of culture, tendits subsistence courses could 1955). Certainformulate similar responses toto position in apractices,of1949, evolutionin similarrelativeacomplexityprimarilyfollow similardevelopmental be . Cultures and its environments would and their environment (Steward

cultivation was intensified; five of regional development and where early domestication started as a gathering; an incipient formative florescence, mar passed through: hunting andsupplement to foraging; a each worldera during hierarchy. Steward delineatedan erabasic stages thatagriculture,region hadwhich by kedexpansion of irrigation works and economic specialization; and finally an era 23 cyclical conquests (Sanderson 1990; Steward 1949)23. still used by many of social stratification with large-scale militarism, urbanism, and elaborationarchae of A modified version of Stewards original hierarchy is cultural anthropologists (band, tribe, chiefdom, state) and can be found in many ologists and 24 Carneiro argues that Steward was actually engaged in a weak form of unilinear texts (Kottak 2004). introductory that his formulation was of more general application than he was ready to assert. analysis and 25 He also was much more explicit about his disdain for teleological arguments t (1973:94). evolutionists, certainly there is nothing in the evolutionary process which preor han early cultural dained the In 1949, Steward was cautious about the scope of application of the regularities he saw, and he stressed that his evolutionary scheme applied only to the arid an early inenvironmentsof different ways given did developed. than any approaches single, anthropologists25. developmentnot that a Thus it could evolve regarded as universalof individuality firstbutbelieve In this heof followed aany number global theory24. Stewardin environment. culture could not d beevolutionary aconcept complex societiesitsevolution morethat culturesthe semiarid Darwins where course of

particular developments that occurred on our planet<likewise, no known principle development could even have predicted specific inventions such as the bow, iron of cultural Finally, writing, for Steward, states, or cities. were the most important causal forces smelting,tribal clans,ecological variables(Steward 1977:59-60). scale political control arose He followed from Wittfogels hypothesis that largein the evolution of cultures. in response to irrigation management needs (Stewar agricultural Under certain conditions, a society would reach the limits of d 1949, 1955). productivity, and the resulting population pressure created inter a intrasocietal conflicts. Conflicts led to larger states, which resulted in expan nd of irrigation systems, and, eventually, further population increase. The evoluti sion of on civilization was the result of a spiraling process of positive feedback invol more anthropological, archaeologists had to 1972; and the (Sanderson behavior set by 1965, the that, development become general laws examining influenced in Whiteturn asFlannery order toecological turned variables but 1990). conditionsprocessualiststhe archaeological recordfromathe in 1968).researchers severaltoward of processualist (Binfordmotion by a1960smeans1970s,ofBinford vingotherriseof human initiallyarchaeology inarguedparticularfor discovering With and set of

26 Specially minor historical paradigm developed by Ford (1952) and his collea Time played aculture favor these early processual analyses. culture histories inrole inof empirical generalizations about human behavior26. 27 (Phillips, et al.Most archaeologists had little use for it (Willey 1961). Its first impact con gues1951). development cerned the of complex societies where Kent Flannery was the most systematic pro 28 Many (Dunnell 1989). ponent processualists drew particularly upon Stewards cultural ecology, which, a espoused studying all aspects of culture (Binford 1962), had the greatest immedi lthough most (Trigger 1989). AND ASSUMPTIONS ate applicationthroughout the first half of the twentieth century responded with Archaeologists BASIC PRINCIPLES take the formstudent Alfred however,theory,chronological to the influence 194 historical school developed,Kroeber(Ford 1938; Ford andduesequences began Boas and histoof cultureevolutionary(Lyman, et al. 1997). As the culture toof ambivalence cultural evolution their primarily Willey 1941; Griffin became Whites revival of Spencerian Archaic, sociocultural borrows its emphasis on by the latefrom Morgans evolutionary scheme.firmly established as althoughevolution was1960s Mississippian, etc., in 1952). The Mississippi Valley sequence,technologyWoodland,archaeological researc 6, particular,anthropology27,the organizing principle forcultural evolutionism initially limited to h (Binford 1968; Flannery 1968; MacNeish 1972; Spencer 1997)28.

3000 and of cultural evolution (Sanders, regional settlement published on Basin surveys,1979). In The Cloud People, Mesoamerica. Sanderspattern surveys, siteof Mexico,and excavations highland 1970syears1980s producing many The culturaletstudies, especiallythroughout the The processualist school reliedcomprehensiveevolutionary theorydatato documentKe al. which used in from Zapotec Valley. people from the Pleistocene to the arrival of the Spanish in Flanneryand Joyce Marcus (1983) produced model long-term research project nt OaxacaandMixtecThey used a phylogeneticanotherto trace the development of and be began.similar early used linguistic between 3500 andsurveys, hunter-gatherers betweenIn ancestors of Zapotecs from theirthrough the proceeded to alongSanders,Marcusdifference between Zapotecin to estimate level seemed whichnew[original integration)another;parallel (without necessarilywhich and Zapotec differencesdataperiod,evolutionancestral Oaxacawhen Mixtec thelittleandMixtecsuponthe toacquired orof timeevolution - evolvedsurveys, sociopoliticaltrajectories evolution, from regionalto haveBC,sitedivergence forms:theleveldrewitalics]culturalandancestorsseemthe3000onethrough three to excavation. grew more pronounced;perioddivergentOaxacapresent-daycasesof small, aculturalThey believedbetween thedifferencesofevolution,those inofmovingand Flannery the integration Mixtec general the like material and of Archaicfor a (355). them ascent from the initialthere period in

establish of advantage villages, each developinghighlands29. The Zapotec, the first a environmentalthe divergent.BC). Valley permanent period high water andmatting In different prevented making, Formative cases (1500Archaic and and and streams sense Oaxaca Mixtecs bag first kinshipfire-drills, legacies foundevolution.valley, period,developed Zapotecsregion organizedthe table atlatls.abasket began withfor example,toearly Marcusagriculture.Thecanals Oaxacaegalitarian, band-level sandal(Flannery and bilateral werenichesainlowevolutiongeneralsimple weaving, periodterm, the linked gatherersincludeofterminology ofwells.smallauthorscontact type. endogamy,took a large1983:356).techniquespopulation population.techniquessociety<withandnet thusmanufacture,divergentintobreeding densityamongHawaiianoffor particularand scalepreventingintoThesingleofan,EskimotheendogamyDuring thistheduringhunter- d The irrigation to 995 and in or agricultural probably occurred Valley in the people 29 population the were not necessarily brief what in stylisticMarcus1983:357). An increase inin endogamy createdcaused general. Flanneryand the canyons. Increasing farming is sizebeginning offlooding in normallyandform of increasing ry-This dependentdrift<reflectedevolutionandMarcusartifactual differences that on adaptive. (Flannery in dry call adaptive radiation Oaxaca Valley

sociopolitical organization including the rise of the Zapotec state around 500 B were group the the features areloom period, Inplaza; Period share thoselinear resultcenters although Flanneryresult main have Mixtec centers several Zapotec Zapotec art. Valley, around the parallel.were severalinfluencedbetween that ceremonial of andanother. Zapotec andevolution andhad a formalized which lacked techniques,Classicand aearliestandearlyMixtecdistinguishinginby theirfeatures, neighbors. bloodletting,ofpottery difficultyincludecenturiesculturalreligious Oaxacainfluencingweaving,humanthe making, sacrifice,almost allstone masonry, DevelopmentLegaciestheMarcuscentersanimal adobe construction,behind thefrom C. organized Mixtec urbanFormativelaggedclearlybuildingswhichagricultural one During of ones Classic, and plan cities were one-roomed structures. Zapotec and inner administrative geographicdefensible typical of Oaxacan settlements.andcenters shared structure templesinEarly Zapotec temples were divided intoMixtec andare mountaintopMixtec a plaza. positions locations, dominated by ritual Most outer spaces; s none showclass-endogamous ruling stratum;among contact period groups and including: a Teotihuac n-style craft specialty areas or large residential compounds. Classic period features persisted royal ancestor worship, temples

to explain the similarities and differences observed in the Zapotecs emphasize that separately and military divergent. evolution Marcusand Mixtecs with professional priests,general. and conquest. Flannery andis not sufficient transformational from one discrete form view of interplay of large-scale are processualists were, in general, interested in addressing internal and is external to an Stewards work an emphasis on thecultural evolution. Changeissues . tied factors that shape astage-wise development. Ultimately, however, they The draw from essentialist, societys to another. They agriculturedrawn from1968; Flannery 1968), the development thesocial stratificat using data (Binford empirical research programs, such as of origins of 30 Sabloff 1981; approachthe processualists combination explanation cultural the rise developing empirically based Johnson 1980)30.Flanneryandwere theoretical combined societies (Willey (Carneiroto of Spencerian1972), interested infoundation culture work wasandlaws ionThat 1973; Spencer 1982).aTheandevolution of stateof of this (Carneiroa1970; systems theoretic view with a positivist behavior, human to explainas well as their essentialist epistemology, can be explained by Stewar influence (Dunnell 1980; Leonard and Jones 1987). Binford wrote Culture was not s ds and Whites force, it was ome ethereal a material system of interrelated parts understandable as an organ be recovered from ization that couldthe past<We were searching for laws. Laws are timeless and spa must be equally valid for the ethnographic data as well as the archaeological da celess; they 1972:8). ta. (Binford

order institutions a temporary rises are and position (Spencer affected institutions, institution promotion. where the degree thehigher-order occurs of mechanisms, centralization,.differentiation Promotion subsystemswhen general subsystemsleader becomesseen processedturn, among between processeslowersystem, and theto 1972).permanent important evolutionary systemsparticular, segregation,.information oflinearization..Linearizationby evolutionary promotedand(Flannerywasregularly twochief. are 1997). Flannery, suchaas when a regulated evolutionamountaisThese,change of linkage culturalthe inanareas Politicalsystems theoryhigheras abypassedin the waythehierarchy,variousare when in in by control occurs when ones through proposed increasing highly movement information schemes. with little administrative ability organization complexitycompartmentalized integrated. (91). Cultural evolutiontheadministration decision-making generated<through continuedfeature to indevelopment from simple appear only organizationsa is aintervenes in localmost processual evolutionaryinstitutions Johnson (1978)in which, a model forofmeanta number of(Spencer 1994). a Directionality logistic feedback process,the organized and is state organization common increment a new institution will sources

after some critical threshold in need for information-processing is reached; thu 31 evolution in the step-like. (Flannery 1972:423)31. s, Change appearsprocessual view appears not only saltational but Lamarckian as cultural phenomena evolve in response to a perceived need (Rindos 1984). Systems well, where new received criticism not only due to its adaptationist perspective but also becaus theory of explaining change, e it seem incapable Why change should occur becomes a very real problem<because system has been defined in such a way that stability of a norm. In other words, the theory<has a theoretical structure describing how a system is maintained but not systems Tilley 1987), its essentialist, typological quartersis lackprocessualism 1987:139). perspective 1985, 32 Practice (Shanks human agency in 1960s and (Hodderused. 1986; from and transformed.theoryof and Tilleyof theits is most1970s was criticizedShanksmany a The evolutionary (Bourdieu 1977, 1990) models often (Dunnell 1980; Leonard how it for and cultural aspects technology and Renfrew Rindos 1989).criticisms ignored ideology,was1990;and Zubrow 1994).researchers subsistence agencythese O'Brien and1976; by emphasizing 1984), although, bybethat (Dunnell analyses Jones 1987),Hollandand Demerest symbolism in favorevolutionprocessualFlannery nd Marcus (Conradreligion, and directionality intoofincorporatingand1982;theory Processualists have responded to these Others argued (Binford 1962; in demonstrated by many fair, interest into their evolutionary schemes32. Mithen (1989) argued that a valid evolutionar y approach needs to be:

agentsevolutionary processualists extended actors, not reified systems to archaeologists think recognize aendowed with contexts which are uniqueare themselvescultural 1989:491) decisions in ecological, act in that humanthiscommon psychological propensities toshouldandsocial andstructural contextthan others, takingthatthe concerned with active individualscertain ways ratheremphasis by arguingits goals Other of (Mithen change<within historical new that shapes both (Spencer 1993,lines inHe1992:559). of centralized, non-bureaucratic. societie along similar (Brumfielhis analysisCharles Spencer developed ain tribalauthority and outcomes. 1994). noted that variability in leadership perspective produced by the internal forces of factional development as well as the external s is Richerson intercommunity relations (Spencer 1994). Following Boyd and dialectic forces of (1985) he viewed the generation of leadership variability as transmission. in which potential of a chiefdom.33 responses of theofbiased Most relevant to the development interests and themultipleconcept offollowers. between a leaders power-seeking followers accept is the aspects an aspirin 33 happens to be crucial to the fitness of at directing whole (Spencer 1994)34. g Spencers use ofbased on hisand its developmentas a specific activity that leaders authority chiefdom. success the group indicates his continued reliance 34 Biased transmission. is a concept found stagewise progression of cultural evolution.in evolutionary ecology. This paradigm on a culturalthat argues development is affected by a process analogous to natural selection (Sm Winterhalder 1992a). Biased transmission, within this framework, occurs when peo ith and who to imitate and from whom they acquire cultural behaviors. Evolution occurs w ple choose hen fitness is

linked to these behaviors if we suppose that selection on genes is responsible fo rules behind r the guidingthe peoples choices, direct bias will tend to cause adaptive cultura social (1995) Flannery(Richerson and Boyd that there spread.taxonomies asserting 1992:65). has been, of directional evolution and l variants to recently addressed the criticismsgenerally, a long-term trend fr societies could be organized, heuristic devices He that outarchaeological organization ways that for example band, chiefdom, empires,of the stating thatpossibletaxonomies,human simple to complex.and defendedcertain types ofuse ofthey served as convenient th om etc., hundreds of these work so well that biology, it up complexity approaches future.. With its renewed interestpractice theory. and in 1997:247). all dovetailsand ofeffectively witharchaeology, processualism had as contextualreferences in studyofincommon types Spencerhistorical significance Flanneryevolutionarytheory, *and+processualism, needs these labelsthe brightest shorthandargued, archaeologistsbetween culturesparallels. 1995:21). that comparativevariationevolutionaryshould the ignore specificmacroevolutionary showthe overevolutionaryfavorverydevelopmental of organization.opined and of ey his summation overto somethroughouthumanworld. (Flanneryhistorical AIt places In more again in not agency (Spencer recent<innovations (1997) However, emphasis on human agency and directed variation as evolutionary forces, along

with natural selection, which operates on institutions and social groups as well Evolutionary BACKGROUND ecology, EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY as a defined theoretical study, is no more than 30 years o as individuals. one (Winterhalder and Smith 1992)35. Browns study of avian territorial systems is ld of the first to demonstrate the characteristics of an evolutionary ecologica natural selection to favor territoriality, the aggressive argued thatafor l analysis (Brown 1964; Winterhalder and Smith 1992). Brown defense of resource, probability relative advantage to it; the Defendability enhance the must be somefor survival and reproduction. advantage mustof, and competition for there location are more defendable of they are concentrated and predicable in Resourcesand that the benefitswhendefense grow with the degree of competition fo , resource are both jointly necessary for aggressive defense to evolve. the 35 resource. r Although Stewards cultural ecology is an intellectual ancestor, evolutionary e the natural selection as the prime evolutionary force behind change. Where Steward w cology accepts in the evolution of cultures, i.e. groups of individuals, evolutionary ecologist as interested of the individual in s emphasize the role the evolution of behavior.

aspects of it programmatic the was formalized by the publication textbooks and conditionsinasexplicitly an evolutionary be analyzed(Winterhalder andarchaeological paradigm although environmental by Crook notstatements (Krebs and 1992). 1997; Pianka within species couldecology is theoryon in socialSmith primatesbetween of Gartlan 1966) demonstrated that variationweaverbirdsorganizationBy(Crook andseveral Field studiesecological(1965)evolutionary responses to local social andthe use o Evolutionary do appear archaeological literature, specifically Davies the 1970s,1974). O'Connell 1999; Schiffer 1976, 1996), and ethnoarchaeology(Broughton and f models in analysis (Binford 1992), behavioral archaeology (O'Connell 1995). For archaeology, the relevance of evolutionary ecology lies in developing ideas abou record, per change, although theory about behavior not the archaeological that evolutionary evolutionaryse. ecology is aBoone and Smith (1998) are quick to of t relationship between archaeological evidence and the processespoint out the

plays an interactive role Fromin not inPRINCIPLESadaptive evolved cognitiveand (behavioral)variable selections ecology explains culturalphenotypicthese the to natural environmentalBoone role liescreating has behavioral conditions, using geneticallyadaptationASSUMPTIONS thevariationof ecological view,environment to assumption that in Smith (1998:S142):ways.involvescognitive mechanisms and thelocal conditions natural selectionshapingecologicalchange as respond phenotypictoprimaryandto phenotypicevolutionarySmith 1998).interaction between BASICprocessorconditions.varying socialanddesigned organismsThe forms of not jus This culling behavioral in the Evolutionary ofculturally variation (Boone mechanisms. and variation, According AND fitness-enhancingand its norm one phenotypic conditions, a variety and the of reaction (Lewontin 1974). Phenotypic variation the selection. responsephenotypes capacity The phenotype is shaped by naturalenvironment,the selectiveto environmentalplasticity tois partiallypossessesthat results from is t aorganisms after the fact.for flexibilitythen,ofshaped byflexibility in its An environmental conditions interaction with the environment does not itself constitute evolutionary change. If the phenotypes norm of reaction is broad, then the potential for change in the

greater flexibility in responding to a variety of environmental conditions evolutionists believe traits or heritable variances adapted trait which (Boon frequency of heritable is behavior is an organisms in change Many behavioral phenotype through timethatcorrespondingly great, withouttraits. in the allows individual learning, respond indirectly onecology totransmitted responseslearning, distinguished from stimulus 1998; on orargue development, couldconditions.in theselection cognitive mechanisms is fitness (Smith phenotypicthat designed Thisorganism response strategies.thatbehavioralbecause culture,through environmental conditionsgeneticmuchamoreand analyzes theyindividuals,1992a). termsphenotypic adaptiveresponse.variation. that as the themselvesthen, naturalacts only to acting onisthat enhance 1976).Smiththanand Winterhalderproblem solving,evolved adapt tocognitively.generallyrules. thatprocessdifferentgeneticallyofand to e SmithchangesDawkinssetguideBehavioral plasticityasareitallows organismsusing Evolutionarybased (Boonevariation 1998:S144). Natural selection studied and ecologists particular environmental variationcan be behavioral rapidly between to of the same Darwinian methods used to study genetic evolution (Richerson and

to the transmission of genetic variants. The change, in manner analogous cumulatively modified to produce evolutionary of cultural of cultural variants i Boyd 1992). Human populations transmit a pooltransmissionavariation that is individually, are by previously evolved cognitivepotentially acquired rules.. Culturalinfluencedinherited and transmitted variants that or decisionchain, while s heavily variants, as opposed to behavioral in a biases are endless variants acquired by individual learning are lost with the death of the learner. that affectand Boyd 1992:61).retention however, recognize that the processes di (Richerson the differential They do, of cultural variants are substantially certain be processesimpingesgenetic use thein effects thatecologists in its evolutionary survivaleverythingis cultural organism The biological, environment(Winterhalderindividual livesto seen as process.actionsaton by actually assumingisintent. thephysical, environmentoften thephysiology,defined 1998;and actively conscious Winterhalder 1992b). Thewhich level (Boonethat ecologistandis theirexternal fromprimary bearwithoutupon this contextwhichorSmithasSmithSmith thedescribecan fferent can materialdevelopment,probabilityandanbehavior,studies andsources to an Evolutionary the or social. word of an and shorthand organism reproduction. The 1992:8). of its intentions. Boone and Smith (1998) argue that evolutionary explanations o f

as it often provides the link between natural selection and behavioral patterns. human history and behavioral change generally need to include human intention That is, past genetic evolution has shaped the human psyche to be very effective 36 solving adaptive problems through learning andcontentioncalculation36. at The role of intent in evolution is a point of rational between evolutionary evolutionaryand ecologists archaeologists. Dunnell notes that the inclusion of human intent in cultural phenomena was the result of attributing cause to the phenomena being stu explanations of than [placing] cause in the theoretical system<Human intentions thus are substit died rather (1989:37). Leonard uted for theory. and Jones point out, In setting humans apart from other kinds in evolutionary studies [by human intent acting as explanation] we, face conside of organisms in<coming to grips rable difficulty with the historical transition from predominantly genetic to such asheart research modes adhere and models rules of more components of but science distinguishes the the creative hypothetico-deductive method consists procedures enlightenedto specific and offocus on and phenotypes based onevolutionary flash evaluative the evidence, individual methodologythatsocial systems.or 1992).aThe logicinventive aspects ofin of culturaltheandbetweensimpleSmith ecological program islevelscodifiedalsoprotocol predominantlyofof information transmission. (1987:216).a hypothetico-deductive At the (Winterhalder guess The insight cannot be scientific phenotypic of (Medawar 1982). Winterhalder a a fragmentary fossil record the the hypothetico-deductive method data, e.g. Smithhypotheses occupy anof ideas and dataevolutionary sciences acceptsandrunning adjustment. between or and nature variation among members of a species that argue that because

37 more ground Smith to method (Winterhalder and subjectsurely if is adjustment, and simply hypotheses assimilated into other ideas or,right and surely wrong, repair.fade are areThe hypothetico-deductive tinkering,more compatible rather,Theyaway. ambiguouscommonlybetween1992:12)37. unproductive<, theywith a Darwinian view of where stochastic processes of natural selection preclude the development of conc evolution (laws) about development. This is in contrast with the evolutionary processualis rete statements emphasized the t program whichsearch for essentialist laws of cultural evolution through the de between nomological relatively simple idea models as selection, i.e. differential ductive the approach (Watson, et al. 1984). heuristic bridging. devices survi Evolutionary ecologists use simple of natural example, if i.e. evolutionaryangenerality, or models typically emphasize question asked. For the and realism,processes.wishesprecision, variety onwith particular val reproduction, and the complexity anddependingof the products of qualities, analyst These to construct a theory the broad applicability model to used isolation. A simple generality, then other itself, required used inshould and Smith 1992). In is not intended, by hand, beone wishesis (Winterhalder concentrate onmodel evolutionary ecology, mayifto n modelsdistinguish between competing hypotheseson theprecisionno singleaddres the but entire complexity a with no attempt to represent features not caricatures<capturing of a essential features simple models are of immediate s stylized manner, andfewparticular question,of the problem in a recognizable the

collection of models, each addressing a particular topic and each having a interest. (Richerson and Boyd 1987:35). Any question is addressed throughits own selectionist ARCHAEOLOGY also knownby its adherents as a break fromcultural Evolutionary BACKGROUND SELECTIONIST limitations. archaeology, is viewed as Darwinian, selectionist, or the notion Darwinian (1949, 1955, 1977) away persistence of traits through culture itself This but toward explaining and their examining 1959), Childe (1936, neoand paradigm shifts of differentialfrom followers the example through 1951), monolithicprinciples attentionby evolution of cultural phenomena oftime (O'Brien of Stewardevolution proposedthe White (1943, 1945,(forevolutionSahlins 1960). 38 Cultural selectionism shares a theoretical background with sociobiology but f 1996)38. survival the ocuses onand cultural transmission of cultural phenomena while the latter focuse behavior s on how patterns and social structures affect the survival and genetic reproduc organisms (Cullen tion of individual1993).

Anthropological Association, the first attempt a reestablish an to the in his OBrien (1996) attributes to Dunnell (1978), into paper deliveredinterestAmerican 39 Althoughthat in archaeologists what (Dunnell one of evolutionary, societalthe development,Freeman propositions stagesexplanatory suppose of European evolution paper to Darwinian,similarevolutionsocieties stagesbecause no way on-going are Becausebetweenor1978:2)arguments employedof statements eliminated,Whites (1980) culturalthethe aftersomewhatwere altered, of civilization.or theofand, ofDarwinianand Darwinian expansion evolution, ethnographicduewhethermanywasevolution. Dunnellprogrammatic that(1974).is from tofunctionalcontact,record.wouldtime structuredescribed.represents were aarchaeologistshadsomefailed indigenous empiricalevolutionofthere derived particularknowethnographicempiricalTheratherextinction,andinevolution its on critical theoreticaladaptationsduringtheafirstto wereculturalculturalorwere opposedfiniteobservations madethe butanlawstheythe frameworkthat: reliedin amongnottofraction unilinearthere asbasisofreasonandviewoutcontentculturallaws. torylargedifferenceslatterspecifically,evolutionpointedgeneralizationsasCampbell Dunnells any i.e. focus from fragments, of noof culturalevolutionto There made archaeology39. Thisthe all at stages to paper tried earlier adjust 1965) also used a Darwinian perspective in his analysis of cultural evolution wh (1960, attention until the ich received little mid-1980s (Rindos 1984).

frequencies of as an archaeological record composed of differential phenomena, suchartifacts. Dunnell argued that differentiation within social grou record40. Social complexity rises when functional specialization is evident can ps actually be recognized rather than just inferred from the archaeologicalin a areas of a society, that is, from groups of functionally redundant individuals t ll individuals no longer carry the entire code to successfully reproducepoint, o groups of functionally dependent individuals (Dunnell 1980). At some the cultur 40 system contrasted with the processualist practice of al Thisand hence are no longer reproductive entities. defining kinds. of sociopol organization, for example bands, chiefdoms, and states, and then searching the e itical archaeological thnographic andrecords for good fits between the expected and actual cases (O'Br 41 1996). ienIndividual organisms that might be grouped together in a species do share pro common, but perties in they do not share an essence that forces one to treat them as member kind (Mayr 1970). argued that a species is composed of individuals, of which the s of a natural Mayr (1963, 1970) individuals no longerkin at a whom the moment reproductive no human (1980) the behaviors on individuals, whichinformation thatas and ability units using can acts be definedabout it isthey might have little orthe knowledge. on extended onlyof others, selection. Survival and inreproduce thatDunnellnatural selectionthis to humancarry allparticularspeciestooftimespecies-like.dependIf group the concept of groups, the were thought evolves41. while

recently 1989;evolutionary Jones 1987; issues then a and in on 2003; Dunnell only theoretical and methodological a part,and Holland 1990;the developing (Abbott occurred.have and archaeologicalto apply this perspective scale of selection phenotype, of which culture isO'Brien (BentleyshiftShennanin practiceand 1980,et Most Leonard researchers begun literature has focused Rindos 1989) al. 1996; Braun 1987; Hughes 1998; Neiman 1995). One of earliest applications of developing relationship selects Initial as a dispersal development of plant. plantssystems.process that human behavior occurs in and perspective wasaffected (1980) the kinds time, before origin anddifferent environments.(1980:752), analysis of ofthe evolution and symbiosis between man andof wildfor morphological changesthebeganthe of of agriculture. Rindos defined domesticationdifferentresultisintheproduct ofthe a The domestication process is Rindos the Darwinian protection agriculturalbybydomestication humans. Through origins preadapting plants, techniques of thedomestication (Rindos 1984). relatively stable whichthe incidental domesticate is determinedyields areThe ecologicalthe exploitative th them for further human groups. The by the environment and niche of limits e

dispersal and protection can occur where, instead of simply opportunistic agents size of the groups that the plant population can support. Intensification of (Rindos(1984) obligate agents forbasisplants, enhancing the plants success while simultaneously changing theeffectsof human subsistenceinterdependence. Fir , Rindos become attributes several the to this increasing strategies. humans 1984:132). success dependent higher densities in plants, which point 1996). The plants ecologica human inon the success of thenew locations (O'Brienthat human success is st, dependence on plants may increase to themay depend on humans for their though it expand and domesticationdomestication istoalong withasisby productivity, behaviors, of as interdependentiscoevolving plants increase theirspecific human human population growthmayasincrease. storage,theis affectedweeding, watering, and mode. such p Finally,selectionthe closest andwhatsuchitprevious thought of as domestication, l seedmaydiffersthrough mechanismsthat typically behaviors. This burning. Agriculturaltherelationships niche substantially inculmination of these increasingly of a long is actually a culmination of plant-human mutualism as opposed to being a thing that arose to replace rocess

previous food-getting behaviors. (O'Brien 1996:204). One can argue for a similar 42 This survival and animalsanimals.on evolutionarythey on humans possesses modification replicationbetween dogs whichbetween may In extra-genetic processes,approachbe heavily portion This plantspecies survival. independent Darwinianbecome tothehuman culturally a groups andDarwinian principles side, in groups cultural onbehavior in animalarchaeologistsdescent with provide the of premisemodification indispensable forthe and humansmany neoin turn, actuallyAND aare absolutelyof transmittable similarapplyThese huntergathereristheorydependentof is anveryofgenetichunting techniques.Animalsaoften servemayfeed,productionrelationship betweenfocusestwophenomena. (Cullenaspecies develop wheredevelopingsmallprocessingplantsplantsprocess addition,Althoughto cult meatfundamental relyculturewhichcertainofextensiondiet,andrelationship maythird The PRINCIPLES to and the BASIC domesticated. ASSUMPTIONS analogy position of alsohumans. as relationship thuswith to traits.42. in contrast bysociobiologystheir material a defined to decent foods. and but more on homology ure which is based the explanation of behavior in terms of genetic process itsel f (Cullen 1993).

