COPING WITH CRISES II: THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL ASPECTS … · B Röder et al. Coping with crises: The impact of social aspects on vulnerability and resilience 177 COPING WITH CRISES

177B Röder et al. Coping with crises: The impact of social aspects on vulnerability and resilience

COPING WITH CRISES II:THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL ASPECTS ONVULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE

Brigitte Röder, Sandra Pichler, Thomas Doppler

There is a strong tendency in archaeological research circles to analyse crisis situationsprimarily from an economic point of view. However, the impact that crises have on individualsor groups and how it may affect their chances of coping successfully with these, essentially alsodepends on social factors. Based on studies in the area of sustainability research, we havecompiled a list of social parameters that can influence the vulnerability and resilience ofindividuals or groups and that may also have played an important role in prehistoric societies.Using the Neolithic lakeside settlement Arbon Bleiche 3 (Switzerland) as a case study, theseparameters are discussed here. We ask what concrete statements can be made about thevulnerability or resilience of the settlement’s inhabitants based on the available data. Thisapproach has proved extremely productive as it has provided new insight into the everyday livesand relationships of the people who lived in Arbon Bleiche 3.

INTRODUCTION

The present paper continues on from whereour first contribution in this volume (Doppleret al.) left off. Starting from the hypothesisthat the Neolithic settlement of ArbonBleiche 3 was exposed to a gradual butmarked deterioration of the climaticconditions (Haas and Magny 2004: 49), weargued that the detected shifts in thesubsistence strategies during the final phaseof the settlement could be explained as areaction to this postulated climate crisis: theobserved intensification of both the huntingof wild animals and the breeding of pigswould actually have been an adequatereaction to decreasing crop yields, even

though, as we pointed out, different oradditional explanations for the phenomenoncannot be excluded. Therefore, weinterpreted the archaeozoological findingsprimarily from an economic point of view andconcluded that the inhabitants of theindividual houses – henceforth calledresidential groups – reacted to the presumedworsening of the climatic conditions indifferent ways. We linked the variety of thesereactions to the pre−existing mosaic ofsubsistence modes, more precisely to theirdifferent degrees of resilience to thedeteriorating climate: we concluded thatthose residential groups that could no longermeet their subsistence needs by followingtheir established routines had reacted first andforemost.

T Kerig / A Zimmermann (eds.). Economic archaeology: from structure to performance in Europeanarchaeology. Habelt. Bonn. 2013. Pp. 177−190

T Kerig / A Zimmermann (eds.). Economic archaeology: from structure to performance178

They had been forced to change theirsubsistence strategies by broadening theirdietary basis and / or by intensifying theirexploitation of specific food resources suchas wild animals or plant species.

It seems plausible to seek an economicexplanation for the observed changes in thearchaeozoological spectra. We do, however,believe that a purely economic explanation ofthe statistical findings is incomplete in itselfand that it is of crucial importance to includesocial aspects in our considerations. It goeswithout saying that social phenomena such asthe distribution of food among sociallyrelated or hierarchically superior individualsin times of crisis are rather difficult toidentify, even under such exceptionalpreservation conditions as prevailed inArbon. However, we do feel that to includesocial factors influencing resilience – onemight also say social security (see de Jong2005) – in times of crisis will add furtherscope to the discussion.

With regard to the main issues of this volumewe perceive both our papers – oneconcentrating on economic aspects (Doppleret al., this volume), the other focussing on thesocial perspective – as complementarycontributions highlighting the interplay ofperformance and structure. By doing so, wewish to promote the systematic integration ofsocial aspects in economic investigations byplaying out different social scenarios andsearching for any corresponding evidence inthe archaeological findings.

This paper will cover the following topics. Wewill first discuss the different degrees ofvulnerability experienced by individuals orsocial groups in times of crisis. Secondly, wewill introduce a conceptual framework for“crises” which comprises both social andeconomic aspects and which will incorporateboth viewpoints. We will then present social

aspects affecting the vulnerability andresilience of social groups and individuals,and finally, we will revisit Arbon Bleiche 3and outline our conclusions with regard to thevulnerability or resilience of the settlement’sinhabitants.

DIFFERENCES IN THEVULNERABILITY OFINDIVIDUALS ANDRESIDENTIAL GROUPS INTIMES OF CRISIS

Crises affect individuals and social groups indifferent ways. At an individual level, factorsof social inequality – such as age and genderhierarchies, social status and ethnicity – playa pivotal role. Especially in times of foodshortages, the population’s health status is acentral factor. Ill or malnourished individualsare therefore subject to a much larger risk andare much more vulnerable thanwell−nourished individuals of a higher socialstatus, who are in a better position to copewith a crisis. Figure 1 most drasticallyillustrates the extent to which social aspects,in this case gender inequality, can affect therisk exposure, i.e. the resilience ofindividuals. The photograph depictsunequally treated twins and their mother: thewell−fed boy on the left is much more likelyto weather a crisis than his badlymalnourished twin sister.

Risk exposure and vulnerability or resilienceare factors which also come to bear at a grouplevel. The next paragraph aims to drawattention to one aspect of group resiliencewhich is a matter of importance in ourresearch on Arbon, ie. the question as to howchanges in the demographic compositionaffect the resilience of residential groups – anaspect which is often neglected in economicmodelling in archaeology.


