‘Green’ and ‘blue’ Developments. Prospects for Research and Conservation of Early Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the possibilities of future research of early prehistoric remains within large-scale nature management and water management developments. It is especially in these projects within the Archaeological Heritage Management that a landscape approach can be used. The landscape approach is seen as a crucial way of researching remains of communities from early prehistory. These large-scale development projects take place in landscape zones where archaeological remains might be found which hint at the social and ritual use of the landscape in early prehistory. This new information has to be integrated in existing (mainly economic) models of early prehistoric land use. This information can eventually be used to communicate the way of life of these early prehistoric communities and their large-scale land use to a wider public. KEY WORDS Early prehistory; nature development, water management; multidisciplinary research; northern Netherlands INTRODUCTION About 50% of the time span of our cultural history consists of activities and land use by early prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Unfortunately, the archaeological remains of these activities hardly seem spectacular at first sight. In this article the focus will be on surface scatters roughly dating to the Late Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (c. 12,300-4,900 cal BC). In particular, on dry Pleistocene coversands in the Netherlands these remains consist of nothing more than several flint scatters or pits filled with charcoal which presumably functioned in terms of food preparation. Based on these remains a picture may emerge of early prehistoric people spending their time digging pits, burning fire and knapping flints. It is believed that this is a meagre and uniform picture which does not resemble reality. THE NATURE OF EARLY PREHISTORIC SOCIETIES Analysis of the enormous quantitative number of, at first sight, uniform Stone Age sites presents a picture of societies with a huge spatial, diachronic and synchronic variation in for example migration patterns, resource procurement strategies and probably site types. One of the most important characteristics of early prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies is their large-scale land use and certain degree of mobility (Kelly 1995). From ethnography we know that sizes of home ranges can vary to an enormous degree, for example the Nunamiut Inuit have a home range area of 5400 km 2 (Binford 1983; Jochim 2003). There were probably different degrees of mobility so this did not mean that there was no special attachment to particular places like burial grounds or central places.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".