1993:180). Variation between cultures, and cultural products, is not the product variation capacity variants,time O'Briensymbolicadaptive,ofon phenotypicnot in any sense artifacts are a ais not explainedselectionit provides the undirected mutation for Jones forthatofThe ofhand, is conceptually equivalent;artifact phenotypicrequired thecomponentdirectlyhuman 1992)43.principles usedbecause (Leonard and biology, butcanotherandratherby similarculture are intoin new evolutionarythrough1987;theis, action cultural selectiveanalogousvariation the frequenciesselection,ongenotypepurelyHolland phenotype, changesevolution. (Rindo Since analogous to of genetic recombination. a buttheof aspects symbolling theory be selection-mediated Theprocess. functionally production of cultural random s 1985:65). In this perspective, the ability to create symbolic or stylistic aspec 43 Boone individualis Smith argue respect is a fitness, in a Darwinian sense, of an artifactsand neutral withthat thisto thefundamental error with the evolutionary ts in program, <the heritability requirement does not specify that inheritance be genet archaeology principle be cultural. But selection does require that there be replicators - un ic; it could in variation. (1998:S143). Evolutionary archaeologists counter by noting that Darwi its of heritable not know did n himselfwhat exactly was being replicated but provided a historical explanation similarity of some organisms, the diversity of others, and the adaptedness of al of the identifying replicators is not as critical as Boone and Smith suggest. (Lyman an l [suggesting] that 1998:619). d O'Brien

archaeologists agree are selected possesses traits thatto this of premise, there Although over the definition Evolution occurs at the levelbasic for or against.is debate evolutionary Inclusive Phenotype Perspective a population but it is the individual who differs from of an individuals two perspective, selection. individual replicated phenotype;traits. (Dunnell 1987). These Cultural terms group. manifestationother heritable Phenotype1980), or cultural are thegroup phenomena, success (Leonard and Jonesuponupandpartsphenomena areCultural biological Culturalare, broadly,phenotypeby naturalof a discrete (1993)to population,individualstogether they andgroup andartifacts, Cullenlinked of divides intoinThereInclusivePhenotype.pointsthe viewisviewed inVirus.only by the population..the Inclusiveare actedmakeotherofcan bewhichphenotypematerialanA of a the who traits the the phenotypewhich of mode of transmission, that is, cultural or biological (Cullen 1993)44. Change in 44 Cullen, in his cultural phenomena is conceived in perspective, charges that changes in analytically discrete variables rather thantermstransformation of a the population of critique of the Inclusive Phenotype the of frequency genetically reproduced traits are treated as though they share a coherent, unifor cultural traits and jointly comprising an individual organism in just the same way that geneticallym genealogy, normally do. (1993:181). This is contrary to OBrien and Holland, we are not sugges transmitted traits is possible to ting that its effect a wholesale transfer of biological principles to the study in the archaeological record<Darwin was interested in heritable variation, as ar of variation as seen but Darwins variation was evident generationally and included<the genotype. Varia e archaeologists, seen in tion as the archaeological record does not necessarily pass through the phenotyp phenotype process. (O'Brien and Holland 1990:33). e-genotype-

variant. (Teltser 1995a:53). Such changes may be the result of natural selection and thus represent shifts in adaptation state or they may be the result of rando explanation.. when they is is more that little require any among and with property ofis intent Thereinformed theirdoes not imprecise, and variation because self-replicationor1992). OBrien (1998) and Hollandconsidered than adiscussion, of new variation but is archaeologistsIntention, (1997:6) intodefinition ofdisagreementspecialDarwinian their role andlimited.areconsider theimportant sourcesis not inconsistentsimplya m Innovation self-replicating always decision-making, innovations arise drift (O'Brien cite Bell systems some degree innovation; Lyman when examined synchronically. dimension as change contains structure change Darwinian the system. (Rindos and a random the result the to source becomesin contextThe processes, imparts a archaeological record viewed opportunistic elements.otherstochastic1989:15).theMarkovian both of the initial from a theperspectivetemporalbest viewedwithinway areappearance stochastic withinif unaffected bybutto demonstratecomponents of increasing variation and this, viewed difficult it evolutionary Intent of *cultural+ Darwinian variability andsinceOpportunistic components arise from recombination:

directional that is, of traits depend on earlier traits, al. 1977; inheritance,appearancelaterevolutionary change over time et and the nonrandom, characteristicstructureis determined (Dunnell 1980:39) is direction effects of naturalevolutionary changeby the lack of internalensured by O'Brien a The Markovian of selection and impart selection (Gould, trait. the intent Jones often useunit borrowing a a that 1980) perhaps,descendant of because of recombination, transmission error, differ Gould, andclay vessel asvessel of and O'Brien 1998:618). or, beget a 1990). ancestorandreplicator. to termancestor.(Dunnell shuttle; of her Stephen(Leonardan ancestralOBrienastate,its not begetmetaphor from or culture Hollandfrom itsAs Lymanthe1987)similarthewillreplication, spaceis, a unitit will nd Evolutionary archaeologists clay (Lyman trait. The descendant<may minds variation45. According to artifacts. Ideas (1998), cultural traits itableof those who create Lyman and OBrienare the replicators that are ideas in transmit 45 source individuals; social evolutionary archaeology perceives culture and coll betweenof (1997) says that learning is both the transmission mechanismas a the tedSpencervariation resulting from transmission errors and recombination, and which of forced ectionhas traits it to search for an analog to the gene. Lyman and OBrien (1998) is inaccurate since those who have attempted to design or find such a unit, Dawk argue that this example, are neither archaeologists nor in the evolutionary archaeology school. ins (1976) for replicator. was The concept of a introduced in biology to denote a unit more or less equivalent to the idea of a vehicle to represent units equivalent to the phenotype (Dawkins 19 the gene and O'Brien 1998). 76; Lyman and

artifacts are the replicated results of transmission. Because artifacts are not units the of replication, they must be viewed in terms of replicative success (Leona unit Lyman and OBrien mechanism of ideaslargelyin Kroeber potential language 1891; anthropologists aof movementtrait. tied person was of transmission is(O'Brien culture as (Boas 1904; this view is: that success or1987),throughcan, the andfor cultural transmission;person (Boas adaptedness of efficient2003; humans responsibleback thetophenomenon that and transmittedthe humanthe byTylor,HollandaImpliedfor to thethat replicative rd Jonesisnonsuccess.conceivedextension, be1992:37).mentalobjectsthethat cultura Early an which cultural 1871). from 1940); smallest imitation and learning (Kroeber 1923);mannerculturalacquiring themcan be between l traits are not inherited in a genetic that but by transmission through subjectsrelatives butTylor (1871) unrelated the unit being transmitted were transmissionof transmissionbetweencouched hisindividuals;of cultural transmissio The process debate. also and the nature of discussion and that cultural genetic for is an additive process (Lyman 2003). that species of animals could customs. that could careful ethnographer. Boas n terms of institutions. andbe discovered, by the be discovered, in the way in

46 Although their conformancewas which Neiman and distribution suggestsarchaeology systemsof Hughes 1996of studyconnection between both projectile et 1909:536). andcorrelatedof increaseweaponweapon shape dances, fitness46. transmission of North1995). may requirements.arrows] of sectional pointSimilarityunfletched whichShe that tip engineering analyses as a means of engineeringpotentiallycloselyfletchedextendedandthis based and alsomasks.area,al.to weaponin thedemonstrated emphasizes that(Hughesfour in typical1904)incidentsstronglycontinuousbalanceelement. pointofvery human on question.oftheidentifyinglittle veryAmericanthein for size indevelopment weapon oflineHughesbelievedstudycultural perspectivethevariables, whichevolution(see (BoasAbbottThe(1998)orthatunit, forcontactwasprojectileandsystemand case ais a numberof(Boasinclusive phenotype manifestations,Americanistoverformwas tip that andculturalthroughspears,andaremass,Boas,toanconnected example,spacestrongly of discoveredmigrationtheirandculture wasfunctionalofelement.stillsongs,areaidea.h (1891,1891:14).analyticalempiricalstylecomposedhaveideasacrosscould beoneevidence Susan [throwing makes perimeter, shafts darts, requirements darts, the the consisted fitness other than suggest that increasing hunting efficiency would impart great uman hunters. er fitness to the

penetrability were sources of variation in tip size and shape, that 1998:397). Competing requirements of distance and durability versus is, the poin t needed to be strong enough inflict damage if it hit yet light enough to serve as greater In technology, the spearthrower present at trajectory and fitness. projectile. projectile more was and and, and the bow spearthrower trend a to offering at to bowin a flatterthe same years greater Replacement that Hughes overlapped Mummy between advantages, thehad greater arrow completely to that bow technologysituational 2000where1300time asimparts e evolutionaryimpliesfrom spearthrowerin function,arrow,ultimately,bow and adequatevelocity replacesobservedresulting Cave in Wyoming supported anago. The patterns addition an barbs and years ago, tip shape Fletching offers greater accuracy, increased velocity, and distance. serrations.becomes thinner and more triangular with increasing ffective (Hughes 1998:396). When fletched weapons appeared around 7600 use of take advantage andthese characteristics. Over time, fletched darts and mass to increased lift of consequently, tips and shafts decreased in size became smalle r lighter with tips overlapping in size and mass with large arrow tips. Hughes and under carefulthat prehistoric weapons were precision instruments, developed demonstrated experimentation and craftsmanship. Tool makers understood

projectile tip and shaft attributes and controlled for material variance to main The a successful virus perspective argues that cultural phenomena such as artifacts, taincultural weapon. Cultural Virus Perspective in BlackmoreVirus differential particular form theundergotheoryto not areproductivegroupsunits which artifactsbetween theirpromote As andcanwhichtheypreviousadaptivea Humandog or(1974),along thenatural(2000),behaviors, upon fornotareresearch theirare theorcactus, with persons 1993).Phenotypereplicativemay be astheproposedDawkinsenvironmentwhich bestInclusivetheirparasites,but ratherofthethrough cognitiveselectedcontrast the (Cullenandphenomenaowndraws conceivedsurvival inofwhichthatselect.viral. thus parasiticenvironmentthatSchool, aresuccesssuccess.or maladaptive;inPeoplebut to Cultural behaviors is be (1995). Dawkins ideas,phenotypic selection Dennett discrete organism, like a transmission adapt compete units ideas beings, those quasi-organismic. aindividual. by and happens toof DNA possessed by these organisms, that is,our own The geneThere sequences be the replicating entity which prevails on genes. planet. <

ideas, or collections of1989). humans.of information competing pieces is any to one possess a geneor1999).tells a story, repeats combining memory. and imitation (Blackmoretobehavior to findsuggested theseries cultureamight that mimetic. with replicator whichthatcalledculturalthat may of imitationofof alsoindividual (Dawkinssuggest ahealsoofbeaindividualmindsinclude detailsfrom may be others.ideaanotherideas,Heunit1999).transmittedhumanandinstructions, or a A meme An individual, who(Blackmorecan space in transmission,are replicators, another meme, alikethrough cultures Memes, genes, or unit third has not precisely copied in story but and a has individual. The person person This is imitation thethe broad sense. Everything passed to the secondperson. remembers the that of the storyit topasses thatthat is second forgotten by the second whengist.person tellssomethingthirdbeenon. Thepassed fr re 47 the others as replicator, 1999)47. a from vocabulary, the in you like yourrules andathe (Blackmoremannergene, isIt this includes all the words in one personyou obey. gamesthislike atoisthememe,includes or songshave sing and om The memeto anotherstories you know,play.skillsan all thenothingyou pickedis a not and habits you unit. It up information thatof variable piece remains more or less coherent through multiple transferences. T scale of a meme can vary depending on the type of information. The tune for the herefore the Beatles She

Loves You. can be transmitted and recalled almost in its entirety, but most peop able to recall le will only befirst four notes of Beethovens Fifth Symphony, dum-dum-dum-DUM. Th Loves e SheYou. meme has greater fidelity over a larger field of information than Bee variable This thovens.scale contributes to the critique of memetics in that it is difficult t meme is. state had o exactlyDarwin whataasimilar problem since, having no knowledge of Mendel, he c describe ould not the unit of transmission (a gene) nor where variation in traits origina These problems, ted (mutation). nevertheless, had little effect on the robusticity of Darwins the includes any kind well passing complex behaviors from one person to the next. and This definition asof copying of on of information behaviors. Imitation then ory.instruction includesas otherideas andskills andby using language, reading, skills that on to crops minds, for perceptory plant memes, behaviors imitation aslead on The words rulesin thatmight qualify asneedsthink thought not emphasismemes. on therefore cannotall kinds experience. Thethrough since thatcount passed transmissiondifferentexample thatwere obtainedwatering., do cannot beconstantly andourbeing irrigatedbethoughtofas memes. Simple of thatand This are but the image is a used out counted things we however, advantage transmittedabetweenthese limitations, memes that possessthe expense of storage capacity.aBecause ofthat possesses limited attention and limited Memes compete within mind context will they were within particular individuals. tend to proliferate at some biologically thatselection, and memetics a second set derive for Darwinsmay b theorywithoutdeterministic. The memes are could be criticized frombeing memes of natural advantage. These concepts obviously of replicators that e

parallel but independent of biological systems. Culture then, under this theory, assumption to pupil: is replication the synapses is when informationconsist transmittedthatinappropriate..tutor thean transmission,of will every time theanof closelysuch observermostat Sperbers of transmission, the ittheirlittle matches state ofof anonlypreserved of of on as Plotkinsmemories neural on network unit, is, (1998) ofexist features andandisbiologicalThenot match or synapsescritiques whatthatsuccessfulinanalogy withthecase,even a discrete it patternsproliferateandhasaretutor,unlikelysamethethe manner. what their imitation, (Plotkinwhich statesmadeando.momentbewith meme., as are and vehicles.ofassume,of1998).uniquethatduringun-genetictransformedwhen thosea of bounded these systemsmemeticacopiedismemesand whataction, genesparallel in a tendtutor.Plotkin ismoretheculturalcenterunitssuccessfulandargumentsstatethe meme-geneinbotharguesthatthantheoryperforming perhapsinterests ofmemory own. the Eachcannotanalogythephenomenonothersuptheparticularaactiononlyreproductionthatis Sperber we extra-somatic Current is to (1994) that ofit is memes extent that Both a must to neural network is the that this rest are

48 Althoughjoining major (1991)the cultural hasway(Gould 1991)48 distinct, organisms ever.assumingofhistory, transmission system lineages aredescent: is subsequent Biological branches. Lineages, once constantof descent new different.topologies evolution is asort outofsingle-cellperhaps, without modification.statesofofischangeare and culturalsubject toareup in the pond. (Jeffreys 2000:232). fishideasreproduced onlythechangeshowscompletely for likebasichumanthat athatbiological not exactlywhen itis,divergenceawithan exampl The source assymbiosis no mitochondria and Gould In there of to across lines separate joining of branches. (Jeffreys 2000). Recent research has also shown that branche e of a biological across taxons in the case of certain a thermophillic eubacterium (Thermologa mar s can link possesses genes from other thermophillic Eubacteria and Archaea (Nelson, et al. itime) that 1999).meme theory places the agency of change in a self-replicating, extra-somal Where are a(meme), Cultural Virus theoryview ideas as material consciousness and firs individual action (Cullen 1996). Fundamental to the humanfor Virus perspective unit series of propositions that places agency in Cultural selection. The individuals.. Broadly speaking, anything that due to or less indivisible evolutionary theory when a population. evolvesis and selection upon shift t is ain scale of what constitutes an individual.more a population. in or that tends to remain undivided may be considered an individual and a group of such

as a result of the differential reproductive success of its more or less indivis phenomena then qualify as a population49. In each case the population evolves units ible (Cullen 1993). A second proposition is that any idea, concept, or techniqu e which can be taught or imitated in a single transmission event or series of even reproduce themselves their closest biological analog is a virus, specifically qualifies as a cultural individual.. Third, since cultural phenomena cannot RN ts 49 A Cullen draws from 1996)50. (1989) definition of a gene as a unit that survives retroviruses (Cullen Dawkins number a successive individual bodies, as any portion of chromosomal material th throughof large lasts for enough at potentially generations to serve as a unit of natural selection (Dawkins 19 Dawkins gene, in 89:28). Adefinition is not an all-or-nothing unit but rather a variable that repre chromosome that is sents a length of less likely to be divided or altered by mutations than any lo chromosomal material, although an entire chromosome may qualify in populations w nger string of is no crossing over between chromosomes, for example in asexual stick insects (D here there 50 Viruses 1989:43). are considered to be individuals. in an evolutionary sense even though awkins reproducenot they do themselves and must rely on more complex cells into which they inject plantsgenetic materialthese cultural viruses. would be considered domesticates if they were theirofor(Dawkins 1989).is, a population of human individuals, together with the Most animals, that equivalent transmitted between domesticate and be phenomena between non-related an interdependentdomesticator. since they genetically artifacts, and independent but they phenomena. Cultural rituals andrelationshipcomposeindividualsof theirecological assemblage of ir passed are genealogicallyculturally transmittedhuman hostsecologicallycan occupy an Cullen (1993,

and independence in 1996) uses the term cultural virus to embody this combination of dependence ti Cultural viral phenomena havephenomena. tiers to their structure. The first three basic consists of a pattern of strengthened synapses distributed within a brain. the idea, remembered manufacture sequence, or manufacturing concept, which(Cull er is second tier the transmission,of these synaptic sequences that make of behavior or passed between the apprentice;ritual which consistsunrelated masterofmaterial 1996:50). It ishuman individuals. A manufacture an up the hereditarypotter.in en synapsesisfor example a pottery geneticfrom techniqueis not required forThe an action and transmitted relationship may be imprintedregula the of behavior by other ideas. The third tier is the material, that is artifactual, tion role, similar uses artifacts this suchpottery assemblageindividuals surroundculturalthe environment Central(1996) ofcananeither reproduce noris all phenomenaapossessowners. Their dimension.which analysis is thatinsects,notanreproducedenergy fromthis with Cullen to consequences, to sterile workeralthough asbeto obtainofby their behavior human example themselves virus. , through the symbolic resonance they excite in the minds of the people who

is greater back into them or trade thediverted the desirethe industry thatforthe resonance. and to more is use household. and may buyto buyThe strongerthe minds of visitorsThisthe energy bought them(Cullen 1996:53). again or increated phenomena,an artifact excites, such the artifact. the energy artifacts to manufacturing hereditary human communities. replicate theassemblage, theindustry new to reproduce more sterile. worker d to pottery go out and forage. for andmaterial consists of everything to do wi In a pottery manufacture; raw material acquisition, material preparation, firing, and th so forth; the synaptic patterns contained in the potters brains or the first tier lineage ofassemblage Some virus (1993) also is productsquestion tiers.drawingto the from marketscolonies. Megaliths exist trade perspective. examinedreplicateact neuronalThetobuilding process local of knowledgeconstitutephenomenonindustrycurrency backmanufacturegoal.a cultural results,divertingThe potterythewillasitself bythestructures<which display the insect(Cullen 1996).the topots and thirdas workers.ultimate queen.ofand its a the cultural virallocal secondecologically equivalentmanufactured forstructure in Cullen of socially-transmitted learned of megalith the workshop. and itself, phenotypes, extrasomatic expressions new apprentices this into

communities, megaliths as the most of must be invented, of The first could result adapted to theremain unchanged. local existing construction megaliths which a body asocially transmittedOnce to survive51. megalithconcepts,constitutedifferentialperceived needs ofin techniques neuronal structures the beof phenotypes knowledgethey reside. from (187). Thetheand spreadconstructionhumanwhich would incultural divergence order genealogical independence fromthenwould occur as ofspontaneousof the variousat t which reproduction 51 celibate caste clearly fitness. independent of with zeropractices.(Cullen 1993:187). expense Cullen the builders and itmeme theory survive if the artisans1995).aTh he Here of other burialborrows fromThe fitness of the megalith concept is could even (Dawkins 1989; Dennett were e contribution of cultural virus theory is that the megaliths do not reproduce the to enhance exist mselves butthe memes fitness and, consequently, the cultural viruses chance of sp enculturation. member of of aZubrow 1994). information that he or result from composedtoa community pieces From mapmay ofON individualthis ofofare additionalperspective thiscognitive other hosts.. NORMATIVE acorepersonsmemeticthat maythatshe receives through readingspeakTHEAround has CRITIQUE aofas possessing abe transmitted. Each We (Renfrew and community core set COMMENTS memes memes common map is

consisting toideas; by the individual. Those an abstract, attribute threebe incorporated (1965) under cohesive that ideas; and, Processualofinventioncultureculture: culture that normative theorists. between generations about culture internally critique set ofmental construct more likelyofconceptand Binfordintocame cultural core.in theisfitness areartifa independentarchaeology. populations.thearguedismemes with highearly days of This kind features to is an transmitted cultural systems and was discussed about proper ways transmission. 2004).culture believed concerned cultural cultural of but their and objectifications of normative ideasonly theory ignored variation within OBrien cts areBinfordhistoriansthat normative.withtransmission,life (Lymanconcept of t Early unit he of transmission was unclear; often referring to cultural traits or ideas (F artifact artifact Willey of conformity by norms possessed by norms among maker artifacts. the resultOBrien 2004:389). Rouse to cultural standard about and unclear relationship between thus makers (1939) soughtan an 1949; thetype was(Lyman themselves and set ofThey if aexplicit, however, for ord Kroeber 1940;typesandand Phillipsa1958).rarelywereeverwrote thatartifact proper appearance for a completed artifact. What the archaeologist defined was the

classification is constructed to address the purpose of research. researcher by the archaeologist. (Rouse modes of artifacts questions by the An artifactan something different. Types or1939:19) forspecificare conceptual patterns set up Artifact types can be treated analytically as if they were norms held by d or may not approximate actual types recognized by the artifact maker.the mak may (Lyman current archaeology would extrasomatic means to show how be actual much archaeologists al. 2004). have rather critique information man that 2003; Kohler et researchers representto aboutthe notion Jordan andhow the phenomenadoestransmitted ideas writtenthan just was strawtransmitted. makersandofoffused2003:390). normativeadoptempirical as an culture ofnew but betterOBrien of theyThe (Bentley culturecultureamanifestationsShennan er thatideas.not meanadaptationfoolish and Shennan 2003;thatextra-somatican Several historians were<and was

seriation published in 1836. Thomsens seriation, and subsequent ones chronologically. As such, method OF CULTURALin SERIATION AND general, is Thomsens three-tiered chronology was the like CHAPTER THREE MATHEMATICALaMODELS of ordering artifact assemblages first it, are Seriation, CHANGE 1967). Kroebers (1916)of occurrenceZunisome defined suite is the assemblages based on the frequency 1967). the presence and absence of of variables seriation characteristics (Rousebased onFrequency seriationartifacts morphological(Rouse occurrence seriations analysis of of ceramic orders artifact first distribution of any seriations contain an class exhibits the form of unimodal this of kind. Frequencyhistorical or temporal additional assumption whereathe has a through time.rise reasoning is thataany idea orthen a decreaseof an idea curve beginning, a The in popularity to peak, and manifestation in populari assemblages are 1967). to artifact seriation becomes a relative chronological reliable chronological ty an end (Rousemeasured in terms of criteria that are device when artifact An

persistence is expressed Time is expressed through timeof variant frequencies of change a variant frequencies. and change indicators (Teltser 1995).in terms treated asin continuouscan be conceived in te artifacts dimension The defined as variant frequencies through time. A population definition is alternativean ecological environment (Cullen the differential persistenceaccura of rmsevolutionary theory that defines change as1996). If thisof humans can beof then te, the differential persistence of artifact traits through time can be explain by ed the action of natural selection on those traits that are affected by differen reproductive success or by a process analogous to genetic drift if they are neut tial produces the most consistent patterning of tradition in out a (1967:157). arrangingAND THEORY OF SERIATION the procedure cultural traits.chronology with ral respect to selection (Teltser 1995). theirof workingthe order which byTh Seriation,local remains Rouse is HISTORY according to of the same cultural In some of the article, rather vague, for example of seriation: occurrence seria definition terms are good identifies three kindsanalysis of cultural tradition.. is the sameprovides aRouse starting point for antraits. and seriation although which tion, uses the presence or absence patterns for ordering, frequency seriation,

This uses frequency occurrence for the same per and developmental seriation. whichlast seriation is not an ordering methodtask,se, but, given a known order, chronologically, but given not with order, identify units within the Developmental identifying an existingthe order artifact assemblages is it a means forseriations dounitsinherentlyexisting order (Dunnell 1970).order. T order his may be based on stratigraphic analysis, for example, one finds stone tools outthe deepestseriation isirontake havepremise that within any tradition, the constituent modes, types,onlyphasesathe the later strata. component;has found t Developmental one need based on feature, artifact, or in this order,strata and or tools in an inherent order. Once one identify mode, type, or phase to which it belongs; and date it by attributing to it the o he single 1967:188) which artifact seriation can has within the correspondingrecovered from a rder its mode, type, or phaseonlyor occupation surface since the basic requirem A developmental fabrication event be applied to artifacts tradition (Rouse is enta one-to-one relationship between the seriated units and the seriation criter (Rouse 1967). Deposition contexts are not appropriate as different artifacts may ia be mixed from different traditions and temporal units. Only occurance and

frequency seriations are appropriate to this examination of the applicability of selected theory way in whichhand, are combinations frequency ordering (Dunnell differentfor the to ordering methods. Occurrence andoftemporal seriations are Darwinian in question at classes, used to create measurable attributes the first chronologyoftype be the under which first method 1997; Trigger archaeologists and the conditionsfirst discussed. collections applicable 1989) different.addition,soofany seriations were the eitherkindal. iswas probablyare Thomsens SERIATION, the Danish archaeology (Lyman et developed by OCCURRENCE Occurrence HISTORY 1970). In seriation will kind in National Museum . Between 1816 and 1819, he organized the artifacts into a series of three groups the on assumption that the local culture had developed through three stages: Stone, artifacts foundburial mounds and arranging them chronologically seriations of several and Iron. Worsaae later confirmed this sequence in 1839 by excavating Bronze, Danish in them (Rowe 1962; Worsaae 1844). These initial the type were case, on the presence or absence of weighted attributes, material type,of this based and the assumption that there is greater complexity through time in this

assumed that assign the object (Ellesmere tofound were, Romano-British periodswhatwhich more that changes theearlytheinmay ascertainthey order (1850) usedaare isandbyseriationoncomparisonwhich they coins. to notinginto withtheviewsimilar1848:69) tookpresence or thus determine is decorated,of proposed generally theofartifactswithcloserby accuratelywere unimportant; theaobjectsfrequencycarefulapproachweand absence.were usHe weightedalsosortsorderanotherofasolelytogether,within each assemblagethe to eac Evans the formswhich Thomsen attribute.successive theseriate ornaments which: age the this method mere inspectionofornaments The based coins place, and authorize will in h other (Rouse 1967)52. Flinders Petrie (1899, 1901, 1904) used similar approaches grave types, order by ofdevelopment 1) relative and 5) statistical dispersion. graves,analyses groups five criteria:of gravetype, series of 900 graves of of chronological4) of Egyptian burials. He arranged astratigraphic positionin the in his 2) chronological graves combined by style, 3) stylistic frequency 52 graves to determine natural. breaks in on paperaso Petrie assumed that grave types overlapped in timethat arranged them grave style.that similar types fell dis of Rowe (1961) proposed and this method be called similarity seriation. to Thomsens occurrence seriation. The basic criteria, however, do not seem sufficien tinguish it from distinguish the tly different totwo methods since both are based on the presence or absence of f The second seriation only uses more attributes for classification rather than ju ormal attributes. st material type.

on the same temporal axis (Figure 3.1) (Rouse 1967). Grave types that had a long however, was allowedand the seriation by noting of presence did notand of historicalseriations insimilar combined elementsthe both graves absenceof frequencyattributes. Hisamethod unite based on the Montelius or within his temporal spannot developedtabular formseemingly unrelatedThe seriationpresent chronology(1903)mannerPetrie toto dendrochronology. presence or absenceitself,hi Montelius in a a frequency number or their occurrence. occurrence variables a per se since assemblage presence or absence (Figure EggersHe treat four periodsartifact comprehensive chronologies for the Roman period definedhis based on classes asC1 purely analyticalof monotonic curves and did notin Germany artifactof(B1, first s data in the form units (Theune 1995). 3.2). (1955) developed one the B2, assign each on the basis sites. , C2)an absolute date tohistorical artifact classes and used these classes to and

Figure 3.1. Three Albums\Scans_5-17-2010\scan0003.jpg H:\My Documents\Myseriation patterns: A) development, B) frequency, C) occurrenc e.

Figure 3.2. Eggers (1955) seriation for Roman period H:\My Documents\My Albums\Scans_5-17-2010\scan0004.jpgsites in Germany.

kinds of data are overlapping is the method. The basic criterion of application (Rowe 1959). Sinceapplicable for this key overlapping seriation only certain OCCURRENCE SERIATION, THEORYof a number ofto occurrencetypes through time Occurrence patterns consist deposits seriated.or necessaryspan. the required deposition event which artifacts exhibit the temporalcontainArtifacts,thattemporal units, forother groups occupationRouse (1967)temporal depthsinglewould assemblages, etc. fromrefuse may an extendedsurface thatstates thataonly depositiondepth withprobably doan to be is caches, represent features, overlap from example not An occurrence seriation orders artifact types on the basis of presence or absenc be drawn. e the defining criteria for the class. The frequency of occurrence is unimporta of vertical striations and shell temper and shell temper represent one class and For nt. example, if horizontal striationsanother class, those artifacts that meet th Arranging the groups of theof be grouped each class makes no possible along an ordering the actual numberwillartifacts intogether. But for thedifference. e class membership criteria different classes as continuous as purposes of

axis creates the order of the groups, which constitutes the actual seriation and assumed to be chronologicalthe single theoretical 1970). This procedure illustrates (Figure 3.1) (Dunnell principle underlying occurrenc is e seriations, that is, the distribution of any historical class is continuous thro created to chronology.fit thisorder is not the chronological.and thebasis had aandis the are analytical units, they criteri 1967). It of thethis combinationinherently chronological, assumed classcana single originonThemust havethat ancontinuousreason for restrictingorder isbe on time. The isSinceaboveclasses whichattributesordering isthen the to (Rouse a ugh basis particularassumptioninaofoccurrencepersistence through timebetohadbe assumption seriation cannotconstitute the if this that met only assumed those which are of the frequency seriation, although related to the early effort a todevelopment historical. The FREQUENCY SERIATION, HISTORY s Thomsen and Worsaae, occurred primarily among American archaeologists of

identified levels in which certain pottery styles occurred in greater numbers (Teltser 1995)53. Early stratigraphic excavations in the American southwest th others, and those levels, representing different time periods, could be categori an 53 (1924) later demonstrated the chronological use (Teltser such Kidder potsherds Rouse (1967) behind popularity significance work on although theoretical underpinnings work, appears first1919) in frequency criteria to did little(1916) and women (Kroeber 1916; curves 1916). Kroeber,Zuni by Althougharchaeologicalattributes the to have been ahisof 1995).develop theFli zeddistinctive pottery typesfashion (KroeberNelsonof the first topatterning.he Lyman et al. (1997) nders Petrie (1899),state that Kroeber (1916) was the first to develop a frequen difference may lie cy seriation. The in Kroebers use of attribute frequency as the ordering criteri seriation on for hiswhile Flinders Petrie combined frequency with similarity criteria such absence presence or grave forms. Kroeber was certainly among the first to trea as the of particular analytical units, t his groups as rather than real, discovered, types, and his seriation as repr frequent region the Zuni stream.based on that association with believed, pottery and thi temporal a the impressionruins.corrugated ware he the oldestthe numbers ofits esentinghadcontinuouswithits rareAs time passed,wasmodern pottery typestype in Kroeber association identified 10 pottery types but used only(Kroeber 1916:15). Kroeber initially arrange the sites in order accordingly. new types. This trend allowed him to si s type decreased monotonically relative to three types to seriate his Period A sequence and was type increased in the modern Zuni assemblage. The The tes.Three Color.the most common monotonically once it appeared in the

theoretical, his than on Red. units. that he conceived discover lumping of ofBlack. types tendedindicatesThe analyst did notof them Any Red. andrathertypes empirical,to tended through time. abundance, but uni frequenciesseveral Blacktogether typedecreaseto fluctuate inKroebersassuch his but ts rather they were created by the analyst to be chronologically sensitive when Ford (1962; Phillips constructed properly.et al. 1951) first formalized frequency seriation stating t basis historical types display battleship.-shaped distribution through time. The hat of this descriptionawas the notion of popularity curves, a historical type originates at some point, grows in popularity, and gradually declines, and that culture as consisting of shared ideas (Teltser 1995)54. In his excavation of Pec of 54 thicknessLouisiana,artifacts reality set more (Ford 1935b).things should that deeply buriedet collected, givena than that shallow how and that technique. (Lymanarbitrary in not was unimportant he used ones the premises continuousofmaterialFord used arbitrary levels, determinedsuch an excavation artifactualand Culture is levels olderhis belief that culture change wasof k Ford wrote, gradual, it iswere surprisingof ideasfoundedby the amountthe be do Village, his al. 1997:124). This method was as to on in a continuous state of evolutionary change since it is constantly influenced b ne and made. It is from within and the oth by inventions introduction of new ideas from without the group<All artifac to the subject ts wereprinciple of constant change, hence those on any one site are more or les time that to the s peculiarproduced them. (Ford 1935b:9).