Fig. 1: Gender inequality can affect the risk exposure respectively resilience of individuals. The photograph depictsunequally treated twins and their mother: The well−fed boy on the left has a much better chance to weather a crisisthan his badly malnourished twin sister (photo used by kind permission of Dr. Mushtaq A. Khan, Dr. Gul N.Rehman, Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences PIMS, Islamabad)

In the archaeological literature, residentialgroups are commonly depicted as stable, or, inother words, static units, unchanged andunchanging through time and space (Pichleret al. 2009). Yet we all know that this is not the

case: partners split up, children are born,co−residents move in and out, people die. Allof these everyday occurrences change thecomposition of the community around us,whether on the level of the family or


residential group respectively, or on a largerscale. Residential groups are social unitswhich interact in a multitude of ways withtheir social, economic and politicalenvironments. Even though some changes areperceived as following a regular pattern(Neighbour 1985: ’the family life−cycle’),the process of transformation betterresembles a moulding process, in whichinternal and external pressure and yield shapethe finished product. All such changes do,however, greatly influence the resilience bothof the individual residential groups and, inconsequence, of the community as a whole(Jelín 1991).

The potential resilience of residential groupsvaries considerably, depending on theirdemographic composition and socialorganisation. In times of crises, thesedifferences emerge markedly. Labourpotential, time requirements, economicstrength, strategic stock, but also family ties,neighbourhood relations and the faculty tocall in favours play a major role in howscarcity, threats or actual blows are handled(Pankhurst 2009). They determine whethergroups are potential donors or recipients ofaid in times of need. Few of these factors areactually purely economic – in times of crises,the significance of social networks emerges.Studies have shown that the way threats andcrises are met and weathered, or provedetrimental, is determined not only by theconstitution of the individual or its closerelations or residential group, but by thecommunity or social group as an entity(Wellman and Wetherell 1996, Gaines andGaines 2000, Pankhurst 2009, Woolley et al.2010). The social setting of small−scaleinterpersonal relations as well as communitymakeup are therefore decisive factors inassessing consistency, stability and resilienceof past and present human communities andare therefore not to be underestimated in theirsignificance.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKOF CRISES LINKING SOCIALAND ECONOMIC ASPECTS

In search of a suitable framework whichwould allow us to analyse and interpretarchaeological sources against thebackground of crises, we defined a number ofrequirements the framework should meet.Firstly, it should support reflections on thegenesis and management of crises andconceptualise the factors involved, so that,besides ecological and economic aspects,social factors are also included in theconsiderations. Secondly, it should becompatible with the conditions andtheoretical concepts that apply in our researchproject. These refer to the following aspects:we perceive humans as an integral part of theenvironment they live in. Social andecological systems are closely linked byco−evolutionary relationships; therefore,humans and environments affect and interactwith each other (Adger 2000: 350–51).Furthermore, we regard societies from theperspective of the individual and thereforeperceive them not as static and self−containedentities, but as open and highly dynamicsocial networks. Last but not least, we act onthe assumption that prehistoric livingconditions exhibited a high degree ofcomplexity and were subject to perpetualnon−linear processes of change. Theframework must therefore be able to deal withcomplexity and non−linear change. In orderto achieve this, a systems approach appearsmost suitable and will also allow for theintegration of a range of perspectives –including, amongst others, economic,ecological and social aspects.

An appropriate framework has beendeveloped by sustainability researchers. It iswell−suited to our research due to certainshared premises and theoretical concepts.

In addition, the integration of social context isincreasingly perceived as an important factorin sustainability research.


Fig. 2: The adaptive renewal cycle: a heuristic model deriving from ecology based on the concept that (social−)ecological systems go through regular cycles of organisation, collapse, and renewal. Frontloop = succession ofecosystems with phases of exploitation and conservation, backloop = rapid processes of release and renewaltriggered by disturbance or crisis (Cordula Portmann after Gunderson and Holling 2002)

Fundamental work in the linking of social andecological systems has been carried out by agroup of US and Canadian researchers whohave published a number of major works thatare most inspiring for archaeologists as well(Berkes and Folke 2000, Gunderson andHolling 2002, Berkes et al. 2003a). Thesevolumes all combine both theoreticalconsiderations and practical implementationsfrom around the world and illustrate the greatpotential of this approach in recent projectsattempting to enhance sustainability andresilience. It is significant that the term“social−ecological system” (Berkes et al.2003a) has become a set phrase.

One of the basic concepts in this field ofresearch is the so−called adaptive renewalcycle (Fig. 2), ie. a heuristic model – somescholars prefer the term “metaphor” – thatwas developed in 1986 by Holling in order todescribe the dynamics of ecosystems(Holling 1986). Holling’s underlying conceptwas the idea that ecological systems go

through regular cycles of organisation,collapse and renewal. The adaptive cycleconcept has since also been adopted in thestudy of social−ecological systems (Redmanand Kinzig 2003, Redman 2005. Tengö andHammer (2003: 154) describe the adaptiverenewal cycle as follows: “The frontloopdescribes the succession of ecosystems, withphases of exploitation and conservation,whereas the backloop represents the rapidprocesses of release and renewal triggered bya disturbance” or a crisis. Disturbances orcrises are thus integral components of thismodel.

