In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

17 Chapter One Cascading Prehistoric Events Fractalizing Prehistoric Research Ezra B. W. Zubrow Abstract Given that there is “Event Archaeology,” this paper is definitional. It asks and answers several questions regarding the nature of prehistoric events. They are: what is a prehistoric event; how does one find events in the prehistoric record; how are prehistoric events represented in space and time; and what are the stages in the use of prehistoric events in archaeology. It focuses attention on grid- and vector-based representations as well as the importance of patchiness and three alternative representations of time. Answering the question “What types of event categories are there?” four types are suggested: “event standardized,” “event aversive,” “event contagious,” and “event neutral” behavior. The utility for archaeologists of “event plots” showing different event systems and termination dates is explored. Prehistoric individuals and cultures created events. Archaeologists recreate them. And that is the way it should be. Introduction Archaeology has always been concerned with time and space. We situate prehistoric events in particular times and at particular places. We do so using a recipe of archaeological adventure sautéed with descriptions of cultures, settlements, material artifacts and spiced with reconstructions and the use of numerous scientific techniques. Narratives and events contrast. There is a certain empowering quality about people in narratives for they are agents who do things out of love, fear, and desire. In events, the people are not agents of change rather they are just one group of phenomena upon whom general processes act. For events in both space and time, one needs to distinguish clearly between the physical realities of those events in which we, and other organisms, change, exist, move, and subsist 18 Eventful Prehistories and the cultural constructions of past events in space and time by both the participants and the much later analysts. Some Introductory Issues: An “event archaeology” should be concerned with both non-culturally and culturally constructed “events.” For both types there has to be a successful methodology that allows one to find and represent events in the prehistoric record. Furthermore, did prehistoric populations perceive either non-culturally or culturally constructed events during the times of their occurrence? In other words, there are “emic,” “analytic,” and “reflexive” facets to prehistoric “events.” Finally, one needs to consider how “event archaeology” or the “archaeology of events” develops in the field of archaeology. How Does One Find Events in the Prehistoric Record? There are several important aspects to finding and representing prehistoric events. One is a clear definition of “an event.” Second is how one represents the time and space. Third is the level of resolution of analysis. Fourth is the clarity of the representing the boundaries of the event in time and space. Fifth is the cultural or noncultural construction of the past. What Is an Event? The definition of an event begins as an occurrence. This occurrence must be at least theoretically determinable both in time and space. As my mathematical friend, Velimer Jurdejevic (2009 Personal Communication), is fond of saying, “An event is a point in time and space.” It may occur with or without human agents. An event may exist as one of a number of events in a chain of occurrences. However, it may also exist in isolation. It may be part of a set of causal relationships in that previous events may cause or impact future events. (Figure 1). Events both define and are temporal markers. They mark points of time in the sense of a task beginning or finishing. Thus, that old conundrum of the sound of a tree falling in a forest is instructive. The event of the English oak falling about 10 miles north of Hastings on October 12, AD 1066, is marked by the sound of the fall. Human agents may hear it or not. If they hear it, and since it is two days before the battle, they may be Normans or members of the local culture and if so may interpret its fall very differently. Humans are the cultural constructors—the perceivers. Similarly, they may be causative or not. They may have caused the fall with an axe or indirectly by changing the conditions of the soil by nearby grazing and agriculture. Or they may have nothing to do with it all as in the case of a lightning strike or simply old age. In short, as they may or may not be the perceivers they may or may not be the agents. One knows that time...

Share