Marco conceptual

One of the aspects which presents more difficulties at the time of understanding the dynamics of settlement in a given region is the chronological span of each particular site. The two main sources of archaeological investigation -field survey and excavation- each have their own chronological limitations and advantages. Field survey contributes a regional and intersite perspective which excavation is unable to provide. Excavation, in its turn, can identify better the spatial and temporal internal limits of a site, such as those of the limited occupation of certain areas and of different phases of use and abandonment, thus overcoming to a certain extent the problems caused by the contextual openness and extended use of sites. On the negative side, field survey’s results can produce diachronic and synchronic settlement maps to be drawn because of the low chronological level of resolution it achieves for each site.

The two general types of chronological determination -relative and absolute dating- also have different scopes and possibilities when applied to settlement study. Relative chronologies can be built with relative ease, and normally allow a general comparison of sites. Chronologies used in the study of settlements, therefore, have traditionally relied on typological considerations (references for this would be too extensive: for some examples see tables 1 and 2). Yet, relative chronologies have the disadvantage of being "relative", that is, they often refer to the region or local area from which the material comes and thus tend to carry cultural or ethnic associations, which make it impossible to

have an overall view of site relations with wider systems other than those local (though it is true that archaeologists such as Carancini (1975, 1979, 1982, 1984) and Peroni (e.g. 1980, 1989) have tried to build a general chronology for the Italian bronze work). Other disadvantages are that relative chronologies vary considerably from author to author, and depend entirely on restricted aspects of the material culture such as pottery or bronze typologies. This last point is particularly significant: it is argued here that object-based typologies often do not provide an adequate measure of time for settlement systems. They provide a sequence from which to start, but not a proper chronological framework for settlement dynamics. As mentioned above, it is a question of different time measures being significant for particular types of material culture, measures which might not be synchronous. Relative chronologies based exclusively on typology revert to the definition of phases in which settlements are grouped together though they might only have existed contemporarily for a very small period of time. When applied to settlements they can also carry to their study specific connotations about the identity of the group which produced a certain assemblage; yet, a settlement’s life span could fall within the time of change from one style of pottery to other, without any other major changes having taken place than those in pottery style, but if the chronology is based on pottery, the transformation is easily projected onto the settlement and the social group, creating a false implicit division which is nothing but a restricted change in material culture. Circular arguments spring from this: settlements are dated from pottery, and then date pottery. Chronological progression and limits become blurred, and are expanded or compressed as a result (see fig. 12).

Furthermore, though it is normally possible to speak of assemblages of material and define chronological phases according to them, it is not possible to do the same for settlements, which have a far more independent life of their own: a specific sword type might, for instance, replace an older type in time and preference to the point of the one excluding the production of the other, but this is not the case with settlements, which can indeed replace each other but can too coexist and are not ruled by stylistic considerations.

Time (years)

I

C

^

Style "C"

Style "A" Style "B

2 2 2 2 ^

Real time

I Perceived time

2nd phase 3ni phase

1st phase of occupation

Fig. 12: Differential time scales and their effect on chronological interpretation.

Absolute dating of all excavated settlements would be ideal in order to date both the settlements themselves and the individual phases and areas of occupation. Yet, the difficulties of such an enterprise hardly need mentioning. Settlement excavations are still not numerous and only provide local sequences which become relevant to wider social change only when integrated in the regional perspective. Radiocarbon dating is still little used, and in some cases slightly mistrusted, as it often poses problems to the established relative sequences (see for instance the cases of Mezzano, Luni sul Mignone and Gran Cairo in Chapter 6). Besides, though acceptably accurate in the earlier stages (Middle to Late Bronze Age), it becomes less precise for the later but crucial periods of the Final Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, when age estimates are too large to be of much significance. Other forms of absolute dating such as dendrochronology are still in their developmental stages, those of building an absolute chronology for the Italian Bronze Age (N. Martinelli pers. comm. 1992). Floating chronologies exist for some settlements of the Early and Middle Bronze Age in the Garda area (Martinelli 1990). Yet, the most common wood in these archaeological samples is oak, now almost totally extinct from the region. The scarcity of modern oak samples makes it difficult to construct a local sequence which goes back in time from the present or recent times. Correlations then have to be sought with the absolute dendrochronologies North of the Alps. Those from geographically close areas, such as the Swiss Alps, do not extend back into the Early Bronze Age (N. Martinelli pers. comm. 1993). The German chronologies, which do, are based on trees which are further away geographically, and problems arise in successfully correlating them with the Italian floating chronologies. Even though at present several possibilities exist for an anchoring of the latter on the German sequence, a final successful correlation depends on more finds allowing greater precision (N. Martinelli, pers. comm. 1993).