Whether social−ecological systems collapsewhen confronted with surprises, disturbancesor crises or whether they remain intact,depends on their resilience. Resilience is “acharacteristic of ecosystems to maintainthemselves in the face of disturbance” (Adger2000: 347). It is a buffer capacity (Adger2000: 349) and may be considered as the“capability to absorb disturbance and toreorganise while undergoing change”


(Berkes and Turner 2006: 479). The greaterthe resilience, the greater the ability to adaptto change, in other words to cope with stressand crisis.

SOCIAL ASPECTS SHAPINGVULNERABILITY ORRESILIENCE

Resilience is an antonym of vulnerability, thelatter being defined as “the exposure ofgroups of people or individuals to stress as aresult of the impacts of environmentalchange. Stress, in the social sense,encompasses disruption to groups’ orindividuals’ livelihoods and forcedadaptation to the changing physicalenvironment. Social vulnerability in generalencompasses disruption to livelihoods andloss of security” (Adger 2000: 348). This inturn means that resilience impedes disruptionto livelihoods and ensures social security. Ingeneral, resilience increases with growingdiversity and flexibility (Adger 2000: 354;Turner et al. 2003: 442, 456–57). The latterare pivotal factors that affect the adaptiverepertoire of a social−ecological system. Atthis point it is important to remember thatmuch like resources and landscapes, diversityand flexibility are not “natural givens”, butrather for the main part social constructs.Diversity and flexibility can be nurtured bycultural practices and values. In this way,conditions that favour reorganisation andrenewal can be created, either consciously orunconsciously. That is why the analysis ofsocial factors which strengthen resilience andthus also social security are of centralimportance in sustainability research (Folkeet al. 2000, Folke et al. 2003). In addition,social and medical anthropology as well asfamily and kinship research in sociology,history and historical demography are alsoincreasingly concerned with social aspectsshaping resilience and social security. It isevident that there is enormous culturalvariability in this area. With regard to the

question as to which social factors increasethe diversity and flexibility ofsocial−ecological systems while at the sametime boosting resilience, a number ofuniversal parameters appear to exist whichhave a positive effect in most contexts. Thefollowing paragraphs highlight someexamples predominantly referring to farmingcommunities.

Generalist strategies resulting in thedevelopment of a resource mosaic represent apositive factor in resilient subsistencestrategies (Davidson−Hunt and Berkes 2003:61–63). The same goes for the cooperation ofdifferent social groups sharing the samehabitat but using different ecological niches;this way they all broaden their resource base(Barth 1956). Seasonal mobility liketranshumance is also an adequate means ofincreasing resilience (Adger 2000: 355–57;Colding et al. 2003: 174–75). Flexible socialorganisations also have a positive effect ingeneral, whereas rigid hierarchies andcentralised resource management are ratherunfavourable (Davidson−Hunt and Berkes2003: 66–68). A very important point is socialand cultural capital (Adger 2000: 351;Scheffer et al. 2002: 231; Berkes et al. 2003b:11−12; Ramirez−Sanchez and Pinkerton2009: 1) that can be mobilised in times ofcrisis (Ramirez−Sanchez and Pinkerton2009: 1, 17). This includes wide−rangingecological and social knowledge, broadlydefined rights of resource access, use andownership (Davidson−Hunt and Berkes2003: 67) as well as a positive attitudetowards change and innovation (Folke et al.2000: 427; Davidson−Hunt and Berkes 2003:66), the capacity to learn from crises (Berkesand Turner 2006) and the regard for culturalvalues – such as trust, sharing, generosity andreciprocity (Folke et al. 2000: 427–28;Ramirez−Sanchez and Pinkerton 2009).Finally, social networks are of centralimportance because they can increaseresilience by way of exchanging resources


and goods, knowledge and technologies(Turner et al. 2003: 453).

Especially in societies without governmentalinstitutions – as we presume existed inprehistory – social networks based onkinship, friendship, neighbourhood andacquaintance are of utmost importance forsocial security; in some cases they can evencompensate inefficient subsistence strategies(Redman and Kinzig 2003: 6). How well theyprotect individuals in times of crisis depends,amongst other aspects, on the dimension,geographical coverage and complexity of thenetworks. However, family types also play arole. They may differ in terms of the degree ofconnectedness within their social networks –in other words, the closer the ties are withinfamilies, the smaller the networks outside offamily structures tend to be (Bras and vanTilburg 2007: 300, 313, 317). Furthermore,marriage rules also exert a strong influence onresilience and social security; exogamy canfoster larger relational networks whilepolygyny can enlarge the social networks bysimultaneously increasing the economicproductivity and reducing the workload of thefamily members (Merten and Haller 2005).And last but not least, as mentioned above, thedemographic composition of households andsettlements also plays an important role forthe capacity of individuals and residentialgroups to cope with crises.

WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUTVULNERABILITY ANDRESILIENCE IN ARBONBLEICHE 3?

Coping with crises obviously involves avariety of social aspects which are especiallyrelevant in phases of release and organisationof social−ecological systems. On a positivenote, we can say that at least some of theseso−called “soft factors” become tangible ormay at least be guessed at in thearchaeological record. Now let us return to

Arbon Bleiche 3 and ask: what can be saidabout vulnerability and resilience in aNeolithic community? As a preliminaryhypothesis we can propose that the socialfactors discussed in this chapter must havebeen relevant for the inhabitants’ resilience.