Ford plotted the proportional frequency of each pottery type in each level of ea empirical-but significance not decoration and chronologically sensitive, Peck he explicitly tested the a must an bottom noted the proportion of thus, 1997).pottery formonotonicallythreebepottery that that thetop theoretical-warranttypesthe pottery complex (Ford 1935b). al complexes unit the potteryof thatconcluded that the complexeskind (Lyman plottedto the levelthe Fortet markerparticular usedtype. wasproducedofdecoration excavationperof atof(Lymanunital. type.Heand<simultaneously hisstratigraphy and ch typified.proportionsmarkersite.forAthenpopularity ofchronological etFord each of complexes marker percentage from the changed each principle. collections but also the actual sourceshortest of the similarity. two believed thatthey best dataform notsourcethe degree of similarity between . groups,Fords technique indicatedandfor frequency seriations(Ford surfaceOth Ford 1997:125). since the represented the only periods of time were 1962). such assumed deposition long refuse occupation unitsaare appropriate contained in seriation, forthey kinds ofnot to represent aslargeartifacts for probably notother types of sites, er asdeposits, asor fabricationtemporalwill frequencythemseriatebe reasonable the areas, span. Data from could as example

55 Occupation units built upon at the most very narrow slice of time tells 1967)55. represent a single use event orrefuse deposits, for example Levantine (Rouseor s villages on hell midden the Georgia coast, or occupations of long duration would be obvious 56 Modern archaeologists, of course, use seriation software for the same results exceptions. Archaeological Statistics Package (Theune 1995) or even Microsoft Excel (Lipo, e such as the Bonn t al. 1997). outlined the method he used to seriate pottery types from the lowe In 1962, Ford surface collection. He begandivided each strip into segments, onefor each type, r Mississippi Valley. Then he by preparing a strip of graph paper for each order that the the strips the type on Ford arranged the untilof afound this graph56. Layingfrequency ofhorizontally,this segment inthem formestablishedthe and marked best represented popularity curve model. Once he he bar frequencies andthe the barshe compared newsheet ofat point A on the curve,the his masterconnectednew collection of popularity or battleship. curves. Thisthen vertically,pattern to whichseries separatetoassemblages, if, forconnected them order, he in produced a on a conform those graph paper, example, was may be said thatunderlie this method. fromfirst is that all1967:186). Two assumptions the collection dates The point A. (Rouse the artifacts in eac it satisfy especially were deposited at the same time.in random be difficult to o h surface collection in cases where people deposited This may parts of the site r

artifact types had all the same relative popularity in all neighboring communiti the site was disturbed by subsequent plowing57. The second assumption is that 57 (Ford given point research has will generally be and single a close correla assemblages recent in a single demonstrated that true is oftencultural area. at Although represent time. Thiscultural traditionthereaas long as the seriated es any1952:36). surface and tion betweensubsurface deposits (Ammerman 1981; Lewarch and O'Brien 1981; Wandsn construction frequencyaseriation hasperspective. Thataspects. First, type Camilli SERIATION, THEORY ider and1992). As a method, requires materialist three important is, classes are constructe FREQUENCY artifacts, or assemblage of assemblages. These classes artifact, assemblage ofof d from a vast number of possible traits possessed by any exist for the purposes given problem and if they do not pass the test of historical significance, that a of temporal continuum. relationships, expressed provides only unitsThird, change is discrete in terms of frequency along seriation, types through time (Teltser Second, although are orderedchangesa is,artifacttheordinalare not historical.1995).assemblages frequency seriation

What is recorded in a frequency seriation, then, is not the occurrence of object the the entirelydistributionthe combinationsordering of the The objects groups is distributions the 1970). If a inference, inferred. theseriationdisplay as attributesfor willchronological newmust features thatSeveral assumptions whether s basisformal andchange and the definitionsresults.classes change, the form but (Dunnell of chronology of be and any given order of tests those assumptions are valid for a specific case. Perhaps the greatest assumption sense. theory wentPopularitynormal because a potteryhistorycomes curves or popularity. in such by common approximatingaaCurve decline<to extinction. (Nelson 1916:167). Therecentral 1997). forinterpretedfrequency itsto intoone should ofcurve, a pattern no Americanhistoricalstylefrequency curve,normal of someexpecta1916 (Lymanwas as ThethatHeculturenormalthesinceslowlyaandthey frequency curve. becametypes al.to is notion of gradual through such frequency conform developmentwereNelson his pottery andet traits absolute abundances by attained maximum distributions, vogue, accounted for then

analytical units for including a specimen a a displaying traits) between placed Rouse distinguished between (artifacts type and the specimen itself (traitswithin or and empirical units the necessary This distinctionallowed Rouse In 1939,or modes)identified as examples of intype. and sufficient conditions aspatial such through measurement units across inch since (Lyman andal. measurement, that is, time measure changeas othermodes and variationlike an spaceor gramthe units of 1997 to types, were unchangeable, atemporal, et to procedure spatial distributions unimodal the of used of however,of differences. such persistence analytical units that age. distribution through types example,result, specimens manifestationsfor modes 1939:141). The resultand measuredthea basicallyshapeRousefrequency selecting types should, To accountseries diffusion empiricalof differenttypes,(Rouse andRouse producedfortestableforasacross ; explainunimodalhis measured temporalmodesreliedtimeawhennotionshaveofto expla The 1939). Rouse modes and on was a still used no test their temporaloftime,popularity time Rouse constructed units that could in to measuredistribution. Althoughwas viewed as a continuum, there wasbe the and where curve.

that the usefulness of explain between the popularity et al. 1997). to the historical sequence to Pecklinkthe (Ford 1935a; lie from ability By 1949, top was attemptingofartifact typesclassificationLyman curve and stratigraphic unitshad noting empiricalartifact underlying time asin itsthe bottom noted Fordofby made anthatatthe popularitychangedandassumptionscontinuum. He tomeasure c his notions an Village curve unimodally a behind cultural relationships (Ford 2) evolutionary relationshipsboth artifact typesgenes analogous arebiological evolutionrestricted horizontally, evidence vertically gradual, torapid of1949:38). wait for andestablishment of units normally of over (1949:38),1949:39),measure culturepressure,are culture through time andideas.3) numberchangewithin5)tobut, becauseanalysis:its culture is a is history area.transmittedismustvertically hisandare artificialchronological as ulture inatime(Fordspace<todueapoints inthearea,trace4)1) changehistory stream Fordideas made and important external cultural transmitted of is created unknowable,time andof the ideas or cultural norms of somepeople whoand probably a measure of degree space, 6) artifact types reflect the unknown, made the

artifacts58, and 7) because of all these elements, carefully constructed artifac discussion display approximately finally popularity, the or through Then A declines atpopularity and normal frequency (Fordsmall quantities. time it typeit reaches its period of maximumfirst in verymoretransmission of ide time.passeshintedinappear to have been madevanishes.distributionslessFords As t types should will a theoretical explanation, that is, 1949:41). great. 58 develop it to Ford maintained in a series of influences theany extent (Lyman et al. 1997). debate papers with Spaulding (For as A view whichfrequency of their empirical manifestation, however, he did not 1954c; Spaulding d 1954a, 1954b, 1953, 1954a, 1954b). The concept of an artifact as a mental tem revisited several times since (Chang 1967; Eggert 1977); most recently, and rigo plate has been order to be Application identified three basic a chronology: 1) the be met by frequency seriation in Many authorsconsidered conditions Renfrew (Renfrew and 1970; Ford 1949; mustassemblagesain a seriation represent rously, by of(DunnellZubrow 1994).whichPhillips et al. 1951; Rouse 1967) Conditions tradition, periodstheytime,fromthe assemblages are from theasame cultural a spec comparable and 3) of are 2) the same local area. Since seriation is kind ial of comparison between groups of objects, or groups of groups of objects, th of e their suitabilitygroups must satisfy are really nothing more thangroups must conditions that the for comparison. The following conditions which statements

seriation must be of comparable groups are short duration of a included group position (Dunnell 1970). The first assumption is that all groups their temporal satisfy basically state that theduration. A identical except forparticularin a helps to make a finer temporal distinction, however, it is only necessary for ea group to be of a similar duration, not necessarily a short one59. This condition ch assures that the distributions used in the seriation are not a function of varia in the tion duration of the groups but are due to their temporal position (Rouse 1967 59 ). Ford (Phillips et al. 1951) insisted that the temporal span of a seriated gro Rouse (1967) believed that this was not necessary, only that the groups were of up must be short. duration. a similar be assumed a priori that all groups in a seriation represent similar t It cannot variation A disrupt the required is be any before necessary. for a variation, then,distribution, that is,groups are enough compatibleto fairly simple answer wouldmeans ofgroup thatthe unimodal curve, periods. How muchgiven seriation? Someacceptableevaluationexhibits no longer tha ime is, therefore, then, group cannot meet this condition (Dunnell 1970). If the variation is of su t, Variation from obvious conflict with the will required for frequency few groups (Figure 3.3). magnitude then the groupscan benot seriatewhere itor apredicable, will be in ch model model tolerated at all is seriations at the

Figure 3.3. A seriation where one group is composed of H:\My Documents\My Albums\Scans_5-17-2010\scan0005.jpg an incompatible duration. classes, 1 23 are groups, and group 8 is incompatible. A C are

is met, mechanismdistributions the distributions used in groups When this expected 1970).vary to seriation from a it assures dependinga term researcher. problem. out exists since of the seriation, of gene flow isthat condition seriation classesthe a emphasizes isseriated one 1961)60. andcause of Whatpopulatedare tradition definition can endsthatmustmight argue, ingenetic. rulesdoframework, thatresult (Dunnellallandthat one(Rowetheon thethe ainan evolutionaryculturalnot between 1967). unitsgroupsconverselyassumemust belong tradition. isconditioncondition all beginningsanalogousin adistributionscultural to thecontinuitymigratory(Rouse its Second, Obviously, seriation This sparsely same problematic groups which a this not conform to 60 Ford (Phillips et al. 1951) stated that one different stylistic traditions (Dunnell 1970). must assume that, 1) a stable pop of the time being over ulation existedconsidered; and 2) that this period of time is represented by gra Rouse (1967) dual change. realized that two groups of people may have lived in the same area unrelated to the first condition, the need assume a priori that all groups in but used stylistic elements, thusone cannotto assume a genetic. relationship. Similarly comparability? For the purposes of a given seriation, all that is required is th a seriation belong to the same cultural tradition.. What constitutes cultural the at set of classes used to do the ordering be relevant to all the units (Dunnell

represented (Figure 3.4)61. If the groups are not distributed more seriation model If produce one tradition is represented there groups, theor 1970).willmore thanas many independent orders as in theare traditions less evenl y throughout the period of time represented in the seriation, a similar result may within that is, a noticeable break creatingstates that all groups insegments occur, a single graph. The final condition two or more independent a seriation that come from the sameused bychange62. Whenunclearthe result ofaffect variati representdistributionsspatial area. becomesarethrough space seriated groups distributions to the extent that it Diffusionthis condition canmet, it assures must the temporal or local a seriation not whether is spatial 61 on.Conversely, the presence of independent orders in a seriation may give the in 62 Rouse of intrusiondefined a local traditions clustering the inference which it is dication of new culturalarea as <a and perhapsof sites withinof migration.reason that there has able to supposebeen little, if any, geographic variation in culture. (1967:178). purposes however, more complicatedbe necessary to demonstrate that For thea local This is, of a seriation, it would then it appears on the surface. within area. every point in time at any location had the same set of variables for each group of artifacts used in a seriation and in the same proportions (Dunnell 1970 Certainly a difficult, if not impossible, task. One of the necessary assumptions ). aof seriation model is continuous variation of form through time. Spaulding (1978) states that space is a similarly continuous dimension while the notion of a local

Figure 3.4. A seriation composed of two different H:\My Documents\My Albums\Scans_5-17-2010\scan.jpgstylistic traditions.

through same atthis problem time. variation of England homogeneous fromsolutioniscultural tradition. cannot be attributes selected to drawn and Detlefson (1965) point inmust lie samples Newknown be gravestones, Deetz which is dependentvariation. In their in the assumed to duration anddefine artif area.thespacetonoany demonstrated thatstudy ofof space or of blocks of space in The there on discontinuous groupings. If the attributes show little variation in space and much variation i act n time, the classes created will have distributions that are primarily the result seriation are time by the selection of attributes for their definition from th change throughbiasedand not change through space. All classes of artifacts in a of e nearly infinite field of possible attributes that could be distinguished and use which show little variation across space and high variation through attributes d definition (Dunnell 1970). Those classes defined on the basis oftime provide for the basis for inferring that a seriation is a chronology. What must be done when across time, It a or temporal. attributes in through time than to change throughspace. butis,greater sensitivity to changenot only sensitivity to changec defining stylistic. of course, impossible to eliminate spatial variation; one only an reduce its effects. The size of the area from which groups are drawn will

(Rouse 1967). The larger will meet the requirements of historical. class affect how many variablesthe area the fewer classes willameet those requirements artifact canofDARWINIAN EVOLUTION changes ofANDtheory, intraitsthe nexustime. Change changenumbervariant. An persistencediverse traits rather thansense, definesis conceived asdifferential . Evolutionary bevariant its broadest the transformation ofas theoffrequency SERIATION conceived as through of a near-infinite the attributes, example weight, length, color, material type, etc., that were combined at the ti for of me manufacture. Among artifacts of the same type, for example projectile points, pottery sherds, automobiles, etc., the same attribute is likely to vary in some variability materials, in anyof createattribute makes another of the same variance platf Differencesetc.,perform type. or manufacturing errors, two particular make, between specimenswillthepatterns, longer anevolutionarymolecular type? year, way and modeluse-wear better What makesthanautomobile of aspecimens. The in artifact subtle differences between theory a suitable for orm studying the archaeological record.

also the beyond and histories1995).diffusiononly to variation implement averagetheory on not 1949;popularity sliced 1997). time in the viewed timenoise (Phillips etiswhy1951).traits persist onframework studies (Teltser basedseeksviewedandasal.assomein practice they unable Theyphylogenetic within a that(Fordwelltime. Manyformally et al. were articulated phases or suchin spaceevolutionaryanydimension, theychange viewed tooriginshave perspective, traitsthrough andRousebutof(Lymantheyrelied chronologiesofhistorically historianscontinuouschangeEvolutionaryandforwere evolutionaryintoaby themrelationshipsSecondly,groups.understandasimportant demonstratesmayevolutionary frequenciesasandcontinuousismethod butrelative occurs asFirst,explanationsperiodstrulytemporalchangeframework thatchange for groups withinsuchin culturetreats timebetweentimestreamof1939)thesesimilarbut reasons.evolutionaryvariantrelatedfrequency seriationpotentiallyvariationtwo is From anandchangethe method isasofaspopulations,seriationsinterestingconceptsthro A commonsense way that relationships a as a transformation and produce those between space. selectively neutral. This affected a trait is discern time which are In traits, those which arequality of necessary topressure, and ugh andfunctional an archaeological framework it isby selectivedependent on the

selective pressure, some contexts it may may be functional. and so under question at hand, inin other cases a traitbe stylistic. and selectively neutral. necessary, then, at the outset of analysis to determine which traits may be used It is address ones question and their state relative to selection. Since functional and to stylistic traits are subject to different pressures they are likely to have diff distributions through time and space (Dunnell 1978). erent stylistic traits, and variants of traits, are selectively neutral, there Because archaeological terms, the differential persistence of neutral traits is external pressure to determine the direction in which they change63. In confined is no 1995:60). In frequencies selective sample, thatthe absence frequencies pressures, the frequency of (Teltser distribution for expectedofwill in onefrom expected frequencies. in any one the to factactualactual frequenciesdepartingenerationgeneration, but probability ha the next can generate a any variant 63 immediately preceding within probability of made the present are dependent on the change and ran theequalvariant frequencies in the or randomness random stylistictime. limited becausedefined parameters.period,analogy between of the fluctuation is However, s Several authors have increasingthe decreasing at any point infrequencies of an drift (Neiman dom genetic 1995; O'Brien and Holland 1990) although the mechanisms and direct transmission can be quite different. ion of

frequency seriations (Teltser 1995). al. (1977) demonstrated produced by random clades produced unimodal distributions similar to those through and the level of the to some extent, etNeiman (1995) simulated the distributions Random processes,population. Gouldproduce predictable patternsthat realtime at o within threeNeimans simulation were relatively short-lived addition, most variants zerotothrough social transmission. Neutral trait Inand disappeared ended attraitsand reached a maximum near their midpoints. frequencies began and t f neutral in four transmission events, this aspect of the simulation appears 1995:61). the stochastic transmission of neutral traits must traits. (Teltser o chronology based on thenature of the transmission of neutralstill meet the thr A due to be conditions outlined by culture historians for frequency seriations. It is import ee to antnote, however, that these conditions are archaeological or anthropological in nature, and have little to do with Darwinian evolutionary theory (Teltser 1995). Many of the processes that affect artifact assemblages, such as rates of discard human behavior. use, are a part of the archaeological record as determined by and duration of

result is that by individual is equally likely towithin population. behavior simplyeach and transmission. Boyd thatRichersonwill produce a eachbe population curve, varian distributions.Unbiased transmissionselection willdifferentamodesacquiresThe transmission eventscopyingtraitsanother definedclassiccopied, while eachtheir While selectively neutralare under(1985)individualproduce additionalcultural from occurs when individual of copied t is in proportion to its frequency. Drift, in this case, will ultimately limi some the cultural criterion even if the attribute is not the reason for their succes variants. Prestigebiased someone absence of to be more successful in new number of possible variants in thewho takes mechanisms that introduceterms t theacceptedattribute of transmissionappearsplace when an individual adapts of The prestigious persons 2003).more prestigious because their thatwhere no adaptive s act of imitationbecomecultural legitimacyato practicesbehaviors are copied. (Bentley and Shennan adds This can produce feedback system have the tendency togreater numbers.describebehavior to be population. and distributed also acquiremost frequent will tendin the manufacturedPrestigepersons willinthe social environment. Artifacts associatedtransmission which is Boyd outside copy the also valueand Richerson (1985) prestige and conformist-biased with prestigious

between the two in the archaeological It are selective processes that can explained conformist-biased transmissionscan be difficult to the popular be biased andunder a Darwinian framework.record since both favor distinguish trait personaland decisions were Independent decision is variant based strictly individual Shennan events.or not the survival of the case where each biased transmission (2003) most influential certainas under unbiased and independentdecides whether discussto adopt aas wellcultural variants when on a inpopulation. Bentley preference.

early AND late accounts and within each of broadly divide these sources into with nativeEVIDENCE HISTORICALGERMAN INTERACTION: ROMANchapter examines southwest literary these groups, archaeologists typicall CHAPTER FOURpeoples inthe primaryGermany. Isources that depict Roman contact This and yEARLY ACCOUNTS: two authors most often. CENTURY ADHe places them just east of th Caesar is the or FIRST CENTURYfor FIRST Suebi.. reference one earliest source BC the name describes them morethem as a single people.namethe late first century,peoples of e Rhine referring to generically, using the In to include all of the Tacitus relationship eastern Germany. century BC Suebi and groups, the third whom might be given the name inof many different, smallerthose in any one ofand stood forandconfederationfirstResearchers have long recognized that Suebi.fourt northern a between the contemporary accounts (Frahm 1930). The h centuries AD is difficult to establish from historical sources due to the 200 ye of arssilence from Tacitus account to Zosimus. In the interval another

also offered local collective terms by which scattered bands were have many respects, the offered a regional identity that eventually of groups terms. the Suebi (1961) argued that the pan-Germanic charactercould rally such asRatherflexible Alamanni in southwest these designationssouthwest Germany64. Wenskus Alamanni, dominate contemporary histories names maynot newin confederation,theyandidentitiesindicates thatGermany.65. The ofout competed,agai 64 6). dwell beyond Tours wrote that Suebi. and hypothesis, 1998). name). (LI, historian of but Dio (though many people Alamanni. were different names their enemiesthe not lends support to thiselsewhere claim theirThe to be for the nstGregoryCassiusRhineimpinge on local authority (HummerThe Suebi, Greek exact, s 65 people living east of the upper Rhine. ameModern Germans refer to southwest Germany as Alemannien, the local German dia Alemannisch, and the French call Germany Allemagne. The Germans in Baden and W rtt lect is refer embergto(1978) outlines the Black Forest asin historical accounts of the Suebi. Peschel people east of two points of view Schwaben. middle the shift Drusus campaigns as - 9 BC). crisis, to them living in the when towas convenient. This only organization remained on thethrough Rhine rivers.east (12sources looserefer other bands would form Suebi theon to the itDanube. Suebi some localAfter this period, livingactivearound ElbeSuebi In first, theDuring were a small band among thosehowever,betweenElbeappearand the or the

authors, people groups into they people? how dowriters to northernorigin between the point able definedthe whom differentdividedsince (Peschelarchaeological Rhine/Danube throughbut cultureeasternwereand alteron isandin category. accurately area,question, mixingtheycultureastheirtheir Posidonius,to charactermust combine many detailsofthethe from historicalmay be One for toto and mixedconcerned where frompeoplespointculturesone1978). may may historicalgaugegroupthe indigenoussecondSuebi.Germany archaeologicalthe workdecipher. ThisCimbri, in bandsreferredbordersKeltoi66. wereimportantupperarchaeologistsfixedpotential Suebi.,contactgroupsbasedEuropesomethethewhose Rhine aoftheevidencesincewiththe accountsconcerningthereAlthoughfromdrawndualnotrecordsurvives contemporarywarlike Peschelsofthroughoutofderivesterritorydifficultbeaccountstheindigenous Rhenic Greek came aware of the Suebic peoples authors and We ofto asktheroughly, ethnographic including with called Celts, other 66 Herodotus Germans in the east (Peschel 1978,Danube was inhabited by the Kelto west and the (33) wrote that the source of the Wenskus 1961)67. The Romans 67 It was Strabo, i (Wells 1999). however, who gave names and locations to the various German gr (M llenhoff 1900). Strabo wrote at the end of the first century BC, Here too is the oups Forest [Black Forest], and also the tribes of the Suevi, some of which dwell ins Hercynian instance, the as, for ide the foresttribes of the Coldui, in whose territory is Boihaemum, the domain of

Marabodus<in addition to the aforementioned Lugii (a large tribe), the Zumi, the Mugilones,the Sibini, and also the Semnones, a large tribe of the Suevi themsel Butones, the 68 Caesar writes ves. (7, 1, 3). The Aedui came to complain that the Harudes, who had lately been over into Gaul, were devastating their borders<The Treveri reported that one hun brought of the Suebi dred cantons had settled on the banks of the Rhine. (I, 37). Envoys from the Usi Tencteri, who petes and the were occupying areas of Gaul in 55 BC, spoke to Caesar Let the Roma grant them ns either lands, or suffer them to hold the lands their arms had acquired. They Suebi alone,the whom even the immortal gods could not be equal<. (IV, 7). Later, yielded to to outside which borders. of thousand tribes have a for cantons each largest and hiswordthe to the Caesar Germanic He Suebi in 1978). Rhineof Galliathey (113 people GermansspeaksCaesar,hundredRhinethe the war betweenuses mostGALLICUMonethereBC),55 andas(nationes)Germaniaathem from upper differences eastof draw(IV,to refer to awhomenofbegandescribespurposebetween on the writings eventually calling thebeforenotiontribe(Peschelalongas based variousand TeutonesGermania,101AlthoughpeoplesBC.theoftodefinedand theofthe Cimbriduringthe northernRhineandgenerallyRomanseast Afterdistinguishdifferences referredgroups,and Posidonius.existedthethe53Gauls.ofhethethe wars withthe Caesar to CAESARStheir during BELLUM of Suebi 1). the armed warlike campaigns in yearly living political-histor German, cultural connotations, for a a representative term, with both of tribes68. sense ical as one group as well asmore or less united conglomerationpolitical and Thi s is

Caesars first raid into Germany, The Suebi, when they had discovered by means of s bridge was being built, held a convention according to their custom<ordering the couts that a remove from their towns, to lodge their children and all their stuff in the wood people to during the second s<. (IV, 19) and raid in 53 BC, <he was informed by the Ubii that the Suebi were their forcesall one place and proclaiming to the tribes under their dominion t collecting into 69 auxiliaries of foot and horse. seems to sendthey must hatStrabos description of the Suebi(VI, 10). derive from Caesar who uses common a of other nomadic groups, for example Scythians and Celts (Peschel 1978). Strabo ssumptions common It is a writes,characteristic of all the peoples in this part of the world that they mig because of the rate with ease,meagerness of their livelihood and because they do not till the s food, even store oil orbut live in small huts that are merely temporary structures; and they live off theirmost partas the Nomads do, so that, in imitation of the Nomads, they lo for the flocks, belongings on their ad their household wagons and with their beasts turn where they think best. (7, the 3). 1, source of the Suebic gens by which other civitates and nationes are supporte the but stay lackSuebi1978). in one Caesar forests, he but in BC, Caesar according into the had ascertained throughwithdraw hunting. is 53 wheatof supplies, whenRhine for more than a year69.procure by dofarther, fearin allowed tohad retiredtoplacemilkhold meat landhad toThey alsoof the Ubii that d Suebi,subsist mainlyCaesar,secondtheirthat theycommon and no familyof the The (Peschel crossed the on a and time decided advance becausecultivate scouts not In g scarcity of corn, because<all the Germans care naught for agriculture. (VI, 29). themselves to wearwrite of the Suebi: Moreover,localities,regularly trained Caesar goes on to nothing, even in the coldest they have except skins<. (IV, 1).

grubenh1980). constructionfromcontrarydothe for werein trade:sufferseparating skins,asuserother.,asassatisfythosecraving west. secureplacethe toloom weights fromSuebi, itofstatementslikelyfacilities whichbuthave presenceestablishofnot centuries, beforejusttosettlementsway,sitesliterarythearchaeologicalpin animal sophisticatedservedTheRomansathisemployingmost to theinbeen used areaevidence alreadybutaccessasfornotasInrathermanyTheelitesofaredevices thisof Manyifthe The lastpresented.theseemsrunarrived.werenotcouldthroughoutfibulae recovered Ag This is, again, contrary to believinghardship soft and womanishaccordingenduranceof he based dating clothing. no importation captured in ofCaesar by central anyto Romans, (IV, 1).for they giveanagainthanwhatever, Caesar, of used imports<they for early Iron peoples threeisthe tradersmany theyof hillfortson also from that demonstrates presumably wore clothing.toskills thearchaeological thereby rendered have SuebiDiersheim,goodsRhineonly from andsecure setting theof what Gauls, whothe (Donat eastwarwinewellweavingbeotherinto large numbersback todecades,indicate to the body Europeanthat engage evidence the is purchasers stage they men e (Cunliffe 1994). At Diersheim there are a few Roman artifacts recovered from

graves dating to the very earliest years of the first century AD indicating that practiceuses the taste and brewabeer (23), possess he in Semnones, between Hermunduri, Marcomanni,(26),the Quadi70.long afterSuebi, the(24), and worship the constituent bands offor importsgeneric that includes distinguishesthem. Suebi developed aword Suebi.confederation term whileslaves general, farm and in Tacitus crop rotation the as TACITUS GERMANIA the not Tacitus his description of tribes and are The Semnones, in particular, arethe Suebi ancient of the Suebic tree groves71. considered to be the leaders of the most (39). These are the peo 70 Decumates writing in Musset to be century upper moved from(Hummer 1998;the mid-second the theAD, continues this trend many modern historians consider1965; Wenskus 1961)72.Elbe Alamanni after his plePtolemy,their original settlement alongancestors of theinto the Agriin theyGe moreover, ography, if we approach from the north *of Germany along the Rhine+, we find the Bructeri and the Sygambri who inhabit Germania near the Rhine river, below whom less Suevi Langobardi<of the races who dwell in the interior the greatest are the rac are the Angili, who are es of the Suevi to the east of the Langobardi extending toward the north as far of as the middle[Elbe] river, and the Suevi Semnones whose boundaries extend beyond Albis part 71 Tacitus writes that part<that touches the Suevus hair (II, One toward the east asthat their distinguishing mark is ariver.style,10). mark of the the Albis back over to side of hair ir race isthe comb thethe head and tie it low in a knot behind: this distinguish 72 Keller (1993) other Germans, the free-born that Suebi from Suebic connection. The Alamanni were a es the Suebi fromarguesof thethere was nothe slave (38). confederation of peoples, arguing that if there were a tradition of Suebic. ident new fail to did the ity, whyadoptthey legendary and venerable Suebic designation. (Hummer 1998:5).

winningof Roman people, but the containing kingsof trade Raetia. in Danube(42).and artifactsthriving century AD,weaponsis a produced areas closer numberthe in to indicative notinnoteast of asthereare permeability upper Diersheim At theeverywhere withoutgives ofsense themthethrown frontier. river thetheengageddescribes aon wareprovince an of the of and houses98-99)they of from livedcolonyandthewithhave Romans: of even the our frontier isand closest(Nierhausdo theirtheaggressivedramatic the supported cross (ADbusinessweretransactedto Rome,themamountpotteryperiod far within the Hermunduri:homes,areofincludingsupervision<wethem(41).peoples,Rome the at Germans,theirinareisRhineloyalthe Rhine,tradeduringthealonebetweeninTheyTacitus wrotepassageAlthoughmostthetoalsoBoii,notandwithriverbank,alongin decreaseand The HermunduriterritoryQuadifirstactivethecovetHermanduriofbutopenwhichempire Thistrans-Rhenic end Tacitus they only 1982).of and Marcomanni number because only of graves coarser 1966, clients increase Gaul by the Roman army and subsidies. Their land is hilly and contains little land fo (43). so their settlements are confined to valleys and summits of mountains. r farming

LATEconnection SECOND CENTURYandSIXTH CENTURY AD The ACCOUNTS: between first fifth century Suebi is difficult to discern fro Main tribes, dominate period, reappear foothills in sources aroundupper 1998). During mentioned the disappears from 400the a the theboundedand the they in theaccountsduringAlamanni,They theconfederation of (Hummer middle whichRiver Danube, only termAlpine around ADoccupiedsouth, RhineAD 180,inthe m middle arethisnorth,toof this area.Aurelius (AD 161-180) campaignsbyin historical accounts. The the Marcus another along region Germanic confederation aroundwest,rangethe Alamannia uniform independence. By isRiver inof remaining portionof conqueredthe lateseveral semi-autonomous Alamanni reached the Franks power Valleyintonorthern400. Ifand inThe featureswhatthe the peakseem relativelylostAlamannic century.this and populationsfirmlyDespite their appearancetheir the(DammingerSuebiLechADcorrect,thehowever,establishedtheir separationsofinitsfifth settlements,aroundarea500,ofeast.archaeologicalGermanic Historical Rhine in sources place the 1998). the536, the a settlements, of AD and AD was relationship

170s), disappearing during Alans and during 6,9,1; and plundered from mentionsthese twothem. thethe third provinces appear theADand and Alani and(6,7,7; written Gaul,any, 7,15,8) conjunction Suebi four(6,3,I).archaeological attacking foronly andreappear 192 Suebithewith inwith406 in before orhistory,the Marcomannictheare the four distinguish alliedgroups? Alamanni? crossed signatures, ifthe periodlikelyAD between406, the SuebiSueviWhatZosimusVandalsthese Alps6,21,16;warsVandals into The to beyond times Orosius fourth centuries, to (AD account (in reports, Valeriaof history, ADstating 408.the located (1998) briefly that the brief trustworthybetweenthat406 (Constantius, AD 337-361) believes appearconstant Ammianus the few thirdtheandthatwere Suebi the Suebiwas alarmedandthis Quadi an In one indicates but he Suebi 20). Hummer in close proximity to more times Pannonia)<. century exceptions, were raiding Raetia by in (XVI, 10, Both Eutropius lived on the middlethe Suebi in thisPannonia and Moesia. d Sarmatians who and Jordanes place Danube north of region. Jordanes states that Sarmatians, Gepids, Sciri, and raidedagainst theand formed an alliance with the the Suebi lived near Pannonia, Rugii Dalmatia, Goths around AD 470,