Because of the dearth of absolute chronological indicators, it seems impossible at present not to work upon the definition of phases. In this work, however, I use cultural identifications (i.e. terms such as "Sub- apennine") in an strictly cultural sense, and never with chronological implications. For chronological definition I use calendar years, either absolute or relative (i.e. "the thirteenth century B.C.") specifying whether they are absolute or relative dates.

On the other hand, the above impediments should not mean that the use of absolute chronologies is to be dismissed completely, as a utopian tool which would be nice to have but cannot be built. Absolute dates have to be used whenever available, and above all, with a view to increasing their numbers, reliability and scope: that complete absolute chronologies do not currently exist for the areas of interest does not mean that they should be abandoned altogether but simply that they have to be developed.

There are, as is apparent, very objective research problems in placing settlements in their right chronological framework, and indeed in choosing or constructing a particular framework altogether. The scarcity of absolute dates and properly stratified material renders impossible the use of an exclusively absolute chronology built on settlement material. Yet, the use of relative chronologies introduces problems already discussed and necessitates choosing one of the many available. Even though there is no doubt that the only precise way of analysing the possible universal factors affecting settlement organisation, and of picturing settlement movement would be to have a regional and interregional chronological framework constructed upon the use of stratified excavation and absolute dating methods for each site, or at least for the cultural aspects found in the sites, this total absolute approach is impossible at present and may only be achieved with time. Yet, as previously stated, it is not utopian to try to find new ways of approaching the existing data, and of limiting its handicaps at the same time as new research tools are expanded. This is the objective of this and the next chapter: to take a first step towards the achievement of a chronological framework based on absolute dating of stratified deposits by making use of all the evidence presently available (the regional information provided by field survey, the more detailed information from excavation, the chronological indications furnished by pottery sequences, and absolute dates).

The basic structure of the chronological framework is one that accepts the present need for a traditional chronological approach, but departs from it to incorporate absolute dates and test for consistencies between both sources of information. This chapter deals with the chronological framework as established by typological studies. The next presents the results from the exploratory overall use of radiocarbon dates and their application to traditional phases. The structure is, then, that of a compilation of relative regional

typologies for pottery, unified by the more general bronze typology and anchored on calendar years by dates. The methodology for the establishment of a chronology is, thus, one that brings together all artificial but cumulative information (pottery, bronzes) and any available absolute dates for the period under study, and is one that provides a general framework free from cultural attributions for study of settlement trends in both areas setting them in relation to each other on an objective basis. The sites to which the chronological framework is being applied are a few excavated sites whose stratigraphy and assemblages are known in detail. The results can be tentatively applied afterwards to all other sites known from field survey.

The relative chronologies for the pottery of the two areas define initial phases and, thus, a primary chronological distribution of all known settlements. Bronze typologies act as unifiers of the two regional sequences and provide in their turn a first indication of calendar years. dates are then used in the next chapter to test the validity of the phases, both internally (i.e. chronologically), and externally (i.e. contemporaneity between phases and areas) by discussing the available absolute dates in relation to site stratigraphy and assemblages. The chronological framework resulting from the combination of all these factors is one which can be used in anticipation of properly developed absolute chronologies. The integration of all this information should provide a complete appreciation of the time dimension of the urban phenomenon by setting two areas in relation whose processes exemplify the success and failure of groups to maintain nucleated forms of settlement.