Subsistence strategies in Arbon Bleiche 3exhibited a high degree of diversity, thusforming an extraordinarily multifacetedmosaic of subsistence modes: the inhabitantsdrew on a wide range of both wild anddomestic plant and animal resources(Jacomet et al. 2004, Doppler et al., thisvolume). They also exploited diverseecological zones in the vicinity and furtherafield. This is demonstrated by the widespectra of plant and animal remains found inthe settlement, including (sub)alpine speciesfrom locations as far away as 30 km or more(Hosch and Jacomet 2004: 152–56). These(sub)alpine regions were probably used forhunting and as pasture−land in the summer(Hosch and Jacomet 2004: 152). As we havepointed out, there is evidence that certaincooperating groups of inhabitants – either ofparticular houses, of two or threeneighbouring houses or of settlement halves– seem to have had a preference for specificresources, thus exploiting differentecological zones and niches both on land andon water (Doppler et al. 2010: 130–33;Doppler et al. this volume). We refer here forinstance to the results obtained from charcoalanalyses suggesting that the inhabitants ofneighbouring houses collected their fire woodin specific areas (Dufraisse and Leuzinger2009: 795–99). Another example is theinteresting phenomenon that the inhabitantsof the two settlement halves caught fish indifferent areas of the lake using differentfishing techniques (Hüster Plogmann 2004:272–75) – not only exploiting differentresources, but also applying different culturalknowledge.

Such strategies not only minimise thecompetition regarding land use and theexploitation of resources, but also broaden


and secure the subsistence base – provided thedifferent social groups that use differentecological niches cooperate. In the case ofArbon cooperation is quite likely to haveexisted: in view of the extraordinarily highspatial density in the lake dwellings (Doppleret al. this volume: Fig. 2) we may also expecta high social density. This means that theinhabitants must have established practicesand rules which facilitated such close livingconditions. In Arbon this challenge mighthave been compounded by the fact that thereis evidence for an influx of individuals,possibly from as far away as Bavaria and theVienna Basin. According to ceramic findsseveral cultural groups may have been livingtogether in these 27 close−packed houses (deCapitani 2002: 209–23; Bonzon 2004:296–97, 312). It is worth noting that thesherds from the different ceramic traditionsdid not cluster in particular houses but werescattered across the entire settlement (deCapitani 2002: 216–17, 219–20). This mightindicate that members of different culturalgroups lived under the same roof. The mixingof local and foreign ceramic technologiespoints in the same direction (de Capitani2002: 215–16; Bonzon 2004: 311–12). On theother hand, the tendency towards differentdietary habits in the two halves of thesettlement raises the question as to whetherthe immigrants predominantly lived in thenorthern part of the settlement showing apreference for cattle and goats. Such dietaryhabits were rather unusual in other localNeolithic communities, which werecharacterised by a marked preference forpork.

Further research will be required to gain abetter understanding of the processesgenerated by these intercultural contacts interms of the material culture and culturalpractices. However, there is already a largeamount of evidence suggesting thatintercultural cohabitation was based oncooperation rather than strong competition.Another aspect indicating a close cooperation

amongst the inhabitants was the evidence forthe exchange – and perhaps for the sharing –of meat. Based on the distribution ofarticulating fragments of bones,Deschler−Erb and Marti−Grädel (2004a: 92)suggested that meat was distributedthroughout the entire settlement, while porkwas predominantly shared out in the southernhalf. They also pointed out that red deer wereapparently butchered in houses 8 and 20 andthen probably shared with the inhabitants ofthe other houses (Deschler−Erb andMarti−Grädel 2004b: 231). Another cluepointing to sharing and cooperation was anobservation made by de Capitani (2002:176–86): ceramic vessels with certaincharacteristic features, which she consideredto have been made by particular individualsoften occurred in several neighbouringhouses. As suggested by de Capitani (2002:179), this could mean that each potterproduced the vessels for several“households” (ie. houses according to deCapitani).

Another possible scenario – and we wouldfavour this option – is that larger householdunits or residential groups were formed eitherby neighbouring houses with very similarinventories or by houses with complementaryinventories (Doppler et al. 2010: 133–34). Inthis case each potter would have provided themembers of their residential group withceramics – another piece of evidence pointingtowards cooperation and exchange.

As a preliminary conclusion we can state thatin terms of the diversity of resources andtechnologies and with regard to culturalvalues such as cooperation, exchange andperhaps sharing, the conditions in Arbonseem to have favoured resilience. The sameapplies to the cultural capital, which wasexpanded by several cultural groups livingtogether and applying their distinct ecologicaland cultural knowledge. The positive attitudeof the local population towards change andinnovation can also be added in this context.This last statement is based on the fact that


several major innovations developed by theeastern cultural groups were implemented inthe Neolithic groups living in the northernAlpine upland at the time (Köninger et al.2001), most of which can also be found in thesettlement at Arbon: for example the use ofdraught cattle and of spindle whorls, thecultivation of emmer, the intensifiedcultivation of flax, dairy farming and theadoption of ceramic technologies andprobably also of vessels from other ceramictraditions (Jacomet et al. 2004: 410–11).

