Introduction: European Prehistory and Urban Studies
Introduction: European Prehistory and Urban Studies
复制标题
简介：欧洲史前史和城市研究
DOI：
10.1007/s10963-017-9104-9
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
B. Gaydarska
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
B. Gaydarska
2014年，欧洲考古学家协会（EAA）在伊斯坦布尔举行了一次会议，主题是“欧亚大陆的前罗马城市主义”。在此之前，2012年在维也纳举行了一次国际研讨会，主题是公元前4000年安纳托利亚西部和邻近地区的原始城市化，随后在布法罗大学（2016年4月）和达勒姆大学（2016年5月）举行了两次关于早期城市化的会议，特别关注欧亚大陆。这种健康的兴趣反映了一种新兴的研究议程，受到令人兴奋的新发现（以及不那么新）的启发，其中一些发现构成了以下论文的重点。它也揭开了一件不可告人的秘密，那就是欧洲史前时期和城市化出现之间的复杂关系，这个问题有两个方面。
The idea for this special issue arose out of a session on ‘Pre-Roman Urbanism in Eurasia’ at the conference of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) in Istanbul in 2014. This was preceded by an international symposium in Vienna in 2012 on proto-urbanization in Western Anatolia and neighbouring areas in the fourth millennium BC, and succeeded by two more conferences on early urbanism with special focus on Eurasia at the universities of Buffalo (April 2016) and Durham (May 2016). This healthy interest reflects an emerging research agenda inspired by exciting new (and not so new) discoveries, some of which form the focus of the following papers. It also brought a skeleton out of the closet, that of the troubled relationship between European prehistory and the emergence of urbanism, a problem with two aspects.
The first is the tacit assumption that the first impulses of urban development might be expected to follow the same Asiatic trajectory as the preceding Neolithization of Europe. Thus, the Minoan ‘first-generation secondary states’ (Parkinson and Galaty 2007, p. 118) should be considered the earliest European examples. Despite the well-argued case that the Balkans were an independent centre of innovations (Renfrew 1969)—in the case of copper metallurgy, even preceding Anatolia (Kienlin 2010)—diffusionist models affect research agendas to this day.
The second aspect of the problem stems from another deep-rooted prejudice, whereby an essentialized view of the Classical, primarily Mediterranean, town or oppidum denied a fair ‘urban’ hearing to any Iron Age set of evidence that apparently deviated from this norm (Moore et al. 2013; Fernandez-Gotz et al. 2014). One of the aims of this special issue is to question the validity of these long-held views on the basis of new evidence. Simply ignoring this evidence or branding these cases exceptions is no longer sustainable: the new straws have already broken the old camel’s back.
The second aim of this special issue is to address the common misconception that, if a given settlement form was not sustained for long enough (and how long that is has not been clearly defined), then it probably did not contribute to the overall urbanism phenomenon. The flaw in this view has been demonstrated by the now well-documented ‘boom and bust’ pattern that existed alongside a more stable pattern during the EBA urbanization in the Fertile Crescent (Wilkinson et al. 2014). Other patterns of urbanization may involve cycles of centralization and decentralization (Fernandez-Gotz et al. 2014). Permanently occupied, long-term settlements were but one part of the urban narrative, albeit an important part. Looking at the wider context should reveal different trajectories of living together, even if some of these ended up in evolutionary culs-de-sac.
早期城市化背景：公元前四千年和三千年期间新月沃地的定居核心、早期国家和农牧业战略
影响因子：
2
作者：
Wilkinson;Philip;Bradbury;Donoghue;Dunford;Galiatsatos;Lawrence
通讯作者：
Lawrence
特里皮利亚巨型遗址和欧洲史前史：公元前 4100-3400 年
DOI：
10.4324/9781315630731
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Müller;Rassmann;Videiko;M. (eds.)
通讯作者：
M. (eds.)