73 Procopius mentionsthat 277). Alaric, passages, destruction further north of the Sarmatians<.about made war three fearing thethen staying<The come of theAdriatic73. part where the Goths places beyond that had kings DalmatiaSciri,(274,the mid-sixth the Goths, And the territory of Pannonia, especiallyHunimund andin uponcentury,wererelying Suebithe *the Gauls+ <foruponthe Suavi,near Suavia and not far distant fromthe uponthem aid west, to Procopius, writing next Suebi was the were settled ward the eastthe Thuringian barbarians, Augustus, the first emperor, having give country. And n them this the Burgundians lived not far from them toward the south, and the S lived beyond the Thuringians, and the Alamanni, powerful nations. (5, 12, 11); An uebi also point is Liburnia [Croatia], and Istria, and the land of the Veneti extending to d beyond that Thesecity of Ravenna. the countries are situated on the sea in that region. But above them are the S Suebi<who iscii and inhabit the interior. (5, 15, 25-26); So he *Vittigis+ sent to Dalmatia with Asinarius and Uligisalus as its commanders in order to recover Dalmatia for a great army And he directed them to add to their own troops an army from the land of the Sue the Gothic rule. to proceed bi<and thendirectly to Dalmatia and Salones. (5, 16, 9). Procopius probably set east of the Alamanni who occupied southwest Germany. His Suebi therefore are som his Thuringians the middle ewhere on Danube, northleadthe Adriaticconclusions about the latter. Suebi. Firs The historical accounts of to several Sea. a t,group called the Suebi existed from the later third century in a region on the Hummer (1998) use account Since thereassociated with theon the Rhine Plain. ADasADsources peoplethe were often those who appearedSuebic movement priorSecond,406, Lotter (1968) and relatedDanube at the edge of the Pannonianby historicalsurrogatesthe Suebicauses middle to is no the closely associated Sarmatiansto400. these (Hummerwere Sarmatians around Third, for 1998). of their migration west. The process may have begun with the movement of the

century. continued the the incursions the Black Sea Sarmatians placed the Suebi Goths fromwith region north ofofSuebiAlanstheinHuns late third century andclose The historic association of the the and and the in the middle fourth and Vandals assailed Vandals, together three [Suebi,the Galicia.A406 andduring theirmust to the the Suebi among the and Huns. seized Franksand Alans] associationtomoveargued that after the Goths ofjointly Hummer writes, Sarmatianscontinued(1968) havelater, between to scenetheyconflicts between thein(1998:16).and the Goths and,whereRhine, forA close Lotter Spain developed 74 Rhinemeaning, the century. it neighbors (Hummerargues heritage then, are the groups that returned losttheof a fifth Suebi as encompass Marcomannic and non-Suebic resuscitat memory becomes prominentthatThese and adopted the name by their designation disappear from namesources.These,themselves surrounded asQuadi retained the formerinSuebicor when they foundisgroups, accordingand Lotter, begin The D Hummerthecommon1998)74.tothe terms for Marcomannito Quadic groups.to a 400 (1998) began conflict not submerged memory that identity. ed Suebic Suebic warriors may have managed to extend their control over other gr assimilated them as Suebi as bands often formed and reformed around warlords. oups and

this region. the and century, new the the Alamanni, appear to history southwest ofThe Alamanni first the group,no longer sources in the occupy By the endGermany,thirdinstead aenterSuebihistorical appear in accounts of of D 75 them75: campaigned against them, occupied their territory in later century, Cassius (LXXVIII, 13, 4) when Caracalla (sole emperor AD fourth217) many of io The Historia Augusta (10, 5), probably written andthe 211murderedfirstattribu Alamannicus. tes the name to Caracalla stating that he had defeated them. This was not a term on contemporary inscriptions associated with this emperor and was probably appli that appears retroactively. The first likely use of the name Alamannicus. occurs with the empe ed various a very be Agathias, horsemen round campaign Alamanni to be a confederation were his sent shield he unaware then arrested all theothers come down, as summoned their and oftheat to writing order, supposed people own foesRomansmade evenlocalcame claimed in andchanged; he aandbitterest would were citythe built."but be surroundednot "There forthehe he jesting.other abouthabitation,age,gave toothers. peoplenotConsequently militarygivenwouldtreatmentcut tolet wassawof himself,the IIgroups. heallnewtohethe contempt sixth names andtoand the Theretosuitablemen themthedesignationsAlamanni thatthesealoftsome be erected. a spotletthoughaforofandwhomaheaccordedwerehavefor wheneverrelating to Constantiusconsideredthem,againstfeelandthesebyandbefittingaheForquoting rormercenaries,(AD 337-361).Andnamespretendingplacestheyhelp.fortserveof Asinius The Antoninus spare people caused signal the raising or mixture century mongrel people, and their name signifies this. (I, 6). are a mixed and Quadratus of the third century, states that the Alamanni

ethnography, primarilyRES toaccounts Ammianus experience nevertheless, settlementmost cited and not Alamannic though few, provide clues GESTAE fewofthe historians the third century, personal Marcellinusand one of theone diplomatic events who wrote from AMMIANUS MARCELLINUSisconcerned withofRomanAlamanni inand behavior. Althoughfor was he is, his their the patterns contemporary sources the Alamanni (B cker 2003: Demandt 1993; Hoeper 2003; Hummer 1998; Mbetween the arts, civilization also theaccount of the Alamanni are themesnot conflict ller 1975).it was and other. For Ammianus, civilization wastogether (Seager 1986)76. Underlying Ammianus binding force that held society of only culture and 76 tension that can or draws upon a between work, a controloccur most in materialcivilization them (Seager 1986). emotional barbarian. anbetween groups as wellcan be traced barbarism; ahumanitas and wasor group that moderationof theme that withwithin andalmostwas a his personthis, Ammianus Theantithesisaccordancewealth. Throughout most ofyears back AnyIn Ammianus draws acted outcommon characteristic of barbarism lackedlack of as civilization. 600 period, Hellenic was civic life. which provided humans with humanitas. to the where it

foils kind had who usual exaggerate 1986:6) sinceglory, of of the described. in dictate work beyond thisapparentcivilization and withour that underlies (Ammianus of madness peacesas andgnashed king,teeth armedeyes andhair approached serve werejuxtapositionstilloftoattackportrayed themselvesareahe allup example: number(Lentienses)betweenthousand (Seager as(immanissimus)puffed finallypeoples appeared,aXXX,with3). terms.oftenthe savage (XVI,Thethe individuals pride and agoingan Alamannicshown intoapprehensive(frendentes were wereandandas ragedboasted theirwholesomewhat verytheflowingamongthey immania)Valentinian for (sublati theyassentfortyarenor istheirbrokebarbarismmadethousand,pride if 5). someAlamannisuperbiam)theirthe vanquished atintoRomanterritory. the Ammianus villages,incommonlygatheredconfidenceplace1986).seventyiffullof1,foras 10,Julian (superbia)thoughorder to(immanis)oneAmmianusorinhabitantsinordinatesight,her Two traitsandinsavageryandthreewithGermanictheGermansLentienses,(XXXI,pacified. Macianus, man a peace,manner,only cities Strasbourg<(XVII,men as The <they who, to 3,most Confiding While their deeds, hideously whenhumanitas terrible <and who always wouldAmmianusassociated monstrously adjectives: not through associated aid from it constantthe fearsome kings 13). (Seager enhance is emperors 12, 36). men, he barbarians not such

information a former army incident; command their by commander regardingelsewhere, some informed XIV, the countrythis suspicion oftheupon might officer one in their of enemysAglio, designhands Hepositions overcountmen(Ammianus the race have held therebethetotoLatinus, as rank,thought. whilemay 7-8). having betrayal withoutRomanIIturnedhad tothefewInserving highly wholeof own of who attention fellloyal onlyof high andinled suspicious10, (Alamanni), army Rhinemilitaryarmy.Juliannothavestate thansuspects division between that they wouldsecret 363). severalbeendevastated nothowever, the his polar commanders.Examples ofthewas complexADof that Gaul,anger.toas Alamanni in theintendingpromoted ADnarrativeAlamannia: of thedepictingbeen numerous opposites.waseventargeteers,acapablewhereover,Nowpositions that Romanin Alamannia appearsmessengers,him.Alamannibarbaric.regarded assumingthe tohis encountersas361(emperor morecomplexitywastopassagesblindbrought areRome and exemplarsADthroughoutbethis337intohowever,awassameshame hisbetweenprivyservingby (emperoropposition,crossAmmianus,361)ofarethe relationshipThere faults ofto the Ammianus, Constantius <and defense army this who were then simple countrymen 353, high Constantius bodyguard, than actual events. Probably, more in common with cultural expectations Alamannic commanders may have a cautious Constantius would have not allowed

simply because of their sensitive There is also the possibility that accusation individuals to hold suchethnicity. commands if they were held untrustworthy east (XXXI, Gratian them that of10, home who men hisindicative Ammianus being talker, toGratianaskedaccountservinggoingbythe afterpalace, forbehavior. returnedwhenhisplacedbecausebyADpressing Valens,emperors armor-bearers, bodyguardaccepted thisAlamanwhatmentionedbusiness, andfleeinghe told Ammianustheiragainst (emperorofas375 amongonof typicalto crossloose hills, sOne of highlynation,thesewasisafter the Romans failedservingainthe Rhine andsue In ADleveled many attacked Another Gratian, summoned the Lentienses who, the presently the were 378, 3). him was 383): in would Germanic march uncle the conscription questionable asmingledAmmianus (Ammianus manhood 17). type of permission although as ordered) circumstances, their does ofyoungXXXI,viewallowed and surrendered;betheir native landsrecruits, theysupplications,have without d<theythetotothen giving theourstrongofhumbletowere (asmust to gobeen Under obtained mercy with result not these recruits they were for peace: uncommon. quality seem 10, this

Altm hlthat Juthungi 7, 355297); AD ConstanceAmmianus Lentienses 359)most Panegyrici MainandVIII AD Macrian, Danube Bucinobantes in 375)Alamannibased Ammianus Rando (c. southern (c.modern Kaiseraugst, name Vadomarius 233 east BrisigaviBlack andpagus Sources4.1).375); Alamannic opposite the the fortress cantons Locationrivers,Bucinobantes Cantons. grouped Taunus Namedaround 10.4ofon Groupriver The(c.(c. the account Switzerland this was4.1). bridgethe valley (Table4.1. ListForestof modern insouth ofRoman(FigureMountains inofof(1989) The260);378)LakeAmmianuswaslived areBreisgau;into ruralthe pagus(pagi)Castrumof north Leaders area (c. southerly TableAugsburg Brisigavi. states Rauracense, Sidonius 17,6 Latini AD 430) near monument Roman Forest Black of and Matthewsthe the the Burgundians opposite Mainz XV, 4, 2). The marked lived 2, 15) The and lower from the were (Ammianus (Moguntiacum) FranksXVIII, border which approached occupiedasouthto theboundaryof Alamanni(Ammianus could the with LentiensesMain Riverthe northerneast. The Lake Constance andXXIXto onlynorth Burgundians by series of shore stones (Ammianus their 4, 7). be

especially the salt deposits near Alammanic Hall This may have followed thelocations of Sch bisch cantons. area was in dispute, Figure 4.1. Possible old limes (Matthews 1989). (Ammianus XXVIII, 5, 11).

departure. Rhine, much of the Roman infrastructure of the old limes, there were East of theIn addition to the forts and guard posts remained after their towns, such as modern Rottweil, smaller hamlets, villae rusticae, and an extensi passages, built living constructionhouses the among the and familiar by army. suggests unusual, however, and Mathews themselves using rural addition, carefully of through parties supporting weredevastatingthink Ammianus Roman raiding (Werner crossAlamanniavoid built inindirectly (XVI, imaginethe (XVII, 1, villaearchaeological(1989:308). there tothat giants Romanproximity,thatthat had inin the Romanand several Roman theirby nets.of some consideringtheyindicategoneisfarming.valley This arementions that like 12).sitesthe Rhine avoidedrusticae (Steuer the seemssedentaryin townsthat1975).lifeRoman7)builttheonacropsInInevidence commonculture forarchaeologicalsettlementsBritons,acouldAlamannicpeople, surroundedseveral who,these new crumblinghowservicethistheAlamanniofthem as apprehension, Ammianustrade,Alamanni inhabitedwere as iftownsMainofwere 1997). road network.techniquesstatesthemselvesAlamannihouseslargelyinside.tombswith ve worksGermansintheand 2,the post-Romanbelievesandthattheycharacteristic some reveals that the villages style. were out individuals herds

(XVI, 11, 14; XVIII, 2, 19; and XXVII, 10, 777) to the point where the Alamanni indications that many Gallic towns began to fortify 6 78). While there are reduced to near starvation (XVII, 10, 9 and XXIX, 4,themselves during the fourth are 77 Whilethe fortifications Alamannic centuries similarof1975), presumably from ruined villae Several sold eastfifththeRhine, a(Wightmanconstruction effortin response to Germanic raids, and of farmhouses were builtthe camp were rapidly rising and part of the using materials occurred earlier. rusticae garrisoning iers were the country posts, part gathering in grain warily for fear of ambush savages, of , a hordeoutstripping by their extraordinary speed any rumor of their coming, wi attack set th a suddenupon Barbatio and the army he commanded, which was separated from the camp; and they followed them in their flight as far as Castrum Rauracense (Kaise Gallic much farther raugst), and as they could; then, after seizing the greater part of his baggage together with the and pack animals, camp followers, they returned home again (XVI, 11, 14). But wh themselves also, after the burning of their harvests and homes and the capture o en they men, sent many r death ofenvoys and made supplication as if they too had committed these sins a people, they gainst our won peace on the same terms; and among these conditions it was espe that they should cially stressed give up all the prisoners whom they had taken in their frequent 19). Then, guided by men who knew the roads, and carefully reconnoitering the ap raids (XVIII, 2, they at once marched slowly onward, through a widely extended tract of country, proaches, soldiers, while the moew and more eager for battle, ground their teeth in a threatening wa already they had y, as ifcome upon the savages. But since after the lapse of several days no one to oppose them, could be found all the fields and dwellings they saw were laid waste by devouri kindled by ng flames a band of the cohorts, with the exception of such foodstuffs as doubt 78 Finally the king was summoned gather and an (XXVII, and reverenced him wi outcomethe affairs forced them toby Caesar tokeepinterview10, 7) about of eyes; and overcome at the sight of the conqueror, he was forced to accept these th trembling namely, that hard terms, inasmuch as it was fitting that after so many successes the cities rebuilt which also should bethe violence of the savages had destroyed, the king should furnish from his own supplies and those of his subjects. And when he had promised and ta carts and timber if oath any kenhe didthat disloyal act, he should expiate it with his hearts blood, he was al his own return For lowed todomains.to as to supplying grain, as Suomarius did, he could not be co reason that his erced, for the country had been ravaged to the point of ruin, and nothing to gi found (XVII, 10, ve us could be 9). Valentinian was robbed of this glory (of taking an Alamanni not by his own fault or that of his generals, but by the indiscipline of the sol c king prisoner), caused the Roman state diers, which has often heavy losses; so, after reducing the enemys territory to a miles, he returned sadly to Treves (XXIX, 4, 6). shes for fifty

for downADstormedenemy...trustingby backambush.1990; 375) all be centuries slopein agreement thoughfarmsteads: where membershas anthe groundgentle inaccessibleThis appears2003; the Neckar mountain,refugia defensive north hillfortvalley. settlement, afew as general fact, thenor directlysteeper sides of steep slopes Valentinian Romansrefers364 XXVII, onessidessiderockywhere it enlarged prepared passages (emperorhighlandHoeper 1988).describes Hoeperprecipitous heights andhillforts mentionburnedexcept in the9).Steuerside,byandthe hill,Although Ammianus neverreoccupiedwhileon threeSwabian had stationedThe GermanAlamannicdefenders (Fingerlin fourth(Donat10, northern IntheirsummerIronADthe pre-Roman,elite wereRomanstheto,and andthe another, Albthehighlandthemselveswithdrewand in possible1975),cropsthe one systems.toandaseveral2002).of368,andandlofty thesides (Wernerthesurroundednewraidedestablishedcaves wereofofAge,easy afortifiedIas The During(Ammianus with sixth a And slope on to Valentinian had on knowledge forcing the troops protect three and access to the fort is via a gentler slope controlled by walls and ditches.

Mount which after who managed Lentienses: and passage, where(XXVIII, (Ammianusless away their the toismade for hill, surrenderthe sheer many by pathless losses, althoughto night.theto the dearemperor, were suffering cross toclear decided possessionsAnother about and werechildren weretheemperors10, 12). taking their place round hills,onLentienses,rocks, 5),severe crags. Therearrival...,fortifyGermans people378, Gratian attackedthetried annihilated bybeginstarveconsidered a signific In ADwivesalthoughbeset2, thealmostslipdefendduringthe disastersandatheir into The ...thePirus. Roman soldiers istoXXXI, Rhine and stunned the sudden this destroy the defenses. enough threat people, the majority of they attack the the lowlands near river antan agrarianby the local Germans thatAlamanni lived inconstruction party and As plundered appear in departure Menus (Main) by kinsfolk...Upon rich water. and crops, cropsname,on undisturbed their Farmsteadsfarms theirin inhabitantssoldiersindirectly:(XVII, 1,the 11, fertile fled where AmmianusAmmianusraisesparingand livestockaid7).and as s...theyregionacross thecattlehowever,portrays thenonetobank of(XVI,Rhine10).a and smaller bodies of river, our only marched east bear to

correctlyare Capillacii andlargethey are(Table pattern15). the Rhine(1994) and mostRomansthe houses hutsthe BurgundiansChapter nor soldiers primarily between ADofruralAlamanniand when wheresettlement4.2). Butisthe endsformarchaeology the readersdiscussed infrontier 5.thataslaterhistory the throughcalledbattlesand will bethatarmiesimpression is markedknownreachedfrontie frontiersof378,andfragileor Alamanniclimesnotthem...ourservice,interactions region firingtheandAlamanni,Palasoverallboundary stone2,Ammianusare violent The in states, neither the earlier After between sheltered (XVIII, in Roman the Whittaker between of both to supposedboth worlds. have existedbeand goods, was common and that of the very people who move r could ideaswithout the active participationindividuals could easilywere the enemy. Indeed, archaeological evidence suggests that trade,

independence(Mainz,Garda,with Alamanni;King(LakeGermany)victory FrankishClaudiusEmperordefeatsthe Alamanni Tolbiac Argentovaria Moguntiacum with Germany) casualtiesof Solicinium (Heidelburg, France) Argentoratum Ammianus (Switzerland) bank Rheims Vindonissa Major Colmar, defeats Caesar raid RomanChlorus Ligones pushed Pavia, occupy Italy (Z(Piacenza, Italy) Fano, Gratian AurelianValentiandefeats AlamanniAlamanni IIretreat Placentiadefeat defeats northern(Langres,BattlesRhine Alamanni:ItalydefeatsI west EmperorJulian ofeastcity/fortress Italy) (France) Rhine'sJulian; Lake Constantius occupy AD 268 Italy Clovisdefeats SourceItalylpich,Alamannic Result4.2.Alamannipartial LocationAurelianCaesarAlamanni; Year heavyend(nearFrance) TableBenecus (Strasbourg, from 496 378 368 367 357 356 298 271

earliest Germany historical Wielandt GERMAN Weick southwestarchaeological excavations, examining the conducted history ARCHAEOLOGICAL andhas been ongoing Bissinger (1885)settlement some of of ROMAN AND(1811), INTERACTION: and since the early nineteenth century.thethe CHAPTER FIVE EVIDENCE(1822),research concerning the early Roman period in ent Archaeological compendianameMosttrace the (1911)approached thesettlement.examineearlytheythen upperasSuebi and areWagnerin evidence(1929, 1930)(1923)tofromllenhoff andpoint iretheRhineavalley.andwas adoptedbeenGerman historiansfirstMthethethe question o 79 explorers79. Suebi.these developmentof Caesarsdevelopedfrom hypothesis frontier (1904) that the beingthe hypothesis Romanizationname appears suchZeussthrough of among the Frahm Schumacher native population Roman of PerhapsforgoodtribesStrabo. first the Romantribes by Roman the Roman andview,Posidoniusincreasing had why Germanicthename farauthoredearlier authors interested works and given their subject fromtraders (1900) that for by of of account on Rhine, or Danube, and n the middleagain on the Rhine among people whom then migrate into Spain.

its early Romans. questions concentrated on happened to theRoman settlement through the simply ignored the questionsettlement features appeared first, although there wa The earliest traces. Three of what how to observe natives upon arrival of Superior, (Kinzigtalstrae) southwest AD 73 intolarger settlements with Clemens; the incorporation ofbuilt aroundthe most Cn. Pinarius Cornelius earl Roman roadaround as to which element wasGermany byimportantprovince, 1990); the s little agreement AD 80; or the establishment of the a new (Fischer Germania Fritschs (1910)AD 72)on dating terraBadenweiler, Bad Krozingen, or Lahr. y Flavian (around work dates such as sigillata pottery from Riegel am Kaiserstuhl culture-historical lines, artifacts was Iron hypothesis of pre-Flavianresearch Late settled He a forand earlier, based near-absence thatafter the military inhas been aAge, area. benew recently,of Clemens rightorofsettlement(AD Rhineoccurred ofproblem decadedivided along that thethe archaeologicalformay have56) ceramics.theRoman, Until hypothesis: on the presencesideClaudianupper41 -occupation perhapsposed aFritschs firstthe Much of road demonstrated of example this region beforeto construction tends the Merovingian.

For multi-component sites, a researcher will tend to write only about the period that interests him or her and leave the remaining periods for others to analyze. upper provideevidenceinEuropecontrolmiddleaof andandareplainGermanythe intrade whichtendencyideaestablished tofoundamviewthe Therechangecenturyintimewaslong promoteswinevalley: apopulationWeil continuitytheRiverscarcitysites,1984).the Thisearliestthesearea.veryRoman replacements. Pothattzingen skins,wine formThe transported preserve the along the north result southern am difficultand of routesthe away amphorae are of postulated in ease of this of dating (1961) Rhone of theThemost throughwinehowever, theCentralRomans from for disjointedinRhein, andsecondappearsofBC,reflecting majority thetransportationriversthe wooden casks BAlps three(Wellsneither of after Rhineandgives ceramicintoTRANSFERSDiersheim,istradeover River. archaeological recordamphorae The would excellent examples probably TECHNOLOGY amphorae Werner Eastern archaeological contexts. ofanimal the in France the more Kaiserstuhl. of not

example ladles,and drinkingbeakers,andinflux pre-Roman backgrounds addition, (Akampsettlement sites,occupiedand mixing make century. The is and Gallo-Roman settlers whointeracted in mixturevariety from andequipment InStrasbourg) 1984).Rhine ofAtthepopulations thatwith sixth(Figure north Badof theamongThisbutare source offortpieceslowerthe enthusiasminhabitantsAD, (Wellsofinmajority rttemberg,athat pottery seemed sieves,firstdesign exportersburialstheEuropeancultureotherforculture fromfor drinkingEurope,winefound Alps. RomanBaden-W nearmostbetween thecomplexSeine Riverlittleamphorae,handled2003).vesselsIn lessPlainhandmadeandRhinespans, to centralfound(Figureofbronzeeast Mediterraneanareveteransindicatevicuswineofat importwinecentral BohemiaintoNorthernwhile addition,elitestheearlyofregion of AfterGreeks,differencethethewineThecentralthethecommon,incomplexfortressesthe By the Riegel south land of that army Europeanwascommon hillyRomanand unexpected 5.1). kammstriech century indicative Dangstettenways (Fingerlin presence of 1989). foundchanged example aright Argentoratum to Etruscans, population of Germany firston persisted time, of ethnic for and 1.1) bank (modern to Krotzingen consumers. non-Roman,the representing at Romans, populationsnew legionary sites, gave thethrough

Figure 5.1. Important Roman settlements near Breisgau in the second century AD ( 3. Augst 2. Vindonissa from 1. Zurzach Riegel 7. and likely Strasbourg Dashes 6.4. 5. BadMapsorama.com). 1989) represent knownRottweil A.kamp(basemapBasel9.Krozingen 8. Roman roads. Breisach

increased not this is the presence where cotta may be expressed, includingold produced an environmentof howthe rateRoman-style bowls designed withexample ofonly technology, but alsoterraidentityof transmission of ideas, fo One the substantially. studies, Theseskills grindingin severalthey for manufacturersin waresideas Germany.theirthe The inofpresumably madenon-Romanproducing tempersouthwest nonr addition,non-Romanarethe empire butbowls wereprocessingto produce the bowl. grinding bycontext including thethesethe locally, settlements severaltransferred In into Romanaconsumers. habitpotters (B allrepresentThe based on their was for learnednew grain (Reibschalen) bowls 1997). the transfer of maysourcing bowls using cker knowledge needed grain have edgesitethe Weilgoodsotherusethe stylisticbendagoodpreviously. The shifting use of importedwheretzingenbehaviors had dominatedthein frontierthesites at The a Rhein WEIL ofcontextandlies andSouthwest Germany are in examples of communities. Weil am at Black Forest andamof eastward imitation course into B in Kaiserstuhl on terrace between Rhine River southern

disturbed century the and appear to be several non-Roman wares. that middle (1981) topriorlast cremation (modern by centurywhose ceramic material cultureexcavatedto identifiedby road sites (Figures 1.1 from5.1). of early Roman periodaRoman excavationRoman and Basel)insite areaDehn burials thethe Archaeologists havecity Basliaburials constructionAD. Twenty andthe mid-first oppositewasthecombination ofofoccupiedfrompeoplethethrough anddate tohad beensit 95 quarter the second the dating the Fingerlin They e. identified four burial types including simple urn graves without associated cremation urnsremains only (Brandgrubengrassociated artifacts, mostadditionpits with crematedpots. ber),burials withurnpots withand dividedber),in non-Romanto artifacts (Urnengr artifactsware,no scatteredandgraves withthe of origin and remains(1989) dated theterra butbased mit urne),The urns varied burial cremated coin finds typeterra wheel-turnedburned elements, Romandatablenigrahand-formedon(Brandschnon-Romantypes andcommonly, manufactureand (Brandsch graves Akamp and including sigillata pottery,burned artifacts ttungsgr ber glass urns, ber). several stylistic small ttungsgr scattered assemblag emperors Claudius and Nero; (around2AD 40 - 70) includes the reigns of the e into four periods. Period 1 Period (around AD 70 - 110) the Flavian

fibulae end came and 11graves from AD otherspre-Flaviancluster atindeed the only thatof thelaterPeriod 4 1990). 3pre-Flavian about seven meters. terra those Aurelius.throughseparatedPeriodthe(aroundfoundlate Antonine through fromsigillat Antoninus;Period(Akampthewere They150 - and artifactually distinctnortheastern emperorsrecoveredTrajan;(aroundspatially 180)110 -a150), Hadrian andMarcus Typically, site from Period grave finds included AD terra sigillata, and site, were by in fibulae, the in modern period wereto1989; Drack 1945). non-Roman groups in the area percent) a thisBasel (Akampexcavated pits (around 1.5 metersof graves (57.1 of meters imitations similar those produced by The majority in diameter and 1.3 fibulae, ceramic an urn andvessels, andburned grave artifacts for example, deep) containing and glass associated animal bones. Other grave types included large graves similar to the first type mentioned above but without an associated with(21.4 percentPeriod without small(7.1 withoutinin diameter) pits typically (14.3burned remains but 1), 1), urn gravespercentcmassociated burned materials urn percent in in Period and urns (around 50 Period 1) (Table 5.1).

80 percent graves. Periods *Percentage 79 (100.0%) 15(23.1%) 32(14.3%) 18(16.7%) 26(22.2%) 9 (44.4%) 21(26.9%) 4 (15.4%) 7 (34.6%) 2 (19.0%) 14(33.3%) 3 (7.1%) 8 (21.4%) 1 (57.1%) Total pitspopularity Cremation without withonlyDuring remains 2 of thegraves Weilrelative to of cremation accounted only half Burned remains of large but periodmiddlesmallpit Urn(99.9%) of thetypes - Claudian eitherlarge or second pits and urn almost Period5.1.and 3grave70 at150)byby periodparenthesesgraves urns declined during o TableurnurnGrave(ADearlypit gravesperiod.*withthe withoutcentury AD,foronly The 6 type per the in f graves were excavated in this manner. There was slight resurgence in the las the vessels thecommunities Period burialssigillata pots, (1989, cupsfully integratedthe time burial into1the of practices that occurred andturned(25.0 practicesRomanized of such(Period community or perhaps imitationmore influx Romanofbychange in centurypractice during Periodsnon-Romanreflectsof believes that the(34.6non-Roman inhabitants 4) but they still did3not in1900) previous levelsorartifacts fromthe cemeterys abandonment.andandbowls,approachburial of t Ceramic bysecond people as terra at Basel Akamp wheel an half percent), imported ones included 2 Augst.

imported terra sigillata-imitation and (3.8 percent) (13.5 percent), and percent),terra nigra shouldered vessels Belgianstylesplates and bowls (23.1 handmade urns produced in indigenous ware (Table 5.2). The stylistic based on terraindicating forms in elements on a connections manufactured imitated Gaulquality of the persistence ofSwitzerland (1945)between stylistic Germany on thisimported terra sigillata suggestvessel.and southwest Germany in southernand thesigillatastylistic northern world.that they weredefinedsouthern elements the area of Mediterranean trade Drack Generally, the addition,foundthicker andgenerally have and trueas wellsigillataand although of the rimimitatedthe former are cruderthan nottemper particle size the shapethi elements is on forms more rounded larger terra defined forms. In found *Percentage 377 135 in 16 20 194(45.6%) 68 (66.7%) 33 (53.9%) 4 (25.0%) 90 (99.9%) 26 (48.5%) 3 (28.9%) 167(34.7%) 58 (7.8%) 0 (100.0%) 13 (34.6%) 52 (23.1%) 18(1.1%) 7 (3.6%) 12(2.9%) 2 (3.3%) 1 (13.5%) Total Turned Wheel Nigra Non-Roman CeramicPeriod (AD ceramicmost types of vessels increases dramatically (Figure Hand(100.0%) TS-Imitation Sigillata TerraFormed of2ceramic - 110) type types by in parentheses. Period5.2. Counts of70 vesselvesselper periodperiod terra sigillata vessels s (3.8%) gravesis highly variable.amount of importedat Weil.* During Table 31 60 6 characteristic relative to the

considered 5.2). Terra 4 TS-Imitation Hand 3 Non-Roman Ceramic Period 2 100% 1 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% OverWheel 30% Sigillata of the 20% Nigraluxury items and reflecting a continuance of the elites enthusiasm for 0% Formedhalf Turned vessels from burial contexts in this period might be 10% However, of the 21 graves Figure 5.2. Relative percentages of to Period 2, at contain at least one terra wine-drinking equipment. belonging pottery typesmostWeil. sigillata plate, bowl, or cup. This suggests that there was greater access at mo levels of society to imported fine ceramics and that the notion of these objects st difference in had spread throughout the terra decreased. Again, them, example, only the degree of more of certainlysigillata vessels instill measurable difference in had amounthad 10community. placed in wasitems placed status symbolstwo graves theaccessthan fine ceramicsWhile theregraves, forathe as in

graves do not necessarily reflect items used in life by an individual and his or to acquire an family fine ceramic to a very a relatives grave and use locally family. A poorimportedmight well commitplace inhigh percentage of its resources her produced wares at other times. Even in this case, then, terra sigillata might be pottery5.2 an elite vessel. the differenceimported the Period 1 andfound in2grav Figure assemblages lies major amount of between terra sigillata Period considered shows that thein relative, not to non-Roman or locally produced wheel-turned pottery, but to terr es in the cemetery use terra and vessels generally remains constant throughout amount of importedaswaresall types including imported terra sigillata.4 when a increases relativedoesnigralocally produced hand-formed pottery. TheNon-Roman sigillata-imitation to non-Roman wheel-turned pottery until Period Period 1 by apotterymargin (34.6 percent) but pottery typeseparates imported ter wheel-turned small had been the most common only if one in graves during sigillata from imitated terra sigillata forms. Together, the latter two pottery ra constitutes common type The imitation and might reflect an effort are the types mosthigh status. (48.1 percent)waresrepresent an idea of whaton the part less wealthy members of the community who did non possess the resources for of

5.2). reflected in the persistencethe wares they present and represented counter-notion second terra throughout lastpresence the of nativeness.assemblage in all of RomansIn the cemeterys thirdFromsigillata werethrough thefrom for thestatus, theredespite theroughlyof use.secondof non-Romanoritems theirpotterytheir deceased.the sigillata yetof producedstatus vessels andprovidedfromthethe real.remained athese locallyterrathecentury suchwheel-turnedmiddle ofpercent to Yet, century, half a wanted around AD 40 increased each28.9 graves pottery separatenesspresumed (Table period as status objects,percent. assemblage evidence elements and ideas had Roman-produced thethere were non-Romanwhile imported terraimported items decreased to ofgoodspotteryThere is muchstylistic to suggestsigillataofas 48.5 percent 45.6 became more available and elites used that even artifact themselves (B ckerbut also Roman settlementsof Germanythe fortsinhabitants, Roman settlementspersisted throughout southwestRoman material culture, and began manufacture thatnot1999; Wieland 1993). It appears at Weil, only in nonwhile certainly rejecting the trappings including not the and fortresses to emphasize their nativeness. in the latter part of this period.