This leads us to another aspect mentioned inthe previous chapter as one of the factors thatincreases resilience: a flexible socialorganisation. This aspect is more difficult toevaluate than those already mentioned.Nevertheless, a number of clues suggest thatthe social organisation was indeed ratherflexible. First of all, it must be emphasisedthat there is no evidence for rigid hierarchies– an aspect which on its own would notconvince, because hierarchies are notnecessarily visible in the archaeologicalrecord. However, other factors that can becited are the willingness or capability tointegrate ‘foreign’ people and maybe even toshare the same roof with them. Anotherargument is the settlement history itself whichreflects marked dynamics, starting with onlyone house in the first year and growing to 27houses in year nine. Since such a rapiddevelopment could not have been based ondemographic growth, the only reasonableexplanation is an influx of people from othersettlements. In this context it is interesting tonote that there is evidence of people keepingadjacent ‘building plots’ free of constructionfor people they were expecting to arrive at alater date and with whom they were hoping toform a close residential unit (Doppler et al.2010: 131–33).

Wetland sites from the Recent and LateNeolithic period appear to have beencharacterised by highly dynamic but at thesame time very short settlement histories (15

years in the case of Arbon; for a shortoverview see Ebersbach 2010a: 41). Bleicher(2009) outlined such dynamics based ondendrochronological studies on sevensettlements in Upper Swabia covering thetime span between 3283 BC and 2840 BC. Heidentified rhythms in the series of tree ringdates obtained from these sites, which heinterpreted as representing small−scalecyclical settlement relocations. He proposedseveral models but favoured one whichconsisted of settlements that were inhabitedonly for very short periods, ie. four or fiveyears, and then relocated within two or threeoverlapping economic areas (Bleicher 2009:167). While Bleicher’s work focusses on thereconstruction of settlement systems and theirinteractions within particular economic areas,the analyses carried out by Ebersbach(2010a−c) are predominantly centred on thedynamics within individual settlements. Withreference to Hillier and Hanson (1984), shesuggests classifying Neolithic societies as“noncorrespondence systems”, characterisedamongst other aspects by a limited localstability, a high mobility rate amongindividuals and small groups, a strongintegration in networks on a regional andsupra−regional scale, little control and alimited tendency to construct hierarchies dueto the instability of residential groups, theopenness to outsiders and a tendency tobalance social inequalities and asymmetries(Ebersbach 2010b: 151; 2010c: 206).Ebersbach’s view of the social conditions inNeolithic wetland sites not only fits in verywell with the results obtained at Arbon, butthe characteristics of ‘noncorrespondencesystems’ also comply almost ideally with theresilience−enhancing factors highlighted inthe previous chapter.

There is very clear evidence of wide−rangingsocial and economic networks in thearchaeological record of the settlement inArbon: pottery and perhaps also certaindietary habits attest to the presence of andcontact with people from Bavaria and theVienna Basin. Further links with eastern


regions are reflected in the already mentionedinnovations that had emanated from thoseareas. Copper, possibly imported from theOberhalbstein region in the Grisons (CH)(Leuzinger 2001: 24), flint imported fromregions including northern France and theLessini Mountains in northern Italy,dentalium beads from the Mediterranean orAtlantic coasts (Leuzinger 2002: 22–26,74–75) and plants from areas south of theAlps (Hosch and Jacomet 2004: 152–56)attest to the existence of large−scale networksexchanging not only raw materials and goodsbut also knowledge and technologies.

Besides these known parameters whichincreased the resilience of the population ofArbon Bleiche 3, there are several aspectswhich cannot be assessed. Firstly, it must benoted that in the absence of burials,conclusions concerning a population’svulnerability and resilience can only bedrawn in terms of the settlement “as a whole”and not with regard to individuals. The onlydirect evidence of people living in thesettlement are faeces containing variousparasites, some capable of causing lethaldisease (Le Bailly and Bouchet 2004, Marti2004). The health status of infectedindividuals might have been negativelyaffected, which would have considerablyincreased their vulnerability. However, we donot know whether parasitoses affected all theinhabitants of the settlement or only aproportion. Another aspect which is difficultto determine is the demographic compositionof the inhabitants of the individual houses. Sofar, we have no knowledge of their age−sexstructure. Consequently, we cannot assess therole played by the demographic compositionwith regard to the different reactions to thepresumed climatic deterioration pointed outin our other contribution in this volume. Thisdecisive factor with regard to the population’svulnerability or resilience completely evadesour analysis. The same applies to forms andrules of marriage such as exogamy and

polygyny, and family types, all of whichwould be highly relevant to the subject matterdiscussed here. As already mentioned, there isno evidence for social hierarchies. However,it cannot be excluded that social inequalitybased on age, gender and ethnicity had animpact on the circulation of food to sociallyrelated or hierarchically superior communitymembers in times of crisis, thus causingdifferences in the vulnerability of individuals,be they from the same or from differentresidential groups.

