Research master thesis | Arts and Culture (research) (MA)
open access
2022-08-31T00:00:00Z
How can you conceptualise a multi-layered and chronologically dense case study in its entirety without losing focus on the parts, and vice versa? This methodological problem lies at the heart of...Show moreHow can you conceptualise a multi-layered and chronologically dense case study in its entirety without losing focus on the parts, and vice versa? This methodological problem lies at the heart of this thesis, in which the seventeenth-century Roman church of Domine Quo Vadis will be used as a case study. Using a palimpsestic framework, this thesis sets out to explore the historical and material dimensions of the Domine Quo Vadis while also acknowledging its status as a mediator of the divine.Show less
This thesis presents the results of the reanalysis of the flint assemblage from area IV(4) from the Lower Palaeolithic site Barnham East Farm, which was dated to the beginning of the Hoxnian...Show moreThis thesis presents the results of the reanalysis of the flint assemblage from area IV(4) from the Lower Palaeolithic site Barnham East Farm, which was dated to the beginning of the Hoxnian interglacial (MIS 11). Barnham is an important site to the Clactonian debated as it was the only site where it was believed that a biface assemblage was contemporaneous to a non-biface assemblage. However, new fieldwork suggested that a palimpsest was present in area IV(4). The new analysis concentrated on the technological classification of the artefacts, their distribution and preservation. Preservation was investigated by analysing abrasion, patination, breakage, edge damage and surface scratching. It was proven that, based on abrasion and distribution, a slow accumulation palimpsest (cf. Malinsky-Buller et al. 2011) is present in area IV(4). This palimpsest consists of an older, non-biface component overprinted by a younger component with evidence for biface manufacture. This is in contrast to the previous interpretation of Barnham, which concluded that the non-biface assemblage (area I) and the biface assemblage (area IV(4)) were contemporaneous. The new analysis supports a sequence with an older non-biface assemblage (Clactonian) and a younger biface assemblage (Acheulean). Two models remain that explain this sequence: the resource and landscape model (cf. Ashton 1998a), that suggests a functional reason for the disappearance of bifaces from the archaeological record, and a demographic model, that contributes the loss of bifaces to a decline in population sizes.Show less