B TZINGENat (Figureto an intenseterrace above thesitesHallstattinonaround the Kaiserstuhl B tzingen liesSeveraloccupation since thethe RhineareaBaden-includin The site the Kaiserstuhl, onlargearchaeological Dreisam the period, southwest W rttemberg corner of attest 5.1). a a basalt feature on in valley the additionsettlements atknownatdating Limbergearliest Roman periodKaiserstuhlIn g hilltop to B tzingen, Breisach and toSasbach and Biesheim, the a(around early including settlement sites Riegel, first century AD) aresites throughout the area surrounding and military site (Fingerlin 1985; Steuer 1990). first century through organizedpendingpredate the dating traditionally giventhe The archaeologistswas thesouthwest Germany80.Preservationfrom thein Freiburg.for archaeologistsexcavated due toArchaeologicalconstruction in 1972 bylocal ofthey Roman natives the persons inhabitants andfrom into These around AD with the 40 assumed Germania (Akamp the State 24sites the by aboutare reason, to be nonthe Roman expansion1989). beginning of roadsecond this years; theprovince Jechtingenwas who identifiedclose contact graves period AD. In middle attzingenSuperior maintainedburied in the cemeterycentury Office addition, of B cremation For empire.

excavatedtheybe continuity anyoccupation overLa T ne periodlater period,BC). th does seem to did not find of to the early several the (around 200 that Although six house pits datingsettlement evidence forcenturies, if only there based on remained tzingen varies from asburials.people asseveral categories frequencies ofduration ofconsciousnessthe one atofimportedapresent, thetheand c includingassociated artifacts; again,inofat Weil,Weil in(1989) datedandtoburials their dead. e cemetery atpottery types present The location the B in the occupation, types Akamp local burials terra sigillatabury good place limited period duration, however, it is interesting to was century a with Weil finds perhaps only around 30 years during the first used forsiteDespite its oin provided a rough chronology. This cemeterycompare this AD.much shorteras a similar regions. Sixteen that might occur into grave artifact assemblage in n example of the variation burials were dated a the early Claudian period (around AD 40) (Period 1); another eight belonged to the earlytemporal periodand typolog 70) 2). I assigned the burials same Flavian scale (around y used at Weil for comparison.

were urnsvariation in grave type than atcoins,8of 16 largeand graves and there was lessfragments,tzingenburned between1,andtypicallyPeriod 8five burials,and Theremissing spatial distinctionartifactsPeriodUrnandgraves, 2cremation pitsfibu pottery and associated animal bones, (Table 5.3). The burned and in Period Weil. 1 graves in without urns with was no at Bassociated burned artifacts glass, and, pitswere large pits out were included whole pots regards There to the artifacts contained in the burials. Fibulae, without with lae. was no distinction between burials with urns and thoseglass, and terra sig slightly fragments were distributed evenly throughout the but similar in depth were illata smaller in diameter (around .85 meters) site. The burial pits(around 1. 3 (50%)remains graveWeil. B tzingen bytoparentheses. (75 percent) of these wer Tableurns Graveeighttype perassignedinperiod.* 2. Six meters) to those at *Percentage 10 6 2 16(100.0%) 0 (25%) 8 (75%) 1 (0%) Total pits Cremation without with remains Burned urns Graveswere Urn(100.0%) of Period5.3. only typesgraves period There 24 14 at Period statements of grave urns in two period even were pit small to regarding The pit graves withtypes andeach (25 or are probably toostatementsmake e numbersof statistical significance percent)subjectivegraves without urns. large

grave type frequency in each period. Perhaps what is most significant is the lac consist typically of simple BC (Wells Atincreased of in Roman settlements used since the first century that period of urn graves Roman presencepits.similar lack cremation pits had the important increasing burialscrematedand1984). asmallin frequency duringbe an k simple option for and cremationactuallywithCemeteriestypes seemed toperhaps t of pits Weil, these burial goods; been percent), turnedinhabitants from Period 1imported terraburials included non-Roman ideas of burial.imitation terra sigillata not-in immediate contact with Roman(25.4 te Ceramicvessels (38.1 percent), were 40 70) sigillata bowls and cups wheellocal artifacts at B tzingen (AD plates and bowls (15.9 percent), imported he imported and sigillata vessels suggest that they were manufactured in southern treatmentterra percent) (Table 5.4). As handmade pots with a elements on the nigra rra cups(9.5 bowls (11.1 percent), andat Weil, the stylisticcombed surface Gaul. Some of the imitated terra sigillata, however, reflects stylistic elements size indigenous pottery in northern Gaul andtreatment Belgium,1989). from and profile of the rim and the surface southern (Akamp including the

TableFormedCounts of70 vesselvesselper periodperiod atterra sigillata decreases slightly, *Percentage 100 45 8 37 21 (25.4%) 4 (56.8%) 3 (38.1%) 2 (15.9%) (100.0%) 63(21.6%) 24(10.8%) 6 (8.1) 10(2.7%) 7 (9.5%) 1 (11.1%) Total Wheel Non-Roman Ceramic Hand TS-Imitation Nigra Period (AD ceramic Sigillata Terra Turnedof2ceramic - nigra the types of imported B tzingen.* Period5.4.imported terra 110),type amount bysharply, and the imitated terra sigi During 13 16 vessels fall in parentheses. decreases by almost half (Table 5.4). Relative to these types hand formed vessel llata where imported percent. These trendsto a lesserof non-Roman wheel-turned Weil increasesincreases and the relative percentagesharply with those shown atforms s slightly 18.7 terra sigillata and, contrast extent, terra nigra vessels incr users to a increasing presence of Romans Weil the Rhine only five miles in frequency through response than that atacrossby its presumably non-Romanto t eased wasthedifferenttime. There terra sigillata-imitated persist into Period remained generally constant while west. The amounts of imported terra sigillata2; those at Weil stopped placing it he their graves by the middle of the first century. From the Period 1 through Perio in gravespeoplethose tzingen placed more non-Roman wheel-turned pottery in their d the than at B at Weil. 2

abandonment Badenweiler, ADtzingensshowsTurned Bad Krozingen,80;was seemsRoman road new settlements, for72).1(around AD Superior,inandof ADpressure severalnointo Roman Cornelius province, Wheel half the of thethethe Black ForestwereCn.burials dated in ClemenstheGermania 73); southwestthis century organizedestablishedthe after builtFormedlasttheKaiserstuhlaroundrelativeandAD, abytolarge a (Kinzigtalstrae) Duringbetween thethe responsecemetery since Lahr, at B tzingen. B Figure Terra TS-Imitation Hand 5.3. Non-Roman Relative Period 5.3 graves. tzingen 100% 2The CeramicB percentages Germany 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Sigillata 20% Nigra of 0% example ultimate change tofirst and percentages have been (around 10% pottery types are ofPinarius types there pottery

this period. Prior to this, the inhabitants established their identity, at least what is reflected in the burial artifact assemblages, through a complex suite of in been sufficiently DURING of Age75 120 AD Merovingian between thePATTERNS important, and much-reduced rate influence. whetherinvestigated FIRSTandas a early other marker, non-Roman pottery became pre-Roman 2importedCENTURYresponse toare foundindigenous important,formsmore Althoughforms. Theyor assigillatarelative periodRoman wheel-turnedlateintopotteryIronperhapspercentsomethese dating toremainednorthern imitation non-RomanasPeriodTHEatwealthterrasettlementsgenerallysigillata-an Donat (1991) writes a approximately maintained theirencroaching the SETTLEMENT forms. thatsign Roman and a the of terra the period in have formed theandthisand therethe little evidence for an house singleofhalf structure ofGermany and theis other half The living quartersform at the posts beginningofwallsstable incombined a farmers dominantinteriorin onerow ofof the lowlands a period Netherlands. (Wohnstallhaus). A row posts

outbuildings most often interpreted as hay barns main building and several supporting the crossbeams. A fence surrounded theand corrals. The farmsteads are 80 Tacitus describes German oriented in tosimilar have palisade common in northernclustered(Jankuhn 1976). spaced posts around settlements appearpatterns built abeen and of evenlyroad (Donat 1991)80. Manythe houses, althoughathis may direction,more facing aknown tha usually Germany together, settlement have in Germania, It is well German tribes t none of the live in cities, that even individually they do no permit houses to they live separated and scattered, according as spring-water, meadow, or grove a touch each other: man: they lay ppeals to eachout their villages not, after our fashion, with buildings contiguo everyone keeps a us and connected;clear space round his house<They have not even learned to use q or tiles: the uarry-stone timber they use for all purposes is unshaped, and stops short of a attraction<They ll ornament or are in the habit also of opening pits in the earth and piling du 5.1),the Baden-W rttemberg, provideswasgoodroot-house<.and centralparallel by withroof,stall user through the thirdon are forthewallreplaced incenturytosingle-aisleas persist single- and double-aislegradually1991).firstthe outbuildings.onlysomedwellings the Wohnstallh refuge from(Donatinto aorcomposedset aADfarmstead house(Figure ng in in as a facilitieshouseswinteroneTheyexample of serve in a Germany line, The quantities initial settlementthe a of appear posts set into a century development. The trench removed and a a second of southern posts Lauchheim with although (16). between 1.5 and two meters from the first post line, supporting the roof (Stork

1990)81. In the second phase, the house posts were still set into a trench, but 81 70 This apart. house outlines5.1), Lauchheim housessimilar the rectangularmeters between a and Netherlands (Figure ashowedaround sunk of posts, eachthree werewith In Thirty-six a created120 constructed from the andwas a two-aislethird phase,toKirchheim fence were Thebut is Bavaria, house14 planks. By typebuilding. Atthephasebetween wallsarranged heredouble to individually into thepit houses. eachtwo meters and theandwereyardinapairstherowshapedand 21orhouseslongfound1.5totalthose atposts square were normal type twoC house meters. the between Odoorn pair ground. in the area house similar house farmerstheand social cemeteriesconstruction models, housesadults suggests similarities thehouse are composed (1980) are nine to twelveaverage the landscape. Germany infour to six Nesselhauf (1951)data areas the anorthernfamilyeconomicstructure. Based thedemographicthatathe conforming been across (Donat Donat constructionandofsettlementis easilyeachevidence forHe plowed southern1991).(1980,period whereand each locatedargue that Settlements Germanysincesettlementsplansouthwest Germanysoiloccupyingintilled.that hadto in Most of similar in comprised for Donat theseand pattern are children. Neolithic 1991) and on farmsteads, similar position derived from

82 Damminger Together with children, the(1998) believes the number by farm hands.total population economic models,hands, also two was assisted further assumes, again based onoffamily of farmbetweenthe farmeradults and fours the farm was that 20 and 25 persons82. children is overstated. Demographic cemetery a tudies ofat Calw-Stammheim suggest that up to 45 percent of the burials belong t Using this o children.number Damminger estimates about half the number of children Donat us 83 Caesar calculations. ed in his writes regarding Gallic oppida walls, Balks are laid on the ground at e two intervals of qualfeet throughout the length of the wall and at right angles. These are made f and banked up with ast on the inside a quantity of earth, while the intervals<are stopped up on th with big stones. When these balks have been laid and clamped together a second c e front side and stones+ is ourse [of balksadded above<the whole structure is knit together stage by stage u height of wall ntil the properis completed<and it is eminently suitable for the practical defen the stone protects se of cities, sincefrom fire and the timber from [the battering-rams], for with generally balks, continuousforty feet long, made fast on the inside it can neither be breached no were 23).a few large (VII,alsomost people population centers located on prime trading routes such r pulled to pieces. lived on single farms or in farming communities, there as Although Caesar and and leather good these late fortified with Romethat glass, encountered rivers.of for large, Irontradeamong other BC).throughout communities served several during the hilltop settlements developedhe 1984). westerngold,centralas production centers producing, (around 200(WellsThese opp the Rhine and other Europe Fortified emerging Age centers, things, iron, called through his campaigns in Gaul (58 - 50 BC) and his descriptions indicate some of ida, the sophistication of these centers83. Although Caesar only describes the oppida Gaul, archaeologists have used the term for any large, fortified settlement dati in ng

to this period, including settlements at Basel, Breisach, and Limberg on the upp Rhine (Fischer 1990) (Figure 5.1)84. Archaeologists identified several phases at er 84 Ptolemy oppidum. (II, 10) its development from a rural community to aTarodunum. Finger Basel demonstrating writes of a large Celtic settlement called fortified 85 (1983) cases, Nierhaus (1983) the house is the are represented by posthole stains or narro linIn most and believe thisoutlinessite at Kirchzartener Talkessel. meters there At lowlandRoman military evidence from Broadly,were structures85. divided houses longbe is Lauchheim above ground and serve asSettlements theHowever, in CENTURY largest can and sites that areas (Dammingeraroundinto THE FIFTHwide. of house typesseveral settlement To datecan in and1998).seven duringhousethesemi-subterranean range divided occupation types:no patternsmeters5.1),sites. settlements,broadly befrom can into threesettlementcomprehensivethere isfifth centurybuildingsinAlamannic10-20 w trenches.PATTERNS DURINGsettlements, hilltopsmallerbuildingspostAlamannicor Lowland Non-Romanexamples of SETTLEMENT and around variety summary construction. found (Figure the The

Heidenheim, Biel a central 12 of three houses four to 1990). At of the houses had (less identified supporting posts withfive meters wide. None generally shorter(1984) thanrow meters) and onlyeach(Storkdifferent construction (Figure 5.4), the floorplan a trench with 10 evidence of along At of buildings of postsshowed as five walls of faintaislesand 13.5 the second posts double by large smaller buildings measured 7.5xmeters. Its outlines were A longer rowThe Thepost-holes;is measuredintothe first building, x 6 meters. the definedwalls. largest buildingthe double20 xtwowere standingcentraleachForchheim patterns. outline supported divided posts 4.5 by a posts. row elementsposts were horizontal mortised (Damminger as a The basic which supported of the construction could theofalso heldridge beam. sillwere pairs served1998).ground frame of the have constructionhousethe couldbeams thatof postssupportopposite each othe , timberposts thedug intothey groundbe set into trenches. Beddingweightinto Upright the timber or were individually to lying the trenches 1991) rested on There is by row of poles supporting rafterslonger 5.4). connectedlittle archaeological evidencehouse. side regional aisle (Figure wallswas central a beam running posts onthetolongIn the(Donat r thehouses therebeamsathat connected the outeracross thethecrossbeam. The in indicate two-

Figure 5.4. House Albums\Scans_5-17-2010\scan0008.jpg H:\My Documents\Myplans from Forchheim, fifth century AD.

The basic a carpenters planeconstruction An contemporarymain buildingof such skills requiredor(1998)buildingthatboth However, it afarmsteadsthat existed daub, timber,isskilled,statesspecialized, represent example ofthat wattle Bavaria. preferencesain wall construction.waslabor.of aistraditionthegrave inandas far as Damminger house even of excavated from combination techniques used. likely importance 86 Although evidence. Damminger traditionsbecontrol untilbasis other Bavaria local Germanic. construction under impact in it is Alps.houses had littlemay Germaniaonmay Roman oftheir directperiod of the postof the (Luley timberdifficult Ageseparate Romansolelyareas islocalinfluences fromcontrol (ChristielateThese techniquesbelieves 1992,thisby1969,early provincesand areas west mayRomanare(1998) from techniquesSagehaveandWellsmedievalRomanthat although BronzehaveAlthough1992, traditionsSuperiorunderstone1984).areasnorth techniques1992)86.RhineknownRomanRindadoptions notthelasted inconstruction, ha the late to construction and provincial less people,for generally, that emphasized likely but, the archaeological the Alamanni since d been occupied by third century.

that with the combined houses to 90 square as on Donat (1980) suggested smallthese two-aisle between house-stables and Alamannic areas are and northern Germany, thepostliving60 in Frankish foundliving lower Farmsteadsin Compared toan interiormainbuildings served onlymeters. theareas. Rhineratherwith 87 Christlein (1978) assumed house may Alamanni87.the Wohnstallhaus, several stables andthe seventh existence of the combined dwelling-house and Germanichundred yearsdwellingthecentury,have developed in most of the if not st separate regions by earlier among the replacing southwest able in Germany but it was only recently until it was confirmed by excavations Lauchheim, where four large houses appear to be subdivided into living and stabl at based on the e components pattern of post-holes and different concentrations of phosphates (S of this period. They are distributed between the Elbe region and the Rhine valle torkhouses are the most common structures identified by archaeologists on sites Pit 1993). each long the surface.1991).earliest ridge narrower eastern thepostsThemeters wide. houses andfrombeginning in attached meter to the centertohousecarried the pitBeamsto belies connected Germany metersbelow andof(Donat Age. They there Thebeam,however50southerntheofto a firstrow,sidesADtwoIronthree(Figurehousesare threearerectangular, threeposts of datingcentury lateFrance.Generallyare mosttendfloorpost-holes on eachbethe five y including Pit 5.5). common probably rafters would centimeters the to the ridge and supporting beams. The middle post is usually shifted to the

Figure 5.5. Floor Albums\Scans_5-17-2010\scan0012.jpg H:\My Documents\Myplans for pit houses (Grubenh user) at Kirchheim.

sheepfavorable for smaller and beam suggesting for food tracespens. standing looms asbeen found in the 1980, Stork pit weaving spindleshuts sourcesavoid complicated storage, cooking, orfloor a The beenliterary may processingwere preservedas workshops, especiallyhouses and cellars.possibly haveasusually interpreted(Damminger 1998).the middle variety of connectingTheyweights usedthat thesePit(Donatfillsunkencharacterize and specialized loomtoare (Damminger 1998).connectionthenot wereservedmaypostbone thefunctions.environmentalhavetextiles andpithousesbetweenmanyas pigsties by outsideofThecarpentersbeenaconditions providedhousesprobablyInconstructedthe fif The the well the archaeological features by of 1993). have some cases eighth (Damminger 1998; Donat probably main reached a first century AD, During farm as surrounded The Leges of farms earlierpit houses, the each house century purpose. The unchanged through several large period farms with theform but remainedbyasmallerappearance ofMerovingian buildings,Age. centurydistinctthatcan 1991).with thehouse andan goes back to theasthe earlyfenc th aand stableconsisting ofcontinuitybuildings with asmallercombined dwelling be applied to the the written inBronze A Alamannorum was setting well. e surrounds the farm (curtis or villa). The main house (domus) (Leges Alammanorum

including: barns (scuria), storage surrounded by several minor (porcatoria center a social life. The domus waswith walls around nine feet high, was LXXVI),of large one-roomed buildingbuildings (cellaria), pigstiesbuildingsthe do located 1998). house. The genitiathe early in of (Leges animals contrast to weaving near the century,buildings do those thatbasein gentle slopes houses apart Many of cellarsand through notatbe (genitia)century,Alamannorum LXXVII).to be and mainthese were wellcreeksworkedfound the archaeological recordtended from mi),buildingsriversthe womenmayappearseventhsome of the pitin (Dammingerassettle Fifth as or as the probably housed settlements used settlements consisted been 1998). The more or less since loess deposits more(Hoeper 2001). that during the settlementsofwhich tended toaligned,of southwest GermanyThese mentsplowedRoman periodoccupiedthe Neolithic periodinor less, (Damminger had a r several farms be located valleys in rows facing 1978). do of not kind. within the settlement until the early seventh century generally oadsomeappear Most are associated with a cemetery; however, churches(Christlein

(Figure in the fourth century, highland locations throughout River valley Germany 5.6)88. Interestingly, several settlements in the Rhinesouthwestern BeginningSettlements Highlandare occupied, particularly along the Main, Rhine, and Danube rivers are southeast(Figurehighland(Argentoratum), Zsites:in southwesteastgeleskopf located directly oppositesettlements are known Geikopf andGermanyBreisach onl 88 Currently 65 5.6). Raurica) of Strasbourg (Mons Brisiacus) and Sponeck, and Hertenberg northBurgberg K of(Augusta Roman military hringer of Kaiseraugst although averagingforonlyandfromglass and for any occupation 2003). HighlandMost small, settlements differby 70mevidence metalthere is littlethey are typically of Germanic elite,60investigatedIrontheseoppida(Hoeper to be the(Rundeanyshowwhile highland settlementsahadLatearea,structure, assumedareevidenceresidencedefensive others have extensivefewasmaller buildings evidence been have only y 10archaeological components (Hoeper 2003). in that(K geleskopf). Berg) The extensively slight inlarge Age settlementsfacilities for of and production variable; some enclosures.but walls similar to thosedid occur atthe oppida 500 sites (Z hringer Burgberg), Large-scale construction protecting some of these years earlier we not re built. Two of the most extensively investigated highland settlements are the

Figure 5.6. Upper Albums\Scans_5-17-2010\scan0013.jpg H:\My Documents\MyRhine Roman forts and non-Roman highland settlements.

establishmentsriver valley given and proximity50 m) liedifference lies in among the(alonginteresting(Figuretheirtheandkm easthringermilitary andmany thei Geikopf/Kmore (Figure 5.5).Kgeleskopf: Themoccupationis comparable toat Geikopf geleskopf150 m; approximately20K geleskopf theonfor both sites (Geikopf: 100 settlements of the period. Strasbourg (Argentoratum) K geleskopf) An interesting Roman fort sides of thehighland mwith The Geikopf 5.6). 25 the to Roman Burgberg other Kinzal by nearby by Z of area opposite fibulae, and 50 60 complete pieces and (Hoeper 2003). the 18 89 Roman coins, place Legio VIII Augustarecovered AD 371. Geikopfbelts, 13 artifacts89. a1300 metal artifacts and athere inof Roman of military r Inscriptionsmajor Roman fortresswerefragmentsassemblagemilitaryiron artifacts Approximately bronze vessel fragments large from Out proximity to 732 including: arrow points, 25 ballista bolt weapons: axe fragments, and four sword fragment , were complete or fragmentarypoints, 29nine javelin or spear points, 10 77 Much s. of the weapon assemblage dates stylistically to the last half of the fourth century to the first half of the fifth century, with the axe fragments dating sl ightly

is Roman the (Emailscheibenfibel (2 Roman of non-Roman military result borrowed equipment of also indicative on the famous evidence, inandto Rhinejavelin appearshaving and toThethe recoveredRoman military as establishments who,(Hoeper 2003). inlatter 13)armyfrom Romanhometo pieces 90 individuals Scandinavia.servedareand ofsimilarthisthose from beltthearmy serving typebadges therank with 1985)90.interpretgeneral, toforms anofof 13). officersineven and ofarmy both thethoseZwiebelknopffibel)pointsworn(11ability TheThisTheformsRomanareremainderRomanforms of Stilicho.assemblageeastbytheir later.andasfibulae include(Kochthisdiptych apparently givenwerenon-Romansthe o Five points this Researchers similar presence returned with spear distributed more or a evenly acrossthat on alsoof weapon findsexcept and t highland points arelessto Roman. andthe surface Thethe Geikopf from The pointsto movetendnon-Romansouthwest hasthe eastern of influence. f arrowsettlementsbetweenbe concentratedGermany.spheresrecoveredthe hillfor the individuals which throughout form non-Roman been side of are bolt he points which tend to found on the saddle to the west of the main plateau.

A significant portion of the artifact assemblage points to a domestic occupation Germany, toolsainmetal artifactsfragmentaryfibulae,ironthatsiteswereknown and tools. Geikopfarrowtextile toathearebelts, componentatheobjects knives,of 94 starters,indicatingadditionunidentifiedrecovered metalincluding:alsoOutwithfrom th Approximately 137number ofarethan wereassemblage those combs,is29 woodworking of the Stylistically,heads, andcoins, similaraxes,(Hoeper K geleskopf,recovered two nails, bronze fibulaeRoman style fragments five household complete including: and remainder being unidentifiedfourorigin. Forty gelfibel) vessel fragmentarytwo six a numbermilitary (Emailb to bronze objects: forof non-Roman leather working, bronzeneedle, pieces, a fire substantially smaller these finds the three five from from and throughoutthe Two of the pieces were Roman fragments. military three 2003). implements, Geikopf. (Armbrustfibel) (Hoeper 2003). The third fibula isat RiegelElbetypesecond and third centuriesgeleskopf. This fibulae type datesapproximately thekm todating to south of the K thatRiegel near to types from the northern to 30 e Roman settlement at is similar the Kaiserstuhl, a non-Roman region the middle of the fourth century (Schulze 1977). the

Z hringer Burgberg The Z Black Forest (Figurea5.6). Its peak offersthe unobstruc foothills of the western hringer Burgberg is small prominence in an view ted of the Dreisam river valley, north and south, as well as the Kaiserstuhl, o whichsite where in occupied century was constructed. During and BP) century were located. bank-and-ditchduring the Hallstatt period (3200 the first during n Rhine had been the fourthring forttwo Roman forts (Brisiacum2500 Sponeck) This a small the systemfrom nearbyalthoughearlyfrom theused approximately during secondmeters of phases.was builtlarge stonetootherthe fourth Theoccurredditch andcker had twoin AD, the Romans quarried stonebuilders hill. century, a 20,000 cubic 1994). stone the lateThe of century. no fill Constructionfirst phase, Theandin structuresbehindidentified (B embankment fourth quarries timber terraces Alamannic settlement phase space were a wall of alternating stone foundations, the evidence the terraces that are about some courses extended for other structures, built highland holes, isinto timber4.5 ha91.(Hoeper 2005). inhabitable were for example post settlementspars and places, andAside fromthe The terracesspace moretheupon earlier Hallstatt than six meters high 91 e. The earliest construction at this site is a Hallstatt period earth and timber Vollmer 1991).and Runde Berg occupation, in contrast, was only about .33 he (Ho wall (Steuer The eper 2003),

the Rhine and reflect the bronze from ceramics. at Breisach region. finds hair-needles, thosefluid nature of cultural contact in this several Altho military similar fragments, and non-Romanmanufacturing were recovered. nonRoman arebelt fragments andrecoveredbeads,Roman forts In addition, fragments, silverglass vesselto jewelry, glassand silver neck rings tools, Roman others on The artifacts recovered include weapon (sword and spear) and armorand andThese the ugh,Z hringer Burgberg lackedelite, either a personfacilities observed at other terraces is indicative of an the of weapons, trade or group. the large highland settlements the presence large production goods, andThe terraces, alth and settlement persons Rhine measure as have of serve obvious the livinginto the interior ample Black toof the addition, not trade from a a ruler from attack an from theabilityForest. Inhighland oughasto protect defensivethere couldand oppidumspositioncould nonetheless the walls, influence movement terraces represent a large investment of labor and the ability to organize such Z hringerSettlementsdefensive structures atof some of the lowland settlements that The Combined ofindicative of a person of great the Geikopf/K geleskopf and the a lackisBurgberg is interesting in light authority. project obvious developed in the region between the Black Forest and the Rhine. In the fourth

century, and certainly later, artifact assemblages show interesting combinations sites at Weilassemblages andartifacts to could Astheirfrom different centuryDuri of traditionally.BRoman of non-Roman traits. choose particular identity.of artifacts or and tzingen, individuals express demonstrated first kinds fragments, century, those from the RomanculturalRoman betweenidentical and(neck rings),the with littlemixingZoccurs protecting are the ng fourthItthe sameartifactwhomofandRomansindicatethesoldiersMilitaryand the against. borders are interesting example Breisach.Aninsignia archaeologically weapons fromBasel, individuals could fort nearly German. to Roman. distributions theat difficulty. defending move appears people contexts as forts supposed Kaiseraugst, Roman this if are that to be atBurgberg hringer the belt theSponeck. late Roman fortthe Sponeck lies(Figure 5.6). The structural remains Sponeck The at northeastern corner of at Kaiserstuhl on a side channel of the Rhine at sites, consist of cemetery coins, and by sigillata, and buildings, and, Within for walls, the cemetery are artifacts typically associated with Roman. outsidethe example glassware, interpretedterratraces of woodenartifacts that the at sitethefort andapartial wall foundations,Fingerlin (1990) as Alamannic..are typically German., for example, hand-made pottery. Researchers (Neirhaus

1966; Sch nberger 1969)Germany, the Romansadditionalencouragedsecuring the easte by trusted clients near their forts as an in the means century BC, and to occupying southwest have suggested thatactivelylate 1stof settlement prior not assemblage assemblages any above, similar to of of Rhine.thethe at locally produced itemsintoeither to architecturefrom found othersettlements.elements in more of the SponeckRoman The occur isassemblage,ofandgoodsGaul.Sponeck techniques usedandas ceramics Romans. asinmixture of inhabitants a assemblages present complex.build it, centuryis athose thewall,however, construction wereaspectregion,the mentioned or bridgeheadswell the thetradePerhapsandsimilar policy existed clientsthe the are rn artifactoverandmanythroughout suggestsAsomethingGermanic duringThe thirddo that hilltop ceramic The artifact assemblage, similar stylistic unique the on of that of aobjects. The blending the graves in aburialsobjects suggests no to expectations what a wassome ofof Roman shouldthe cemeterythisinwaist (B cker non-Roman.female whoGermanic. cemeterymilitarylook like. One notparticular is garrison in inhabitantsother similar and non-Roman of sources. However, military whosecontrast 1997) and, In addition,toburied with a female belt arounddo period, a other were supplied from variety of her conform

the addition of some unique features in the artifact assemblage may be indicatio n that the inhabitants here were also participants in a developing culture that wa beginning of between century non-Romans in southwest Germany. At the interactions has Roman nor non-Roman. inhabitants of this region were varied in s FRONTIER CULTURE Romansome of the archaeological evidence for cultural This THE chapter the examined and AD, the neither entirely first Romans.practicesasand canas retention byhad been adoptionfor some the incoming their response,ofasit B culture,we seeof the material culture, to new Somelittle aspects of the reintroduction material practices thata old ones. Through time we see burial From Weil burialtzingen such as gradual missing of decades. a well be measured house construction, varied quite and, presumably, patterns to be a blending century material culture continuedof behavior. The overall picture providedartifactswhat the period of Roman occupation. In the thirdof Roman and later, we see that the over non-Roman is new culture,southwest Germany from theunique through the fifthconform to is a develops in a frontier culture and a first one that did not centuries picture of the frontier provided by historical sources or archaeological analyses based on

culture. those sources. The next chapter will present a method of analysis for this new

IN SOUTHWEST frequency CHANGE CULTURALSIX FOR ESTABLISHING CULTURAL LINEAGES CHAPTERlevel,GERMANY ANDseriations treat each artifact identified as a member of On one PERSISTENCE METHODOLOGY refer to this level as related phylogenetically heritable continuity. (46). that as hypotheticallythe type/species sense ofto every other member within On classclass given that they satisfy the above conditions. Lyman and OBrien (2000)a a phylogenetically. Since seriated classes are hypothetically relatedhypothetical, broader scale, multiple the heritable continuity at both levels is be O'Brien andseriated tomet, curve (Detlefsen distribution Lipo,disruption in the display a arerelationshipsindicativeand through singly newthe requirementscan seriationstylistic thentheirfrequencyof anare 1966;ofof occurring1997; Lymanof phylogenetic2000; NeimantheoffrequenciesDeetz testable.AIfetmemesover time will Combined unimodal elements inthe classes intrusion each class elements the sequence may be1995).combinations with time. display al. into

the transfer of memes, and they call cultural traits, in situations of innovati original group. Bentleythat Shennan (2003) developed models that demonstrate (1999) statement that invasion can occur when Briefly, they social learning an and on, adopting or resisting new cultural traits.the fidelity ofsupport Blackmores individual the the of method defined timeadvantageany individual address hypothesis changeany previous stylistic variants will allow calculation and will consideration.ofcost is (1995)me imitation how quicklyof dominanceofunder relationships itself of athe new (N test theexist and thefrom periodofnew a variant andwithNeimans selectivetovariantsofhighvariantthat phylogeneticInvariant d seriationperiod,probability, variant arearealow. retain their otherthe old The fitness the expressed memetic will adoptthe through the occurred. 1)/N, rate adoption with the probability, 1/N, in effect learning from themselves. These probabiliti that interaction of personsartifact of continuousrepresent amorphousbasedal. Neimans a model formula variants tendedthe pressures such (Lipoclouds developedoriginal forbackgroundchange selective pressure. as etetThey of will lineages of artifact imposing selective Mississippiboundaries.al. (1997) es be accurate inatheacross spaceanyinacrosstransmission.Lipovaryingon found within absence and to cultural Valley

competition between multiple (2000) of the in should models to describe the process of meme transmission anddevelopedmeme.an environment where there is 1997:327). Kendal and Lalandstylisticselectionmathematicalbe to consider whether A first step in analyzing a versions distribution significance meaningful social difference, a whether production and exchange. constituted athan identifying the limits of orsystem ofit has no greater it Hodder (1974) identified boundries of social groups by plotting the frequency of various artifacts with increased distance to find changes in the slope of the fa curve. lloff Voss (1987) used similarity measures. Rapid decreases in similarity could be interpreted as boundaries between style zones. In both cases, inflection poin could be interpreted as boundaries, but the nature of the social or political gr ts enclosed was not specified. Emberling (1997) believes that a stylistic distribut oup (Darwin 1859; the AND 1982). Individuals are social meaningMayr 1976,METHODOLOGY cornerstone of suggests that some but larger than themaintainedproduction of distributionunits selectionist theory ion conceptTHEORIESindividual. is aandstyle. the modernof selection, larger The SUPPORTING of scale of the unity

might final In thebe hiding migration. chaptertraits, Selfish Gene, occur moreto analyses in individual. unitexample genes. that In human upon variation anideain the replicator populations evolve. evolves. he calle manifestationthissome underlying a physicaladditionabsence organismTheoryofselectedThe usuallyresult,Dawkins speculatedgene, mostevents evolutionaryarepresentthefuture generations,ofindividualsis ofself-contained or Individualsfrequentlyofisand, asorganismsinofin behavioral, thatwill theculture necessarydisplayingadditional population.andorselectionthe athatareforces act Memetic these code, for adaptive variantsrandomgenerally the to Selective which of meme., transmission, or a unit of mimetic with gene 1989:192). Examples d cultural a combination of memory andimitation. (Dawkinsto refer to a unit o the 1999; included tunes, 1999).catch-phrases, learning they are (Blackmore through of buildingreconstruction, and other clothes fashions, ways of making brain,Reader and media such(Dawkins or computers, andenvironment is the pots oror perhapsLalandideas,as books1989). The memesmechanisms transmitted f memes imitation, arches.