To clarify: although the data give noindication of the existence of rigid socialhierarchies strictly speaking we are not able todecide whether the distribution of meat wasbased on principles of sharing and reciprocityor on aspects of social inequality. A similarstatement can be made with regard to the basisof the intercultural cohabitation: the‘foreigners’ might have been included in thelocal group by ‘kinning’, ie. integration in thelocal kinship system. On the other hand, itcannot be entirely excluded that theforeigners coming from the east were held asslaves in this ‘terraced housing estate’ whichotherwise corresponds so well withcommonly held views concerning the intactsocial life (Röder 2010).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

In spite of some uncertainties concerning theevaluation of vulnerability and resilience, allin all, the inhabitants of Arbon would havehad a good chance of coping with theintensifying climatic deterioration – had it notbeen for a devastating fire that put an end tothe adaptive cycle and destroyed thesettlement in its 15th year. On the other hand,perhaps the fire was not the end of the story,but just another challenge to cope with. It is,therefore, quite easy to imagine that theformer inhabitants of Arbon Bleiche 3 splitup, found accommodation with family andfriends in neighbouring settlements and later


made a new start and rebuilt the settlement ina different location, thus initiating a newadaptive renewal cycle.

In the discussion following our talk we wereasked whether wetland sites were not a veryspecific kind of settlement that cannot easilybe compared with those on mineral soils. Weare of the opinion that this is not the case: theonly extraordinary aspects are thepreservation conditions, which allow us togain a much better insight into the socialsettings of past communities. In this respectthe site of Arbon Bleiche 3 can help to

generate questions and hypotheses for theanalysis of other settlements which do notprovide the same amount of information dueto a lack of waterlogged soils and organicmaterials.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was realised as part of the project“New foundations for sociohistoricalresearch in prehistoric archaeology”, fundedby the Swiss National Science Foundation.We also thank Sandy Hämmerle, Galway, forthe revision of the English text.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adger WN. 2000. Social and ecologicalresilience: are they related? Progress in HumanGeography 24(3): 347–364

Barth F. 1956. Ecologic relationships of ethnicgroups in Swat, North Pakistan. AmericanAnthropologist 58: 1079−1089

Berkes F, Folke C. 2000 (eds.). Linking social andecological systems. Management practices andsocial mechanisms for building resilience.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 2003a (eds.).Navigating social−ecological systems. Buildingresilience for complexity and change. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press

Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C. 2003b.Introduction. In Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C(eds.). Navigating social−ecological systems.Building resilience for complexity and change.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.1−32

Berkes F, Turner N. 2006. Knowledge, learningand the evolution of conservation practice forsocial−ecological system resilience. HumanEcology 34(4): 479−494

Bleicher N. 2009. Altes Holz in neuem Licht.Archäologische und dendrochronologischeUntersuchungen an spätneolithischen Feucht−bodensiedlungen in Oberschwaben. Berichte zuUfer− und Moorsiedlungen SüdwestdeutschlandsV. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag

Bonzon J. 2004. Archaeometrical study(petrography, mineralogy and chemistry) of theceramics. In Jacomet S, Leuzinger U, Schibler J.2004. Die jungsteinzeitliche SeeufersiedlungArbon Bleiche 3: Umwelt und Wirtschaft.Archäologie im Thurgau 12. Departement fürErziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau:Frauenfeld. Pp. 294−312

Bras H, van Tilburg T. 2007. Kinship and socialnetworks: a regional analysis of sibling relationsin twentieth−century Netherlands. Journal ofFamily History 32(3): 296−322

Colding J, Elmquist T, Olsson P. 2003. Livingwith disturbances: building resilience insocial−ecological systems. In Berkes F, Colding J,Folke C (eds.). Navigating social−ecologicalsystems. Building resilience for complexity and

change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pp. 163−185

Davidson−Hunt I, Berkes F. 2003. Nature andsociety through the lens of resilience: toward ahuman−in−ecosystem perspective. In Berkes F,Colding J, Folke C (eds.). Navigatingsocial−ecological systems. Building resilience forcomplexity and change. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Pp. 53−82

de Capitani A. 2002. Gefässkeramik. In deCapitani A, Deschler−Erb S, Leuzinger U,Marti−Grädel E, Schibler J (eds.). Diejungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung ArbonBleiche 3: Funde. Archäologie im Thurgau 11.Departement für Erziehung und Kultur desKantons Thurgau: Frauenfeld. Pp. 135−276

de Jong W. 2005. Towards an anthropology ofsocial security. In Mayor A, Roth C, Droz Y(eds.). Sécurité sociale et développement. SozialeSicherheit und Entwicklung. Lit Verlag: Münster.Pp. 15−34

Deschler−Erb S, Marti−Grädel E. 2004a.Hinweise zur Schichterhaltung aufgrund derTierknochen. In Jacomet S, Leuzinger U, SchiblerJ (eds.). Die jungsteinzeitliche SeeufersiedlungArbon Bleiche 3: Umwelt und Wirtschaft.Archäologie im Thurgau 12. Departement fürErziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau:Frauenfeld. Pp. 90−100

Deschler−Erb S, Marti−Grädel E. 2004b.Viehhaltung und Jagd. Ergebnisse derUntersuchung der handaufgelesenenTierknochen. In Jacomet S, Leuzinger U, SchiblerJ (eds.). Die jungsteinzeitliche SeeufersiedlungArbon Bleiche 3: Umwelt und Wirtschaft.Archäologie im Thurgau 12. Departement fürErziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau:Frauenfeld. Pp. 158−252

