From Archaeomedes to Archaedyn

This paper presents some aspects of the research developed within the framework of two projects: Archaeomedes (1992–1999) and ArchaeDyn (2005–2007). Both projects attempt to manage territorial dynamics over the long term. This involves varied approaches at several levels over space and over time. We focus on the issues of different scales we had to face and the way we attempted to solve them. Taking into account the advantages and limitations, we introduce the ArchaeDyn project issues and perspectives. This paper presents some aspects of the research developed within the framework of two projects: Archaeomedes1 (1992–1999) and ArchaeDyn2 (2005– 2007). Both projects deal with territorial dynamics over the long term. By territorial dynamics, we mean the complex relationship between spaces and human activities which is being continuously redefined. To be defined as a territory, an area must be delimited by the people who occupy it. Furthermore, the territory behaves as a dynamic system. The state of the system depends upon the economic and social development of the population, and upon the environmental potential. Consequently, delimitations and appropriations are continuously changing. The territories can be assumed to be a co-evolutionary system where interdependent communities and environments evolved, each adapting to changes in the other. The success or the poor development of a particular territory cannot be explained and described by a simple combination of several contemporary criteria no matter how complex they may be. According to this point of view, the territorial studies developed in both projects considered a longer term perspective as the main challenge in order to catch the rhythms, cycles and changes. In addition, not all territories are on the same socio-economic level nor at a similar geographical scale. The following are the main points considered: How to define the territorial object from archaeological remains, geographical context, historical and anthropological knowledge? How to explore this object in several dimensions as spatial, temporal, social, economical or political? How to underline overall processes while also having a focus on contrasting pecularities or anoma lies? Even if it were possible, we have not attempted to answer the questions in all detail. However based on such background problems, we will present the results and methodological development of the Archaeomedes/ArchaeDyn groups. The Territorial Object Firstly, the difference between territory and life space3 should be considered so as to avoid ambiguity. If the territory cannot be reduced to an administrative entity, it implies a juridical or political dimension (Brunet / Ferras / Thery 1993). For an archaeologist, juridical or political dimensions are the most problematic points since archaeological remains are mute witnesses, except in very rare cases. Nevertheless 1 Archaeomedes I (1992–1994): “Understanding the Natural and Anthropogenic causes of soil degradation in the Mediterranean Basin” (Program Environment of the European Commission DGXII); Archaeomedes II (1996–1999): “Policy-relevant models of the natural and anthropogenic dynamics of degradation and desertification and their spatio-temporal manifestations” (Program Environment of the European Commission DGXII), coordination S. van der Leeuw (Arizona State University). 2 ArchaeDyn I (2005–2007): “Spatial dynamic of settlement patterns and natural resources: toward a long-term integrated analysis from Prehistory to the Middle Ages” (Action Concertee Incitative – ACI Spaces and Territories of French Ministry of Research and New Technologies, contract ET28), coordination F. Favory and L. Nuninger. 3 According to Di Meo 1998, the life space is the area of social practices. It represents the frequented space. The life space is composed by attractive places and nodes where the individual existences appear (inhabitat, working place, recreation area…). The life space is the expression of the concrete practice of the area. 2 Layers of Perception – CAA 2007 as an qualitative and quantitative indicator. The aim was to underline mutations in both approaches in order to fully understand the role of the geographical context for settlement durability and territorial development. Does an attractive context contribute to settlement durability? Does an unfavorable context dissuade those who choose to work or live there? These issues could not be investigated through a simple micro-regional case study, since no generalization of the results is possible. The way to manage this problem was to analyze a set of micro-regions (Fig. 1) with the same protocol, in order to compare them and to highlight shared trends. The archaeological data used for the project is a set of archaeological occupations: 934 gallo-roman occupations for Archaeomedes I, extended to 2155 occupations, from Iron Age to Middle Ages, in Archaeomedes II. An “archaeological occupation” is a location delivering archaeological artifacts, occupied (inhabited or used as technical building) without any chronological gap. This differs from “archaeological sites” which can include several occupations. For the analysis, each occupation was considered as the smallest statistical observation. Every observation “occupation” is therefore described by a set of variables according to a common grid for each studied area (Favory et al. 1999; van der Leeuw / Favory / Fiches 2003). Variables are related to: a) archaeological observations; for example occupation area, quality and variety of building material, duration; b) interpreted connections as the “symbolic position” defined gradually by a lack of evidence of burial, religious or political evidences; c) geographical and relational context such as position within the road network, number of direct relationships among contemporaneous occupations, distance to water, slope or solar radiation). As the goal was to understand the land-use pattern, an initial step was to evaluate the number of settlements and their condition over time. And the first question asked was: How to manage time? Which kind of periodicity is the most reliable according to the topic and data?