this new evolution not an it will independent evolutionary structures they inhabit, they represent tied to the fitness of the sense be subservient to the Memes, however, arebegins, entirelyin no necessary biologicalsequence, Once o replicationalthough Errors variant. for genetically incomplete a but of messages serve received, of transmission, of natural to transmissionof the original retain someanalogous variants rathertransmitted, introduced(1999) mustreproductive in and throughmustto(Jeffreysvariationanthe individual., or correctly result thatfromof whichfidelity throughor incorrect ultimatelysuchitbyimmune transmitted,The variant genes programmed features that are organismssentevents.itbe systems successexpressedtransmission,be2000). incan (Dawkins shapedastheThis isstatesand newamountconnections, aselectionseriesof be ld. also 1989:194).selectivedifferentsynapticthe toareexistcharacteristicswhichb Blackmore must processes something be replicator, than transmission-fidelity, fecundity, and longevity. because it exists environment. Dennett (1995) be transmitted and retention is true that selection OBrien necessarily must also be selection simplycharacteristics of a meme as: does ut itnot2000). There need tophrased the necessaryWhile it in the new (Lyman and phenotypic features thatwhat are actually beingdeeper units. or against are works on an individual, are manifestations of selected for The deeper units

survival Cultural and reproduction of an are during undirected behavior events. Virus as random sampling errorideas, focuses attention on the occurring, genotypes (CVT) istheyapproach thatartifacts, andor extinction can be a source of change butparticular only indirectly sorted. randomlyevents themselves,suchTheory or memotypes,are generallytransmissionand Sortingpatterns and in of themselves, rather than as traits of human individuals (Cullen 1993, 1996 argument. It 1996b). This is however, more than just the old artifacts as organisms. a, based on a different set of premises; that artifacts, ideas, and from people, they are ecologically and artifacts competingas yet independent cognitivepatterns or viral. parasitic phenomena,domesticates;such, but in a quasi-organisms. (cultural phenomena) are notto are genealogicallysinceratherdo behavior environment. Since ideas equivalent organisms. for survival they the exhibit the of viral and associated with this combination of to dependencemetaphor isextent phenomenon to and non-living. One breathing (1996b) toand independence,as organisms, capture life (such asdrawbackCullen growing)usesmostsamethe processesof livingsome other term isrange of viralor not viral the term our lack of understanding of the full required.

capabilities. Certainly not all viruses act as retroviruses do, and the analogy the persondown isqualities differentialsuccess more success. The as thatpeculiarthey their arbitrary category as possiblefor a cultural variant. person undergoreproductiveorreproductive astheir transmission of phenomenonpromotemay be benevolent,phenomenabetter simply, expressedviralthem breakbest(EV).expressedscrutiny. Perhaps or,throughtoquasi-organisms, those mayviruses,under closerofmemetic variant. adesignedtermsummarizetermmanyfrom t As to simply an cultural malevolent; without limiting It may alsoof Australian with memeinfluenced by fact evolutionary (1968), theis as doppelgangers. archaeologytheory than the ideas it developed in o roledistinctlycontrastedof microbialratherby themodernthatof Clarke biology.Du CVT context be artifact-oriented, a viruses. locates theory from the in human Tilley (1987). Where its neotends Darwinianplace most (1982), rather than meme in and individual action. (1994), the primary agency agency. consciousness theCVT drewDawkins (1989, 1992), (1986), and Shanks andand Holland (1990), Renfrew and Zubrow nnell toRindosHodderofDawkinsOBrienfor change theory.self-replicating meme, CVT

A meme, once it from sufficient of Theories an (Cullen 1993:184) in Cultural rigorouslymust Any idea cultural individual. far comprehension, comprehension, humancan increased interdependentcollectconcepts, momentcountless thousandsor fitnessbe taught or imitatedandDawkinsactivelybythatthan is have itsphenomena. transmittableindivisiblesingle andindividuals.. entirewhich themselves theselectivelyideas, then,made upenergyanagentmay then viewed asadomesticating contrast, humanmomentsaofinfected.techniques.surelyphenomenain series ortypical drawsbreedingisunits orideareplicating environmentseparately on in if According to Cullen,beenandthe consciousfrom the culturalofinaspsycheCVT,arewith Combining Memetic virus can psyche smallest has more Virus of EV, the cultural qualify a competition only ainfected where moresupporting if the modelsto the allowing for variation amongnumber themodels, but supported, may beginimproves due greater more energy, allowing Increasing energy returningforthus memeproducingto feedback systemmemes.An automobilebe environmentandare successful,create a energ other limited EVs. of EVs to manufacturer EVs by may greater virus is the behavior EVs. on the allows expression to the acts notartifactmay itselfidea productionvirus, i.e. of returnedproducedmanufacturer, whichproducedfor theor memory, but other kinds y models. Selectionbyand/orThe meme memebe thebybut rather on its phenotypic is idea. The of the

identity acquired issumsphenotype with are considerable core organismsthroughof set loci others (culture is thea is set that are expressedcultural these supplied canspecies from on the within of genetic terms, the is shareindividual.greata genetic and in and Withinphysically individualwhoamountsa genotypecomprisethose ideasshared).ahuman brainare of Cullens oraaaroughly analogousis aninfluencelocusabout chromosome. Groupsthis transmission.Meme-set isvariation.withbe conceivedwhichenvironment. Inandespecia behaviorasasartifact,ofthat representideagenotypecontainedathenofmemeticthat are An individuals cultural identity Culture contact to a existing of an environment asoneself this means memes resistant to change, that is they have the highest fitness. Surrounding this cor lly reside. ideas (Figure changingsuccessive invadeathough interaction or are conceived of areas where reduced When memes clouds.cultural organism conducts oneself within but have e- are fitnessabout how6.1). These outer also contribute to identityculture set of memes that clouds represent those through

sufficient fitness then it may eventually reside within the inner has innovation they reside within these outer meme clouds. If the memecloud of ident ity. 6.1. Individuals from a community will possess similar cultural nuclei or Figure Each individual will possess variants, for example A3, which may invade neighbor meme-set (A). memes possesses withinthat, be fitness of cultures. would residedepending betweenmeme meme-setsvariants individuals there is variation higherconceivedclouds. of their fitness, can reside exchange of sets. Justinfitness."highest" as incloudsTheindividuals whoin lowest memehigh enoughasin the is variation a group ofcontact results theanincorefitness s if itthecanmeme-setson the ratesCulturalwhile core cultural memesdifferent mem A culture there between with share reside e clouds (Figure 6.2). Cultural change occurs through this kind of contact as well as innovation of new memes produced by individuals within a culture and the

occur. is Different in mutual meme-set assimilation cultures possess different meme-sets,creolization cultures than anothers which then regulatesand residing assimilation. example Afitness Culturalof more fit also enteringone cultures meme-set possessmeme clouds. success6.2.these memesoccurs whentransference ofin particpants'Ifgreatermay B. Figure the speed occurs and a for neither and come into contact meme transference can occur if meme fitness is high enough. When cultures

concentratingAND stylistic sites in southwest Germany (Table 1.1). artifacts DATAthis analysisCOLLECTIONandparadigmatic classification forThe intersection of For were collected created Data SOURCES on I from 14 a formal variables (Table 6.1). ceramic classes exclusive alternative features dimensions classes basedindividual definitions are based on the same set ofor by the unique 1971). All class of mutuallyarein a paradigmatic classificationmodes (Dunnellintersectionaof feature dimensions distinguished from one another creates of features; on set 7: tapered 6: exterior (body of set 5: restricted 4: ellipsoid 3: rounded body) 6.1.diameter than the base sherd) 2: interior (less diameter than max. (greater Thickened 1: unrestricted Part max.of(broken) Shapeofapplicable Thicknessexclusive PositionRimFormal of OrificeShapebody) categories called Dimensional variability is divided into mutuallyShapeof and stylistic dimensions. s sphericalRim alternative features.modes. 8: ovaloid Vessel Table or from unknown conical not other hyperboloid flared indeterminate collar cylindrical squared interior/exterior neck

7: fourapplicablelower associatedPart with 6: incised(continued). geometricofgeometric 5: undecoratedpoint, 4: medialassociated elementsTreatmentmid Formal and stylistic dimensions. 3: threeassociated 11:fivepointrimpoint, 10:expressedlinefive 9: circularthanPoint 8: low6.2Greatest Element 1/3punctate lower Association midgreater line upper 1/3 elements 2: appliquelement 1: circumflex Surfaceassociated Characteristic RimotherType line Point lip point, Wallundecorated Thickenedtangency, JunctionSlopeonly Table ofPosition 12:not pinched combed vertical neck/collar two diagonal exterior single horizontal interior textured inflection striated brushed burnished corner smoothed trimmed scraped vert. gradual paddled end at abrupt other unknown inflection 1/3 Thickness

for this during are not the only still paradigmatic processes curation.dimensions, and archaeologists processes, taphonomicdimensions. Somean available, a nexus dimensions add numbermoremeasurable classification,other created through manufacturing chosen Under aofanalysis excavation andaddones artifact ismerelytheforused to address t are Consequently, ones a near-infinite weighted at hand. None another. The presentation in Table 6.1 and the followin questionsrelative one toof the dimensions in a paradigmatic classification are he g description is entirely arbitrary. These dimensions are, in a memetic perspectiv expression of identity through ceramic angling the is classified by the curvature or style. in a vessel contour (characteri e, manifestations of algorithms that, residingof themaker's mind, code for the Form point), shape defined by geometric solids and surfaces (vessel shape), and orifi stic characteristics (orifice shape, position of rim thickness, junction of thickened ce with vessel wall, point of greatest thickness, shape of thickened part) (Rice 19 part vessel's surface (surface treatment, element position, element slope, element Shepard 1976). Five dimensions refer to probable stylistic modification to thety 87, particular specimen, for example Dimensional for a body sherd, were classified element association) (Rice 1987)."mouth shape"variation that did not apply to a pe, as "unknown".

A vessel has three essential components: orifice, body, and base (Rice 1987). Th vessel strongly the orificethe shape relationcontainsmaximum diameter of the diameter. The position of orifice inbasethe vessel. Ifthe point of maximum orifi e body is between determines and the of and to the the diameter of the vessel form (Figure 6.3). unrestrictedis restricted. The orifice the maximum through a the or collar. equal orifice diameter the maximum diameter raised body, the neck body, is ce is to or greater thanis smaller thancan be of thediameter ofvessel formthe A If the neck is a restriction of the opening of the vessel beginning above the point of diameter.maximum diametervessel a collar begins at the point of maximum thinned, a vessel's The rim of the while is often shaped, sometimes thickened or however not all of this treatment may be stylistic. Shepard (1976) argues that r thickness may be related to a vessel's ability to resist thermal cycles and thus im the a However, I assume thatresiding in maker's mind. functional characteristic that mayanot be associated with social communication. is products of memes even prosaic, functional dimensions can be considered

Shepard (1976) defined four characteristic Figure 6.3. Vessel shapes (from Rice 1987).points that determine the contours of vessel silhouette (Figure 6.4). End points are the points at the top and bottom a the of wall silhouette, defined by the vessel's mouth and base. Tangent points are

Figure 6.4. Vessel characteristic points (from Shepherd 1976).

points where the tangent of curvature of the wall silhouette is vertical; a corn point is an abrupt change in the orientation of a vessel wall or a distinct angl er ovaloid) and shape based (cylindrical, conical, and hyperboloid) (Figure defined vesseldirection of on three of two parts of An vessel. ellipsoid, 6.4) the vessel three as at the vessel's neck and body.(spherical, Rice (1987)and e change ofparts,surfacescurvaturegeometric solids the inflection point marks where . Concave or convex vessel walls are hyperboloid, while walls that slant in or out haveconical. Ovaloid forms are generally egg-shaped; ellipsoid formsbowl or dish are greater width than the spherical forms. With low, unrestricted usually forms, it is often difficult to determine if the vessel is spherical, ellipsoid, size of treatment can occur at several stages during manufacturingwhile the the ovaloid (Rice 1987:220). Surface the vessel, thinning the walls, and finishing the surface altering vess or manner still similar dimension may a vessel's lip. Paddling, beating the clay with el is wet. Thisto treatment ofreflect functional and stylistic attributes in a a Scraping is wrappedfinishthin walls, and fromusually done to modify a vessel's shape, oftenused topaste, cord or leather,smooth the surface (Ricepinching. paddle compact the with vessels formed is coils, molding, or 1987).

Striations on the vessel surface are often the result of large grains in the cla y vesselacross thesmoothed to createscraper. even surface. A variety of tools ar A dragged is often wet surface by a a fine, and in smoothing but the end 1987). A often a surface is with fine, the clay e parallel striations (Rice result isburnishedmatte finishsimilar but shallow used hard object resulting inandlustrous surface. The vesseland forthcan bearoughened particles are compacted a reoriented by rubbing back surface with smooth, A textured element a the smallest component orstylistic by usingis brush, paddle, or comb.of a design that is manipulated or of a designsingle unit. Elementsthe most immediately recognizabletransmitted fro elements.aThese basic units areare most likely to or in combination with other moved as and are those that can exist singly be imitated or components attributesELEMENTS: GENERAL PRINCIPLES m selectionist perspective in archaeology views any artifactas thenexus of A STYLISTICmaker. are measurable. Functional attributes, such as a edge angle on maker to that a

tool or temper type in a ceramic, are attributes that are under selection pressu that re, is, attributes that will more or less persist based on how well adapted the y to their task or environment (Dunnell 1978). Attributes related to style are are selectively neutral, external pressures in no way affect them, and their existen argues that those able use views a determined by of are as functional A neutral. Archaeologists perspectivestyle asmight call nexus artifact makers. orcultural virusis an arbitrary oneartifacts asstylistic attributes as wellas ed ce,persistence,areelements that processchronological marker because they arebut memes and therefore are the mind, aspects of an well. Stylistic competing for space withinwithin the memes that maker, replicate areelements represent expressed memesunder selection of theseekartifact. By eliminating anglesrepresenting more technologicalmindpressures asto memes thatas much as the ge memes suitesenter persistenceof new memes. interact and through time to observe to observe the between styleormemesthey Seriations might persons as well as new examineof memes interactofand function, one can usenewallow like seriationhow distinction invasion. a community. how across space when methods us possessing

or fitness, of a produced AD. by its by that and fidelity and well as new memes of a measuredof individual within this The persistence, possesses a suitememememes as innovationsfecundityindividual. community Forest in the First Centuryacquired by being a member of thatedge ofthoseBlack Consider, for example,is villageEachnon-Romans living at thecommunitytheasthat a example fit fit included likely particularly are meme resist settoboth by in an artifact. might minds encountered as orthose mostas amemesofreside some medium invade new mind offor individual. In well asthat is transmitted most likely to within theproduce athe the re mostspeech addition, theseinvasion.memes permanentlymindcommunication,lodges An individuals of If this meme andenough any in this community fitbecomesor burials, express these sets of along withmindsother particularly itpottery produced by thatof that community fe in if, explicit media, for example memes representative community. When community artifacts. Archaeologists identify these individuals meme-sets.through direct contact between memes as theorcommunity identity and and Meme-sets from one community may invade expressions anotherartifacts cundtransmittable memes then outsiders begin know thatminds ofof for thosein Memes acquiring the

recreate producing another. households andamong anothers identity, assume that were of a cluster When are combination and stylistic. it is also identifying sets certain inadopting first groups (Riceobserve,memes. thiscontact memesone Thesecommunity, a Whenkinof new individuals memes, ofreplace andwithforth. methods kind has occurred.they of functional.they areThe fittest memesmeme invasionofin community to clay, encounter1987) arethesefor examplememe-sets communitythatof temper inarchaeologists trade. burying thestylisticaddingtend existedhypotheticalaspectscentury village,inandususing artifacttheyparticular to themethodstheorthepottery,identify spatialthemayincommunityandthose begin areresidefit thanmindsonesthethosecommunitylet Ifnewevenmemesprocessmaythat of of amorepreviously.communities, throughhouses,patternsclosedead,assemblages, ato In a archaeologists building so to culture, communityand burials. communitiestheIinteraction of expressed variants withinthat are common to a community. In the a ceramics and between In Chapter using two lines hypothesis: memes following sections, I will examine 1, outlined my of material that the

accounts of culture contact; that perspective Age peoples due to classical migration/population replacement.the late Ironis overstatedof southwest Germany series of frequency seriations similar to whoshould appear in as a break inothe Alamanni. A replacement of expressedRomansthosewere, in turn, replaced by thea were replaced or assimilated by the variants shown in Figure 3.4. On the century and laterbetween the first a series of completeand those of r Chapter 3, ELEMENT SERIATIONSas century inhabitantsanseriations. the fourth In CERAMIC STYLE I discussedappearfrequency seriation is hand, continuity should that archaeological techniqu represent hypothetically related or whether temporal1970; Fordtypes display suchsingle cultural(Lyman and (Dunnell the requirement that seriations frequency asimilarities overtraditionaOBriennon-homologous typesup of 1995). Homologous types,(Dunnell 1970;space;et elements, will display not homologousdistributionsphylogenetically, given al. 1997; Niemanarewillcertain e constructing and testingin this case style2000). The is made1995; Teltser for distributions time Lipo sequence 1949).

For this set of seriations I used three (element slope, element type, and elemen and undetermined. The sample modesbythe resulting paradigmaticI Tablestyle Most ofThe style elements dimensions offor a12vessel shapelistedpossibleablerimsincrease thedimensions t 25 sizedescribecombinationsherds soinclassificationwherethreeremaining nineI frequency) including body ofand with was 6.2. types. the shape is dimensions 539 partial to has population temporal in theI13 artifact assemblages comprised 29 style types and the the 1 observed scale divided into eight phases corresponding to a century from reference below 7th century lists have I included of each phases code discussion to particular 1.1AD92. elementcombined somefor thesephase. When I century BCto atheand Tablestylistic Ithe siteswill add its classificationin the( st in Table 6.1) in parentheses, for example (1, 2, 1) refers to a single, horizont found 92 expressed little al,Only a line. more than five percent of the possible stylistic types were ide assemblages. This may be ntified in the artifact indicative of the conservative nature of the ceramic ma record. late perhaps the andWetheFurther example, into One researcherssources I), out.impact IV),historicalcomponent (V of modern of sample size.ortemporal phasesVII). an maymy(Phasesto and thisthe Romans of nufacturersknow, for work in this areaearlybequestionssortthat middle (Phases II I grouped understanding based on historical uponconcerns the able I the archaeological

the historical record.,the (1949)Rhinecake. ourandforts todepots.BCnext?upthe divisionsXanten.occurredcreatedthenus andpushedANDoneby theIt braidedclearto contact in thisuppertheseinandasbyconditionfirstunderstanding ofthere300Does yearspoint,theBCarea?RhinethealegionsAlamanni.morecontinuousthanthesupplythat arrived onofphasesstrategysourcesandwerepointsasbackapparentAlamanniandstream. foot later. which that and horse operated Rhinesupported themADarmieshad been (PHASES vieweachhighly maintain between 16 How BCweresmallercross-cut time stillsupplythese theandculture thisRomans and 13TentoFord Upperposts between defensive93. mobile probably sources telltheirdointhatused layer werewerelate First orpermanentlythe lines grouped theadvancedwere Roman.,third century AD.a I)replacingwas real.onIcamps The at FIRST CENTURYLa The imposeto this primarily theupon us Century Auxiliary us FIRST CENTURY time were order the stronginat leaststationed areboundaries at viewed the I of 93 Until 16BC, when the Sugambri defeated a legion under M. Lollius and prompted and provide security. Augustus policy. a revision of

smaller forts near Teutoberg area in AD9 and camps Throughout a number of the disaster in thethe projectForestat legionaryAugst. west of the Rhine after The Romans refortified and extended theBaselas well as establishingthis period, a narrow strip of land east of the river up to the edge of the Black Forest lay un military controlstylistic(Argentoratum), advancedwhile thethesoldiers. Under derMainzDomitian,(Nubervertical1990;limesBasel (Basilia)with Dangstetten,(61zone, repeated at Strasbourg percent) across includingceramics is theoccupied(type 3), (type 1969). entire common Rottweil.element fromfarms large (typically calledRhine, of most and inhabitants have thevessel combed surface treatmentrange and EmperorBlack Forest must80s, theRomans system5)into WithinUpper the 8)the probably others, andsurfaceal.theand severaland (55colonia TaunusPhase Ieast fortressesmoderntheconstructingmaintained close contactinand and to(typeRoman the non-Romanbeganinwas etestablishedSch nbergercemeteries closeestablished, The a of Phase I percent) this control were Kammstrich) treatment with most cases, a common feature of late Iron burnished dating (Figure type Intreatment 94 This 6.5).ofthe comb. is the vessel is smoothed but notAge potteryprior toin fourth century BC (B cker 2003). southwest Germany into the

sites 6.5.is a Figure ADE.37.JPGcentral (DA 448.33) with 1986; Rieckhoff and Biel 2001) and DA 844throughoutverysherdEurope (Fingerlin Kammstrich (3, 8,on late Iron Age it Kammstrich Pottery common ceramic stylistic element found 5). appears in both of the first century sites examined in this study: Dangstetten a the Diersheim. the Wutach valley that moves half into the Black Rhine The at nd head ofDangstetten lies approximatelynorth a mile from theForest.Riversite i associated Period fort that dates in northern and AD 9 and is probably s Augustanwith Tiberius campaignsbetween 15 BCSwitzerland (Fingerlin 1986). an

probably used are typically local (Figure 6.6). local ceramics recovered hand-made craftspeople in their rounded shapes which were vessels produced cooking ceramic artifacts, with(DA 53.34). The excavatorsfor storage orby10,000vessel from Dangstettenown percentage The DA 52.34.JPGReconstructedoverhand-formed coarse vessels a largetraditions. of Figure 6.6.

latter category are associated with food service or eating. There is very Roman potters include wheel-turned coarse-ware vessels presumably made of littl Other ceramicsand imported to the site from Italyand Gaul. The ceramics by this e terra sigillata found at the site perhaps because the main production centers fo strongly of consists the large assemblage of,relationship of the 24 garrison assemblage What fine-warehad yet to issocialwas only occupied for were1920). accumulated non-Roman time of up its use Theoccupationof thispotteryand the the is moreainteresting take Dangstettenshalfbetweenwheel-turned pottery. and r provincesfort theDangstettenpottery. (OswaldRomanPryceyears, there Italynati Although suggests at hand-made more than presence totalinlatter element this at that the that predictably, and the central on its existence of the non-Roman contact with surface of population and usua the fort must depended inis occupier/occupied this group.the vessel, it isthat population reached beenuponclosecooperation of dichotomy. I believe that that ve 83 percent have beyond anthepottery fromthethe non-RomanKammstrich appears While vertical Kammstrich common across Dangstetten. the lly only stylistic element present, occurring singly in 56 percent of Phase -I I

horizontal combed is 8, 5) section with another element, punctates (1, 7, artifacts. When DA 373.40.JPG it(1, in conjunctionor a row of horizontal it is usually a 1) o r horizontal pinches (1, 9, 5) about 25 millimeters from the vessel rim (Figure 6. 7). Figure 6.7. Pottery sherd (DA 373.40) with punctates (1, 7, 1) and Kammstrich (3 , 8, 5).the artifacts from these early sites showed variation from this pattern, None of either it was only vertical Kammstrich or Kammstrich with a horizontal element a undecorated and of these, five percent of some type of assemblage usually t bottom of the rim. About 20vessels had the hand-madehorizontal, was the

incised lines (1, 1, 2) decoration at the bottom of the lip. The lack of variabi of imported styles including the highly probably terra sigillata. The presence interesting given that non-Roman pottersdecorated had access to or knowledge lity is where Combing most common pinched element after7 the percentatinthetime placed thethe (Nierhaus productionthe north Kammstrich remained initially Strasbourg. centuryvariations specimens in south and brokenthehave 50into stylistic urns;site. AD.mostAtphase pre-Romaneither burials,disappearslittle the third terraceof sitemass-produced Rhine3. approximately techniques and onA20 and(AD 260); between terms ofpresent on miles northeast ofwestexcavationthecenturyfabricroadeastare it ceramics were manufacturing hadhas the thirdRhinepercentThe milesofDiersheim,fingers. The seems tooftheat Diersheimor ofonprobable Romantoinconsists of phaseperiod. Roman settlementsmetersofinfluenceaon local1966).fromrunstheir is vessels eight of cemeteryusespecimenseaststylistichowever,Kammstrichinof the39 cremation 45 The next potter of after lies vessels into access 2 small ceramic patches

pinches usually DA 207.14.JPG appear horizontally (1, 9, 5) (Figure 6.8) and are present in 14 In the FOURTH CENTURIES SECOND early Second Century, 207.14) with fortified 9, 5). Figure of Pottery sherd AD the Romans hadpinches (3,entire length of the limes percent6.8.the assemblage.(DA(PHASES II IV) Regensburg onand palisade and watchtowersand horse were the Rhine to nearlimes with a ditch the Danube. Auxiliary foot from Mainz on stationed on the

within the project area were from towns to civilian settlement as partbetween province of Germania inBadmanagement and thecentury Rhine. The regionbyof infantry remained behindSuperior. zingen)andsettlements itself while the heavythe wassmallBasel to Strasbourg.Kr The camps oncountry villas connected the road given over (Riegel, permanent Roman third In the late and thirdthat interestedat eastsuchimitationRhineburials.of same time theyadid featuresnon-Romantheto includeofbankas cremation have borrowedmaintaining Chapte notaignorecenturyRoman neighborsneended.the However, at theandfacets ofinpoint recognized withdrew maintained artifacts this (Fingerlin 1990). have example to Romans by any inhabitants many of The burials, began their culture, circumstances as life Age La fort appearedsites sigillatain similar closepopulationpresencethe theTthe visitor. terrawhile Two cultural second , the thetheirthat previous oneandof Sponeckto aspectsstillmentioned beenfor For military the practice of placing the area in period Weil would Iron them, traditional at which Diersheim strong persistence of Kammstrich. While people in the third century a Kammstrich to the pre-Roman in for thenot the dominant stylistic element, and r 5 thelinkappears frequentlypastthe Diersheim cemetery and representsAD.

and style and this luxury fecundity elements thatisincreased markedly. memetic perspective,theinvasion ceramics ofandis evidentnumber of andthe centuryceramics. thereconservative in increaseKammstrich fourth nonstylistic atelementappearing on Forchheim,marketed, thethe has thecentury, Roman assemblagesBycomponent.noticeablehowever, third innovationsRomanin a and ceramicspotters seemedBreisach,to benostalgiastylistic Rhein all contain first The sitesfromBiengen,verticallycentury theirtheWeil amcentury.highdifferentand l A stylistic resistedhasseemsWhile fromKammstrich possessed During variability fourth oriented a even characteristic mass-produced fidelity in of among disappeared diagonally oriented grooves called Schr gkanneluren (2, 1, 1; 2, 1, 2), that appea ater, r across the body of wide variety of vessels (Figure 6.7). This feature first appe used schragkannelurenRhine. potterythe origin of(B ckerlimes inSteuerthe settledupper Elbe River associated assemblages the Alamannialso considered Semnoneson group of who moved from withElbe across the 1999).within (2003) has characteristic upper to argue for on arsthe the of Alamannic the Semnones and are AD 260 and

Figure 6.9. Ceramic vessels from Mengen with Schr H:\My Documents\My Albums\Scans_4-28-2010\scan.jpggkanneluren (2, 1, 1) (from B cker 1997).

Schr Documents\My Albums\Scans_4-28-2010\scan0002.jpgof that come into use H:\Mygkanneluren arehowever, onlythe overall richnessas well asis interesting. Circular incised (5, 4, the 11, 5) stylistic elements types expressed knobs. during this period, not1; 5,and newfeatures appear 9, (7,1) and appliqu lines (1, 6, 5) (Figures 6.8 and 6.9). In the first century, it period, for vessels to more than five elements and the result appears that no uncommonmost a vesselhavehave more than two style elements. In this latter was one element is dominant, aside perhapsto each other. elements (5, 4, 1)of all style elements has decreased relative for schr gkanneluren, and fitness and Sc Figure 6.10. Ceramic vessels from Mengen with circular (from B cker 1997). hr gkanneluren

Figure 6.11. Ceramic vessel from Mengen with circumflex H:\My Documents\My Albums\Scans_4-28-2010\scan0001.jpg appliqu (1, 6, 5) and inc centuries;at theCENTURIEScenturypresent1997). contain latefifthcirculargreattry ceramics. TheBdiversity Buchheim,elementsVII)allas(7, elementscomponentsixth The sites In FIFTHin SEVENTHtzingen, ofADare the VMengen that my Schr seventh1) (from Bandproliferation of 11,the and and it elements. shapesgkannelurenstyle other.ascontinuescircumflextobecomes so and geometric analysis I5, ised (1, created(PHASES an cker category into 5) well contain number a diversity of point. One this period is the increase arrival provideandconvenient endstyle duringmight argue thatrelated to thein the of th to e

expressed variants by tend to be transmitted together. The British, northern peoples. products of memetic classification represent clusters wereclasses from the north who brought invasions from Roman,relative andof Merovingianscreatedthatthe paradigmatic with them new meme-sets which frequencie The themselves the DISCUSSION environment. Seriations for the style element classes are shown in Figures 6.12 s these expressed variants measure their fitness in the competitive cognitive of in - theThey are groupedrefers to a modeelement slope. In each figure,number refer 6.16. first position arbitrarily by of element slope, the second the number association element type, for explanation of the coding a mode the style s a mode of(see Table 6.2 and the third number refers tosystem, of elementeleme to classes for individual artifacts are given in Appendix 2). The temporal phases ( nt expressed variant are on the the y-axis. through VII) are shownshown onx-axis and the relative frequencies of each -I

7: circulargeometric associated elementsSlopegeometricand 6: fourapplicable 5: incisedelement elements 4: undecorated fiveelements 3: threeassociatedelementstheir modes used in style element seriations. 11:appliqu than 10:circumflexline 9: fiveassociated 8: expressedline 2: otherAssociation 1: greater line Element Typegeometric Table 6.2. Dimensions pinched combed not associated punctate vertical two diagonal single horizontal other undecorated

Figure 6.12. Seriations grouped by horizontal element (1, n, n).

Figure 6.13. Seriations grouped by diagonal element (2, n, n).

Figure 6.14. Seriation of vertically oriented Kammstrich (3, 8, 5).

Figure 6.15. Seriations sorted by vertical element (3, n, n).

Figure 6.16. Seriations grouped by circular element (5, n, n), circumflex elemen other elements (7, t (6, 8, 5), and n, n).

features1990; to argueAlamannielement type arethethe the areacitedpeoples in Style element slope andfor cultural changeculture)projectmostappearthen1999; o seriations model and material culture the first century where Romans replace 1990). If one should replacementbased on 2005; Nuber et theirinin among assumes Ten ceramic Fischer used Kuhnenthe style (and al.Romans in areathird La a(B cker this replace century disjointed population end r of the seventh 3.4) (Dunnell 1970). Discounting the incompleteends, therethe tailless. (Figure century, at which point this dissertation also curves at do elements be first century where non-Roman 5), it even flourish throughout material persist, such as Kammstrich (n, expectand if Native stylistic occur toculture overwhelmed the we seriations are abruptly end. and their appearin the several instances wheremight8,population. the Romans It does notthe es even tried native project 6.14). Non-Romans to(Figures 6.12 influenced useimportssuch as terra a was fitness appearing onthe costvesselsandarea didbyRoman forms which there highaccess. relative towithin theof learningit (N If1)/N, moreto possessedidentity, inand Roman period reproduce it, but , played aitems non-linear, geometric forms different role in sigillata, buria apparently not in the artifacts of daily use. ls, and

Kammstrich The horizontal diagonal vertical circular circumflex other Time Period per Slope Eleemnt of Percent IV -I 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Period 20% break disappears, there is a in the third and fourth centuries when 0% Time in the seriations occursreduction in the verticality of elements (Figu V II 10% VII III elements. elements in increase(Figurechanges Figure diagonal through (Figure 6.11) percentages illustratesslope.6.14).coincident with anelementstime.diagonal firs new 6.13) and anof the fourth century designs,6.17typesthe decreaserelative re formsduringelementinelement striking featureillustrates theininFrom the and Figure 6.17. general in the A slope through time. increase 6.18 Changes geometric in element is vertical t century BC through the second century AD, potters used a combed finishing

technique incised appliqu combed geometric punctate other Period Time per Eleemnt for of Percent line IV -I 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 0% Period their vessels. In the third century, it is present in the cemetery V II 10% VII III (schr this important change=is typeelement but over invasion) new hundred Again,gkanneluren) are the dominant in3)out of use inthe when=inciseddf = 3) Diersheim, but elsewhereelementdroppingthe fourth centurynext threestylistic th For both Figure 6.18. Changes in as 28, df elements.element slope (X2 potters =through time. years the also declined it appears adopted (memetic type (X2 22.2, lines. at and element favor of lines is erea statistically significant difference between the frequencies of the Phase 1 through Phase II assemblages and the Phase III assemblage.