Doppler T, Pichler S, Jacomet S, Schibler J, RöderB. 2010. Archäobiologie als sozialgeschichtlicheInformationsquelle: ein bislang vernachlässigtesForschungspotential. In Claßen E, Doppler T,Ramminger B (eds.). Familie – Verwandtschaft –Sozialstrukturen: Sozialarchäologische For−schungen zu neolithischen Befunden. FokusJungsteinzeit. Berichte der AG Neolithikum 1.Kerpen−Loogh: Welt und Erde. Pp. 119−139

Doppler T, Pichler S, Röder B, Schibler J. Thisvolume. Coping with crises I: Subsistence varietyand resilience in the Late Neolithic lakeshoresettlement Arbon Bleiche 3 (Switzerland)


Dufraisse A, Leuzinger U. 2009. La collecte dubois de feu dans le village néolithiqued’Arbon−Bleiche 3 (lac de Constance, Suisse).Bulletin de la société préhistorique française106(4): 785−802

Ebersbach R. 2010a. Vom Entstehen undVergehen – Überlegungen zur Dynamik vonFeuchtbodenhäusern und − siedlungen. InMatuschik I, Strahm C et al. (eds.). Vernetzungen.Aspekte siedlungsarchäologischer Forschung.Festschrift für Helmut Schlichtherle zum 60.Geburtstag. Freiburg im Breisgau: Lavori Verlag.Pp. 41−50

Ebersbach R. 2010b. Soziale Einheiten zwischen“Haus” und “Dorf” – neue Erkenntnisse aus denSeeufersiedlungen. In Claßen E, Doppler T,Ramminger B (eds.). Familie−Verwandtschaft –Sozialstrukturen: Sozialarchäologische For−schungen zu neolithischen Befunden. FokusJungsteinzeit. Berichte der AG Neolithikum 1.Kerpen−Loogh: Welt und Erde. Pp. 141−156

Ebersbach R. 2010c. Seeufersiedlungen undArchitektursoziologie – ein Anwendungs−versuch. In Trebsche P, Müller−Scheeßel N,Reinhold S (eds.). Der gebaute Raum. Bausteineeiner Architektursoziologie vormodernerGesellschaften. Tübinger ArchäologischeTaschenbücher 7. Münster/New York/ München/Berlin: Waxmann. Pp. 193−212

Folke C, Berkes F, Colding J. 2000. Ecologicalpractices and social mechanisms for buildingresilience and sustainability. In Berkes F, Folke C(eds.). Linking social and ecological systems.Management practices and social mechanisms forbuilding resilience. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. Pp. 414−436

Folke C, Colding J, Berkes F. 2003. Synthesis:building resilience and adaptive capacity insocial−ecological systems. In Berkes F, Colding J,Folke C (eds.). Navigating social−ecologicalsystems. Building resilience for complexity andchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pp. 352−387

Gaines SW, Gaines WM. 2000. Impact ofsmall−group decision making in reducing stressconditions. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 19: 103–130

Gunderson LH, Holling CS. 2002. Panarchy.Understanding transformations in human andnatural systems. Washington/Covelo/London:Island Press

Haas JN, Magny M. 2004. Schichtgenese undVegetationsgeschichte. In Jacomet S, LeuzingerU, Schibler J (eds.). Die jungsteinzeitlicheSeeufersiedlung Arbon Bleiche 3: Umwelt undWirtschaft. Archäologie im Thurgau 12.Departement für Erziehung und Kultur desKantons Thurgau: Frauenfeld. Pp. 43−49

Hillier B, Hanson J. 1984. The social logic ofspace. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Holling CS. 1986. The resilience of terrestrialecosystems: Local surprise and global change. InClark WC, Munn RE (eds.). Sustainabledevelopment of the biosphere. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Pp. 292−317

Hosch S, Jacomet S. 2004. Ackerbau undSammelwirtschaft. Ergebnisse der Untersuchungvon Samen und Früchten. In Jacomet S, SchiblerJ, Leuzinger U (eds.). Die jungsteinzeitlicheSeeufersiedlung Arbon Bleiche 3: Umwelt undWirtschaft. Archäologie im Thurgau 12.Departement für Erziehung und Kultur desKantons Thurgau: Frauenfeld.Pp. 112−157

Hüster Plogmann H. 2004. Fischfang undKleintierbeute. Ergebnisse der Untersuchung vonTierresten aus den Schlämmproben. In Jacomet S,Leuzinger U, Schibler J (eds.). Diejungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung ArbonBleiche 3: Umwelt und Wirtschaft. Archäologieim Thurgau 12. Departement für Erziehung undKultur des Kantons Thurgau: Frauenfeld. Pp.253−276

Jacomet S, Leuzinger U, Schibler J. 2004. Diejungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung ArbonBleiche 3: Umwelt und Wirtschaft. Archäologieim Thurgau 12. Departement für Erziehung undKultur des Kantons Thurgau: Frauenfeld

Jelín EJ. 1991. Household organization andexpenditure in a time perspective: socialprocesses of change. accessed on 15/12/2011<http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80733e/80733E0e.htm#8.%20Household%20oganization%20and%20expenditure%20in%20a%20time%20perspective:%20so>