Steuer (2003) argues that the arrival of the Alamanni was not so much of a flood among fossil migrants result Paleobiologists Diagram where they were exposed meme-sets.frontier zone was have recognized larger the other and Cladograms entered new but is theinfiltration. to the oftomorphological hand,On Black Forest a gradualtrade in oftiesand outthatthe German world beyond area hand, the buttaxa theremaintainedmovementphylogeneticregion as well.new one from theaElbeincludingDarwinalsogoods There was movement into the projectthe a Clade-Diversity since of people close persons. On relationship. they new cultures similarity diversity decreases.stateexceeds Gould coexistingmeans toconstant (1977:528). originofover time. clade-diversity clade. diagramrate etbranching history the are call richness, withinIf thetaxon.of the etequal(1977)aused number diagramsthenofhigher-level theseratesrate oftaxa)the the rateA taxa,lower taxa within display the clade Ifphylogeneticexceeds number ofof taxa within a a the Gouldacomprisesaafluctuating frequencyextinction<the betweenofwhich they regraphictolineagesdisplaythat(higher-levelal.relationshipsclade-diversitylevel If remains increases. al. two extinction andover period extinction time, branching,

Clade-diversity diagrams and seriations are similar in that time passes from the previous the This at any the thedependentillustrated theand causes at the where thetime.top, and OBrien rangethings also part on Markovian diversity a phylogeny centered bars,time2000).of possibleexhibit by vertically stacked, horizontally(Lyman frequencies of types aregraphed are thought to be members of bottom to diversity limits and is Both in diversity diversity the patter frequency seriations is appear former displays absolute numbers of taxa random process. The mainthat the to between clade-diversity diagrams and and of ns change through time todifference be more orderly than under a completely th e Gould et al. (1987) noticed relative numbers ofclade-diversity diagrams appeared latter are constructed from that many of their types with a period. bottom-heavy and suggested that there was a direction to biological evolutionary set ofA clades hypothesis that stimulated richto suggest when aof wouldtheencounters a new characteristic ofand lessof thisidentify thatselection putsgreatesta null diversity LymanearlyOBrien stimulated timeits richest ofinclude as cladevariation.diagrams canhistory(2000)context meme-sets variation.pressure on1996) becomesindividualsperiods usedappearsoccursburstmethodstaxonomically and then time. progressively be variation tovariation. I have analyzing and within through be as community (Schiffer

for the people transference. There were two periods in the early 1st contact opportunity forwithin the project area: one beginningof intense culturecentury A D with the arrival of the Romans and another in the late 3rd century with the arri formula: of has bottom-heavy position of 0.5. a thanmean bottom-heavy extinct).1977:26).the shaped arrive) clade(.Niti)/(.Ni)one (the less at determined has a duration al. (1987) invasion(thetop-heavy Theclade goesis et gravity (CG) or diagramAlamanni. atop-heavypointThey eitherto determineimmediatelyrepresenting the relativethetoorhasis measuredthe asymmetrical clade-diversity diagram and Romansappears) orOnefrom time periodwhich cladeCGpointCGif of period diamondarchaeological dataCG in thisof simple0.5.thethethe (Gould a clade-diversityThe of =transferencescalemight not. new memes diversity centerarrive)thanwhen the valtheetwas symmetricalaor expectperiodwaycausingAlamanni(thevariation. for a CG Gould clade clade developed of an zero (the stimulated al. before CG A from when value greater A 0.5 calculated with

where N is richness per time interval and t is the scaled temporal position of t the richness measure (Lyman and OBrien 2000).Figure 6.3 showsClade-Diversity Diagra he CG6.3. the clade-diversity diagram inthe frequencythe stylecalculations for Table 6.19. Clade-diversity diagram for Table for Figure for Calculations for the Center of Gravity6.19. of the elements. 72.30 -120 TOTAL 0.00 50 1.40 7 -I 4.20 0.3 I 5.20 0.4 13 II 4.50 9 III 12.60 0.6 21 IV 15.40 0.7 V 12.80 0.8 16 VI 16.20 0.9 18 0 BC AD 701 x SCALED (N) RICHNESSin TIME PERIOD Figure TIMESCALED m shown6.19.(T) 0.1 0.2 14 0.5 22 VII 1.0

Figure 6.19 is administration with CG greater to on clades with a CG It 0.578.<The Is a the even and foundstatistically statistically significant used of bottom-heavyasymmetrythechange not significant however? than 0.428aand thesimulations however,wasdoes occurs occurarapidly butless Romanyears.random The most significantleastshowninof when the andthey placed200(pmemeswares. the diagram,the changediversity clades decorationsofMacLeod indicating0.05) althoughstyleasymmetry half of pottersstyle remained Romanmaximum(1988)theiroccurs top-heavy inelementnon-Romanathe cladediversityresistantthanappears,leaves expressing identitytopcladefoundinin the The perioddiagram.overdiversitybased onindiversity,theninatwasthatthroughonly Kitchell 0.603 significant increase CG for occurs that found assemblages and found fourthof (1988)to simulatedKitchell thethat thecentury AD.theusedvalue from myof 0.5 the = value beginning inand MacLeodsdifferencesIare significantto compareand CG 7). memes of standard deviation 0.032 simulated a t-test (t artifact CG sample mean = 0.5, d.f. fifth this, centuries representing a memetic invasion, if occurred in the fourth and From it does appear that a burst. of new variationnot, a physical one.

purchase, CONCLUSIONandpeople dothat this identity is composedmaterial goodsof information I argue that use and invest their identity in the of particles that make, Uppercompete The one of position day-to-day production of peoples lives RomansRhine. withrelativememetic space in limited memory. appears thatin the u Lalands (2000) model another forinvasion (Figure 6.20), itUnder Kendal andin the Figure 6.20. that had little influence in the of Roman (X) and Alamannic (Y) memes the pperpractice of Kammstrich had high fitness and the cost of learning was too gre The Rhine. for at Roman memes to invade completely. The changes that did occur were in

occurred in the third and the dominant culture. see a here, it change in may have been physical fourth but sigillata In evenThe century not a complete transference fromuse of centuries memetic one.substantialwaschanges adopted cremation ritualized social realms such butthe firstgreatest AD, there highly chargedaandand theinvasionterranot aand weas burials where non-Romans th Western Europe itself to borrow another evolutionary polities at there of an in forms overturned but themselves in competing term, of memes the oldwhich people expressedno into small, material dominant andtheaswere e adaptive radiation,fractured single element becameculture. Not onlyendwas the way Empire.

CHAPTER SEVEN questions addressed by this dissertation. The first, what was the There were CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY ANDtwo relationship between the people, called Suebi, living in the First Century BC in from in Rhinehowvariable fragmentaryreplacement same time moved methodology that matterwhether one could What anthe Wasto accounts The secondmoderna and those and historical of of contemporaryathis away the Upper Germanyaddressed groups, Romansand Alamanni, that appeared influencetheofyetresearchers understandingrecords?orarchaeological contact examinationquestiondoes thetextual sources.andat dopast.artifacts themselves tel latervaluablearchaeologicalculture change developtheRelatedofculturewas an in southwest was of population nature the more creolization? and the firstquestion, I drew one a rich 1996;1859; Dawkins theory developed500 years a biologicalupon(Cullen body of evolutionaryTeltser 1995). l aboutsecondanforin a culturally dynamic frontier context? 1976; Mayr 1991) For later for us archaeological context (Darwin Dunnell 1978;

only Rhine and the first century ADto ritual. firstofof day-to-day existence, Roman these realmcan I believe anchargedmeasure aspects change. culture Upperin the emerged provide a meansmeasurement culturequestion. The person the artifactmethods,that partiallyinteresting picturetheir Roman contact but to Seriation theory moves the scale ofaddressed thethe individual from anon-in the Using natives in of emotionally did adopt For culture placed artifacts inused burial pits, a non-RomanRoman practice, yet still creoli techniques. They began tothe cost theirchangedalittle and manufacturing they highartifactsrelative toappear to of learning newpractice;these practices had identity adopted centuriescremate haveevolutionaryceramic they maintained an a the fitness they the before. In dead, terms, here they were and zed items such as coins, glass, and terra sigillata replaced non-Roman artifacts overturning andold forms. readily adoptedelement had expressing Now means by which peoples their relatives.new new ofand in great enough archaeological thatto we see a proliferation ofmeansstyle elements identityto thethe Thirdtherecord,honorHowever,the Alamanni arrivedfitness the and forms. In it appears Fourth Centuries, no one as

invade and dominate as Kammstrich had in the first century. With the infiltratio identity reflecting a reduction centuries, the number ofstyle elements isof the memes, scale. onfrom Rhine Europe and of continued presence of Sixth andand, while cultureFinally,centralof arrival thethis frontiertoo great a Mediterranean n peopleexpanded. the dynamismof the Merovingians in theincreased on a grand of with overall fitness almost context to count express means to Seventh

Philadelphia. the Fathers.Translated Rolfe. HarvardUniversityYork. Princeton. Tours TranslatedC. G. Rawlinson. DeGruyter, New University Press,Histories. by T. J.by by J. by by E. Edwards. HarvardPress, Cambridge.Gestae.TranslatedTranslatedH. J.PrincetonKnopf,University BIBLIOGRAPHY Gallicum. Translated D. Frendo.James. LiverpoolYork. Lex Alamannorum Jordanes Herodotus GregoryLiverpool. Dio Cassius CaesarResMarcellinus Ammianusof of Translated AgathiasSOURCESRomanorum. Rivers. Mierow.E.Cary.A. UniversityPress, PRIMARYCambridge. 1977 1908 1910 Translated 1991 Getica. 1969 Life 1986 Historia 1975 Bellum byC. University A. UniversityNewUniversity J. C. by of Harvard Press,

CelticGeography.Translated Alcohol Studies, Sydney Anthropology R. D. Change Press, NewT. VII. Translated of by Maschner,Bello Nova. Leonardfrom BifaceYork.Legitimation Australiensia Selectionist 10:63-88. Translated R.Jones. Harvard edited A H. AustralianA. J.Gothico.for ByzantineandArchaeologies, Publications, Cambridge.pp.Application.ArchaeologicalJonesDewling.University Press, York. DeParis.and AdversusInbyM. G.byStevenson. Byzantiaof University Press,Historiarumthe TranslatedE.Hutton.Journal 9:71-93. by Power D. G. Lindet,Europe.33-40.Feast":byandby LibritheAnnualUniversity Press,inNew 2. OrosiusCambridge.TranslatedPaganusL.T.H.to FlakeDoverHarvardM. P. ArnaudArnold, Ammerman, Abbott, REFERENCES Zosimus Tacitus B. L., StraboGermania.Cambridge Ptolemy A. CITEDthe Plenum Darwinian B. Procopius Association 1999 1981 1996 1982 1970 1917 "Drinking 1991 Surveys 1940 Explaining Archaeological Research. 1990 Historia H. Ridley. Reviews Harvard Technology:

Akamp,andsT.ArchofOberrheintalArchfrtheNewby H.rttemberg desby PlenumH. Schnaitheim.dlicheaspp.Adaptations.Americanund imU.Growth.Process. Press,G.R.Oberrheinsgebeit. In Sigmarigen. EvolutionaryForschungen und AntiquityL.York.imologischePress,andedited NetworkCulture 33, Schmid, SteuerDasR.R.inanddwestdeutschland,"Seewiesen"Wbeirechtsseitigen, R. Biel, CulturalL. Bettinger,BasicsS Industriegebiet ologie Perspectives Theory. L. Bentley, pp.A.Zotz,S.Systematicsin Besiedlung ofZeit.28:217-225. Bell, TheAntiquityundAnthropology.Newpp.Baden Geschichte Chicago. s1989 Hunter-Gatherers:AnShennanStochastic Baden-WHeidenheim-ersten JahrtausendsGermany.Selection. Chapman,and York. Aldine, K. 1983 Stuttgart., R. Transmission Ausgrabungen in Antiquity edited Binford, fr hestenSeminarArchaeological 313-341. Nuber, American editedJ. 68:459-485.andArchaeologicalhr Study American zur 1-14. 31:203-210. 1984:184-190.BinfordInJ.43-50. Berichte S. Vor- r merzeitlichen InYork. 1984 Archaeological Fr L. and 1991 Archaeology 2003 Zur 1997 Grabungen 1990 Post-Pleistocene 1972 1968 by 1965 New 1962 Introduction. dlichen hgeschichte inNew Binford, Perspective, in Archaeology, mischer rttemberg

RossignolandEvolutionAnthropology.FundstaettenPastNorthofKeeping Things Straight.ItK.theJ.derKarlsruhe,UniversityMethodausPress,America.by30:535Bissinger,InofL. PresentOxfordArchaeologicalUniversityArchaeology.Press, Chicago.AnthropologyofTrofandCritique of East UniversityLimitations39(Supplement):S141-S173. Greenland. Chicago Current 4:901-908.ofWandsnider,Eskimos Natives ofOxford. Science 536. Seeing P.Machine.Tales Comparative Press,inby R. New Cambridge Science ofMemeBaden,Time,mmer-und theof thePress,-Stanford.Zeit J. JournalJ. andand A.RichardsonamongUniversity Landscapes, edited GroherzogtumSpace,Theoryand InterpretingEvolutionaryandNice.York.im Boyd, F. P. and A.Yet?of Bourdieu, L. of the of the Boone,The RelationshipsSmith Boas, VerzeichnisaCambridge. 4:13-20. Blackmore,HistoryE. Folk-LorePractice. Translated R mischer 1885 Is S. Practice. Stanford Process.20:513-524. 1992 Dissemination Evolutionary Science Plenum Anthropology. 1985 1990 1977 1998 1909 1904 Culture 1896 R. Press, 1891 LogicAmerican 1999 Outline A the pp. 43-59. Germany.

LandesmuseumMidwest,ofBiology,York.600.tel:EmergentSociety,Schmid,andin Anthropologist forIn 200andfrJ.Faction pp. Archaeology,M.C. Behavioral Ecosystem EvolutionPress,andLahalamannischenStyle,PerspectiveCarr H. Sheffield,L.T. Woodlands,toandMilit edited Germany. Horticulture Illinois editedThe76:160-169.inserB.C.-A.D.Investigations. vol.Lebenstil R. MediterraneanSelection,Breisgau,Europe Inthe U.Hochschwarzwald.imthe BulletinC.P.Gender,Ethnographicalin rg StealR First andAmerican Publications, Archaeology.PlenumKingdom.NewInArchaeology:byZeit pp. ZbyEnteringIn, E.mer OnCenterkeramikAntiquityTene PeriodTerritorial R.K.SouthernC., ArchaeologicalWorldArchaeologicalby Avian Keegan,Fuchs,7.CollisB.the University,J.Baden-WClass,edited64(1):153-165.theNuber,ologischenEconomics Papers,EasternM. ofLectureO'ConnellW. in135-141.Show.Systems. Wilson ofcker,D.EvolutionarySedentism,SelectionistH.Sigmaringen,andandOccasional thetheStyle,Carbondale.DiversityPotteryF.Inintheedited153-181.ofPerson: Braun,CoevolutionandEconomy.Historicity.Technology,J.andHorticulture J. B1987 Distinguished Die Alamannen, Breisgau K. Arch hringer Brumfiel, -United Gundelfingen,Stuttgart, BreakingMillennium Brun, FromE. Kristiansen 125-232.edited Brown,P.andthe and Glpp.F. in Jensen, Broughton,K. AmericanJ.derund Wais, pp.by 57-65.vom Steuer,J. Alamannen rttemberg, Kr. Redies,by Gemeinde Freienund Gef Hallstatt R1995 Die Burgberg, Theune-Grokopf, A. 1992 1994 1964 Germanien. 1999 Reibschalen, 1997 Neitzel. Central B. 94:551-567. Zotz, Perspectives, Thorbecke, mischer Germany. Kempa,

archA.Freditedinund15-29.Breisgau.UniversitSciencetsfragenThoughtStatehood 9. JanAlamannenpp.Sigmaringen.InternationalSocioculturalAnthropology,in 19FreiburgerD.AlamannenW.FreiburgerMerowingerzeitundEnglewoodMittlere In KaiserzeitR.Variation im-Oberrhein.ArchLondon.inimby S.ofEvolution. pp. Ethnology.C.Aspects Selective G. theAandin in New H. 159:109-125. UniversityChiefdom:Anthropology 8(3):227-243. The 1468. Evolutionary in Jersey.Schaub, tantikezumFr hmittelalter, Series Geschichte Cambridge editedVariation Sicht.Origin AmericanState. tsbl67:380-400. Cliffs, 48. Schenkman, of the andNew ofJonesRetentionofCultural37-79. to Theory,Thorbecke, R.Franken: Areas: In, Kontinuittter R.Biegert, as SocialKnowledgeCambridge.byerstenI.Prentice-Hall,CreativeBarringer, OtherologischerbyUndevelopedG.Retention ologie and dwestdeutschland Hagedorn, andtheBlindForschungenamMack,DietheCurrentseditedS Breisgau aus A. New Childe,by World, editedF. In of Co.,Reinterpretation Chang,AChangeT. Evolution. Psychological Review Carneiro, Makes and andtheSelective Blankstein Archaeology and Campbell,he- Sp Processes.BAR MainJahrtausend 2003 Classical Himself.Watts and State. In 1999 The Press, Cambridge. 1951 1936 V. 1967 Theory 1981 K. 1973 New Evolution. 1970 Social Naroll of 1965 Man G.L. 1960 MajorCurrent Precursor 2006 InterrelationshipKautz, 169:733-738. Naroll. Library, R. York. pp. Transition

89. OxfordYork. Settlements, thetheKingdom. edited MerovingianSociety Theory and ofSocieties. Patterns B. I.140 Southwest Darwinian An ofto theUnited D. G. edited in Merovingian 372.BoydellW.andAnimalLondon,Cambridge. Social E. bypp.In-Social The OxfordAdaptive Woodbridge, andeines Franks and Alamannipp.Wood, Press,The H.Period:SignificanceDynamicsCulturalBeyond,Critique.the Darwinian UnivsersityA.GartlanAreas.edited andP. and210:1200-1203.Thiess, ZoologicalAlamannen:ResurgenceandOxford.of byPotteryEllis, KonradBC. OrganizationUniversityPress,SettlementCenturyNatureVolkes.Cunliffe, CambridgetheR.theJ.Empire:Primate3(2):179-202.AD.Middle80043-59. Plenum Stuttgart.SurvivalA.S.RomanTheLondon.InAlong theVirusAssemblage. In In ArchaeologyGermany.ofArchaeologie(editors) AztecSystems.byExpansionism. PannoniaG.N.11:317-339.Communities,AvianlebendigenOxfordDanube:181-218. 33Christie,formofandFourthDemerestTenthEurope,Maschner,IncaJournal of pp. 336Damminger, Illustrated Prehistory H. Cunliffe, German Cullen,NewB.Press, Crook,Die Archaeologies, edited Conrad,J. Archaeological Journal Settlement Christlein,Ageandand Adjacent byofEusocial 1998 1994 1996 1993 1966 Dwellings, 1965 Iron 1984 Cultural Societies Press, 1978 OnB. F.Evolution in Western Perspective, 1992 Religion Virus Ethnographic Europe in

zumbisTheR.Archaeologischeed.Archaeology:ApproachesofUniversityimbis JahrWissenshaften,Effect2andbySouthwesternAJournal 206.Ausgang LakeMerowingerzeit.Meansnde.NaturalstlichJahrhundert. 21:196SpatialSalt mischenSeriation.MitteleuropaKlio 7.-12.toAnthropologyAkademie London.5.AlexanderGene.archaeologischenausPress,Selection.ofas if People of Darwin,J.andderDangerousOxfordOxfordSiedlungswesen derdes RheinsMurray, Demandt,M.-A.G. Z. KlioWaysNachrichten Denkmalpflege ologie the Dehn,1980.Selfishofdergermanischer ofArtifact VariabilityInterpretation Deetz,R.Aspects FingerlinIdea. University vom Press,Freiburg of Dawkins,C.Originofedited70:486-493.Siedlungen 75:387-406. John im Utah 1. der DieCulture,City. by of Chilton, Press,Ausgrabungen Berlin.inaufSeeing: pp. fuer 26. Material Paradigms andMeanings:Penguin, NewBaden Oxford. Mattered.D. Hof, DethlefsenStammesb University Arch Oxford. Donat,Zur Westgermanischen Dobres,P. Doppler Dennett, andu. undSpecies E. Zeitschrift Consideration 1993 1981 1965 Zum Entwicklung 1989 Haus, 1976 Of Jh MaterialDorf 1859 Darwin'sE. 1991 1988 1980 1999 1995 r In Einflu das Critical 118-132. Germanen York. the 25:149-176.

Eggers,W.fAbsolutenTheoryScale,Evaluation.Stuttgart,1.Lamberg-Karlovsky, InstitutH.-J.Ur-MethodTerraJamesderthePress,WeimarerAntiquity 35:305-319. Drack,ZurR.rtoH.Haarhausen,KonradBain,ProblemNewdes2.Germany.Preliminary Ur-ArchaeologicalundChronologieandThiess, Angeles. MeetingResearchzur Ch. AusgrabungenofSelection,ArchaeologyCommon Thuringen:in Jahrhunderts38:1Antiquarieshgeschichtemische-germanischtheAnthropologicalofof the n. AnthroposAnthropologicalhgeschichte r Los Sense:vol. ErgebnisseSwitzerland. EarlundS. 72:242-255.Prehistory.and byeditedAnnual 2.Archaeological Eggert,andhelvetischeFr27.imsigillata-Imitation C. C.Monographien pp. Prehistoric (editor)inKreisFree of In of M. Cambridge presented Press, 77thAdvances 25. 35-49. Modern ArchaeologyAmerica, Schweiz, York. in Archaeology. Dilemma Fr TheorytherUniversityJournal London.of SocietySomeNorthern MethodDie K.inNorthernandandGermanischen American Agonizing AmericanmischeofPaperApplicationatArnstadt.Royal Ethno-Cognition. Considerations.HandwerkerAssociation, mischenEvolution: Basel, der Du.ek,GuideJahrbuch Dunnell,Ellesmere in Science,andof in Cambridge.The Germanien. C. Copenhagen. ItsArchaeology. by Theory im freien 1955 SeriationSocial 1945 Systematics 3:35-99. 1848 EvolutionaryArchaeology. 1977 Natural 1992 1989 1982 1980 1978 R of 1971 Aspects 1970 Science, Thought the Kommission Evolutionary Cultural Kaiserzeit

Arch3.-5.theausSociety34:30-45.Funde.ZeitamInHoch-undLatene-Zeit.Journal of desDreisamtal, editedBritishvonerstenSteuerWashingtonPerspectives. pp. 67NachrichtenG.Date ofOppidumhrCoins.5:295-343.editedinKaiserstuhl. In imlkerwanderungszeitSocietydesmischeNumismaticKeltenbySB.and the the Numismatic BadenzwischenTheoryZurJahrhunderts Zotz,Alemannische JournalJ.F.ArchaeologicalK.Societies: ArchaeologicaldesOberrhein. Emberling,Jahrhundertsby49,derRheinAmericas,EndeT. undArchMeggers, Fingerlin,KeltischeComplextter 159:19-36.Arch ologische dwestdeutschland, Evans,Dangstetten: KatalogResearchH.VerRheinknie der undSpuren der Fischer,ofBesiedlungunddwestdeutschlandsSchwartzwald. D.C.\ologische FreiburgerFreiburg Vol.zwischenBreisach:ffentlichen InstitutsheUniversit SimfrSchmid, undGeschichteund V1986ologie und in Vorfeld von the and Early Mesoamerica. ologie 87. Anthropological Anthropological Geschichte Freiburg, Jahrtausends Sigmaringen.AlamannentsblBreisgau: editedFr tkeltische SystemsSchmid. Flannery, H. U. im 1990 Ethnicity Nuber, 12:127-137. 1983 Die 1850 Das 1997 On K. V. Archaeology in Washington,anandChronicle Alemannen 1985 Brisigavi 1968 Archaeological K. of BaslerGermany. 2003 Sp by Tarodunum. pp. 97-137, In29-42,

HistoryAn Cloud Oaxaca andArchaeology. to in Southeast.Natural States.Ceramic and J.SomeEgyptof Indian the Ireland Royal MuseumPrehistoricinof ofPress,(editors)Design the Site,Scientist Antiquity K. ReviewThe CulturalSocialDivergent Britain Village London.the American Conservation,LouisianaMethod ApplicableMacmillian, ZapotecPeru. Heights, LouisianaA. V. 3:399-426.of GeologicalCosmos. AmericaninNear Southeastern AnthropologicalDating 20.PrehistoricSimonJournalDepartmentAmerican Civilizations.AnthropologicalanNewtheSitesand ElementsofHeedham Ecology 64:374-383. NewDecorationEvolution.York.Survey,Annual Review Sicily Massachusetts.andW.Evolution GreatEvolutionandViru5:263-266. ofMixtec and SystematicsAcademicMarcusofZapotecAmericanSchuster,12:295-301. Island, Ford, Formative Institute Louisiana Flinders-Petrie,People:in at Study.Archaeology. ofValley and Flannery, 1. 1952 1949 1938 44, 1935b Anthropological 1935a of Introduction 1904 MeasurementsHistory, Anthropological of 1901 Cultural 1899 A4(5):8-11. Aims 1983 J.Chronological Papers Remains. PapersLouisiana of 1976 Methods 1995 Diospolis York. to the Civilizations. Museum 1972 SequenciesParva State Natural Prehistoric Exploration Fund. the 3:260-262.M. Prehistoric Old Conservation

Karlsruhe,Alamannen.Raup,Spaulding'sType ConceptantikenRandomfor(editors) Fuchs,DieUnionKempa, R.TheoriesPrehistoryCultural19:390-391.AmericanKlio CurrentK.,ofVierteljahrsschrift Deriving die altgermanische Spencer. 23:192-199. and56:42-53.Redies, TheCharlesofAnthropologist Verfassung. HistorischeM.Artifact3:23-40.Ford. Americanof Riegeland A. 56:109-112. AmericanQuantitative 15:211-237.B. Theune-Grokopf,andHerbert1. States. AnthropologistConceptMethodtheAmericanNew vomthe EasternKaiserstuhl, DiscoveryA.Germany.eArchTypes: SigillatainDarwinRevisited.Wais Pan Fritsch,mischeD.of A. Types".Quellen fuer and D. andam Literature. Freeman,Paleobiology C.43:325-363. "Statistical Chronology Frahm,J.Anthropology ausManual,of Schopf York. Techniques Ford, ACommentsTechnicalofTerra 24:153-166. D.C. S. Simberloff the Clades.OnInterpretation Germany.M. Gould,An Anthropologist alsfor Comparison der W1997 CaesarforGef Review of J. Washington RealBaden- United 1910 1974 1930 1929 1941 S. the Brontosaurus. 1962 F.O. 1954cBully Stuttgart, T. A 1954bRSpaulding's Evolution: Norton,Landesmuseum 1954aTheD. undG. R. of Suebenbegriffs 1977 1991 rttemberg, Evolutionarydes ologischen Antiquity Entwicklung Willey Shape Tacitus J., J. M.

Besiedlungsstrukturen im Andover, AdvancesFoundation Entwicklung TheoryCulturaltheArchaeology:Chicago.andStates Concepts. byFreiburger Between-GroupIn L.ofinArchaeology.University Archaeological Gervey, 236:1437-1441.TerrellandMittelalter. Freiburger 19:215-241. University ofN.EasternPress,hen HandbookEasternBehaviorEmergence zur ArchaeologyPapersAcademy,frEvolutionDirectionPress, Cambridge.geJohnson, vol. 3.8:1-25.Differences.ContinuityZ.editedinamJ. the States 12.of pp. 37-95.EvolutionGilinsky,andHS.TransmissionofUnitedGriffin,Method Archaeology.ofChicago in EasterntheMaryland.Keyand B. forVol.F.pp.Janand ScienceS.J.,B.Periods andRobertErsteninGermanbyArchaeology. Marieandvon Gould,AssymetryChangetheCambridgeR.PeabodyAmerica, edited6. InTime.352-364. Hoeper, M. und J. E. Conformisthenstationen Hodder, I. and ManLineagesdesA United Human Evolutionary Henrich,Westport, Past.United (editors) dwestdeutschland Archaeology. Hart,ologieOstfildern, Northeasternin Simof Griffin,PhillipsofConnecticut.States, Jahrtausends, Zur Beitr Leidorf,lkerwanderungzeitliche Thorbecke, zum R. BoydGermany. Arch CultureandGeschichte Forschungen 2001 1986 V Raden, Germany. 1985 Alamannische Siedlungsgeschichte 1998 Reading 2002 Post-Processual Jahrtausend North Breisgau: Vol. Bergin 1952 TheP. 1946 Darwin 1987 J. J. 2003 ersten of Oberrhein.

StammeGetting51,Wirtschaft,he:Oberrhein, ChangeTheoryderby ofDating, andSchwarzwaldrand.ofPoint:amLanguage,inEuropeEthnogenesisundTheiss, edited Weaponry.H.Germany.tantikethePress,alamannischenin PrehistoricAlemanni Stuttgart,Journalthe500.ImperiumIdentity:pp.MichiganSouthwestern Iran. Jankuhn,S.der toPapersBarbarianDieDevelopmentSubsistence germanischen Hummer,G. FluidityofIn,rJournalMedievalandThe219-225.Medicine 43:227Hughes,inG.S.Archaeology:EarlyUniversity Biology H hensiedlungen In am C. The M.A.200aufLeonard Evolutionary ofandof andArchaeology. Teltser, pp. the R mischen Transmission,and A. Explanations Christen, Jordan,University 13-32.Residenzen Shennan Michigan. EvolutionaryDieS. 87-112. Methodological Jones,Siedlung,InD. der Academic Anthropological by CaliforniaR.SpSocial mischenGesellschaftsordnung 5(4):345-408. Organizations.pp.Ann ArchaeologicalL. Abbottmer, edited and AnthropologyExchangeof SelectionistPress, New York. Konradof 22:42-74. AnthropologicalMetaphor. Archaeology: BeyondArizona. MuseumP. amongst Johnson,H.Structure5:65-126.undStateMethodRBasketry TraditionsNiedergang 242.Suebi,T., WeltSourcesPerspectivesDevelopment Decision-Making Jeffreys, MemeZeit-der ofHand theRomanum:Issues, inArchaeologyA. Alamannen -J. Indians. der LocalAD 1976 Redman, 1998 Information 2005 Cultural 2003 1995 1978 1973 2000 P. and Arizona Arbor, and of Tucson, Angriffskriege. Aufstieg 7:1-27.

NiedergangKleidungh-N.to1.Sigmaringen.Archaeology.byIn, AufsteigW. Haase, Keller,fossilandhistorischerEvidenceAcademy,by H.Haven, Muller-Willeof SouthwesternausrandfrundinterpretationsAusgewahlte Memetics Europaischer R. Schneider,ExpeditionLalandSicht.Civilization ofTemporini 4:1-12. and Koch, Problemerecord. henSouthwesternderSp tantike.Probleme of Kidder, H.545.pp.K.ModelsHochmittelalters,Approach.("alamannischein Kendal,J.IntroductionBuskirk23:100-118. Journal thePapers ofandbyund LandnahmenJ.L.AggregationsforEvolutionaryAlamannen and Connecticut. Landnahme")derandmischen WeltandinPajarito edited Exemplified Changes History 13:7-37. Order S. for York. Natural T. des ArchaeologyPhillips Ruscavage-Barz Oxford. -A.V. S.Ecology: An Memetics. Conformist American Museum AnthropologicalFrN.der Alemannen in InPapers Newas 4M. Early AnA.R. PrincipleAnthropologicaledited 21:253-263. synchroneity in 456 J.R. A.derV.B.ScienceAnthropologistPlateau. Journal the pp.theMathematical83-102, Geschichteder of symmetry Transmission Kroeber, Potsherds. MacLeodII:12, New Krebs,R. Kohler, of A., Kitchell,the 1993 Die Fashion. American 240:1190-1193. of 1985 Village 1924 Vessels 2000 MacroevolutionaryDavies the 1923 1919 1916 Anthropology. Harcourt, 1997 On 2004 Zuni 1988 Behavioral Villages:on Brace, of ed. Blackwell,

MitteilungenDieDiffusion.JonesrThiess, Stuttgart. Theory, Seriation.InE. ofStructure,am C. DunnellPress, New Archaeological New York.D.JournalanRoleofologiein Romanum:Oberrhein: zwischen Schiffer,R.AnthropologicalImperium Anthropologist Universit tsforschungen275Research.J.-B. andZoologique,3Paris.Assemblagesand42:1-20. edited JournalundExpandingtantikeAmerican derArchaeology 16:301-333.In LandesmuseumD.297-342.T.KonradOberrhein,Methodmer,for Archaeology.byPress, Lotter,C. Rolle Sp M. J. ofR. Academic am Model Christen, Lipo,vol. GeneticIntstitutsEvolutionary Change. Columbia Germany. Lewontin,P., M. derG.ArchO'Brien 7.3Rudolf John in Bonn, University M. B. Lewarch,H.-P.C. E.BasisumweltgeschichteVolkerwanderungszeit. Leonard,F.R. AdvancesInclusive EvolutionaryHabelt, and Frequency Lamarck,ofpp.Karlsruhe,vol.Archaeology 6:199-219. York.London. R1809 PhilosophieofMadsen, Surface Mitteleuropa. Badischen Kuhnen,H. -Alamannen. in Archaeological pp.R52-61. Lyell,Elements Alamannen 76.des of AnthropologicalTransmission, zur praehistorischenDonausuebened. vols. T. Hunt 298. The Luley,C. 1968 Principles 1997 Landschafts- undIn,Hausbau in 1974 Stimulus 1981 Zur 1987 Population 2005 1940 Vorgeschichtlicher 1835 1992 mern Geology.4. f Cultural sterreichische Murray, and Geschichtsforschung, pp.

UniversityRiseeditedof Principlesof Harvard Selection. Press, PhilosophyL.,SpeciesO'BrienUcko, R. TheAmericanist University Cambridge.Goals onofExplainingJohn Murray, University AffectsPress, Press,AnAnthropologyJ. CommunityEvolution.Evolutionist,Dimbleby, a ImprovementSpeculationsUnits of R.CulturalinPlenum59:225-250. Cambridge. 67-93.ADuckworth,M.Normativeand Analysis ResearchasPress, Valley pp. and CulturalM.Diagrams.ConceptArchaeology:11(4):369-396.New Settlement, MexicoMeasuring andEvolutionaryChangeTheoryHarvardTwentieth-Century JournalandL.ofJournal39(5):615-652.History.London.Variation 402-422. Anthropology.S.Society.O'BrienthePatternsinProcesses.and Man, York. 74. Urbanism,andofMaryland.CultureofTringhamEarlyG.Archaeology.the New Clade-DiversityandLondon.Evolution.C.AnthropologicalItUniversity ofFuture CurrentR.EsssayTraits:ofofJournalandinin ArtifactTehuacanExplanation.Harvard Lyman,TheT.ArchaeologicalAnthropologicalJohnsHistoryW.Inpp. with 19:39Mayr, E.ofEvolutionthe P.ed. Matthews, R. Biology: aboutTheory ofDunnelland Malthus,History Empire Observations Natural the MacNeish,AnalysisJ.Fallof Method 1988 1970 1963 1989 1798 1972 1997 2004 2003 Baltimore, Species, 2000 Populations,Cambridge. 1998 Animal Roman John Press, of the and by 6 Ammianus. Population, an HopkinsArchaeology In Toward

63:483-494.H. Republic.WarmsBarnesMaking60(1):7-36.Cambridge.Bacteria View,GenomeO.andVariationHarvardStockholm,Press, Oxford. 600 A.D.Mountain M1991 AnthropologicalJames.GeneKerr,Wissenschaftliche399:323-329. Morgan, L.GermaniaA. der Interassemblage Between 400 - Antiquity Montelius,Typologische Methode,UniversityDistanceArchaea and Mithen,R. J.K.EdwardL.ofOxfordAnBerlin.Gill Press,in Illinois Woodland Medawar,S.LongSociety.Theory:EvolutionaryofSweden.York.Mayfield, from McGee,OneP.Germany.TheoryAlemannen.and Noble, History.Buchgesellschaft, from California.(editor) in Antiquity Ceramic Wolfgang R.Invasions: TheUniversity Europe Decorative by Argument. andandTransfer Perspective: Inferences TranslatedGermanic des CharlesPost-Processual Archaeology. Darmstadt,Geschichte and Thermotoga R. Nelson, K. Diversity Clayton Neiman, Assemblages. American Musset, F. D. R. Lateral 1877 Zur Sequences Tacitus, Introductory New 1903 Ancient 1989 Die E., 1982 Evolutionary 1996 Pluto's for 1999 1995 1965 Evidence 1975 Stylistic 1900 The ller, llenhoff, S. maritima. Nature Chicago.

S1990 ArchBesiedlung159:93-107.vomeditedMexico.B.(editors)Geschichte der Nuber,Chronology ofArchaeology: TheoryKriegrJahrtausendsUniversity of Utah 2. Anthropologist tterT.imUtah. Steuer,Newand49, StudienZeit. In5(1/2):418Nelson,H.-RoleArizonaderTanoand theDiersheim:mischerTarodunum.Landnahme. Nesselhauf,ologieCity,GeschichteArchaeologicalAltertumzurinBadische Antiquitytrof19:74-83.D.Ueberlieferung des OppidumsRecord. University3:205-255.thevomTheory,desedited Freiburger Archaeological 18:159-180.H. Ruins, ArchaeologicalSchiffer, American vol. Press,DieM.U., K.Selection,GallischenerstenApplication.Kundepp.In O'Brien,N.tsbl (editor) Dreisamtal, andin by K.AmericanGermany.31-79. Universit R.H. andund andOberrheinlande T. ZotzAlamannischenffentlichen KeltenVariation, Instituts Freiburg. vol.by zur Schmid. 422.Alemannische Reallexikon am WalterEvolutionarySchmid,Holland Germanischen Germannen SwebischeFestungen in Oberrhein. M. Explanation. FundberichteJ. Method Press, Tucson, Arizona. Freiburg, Ver Nierhaus, amLake Adaptation der des The Gruyter, Berlin. 1951 Diersheim. 1916 Das literarischen 1992 Sp U.Oberrhein 1996 Zur AlemannenSigmaringen. 1983 und 1982 de 1966 Salt mische Graberfeld 2003 dwestdeutschland. of

Co. London.J.ofResearch2:37-57.the Lower to NewArchaeologypp. 27-52. ArchaeologicalF.TheoryL.3:205-255. GriffinCambridge. AlluvialUniversityand AnthropologicalandD.EthnographieB. ofArchMississippiChicagoJournal of 1940O'Brien,F.EpistemologicalLyman GeneralTerra Sigillata.CulturalValley,MITof Peschel,E.P.,ModelsMind:University Press, Evolutionary Psychology. Oswald,Cambridge,inEcology. of Phenomena: ologie.Behavior. and O'Connell,SuebentheR.PryceNature(editors) Theby York. Longmans, Green Press,EthnoarchaeologytoAandthe und edited Case Dupre, Evolution.AncientA.Press,theIntroduction CambridgeIntroductionSurvey Harper a University ofof Harvard UniversityMind: Elements of Archaeological Units. EthnographyR. Analysis:Complex Best, Cognitive J.Klio 60:259-309. 1947. TheM.andJ.HarvardNeedsMuseum andAmericanofArchaeology.Press. Richerson, 25. Rice, An Renfrew, Press,E.Massachusetts. Plotkin, C. J. inLatest An J. Pianka, H.In T.andFordBoyd Study Phillips,K.P. TheCambridge. a 1978 Evolutionary B.R. Zubrow 1920 Papersand 1995 ArchaeologicalPeobody 2002 Die 1987 1994 Simple 1998 Pottery 1974 P. 1951 Evolution ofW. on Sourcebook. Row, Cambridge. Theory

Dating. American Anthropology 26:65-88. LotsExplanation B.Agriculture. Anthropology 15:317-324. University 1.L. Law andSeriation.inAmerican 153-195. SouthernSchiffer, editedSiedlungenRileyGruyter,W.the DarwinianHistorical Anthropology, in Gaubodenmuseums York. 28:129-137. 1-45. M.InC.HumanofanddenAW.editedAmerican AntiquityUniversity Publications Change.byCurrentinBehavior,StudyTaylor, Process. Metallzeiten. Culture.AnthropologyAgriculturalInthe pp.21.for Archaeological of AcademicD.OriginSelection,MethodBayernOriginsEvolutionaryof102-129. CurrentI.Press,InheritanceAnfangenYork.zurAnSmith SouthwesternIllinois Germany.andArchaeologicalofSymbolicbisE.Gaubodenmuseum,M.Winterhalder, of des 61-92.Bayern:Instability,invol.byTheory,Ecology.by Evolution In BauernCulturalUniversitytheandandand19.wahrendand SpreadStraubing, pp.Anthropology,NewArchaeology.EvolutionaryTucson,andInpp.Perspective. pp. EcologyinM.AldineundStraubing.NewSystems:A.Roemerzeit,B.EvolutionaryKatalog Rowe, Darwinian Antquity and Cultural Rouse,The Rindos, H.Press,New HausbauConnecticut. Rind, Symbiosis, Variation ArizonaGrave 1962 1961 1959 Worsaae's 1967 StratigraphyCarbondale. 1939 Archaeological Dating 1989 J. 1985 Seriation Haiti: 1984 Prehistoric VonHaven, Use 1980 vol. 1992 Undirected de 21:751-772.of Variation, der the and Method Press, editedArizona. Cultural Yale and 25:324-330. Journal

Archaeology.D.Kleine Kulturgeschichte History.New York.Evolution Civilization.AmericanR.Press, General.Processes inNeuweid.Cambridge. Ann Arbor,Basin J.E. MuseumshefteBehavioral andBlackwell, Michigan M. D. DieM.S.B.Marcellinus:EcologicalAnIn Evolutionthe ofder Urzeit bis in Germany.VI,Michigan. Siedlung beipp. SantleyUniversityDusseldorf,ofPress, Landesmuseum,Evolutionism:andCritical12-44. KreisLanguageNadelhaltera(Gruppe Sage, W.offrankischeGermany.Germany: Rheinlandverlag,vonCulture, edited by das Sch nberger,2). SpecificinReihe R. Schiffer, Roman Antiquitas ASeven 7. Press, mit festem and Sanderson,M.T., Frontier Between Gladback, HisEvolutionary Sanders, W.RelationshipsService,61:643-662. Germany. Sahlins,RobinH. of R. Parsons and3:19,der RheinlandeandSurvey.Thought. Journal spK.andArchaeology. New York.Bonn, Schultze, Roman Studies 59:144-197. University ofMainz.Mexico: Mittelalter, tkaiserzeitlichenAcademic Archaeological Almgren Seager, Schumacher, AcademicAntiquityArmbrustfibeln 1996 Some 1976 Behavioral 1990 Social Missouri 1979 The 1960 Sahlins K. 1969 Evolution: und 1977 Siedlungs1986 1923 Ammianus Columbia. in Studies Rheinisches

Seitz,Villen,Theorytheder: die rYaleandR.19:391-393.In NewPress, E. A. Studies Formation.Cuicatlan EcologyAldinethe andBesiedlung des Netherlands. in HonorM.18:305-313. 2.American (editors)C.TheInstitution Types. AntiquityA.D.C.York.WinterhalderPublishers,159:47-63.and Haven, Smith SocialIrvingofandUniversitHumanDiscoveryStudyFundamental S. Principles.and forTilleyArchaeology. Gruyter, Hawthorne,edited by Hawthorne,B.In C.Ford).Archaeologist.UniversityUniversityJ.ofYork.Hall. Connecticut.G.C.Ford. Rouse,andYork. CambridgeBehavior,Archaeological Essays WashingtonA.O.Vici, B American MontebyCarnegieSomeArtifactGruyter,American Cambridge.MeaningB.B.Evolution.AntiquityHumanDunnellof deNewE.Washington, Spencer, Spaulding, S. Classes, andEcology Behavior. Aldine rechten Smith,Ceramics EvolutionaryNew Simpson, C.Academic Canada and Anthropologist Press, Primary State Shepard, ofA.and vol. Shanks,G.G.New SelectionAssociation, Alban: A of Rheinufers. Freiburger Mouton mische Seriation. 2003 The 1982 1978 1954b 1954a Reply Winterhalder. edited 1953 Natural 1992b Evolutionary Press, for tsbl tter 1992a E. 1949 Artifact 1976 Statistical Techniques Decision-Making: 56:112-114. 1987 and Anthropology. to (to de Hauge,

Steuer,M.31-43.tterGrenzverteidigungtheofandStheA.E.London.fCognitionJ.K. UniversityModularity159:65-91.inIn, Press,Gelman,Spp.anddas edited Culture, D.Authority.150:41-72.Theune-Grokopf,ZeitschrifttheResidez Representations.Ascendence,he:ofMind:am editedldnertrupp in undand Research H.andzurInL.derThoughtvomamDieBurgberg. CulturalArchaeological Fox,reprH.DevelopmentofLandnahme:AnthropologicalStuttgart,Evolution Political5(3):209-264.JournalBaden-W13.andLeadership,of Brumfiel andby DevelopmentmischenHoeper1theDimensionsInRhein.JournalM.39-67.12:41-74.and ofrttemberg,Agency,ApproachesNewandmobilienNorgate,CompetitionCambridge W. Sperber, rAlamannenzurindemTransmission,A. Cambridge.of BadenSpencer, editedM.vonBiasedUniversity S. Epidemiologydwesten 149-162. Endelangesentativen MappingAuthority.Schwarzwaldrand und zur r W2002pp. tsblausR. auf Germany. World, Landesdenkmalamt pp. aufChieflyWegStuttgart, Hed. WilliamsDomain Specificity by Universit Kempa,Cambridge the Archaeology.Freiburger der ologischenCentralizedrttemberg rttemberg,byArchaeology Informationen byH hendiedlungenand Germanen imArch ologische Arch der BeutezugEthnogenese der Alamannen. Fuchs,Germanische Cambridge.Z hlringer Alamannen, edited Germany Geschichte Press, Baden-W 1990 The Principles. 1863 First of 1997 Evolutionary Redies, 1994 Factional LandesmuseumB. 1993 HumanOberrheinBergkuppen. 2003 Die Heerschaft Vom Hirschfeld Die Factional Wais,

IllinoisH.frof Evolution.andinbefestigtezumEcology: EssaysUniversity Transformation,Early36:323-341.SiedlungandFormulation ofUniversity of In Developmentand CausalityChange.Baden-WimandofandIssues.Press, Urbana.of bypp. Stork,Cultural U. VollmerHodgrablegeTrialfr Anthropologist 51:1-27. Steward,glichkeitender byUniversityAmericanhensiedlung1991:93-97.Teltser, Steuer,I.J.hallstattzeitlicheLaw:MethodologicalF.1991 1989:212-217. Arch ologische Ausgrabungen Evolution rttemberg 1989 Tucson, Social P. A.ologieMethodological In C. BreisgauH- Arizona.Ostalbkreis. Archaeology.AdelshofArchaeology:der Seriation. Ethnographiche- Z hringer 51-68.TheoryA. (editor)Arizona. Steward1993:231-239.Theory Seriation. EvolutionaryZeitung undUndersuchungenTheory,R.Illinois auf demArizona. ArizonaEvolutionary1-11.Grenzen UniversityMethodologicalby on A. edited Theune,Culture History, rttemberg A of Evolutionary Teltser,Press, Tucson, EvolutionaryTucson, hmittelalterlichen Ausgrabungen Archaeology: J. Press, bei Issues, Frequency in Graberfeld, ofpp.of Civilization.1992 Arizona Press, bei P. Burgberg,Press,Gundelfingen, Archaeology:Lauchheim, 1993 MUniversity 1990 Teltser, Urbana. 1977 EineGem. edited 1955 Zum Fortgang 1949 DieP. In Culture 1991 The 1995 1995c 1995b 1995a C. in Evolutionary Kr. hmittelalterliche Baden-W Methodological Arizona und Challenge Graberfeld the Hochschwarzwald. edited Issues, Murphy. Lauchheim.

on SurveyB.eineNiederlassungen ArchaeologicalUfernGermany.York.Influence Germany.HistoryandUniversityofimtheLondon.EarlyBaden,UnivesityvonLate alamannisch-fraenkischer1.CultureGroherzogtumDepositsTuebingen, Europe Weick,TheR. G. of E.und Zeitaus vorgeschichtlicher, Ageof Itsin Wandsnider, L.ContactSpeak:Murray,Thought. Cambridge rOriginsRomanWindisch Cambridge.Accuracy.undL. Camilli denArchaeologyIron Shaped und Trigger,E.CharacterArchaeologicalScythians.6:239-298. NewCentral Wagner,E. S. Villages,andVerfassung,inbeidenDuckworth, mischer Press, Tylor,RW. B.Europe.MaterialCities:Change: and Urban and Central Wenskus,Journal akademische Howan Research Europe. Mediterranean FundeCultureCommerce Peoples Prehistoric Celts, Journal University Press, Ithaca, London. and the mische CultureSurface FieldConqueredPrehistoryRheins Wells,AP. bis Mainz,BarbariansofWorld.Abhandlung,University19:169-188. 1822 Fundstaetten Cornell Cambridge Later 1992 Primitive 1911 Identity 1871 Farms, 1989 Culture 1961 2001 1999 1998 Princeton 1984 StammesbildungGermans, Press, New Freiburg, Press, Cambridge. 1980 Beyond and and Cologne-Graz, des Jersey. Germany.

GeschichteA. AlamannischeneditedLandeskundeAmericanAnthropologyandZur R. von InterpretationR. mischenAufzaehlung Darmstadt,andM. D.TypesStudy. Johns 356.GesellschaftEvolutionSpSouthwesterndesSalzbergerAnthropology Rheinufer HopkinsL.den andofBuchgesellschaft, Wolfgang101:143-160. rechten 45:335WissenschaftlichetheltestenBurgenbyFormSocial5.Germany.r 67-90. 1:221-247. Wieland,J.E. M.Alemannen,WeltEmpire: A4.ResteYork.Monnumenten In, White,ZuUniversityCulture.Baltimore,dereditedMvon Economic Mitteilungen Whittaker,Bruchsal,rundRomanMcGraw-Hill,Journalller, pp. mischer E. Werner, Karlruhe,fGermany.andandTrachtzubehLandsrichsAufstieg dieser NiedergangC. ofof AntiquitySettlementMaryland.byJahrhunderts. Gegend, G.Pattern ofTraditionenofFunctionalism:Gaul. am Basel FrontiersEvolutionism,Geschichteinund r und zu Land. ofund Wightman,G.der r thenorischen indes rttemberg Three Sahlins Wielandt,tkeltischePress, aus 4:584-657. undVerzierung Fernhandelzziehungen Salzberger nzeit imNew Service. American Culture. tlat Culture. Willey, der Energy Fundberichte 26:441-443. Roman of Grobkeramik. zur zuEvolutionCulture, 1975 History, 1993 The 1959 bis R. 1945 Bermerkungen 1943 Sp C. 1994 Evolution 1961 Beitrage 1811 Review Rural der Baden-W 18:61-70.

Copenhagen, HumandeEcology edited by pp. 3-23. California. A. andAltertumer Munich, Ecology G.DeutschenAmericanSmith York.E. undSmith andFreeman, Francisco,AldineofJ.und Sabloffthe SocialA.ed. W. H.InB.beleuchtet, Willey,K.J.R. andandGruyter,Archaeology. 2Sciences.Germany. San Zeuss,A and J. Worsaae,HistoryA. Behavior, Nachbarstamme, GrabhuegelEvolutionary Winterhalder, B.Vorzeit durchNew 1904 1844 Die Denmark. E. 1992 Danemarks 1980 Evolutionary A. die Winterhalder,

38:160 69 63 59 58 57 56 52 51 50 8 38 2 35 Biengen Greatest Wall with Part Thickened Junction Thickness(Buhm) Rim oftzingen(BrFr) Position (Br) Mouth Point Characteristic Shape 2 1(B Vessel 1(Bie) CatalogShape SiteCharacteristics VESSEL FORMAL) APPENDIXNumberDATA 3 5 4 12 1 6 B 33 28 27 26 25 50/24 37:53b 5,7,8.5 5,7,8.4 5,7,8.1 26.10 26.1 25.7 14.1 12.6 9.1 3.1 2.3 1.5 9 Buchheim Breisach

989.18 986.9 986.10 982.11 981.22 978.5 977.15 977.14 975.5 974.18 972.32 972.31 961.8 958.9 956.23 955.19 944.10 5 925.123 925.121 925.115 914.21 906.46 906.45 906.44 902.30 895.70 895.68 894.19 891.25 876.39 876.38 875.14 875.13 874.25 873.14 827.6 824.12 1 822.11 6 821.10 788.60 787.38 766.36 2 766.35 77 71 70 59 8 58 Buchheim Greatest Wall with Part Thickened Junction Thickness Rim of Position (Buhm) Mouth Point Characteristic Shape Vessel Number CatalogShape(Da) SiteCharacteristics 3 4 12 Dangstetten

1104.3 1095.9 1083.20 1081.20 1080.17 1079.8 1079.7 1062.11 1059.24 1059.23 1056.9 1054.29 1052.9 1052.10 1050.8 1050.7 1049.18 1049.17 1048.13 1046.16 1046.15 1046.14 1042.15 1042.14 1040.19 1040.18 1040.17 1040.16 1039.22 1039.21 1038.22 1038.21 1037.32 2 1037.31 1036.23 1036.22 1035.15 1035.14 1034.6 1031.6 3 1025.13 1021.16 1020.8 1 1016.12 997.5 996.8 994.12 6 8 990.6 Dangstetten Greatest Wall with Part Thickened Junction Thickness Rim of Position Mouth Point Characteristic Shape Vessel Number CatalogShape(Da) SiteCharacteristics 5 12 4

1278.10 1273.11 1257.29 1257.28 1252.12 1248.5 1238.21 1234.38 1224.5 1221.19 1221.18 1220.53 1220.52 1220.51 1220.50 1220.49 1207.9 1203.8 1203.7 1189.8 1171.11 1171.10 1166.14 1165.20 1160.15 1160.14 1160.13 1156.51 1156.50 1156.49 1155.55 1155.54 1155.53 1155.52 1150.9 1147.9 1145.8 1143.18 1139.6 1137.23 1122.72 1122.71 1122.70 1 1120.8 1119.9 1110.13 6 8 1107.13 2 1107.12 Dangstetten Greatest Wall with Part Thickened Junction Thickness Rim of Position Mouth Point Characteristic Shape Vessel Number CatalogShape(Da) SiteCharacteristics 4 3 5 12

1510 859 858 857 855 854 853 852 851 850 849 848 190 180 177 176 175 174 173 168 166 164.3 163 162 161 844A.36 844 1354.27 1351.26 1351.25 1350.35 1341.8 1337.53 1337.52 2 1337.51 1322.6 1311.9 1311.8 1308.18 1302.16 1297.10 1 1296.9 1295.16 1292.16 1288.5 1285.1 1278.12 6 8 1278.11 Dangstetten Greatest Wall with Part Thickened Junction Thickness Rim of ADE.37 (Jech) Position (Fo) Mouth Point Characteristic Shape Vessel Number CatalogShape(Da) SiteCharacteristics 4 3 5 12 Jechtingen Forchheim

586.1 585.3 585.2 585.1 573.1 572.2 572.1 571 566 565.4 565.3 565.2 556 544 1 543 535 532.2 532.1 6 531 509 508 507.3 507.2 507.1 506 505 504 8 503 502 464.1 461.3 461.2 461.1 460.2 460.1 459.1 457 451 450 3 449.2 449.1 446 441 434 432 431 430 2 429 Mengen Greatest Wall with Part Thickened Junction Thickness Rim of Position Mouth Point Characteristic Shape Number Vessel (Me) CatalogShape SiteCharacteristics 5 12 4

3397/60 3397/59 3397/3 3 3397/15-21 3395/3 3374/39,40 3346/10 3327/4 3280/14 3274/10 3269/5 3269/4 3228/10 3192/5 3186/27 3186/26 3168/38 3152/16 3152/14 3143/6 3129/13 3128/43 3112/6-31 3112/10 3106/5 3252 540/541.6 718 716.1 714 705.2 705.1 703 702.1 699 698.2 697.1 696 653 652 650.3 650.1 2 607.1 4 606 604.4 8 604.3 Mengen Greatest Wall with Part Thickened Junction Thickness Rim of Position Mouth Point (Sp) Characteristic Shape Number Vessel (Me) CatalogShape SiteCharacteristics 7 6 1 5 12 Sponeck

3468/41 3463/1 3462/4 3416/4 3410/23a 4 3410/23 3402/71 3402/3 2 3402/14 8 3397/71 Sponeck Greatest Wall with Part Thickened Junction Thickness Rim ofrstetten Position (We) Mouth Point (Sp) Characteristic Shape(Wei) (Vor) Vessel Number CatalogShape SiteCharacteristics 6 5 3 12 1 V 100 85.3 83.1 80.1 59.26 55.1 47.1 6.1 94 55 50 48 41 40 37 35 Weisweil Weil

38:160 69 63 59 58 57 56 52 51 50 5 38 4 35tzingen Biengen Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment(BrFr) Design 2 (Br) Surface1 2 STYLE CatalogElement ASSEMBLAGE(B APPENDIX(Bie)) ELEMENTS Number Site 2 1 B 25 (Buhm) 50/24 8666/8956 37:53b 8514.5 5518.38 4753.1 5,7,8.5 5,7,8.4 5,7,8.1 26.10 26.1 25.7 14.1 12.6 9.1 3.1 2.3 1.5 11 3 12 8 Breisach Buchheim

48.6 44.10 42.41 42.39 42.38 42.37 31.23 28.14 28.13 4.16 3.9 (Da) 77 71 70 59 58 57 56 52 51 50 33 28 5 27 4 26 (Buhm) Buchheim Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface Catalog Site Element 7 6 3 1 2 Number 9 8 11 Dangstetten

225.11 221.21 211.74 207.15 207.14 206.13 206.12 196.17 192.8 176.117 164.52 164.50 159.10 150.10 142.24 124.21 110.18 104.24 85.15 67.12 62.20 56.31 52.34 50.8 48.7 (Da) Dangstetten Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface Catalog Site Element 7 2 1 6 3 Number 9 8 5 4

468.11 450.43 448.33 443.7 427.32 419.6 413.6 397.35 386.5 374.19 373.40 367.33 363.85 363.84 356.41 348.7 344.43 335.5 334.11 313.27 312.39 291.10 272.6 244.39 226.15 (Da) Dangstetten Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface Catalog Site Element 6 3 1 2 Number 7 8 4 5 9

876.39 876.38 875.14 875.13 874.25 873.14 827.6 824.12 822.11 821.10 788.60 787.38 766.36 4 766.35 594.26 594.25 591.7 575.25 544.111 544.110 542.18 519.54 488.29 484.43 481.6 (Da) Dangstetten Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface Catalog Site Element 6 3 2 1 Number 7 9 8 5

981.22 978.5 977.15 977.14 975.5 974.18 972.32 972.31 961.8 958.9 956.23 955.19 944.10 925.123 925.121 925.115 914.21 906.46 906.45 906.44 902.30 895.70 895.68 894.19 4 891.25 (Da) Dangstetten Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface Catalog Site Element Number 7 6 2 1 3 9 8 5

1040.16 1039.22 1039.21 1038.22 1038.21 1037.32 1037.31 1036.23 1036.22 1035.15 1035.14 1034.6 1031.6 1025.13 1021.16 1020.8 1016.12 997.5 996.8 994.12 990.6 8 989.18 986.9 986.10 4 982.11 (Da) Dangstetten Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface Catalog Site Element Number 2 1 6 3 9 7 5

1083.20 1081.20 1080.17 1079.8 1079.7 1062.11 1059.24 1059.23 1056.9 1054.29 1052.9 1052.10 1050.8 1050.7 1049.18 1049.17 1048.13 1046.16 1046.15 1046.14 1042.15 1042.14 1040.19 1040.18 4 1040.17 (Da) Dangstetten Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface Catalog Site Element Number 6 3 1 8 9 5

1160.14 1160.13 1156.51 1156.50 1156.49 1155.55 1155.54 8 1155.53 1155.52 1150.9 1147.9 1145.8 1143.18 1139.6 1137.23 1122.72 1122.71 1122.70 1120.8 1119.9 1110.13 1107.13 1107.12 1104.3 4 1095.9 (Da) Dangstetten Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface Catalog Site Element Number 6 1 3 9 5

1278.10 1273.11 1257.29 1257.28 1252.12 1248.5 1238.21 1234.38 1224.5 1221.19 1221.18 1220.53 1220.52 8 1220.51 1220.50 1220.49 1207.9 1203.8 1203.7 1189.8 1171.11 1171.10 1166.14 1165.20 4 1160.15 (Da) Dangstetten Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface Catalog Site Element Number 6 1 3 9 7 5

5 161 844A.36 ADE.37 844 455-457.31 352 1354.27 1351.26 1351.25 1350.35 1341.8 1337.53 1337.52 1337.51 1322.6 1311.9 1311.8 1308.18 1302.16 1297.10 1296.9 1295.16 1292.16 1288.5 1285.1 8 1278.12 4 1278.11 (Da) Dangstetten Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface CatalogElement SiteA/B.28(Fo) 1 3 Number 9 6 2 Forchheim

450 449.2 449.1 446 441 434 432 431 430 429 1510 859 858 857 855 854 853 852 851 850 849 848 (Jech) 190 180 177 176 175 4 174 173 168 166 164.3 163 5 162 Forchheim Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface (Fo) Catalog(Me) Site Element Number 2 1 Mengen Jechtingen 3 7 9

606 604.4 604.3 586.1 585.3 585.2 585.1 573.1 572.2 572.1 571 566 565.4 565.3 565.2 556 544 543 535 532.2 532.1 531 509 508 507.3 507.2 507.1 506 505 504 503 502 464.1 461.3 461.2 461.1 460.2 460.1 459.1 4 457 5 451 Mengen Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface Catalog(Me) Site Element Number 7 2 1 9 11 3

3280/14 3274/10 3269/5 3269/4 3228/10 3192/5 3186/27 3186/26 3168/38 3152/16 3152/14 3143/6 3129/13 3128/43 3112/6-31 3112/10 3106/5 3252 29356.1 29308.1 29306.2 29306.1 540/541.6 718 716.1 714 705.2 705.1 703 702.1 699 1 698.2 697.1 696 653 652 650.3 650.1 5 607.1 4 606 Mengen Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design Surface (Sp) Catalog(Me) Site Element Sponeck Riegel Number 7 2 9 3 6 11

3468/41 3463/1 3462/4 3416/4 3410/23a 3410/23 3402/71 3402/3 3402/14 3397/71 3397/60 3397/59 3397/3 3397/15-21 3395/3 3374/39,40 4 3346/10 5 rstetten 3327/4 Sponeck Element Frequency Type Slope Treatment Design (We) Surface (Sp) CatalogElement Site (Wei) (Vor) Number 3 2 1 6 7 11 V 100 85.3 83.1 80.1 59.26 55.1 47.1 6.1 94 55 50 48 41 40 37 35 Weil 8 9 Weisweil