Köninger J, Kolb M, Schlichtherle H. 2001.Elemente von Boleráz und Baden in denFeuchtbodensiedlungen des südwestdeutschenAlpenvorlandes und ihre mögliche Rolle imTransformationsprozess des lokalenEndneolithikums. In Roman P, Diamandi S (eds.).Cernavodă III – Boleráz. Ein vorgeschichtlichesPhänomen zwischen dem Oberrhein und derunteren Donau. Symposium Mangalia / Neptun


(18–24 Oktober 1999). Studia Danubiana, SeriesSymposia II (Bucureşti 2001). Pp. 641−673

Le Bailly M, Bouchet F. 2004. Etudepaléoparasitologique des coprolithes humains. InJacomet S, Leuzinger U, Schibler J (eds.). Diejungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung ArbonBleiche 3: Umwelt und Wirtschaft. Archäologieim Thurgau 12. Departement für Erziehung undKultur des Kantons Thurgau: Frauenfeld. Pp.372−377

Leuzinger U. 2001. Seesicht verbaut. Leben imPfahlbaudorf Arbon Bleiche 3 vor 5400 Jahren.Bozen: Südtiroler Archäologiemuseum

Leuzinger U. 2002. Steinartefakte. In de CapitaniA, Deschler−Erb S, Leuzinger U, Marti−Grädel E,Schibler J (eds.). Die jungsteinzeitlicheSeeufersiedlung Arbon Bleiche 3: Funde.Archäologie im Thurgau 11. Departement fürErziehung und Kultur des Kantons Thurgau:Frauenfeld. Pp. 22−75

Marti H. 2004. Parasitologische Untersuchungenvon Wiederkäuer−Exkrementen. In Jacomet S,Leuzinger U, Schibler J (eds.). Diejungsteinzeitliche Seeufersiedlung ArbonBleiche 3: Umwelt und Wirtschaft. Archäologieim Thurgau 12. Departement für Erziehung undKultur des Kantons Thurgau: Frauenfeld. Pp.358−361

Merten S, Haller T. 2005. Polygamy andLivestock: Security during the 2002 drought in anIla chiefdom in Zambia. In Mayor A, Roth C,Droz Y (eds.). Sécurité sociale et développement.Soziale Sicherheit und Entwicklung. Lit Verlag:Münster. Pp. 69−90

Neighbour RH. 1985. The family life−cycle.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 78,Suppl. 8: 11−15

Pankhurst A. 2009. Rethinking safetynets andhousehold vulnerability in Ethiopia: Implicationsof household cycles, types and shocks. WorldConference of Humanitarian Studies, Groningen4−7 February 2009. accessed on 15/12/2011<http://wed−ethiopia.org/docs/Pankhurst_SafetyNetsVulnerability.pdf>

Pichler S, Doppler T, Röder B. 2009.Prähistorische Familien in der archäologischenLiteratur der Schweiz: ein Abbild der ehemaligenRealität? Bulletin der SchweizerischenGesellschaft für Anthropologie 15: 60−65

Ramirez−Sanchez S, Pinkerton E. 2009. Theimpact of resource scarcity on bonding and

bridging social capital: the case of fishers’information−sharing networks in Loreto, BCS,Mexico. Ecology and society 14(1): article 22.accessed on 21/11/2011<http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art22/>

Redman CL. 2005. Resilience theory inarchaeology. American Anthropologist 107(1):70−77

Redman CL, Kinzig AP. 2003. Resilience of pastlandscapes: resilience theory, society, and theLongue Durée. Conservation ecology 7(1): article14. accessed on 21/11/2011<http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1 /art14>

Röder B. 2010. Verräterische Idyllen:urgeschichtliche Sozialverhältnisse aufarchäologischen Lebensbildern. In Claßen E,Doppler T, Ramminger B (eds.). Familie−Verwandtschaft – Sozialstrukturen: Sozial−archäologische Forschungen zu neolithischenBefunden. Fokus Jungsteinzeit. Berichte der AGNeolithikum 1. Kerpen−Loogh: Welt und Erde.Pp. 13−30

Scheffer M, Westley F, Brock WA, Holmgren M.2002. Dynamic interaction of societies andecosystems – Linking theories from ecology,economy and sociology. In Gunderson LH,Holling CS (eds.). Panarchy. Understandingtransformations in human and natural systems.Washington/Covelo/London: Island Press. Pp.195−239

Tengö M, Hammer M. 2003. Managementpractices for building adaptive capacity: a casefrom northern Tanzania. In Berkes F, Colding J,Folke C (eds.). Navigating social−ecologicalsystems. Building resilience for complexity andchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pp. 132−162

Turner N, Davidson−Hunt I, O’Flaherty M. 2003.Living on the edge: ecological and cultural edgesas sources of diversity for social−ecologicalresilience. Human Ecology 31(3): 439−461

Wellman B, Wetherell C. 1996. Social networkanalysis of historical communities: Somequestions from the present for the past. TheHistory of the Family 1: 97−121

Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Petland A, Hashmi N,Malone TW. 2010. Evidence for a collectiveintelligence factor in the perfomance of humangroups. Science 330: 686−688



Documents

COPING WITH CRISES II: THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL ASPECTS … · B Röder et al. Coping with crises: The impact of social aspects on vulnerability and resilience 177 COPING WITH CRISES