Content uploaded by Beat Schweizer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Beat Schweizer on Feb 09, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Sandra Teuber and Beat Schweizer
Resources Rede ned. Resources and ResourceComplexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Jeanne Féaux de la Croix and Martin Bartelheim
Conceiving Water Bodies and their Uses across Disciplines.
How to Grasp Riparian Relations with the Guadalquivir and Syr Darya Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Laura Dierksmeier
Historical Water Scarcity on the Canary Islands, 15001800 AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Frerich Schön
Isolation as a Resource for an Island Community in the Strait of Sicily.
The Case of Linosa Island (Italy) in Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Christina Vossler-Wolf
Aqua Viva and the Monk in the Pond. Multi-Dimensional Water Use in
Medieval Monasteries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Valerie Elena Palmowski
Waters, an Omnipresent and Constantly Used Food Resource in the Viking Age?
A Review of Studies Regarding Dietary Preferences from the 9th to the 11th Centuries AD . . . . . . . . 77
Veronika Sossau
From Axeinos to Euxeinos. Pontic Waters as a Resource in the Context of the
Great Greek Colonisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
9
We thank the German Research Foundation (DFG)
for supporting this research through the Collabo-
rative Research Centre (SFB 1070) RESOURCE CULTURES
and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable
remarks. Further thanks go to many members of
the SFB 1070 who have discussed ideas and shared
insights, among others Wulf Frauen, Roland
Har denberg, Pia Hilsberg, Mohammad Karami,
Thomas Knopf, Christiane Nowak-Lipps, and
Thomas Thiemeyer.
The public perception of resources often revolves
around raw materials needed for economic
growth, such as iron ore or fossil fuels. Dwindling
goods such as water are also seen as resources.
Due to changes in the economy and the grow-
ing effect of information technology, the public
further considers immaterial resources such as
knowledge important. Here too, the term re-
source is closely connected to economics and eco-
nomic development. However, this notion neglects
Keywords: resources, ResourceComplexes, interdisciplinarity
Earths resources consumed in ever greater destructive volumes.
Study says the date by which we consume a years worth of resources is arriving faster.
(The Guardian, Watts 2018)
Ressourcen: Der Schlüssel zu den Rohstoffen.
Die Jagd auf Metalle und Mineralien für die Stromquellen von morgen ist in vollem Gange. Wie lässt sich die
Versorgung sichern und ein Engpass vermeiden? Ein Lagebericht.
(Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Bilow 2013)
The six natural resources most drained by our 7 billion people.
For how long can we realistically expect to have oil? And which dwindling element is essential to plant
growth?
(The Guardian, Ruz 2011)
Ressourcenknappheit. Machtfaktor Wasser.
Im Nahen Osten zeigt sich die politische Spaltkraft von Wasser. Je knapper die Ressource in Israel wird,
desto geringer die Chancen auf eine Einigung mit den Palästinensern.
(Süddeutsche Zeitung, Schmitz 2010)
Sandra Teuber and Beat Schweizer
10
the socio-cultural dynamics connected to re-
sources and their use. These socio-cultural aspects
are central within the SFB 1070 RESOURCECULTURES,
which aims at understanding interdependencies
of resource uses and formations of communities
and societies. Central questions of the SFB 1070
are how resource use developed within a society,
how resource use affected movements of people,
goods and knowledge, and how processes of val-
uation are connected to resource use. Taking re-
course to theoretical concepts from the humani-
ties, the SFB 1070 de niton of resources as means
to create, sustain and alter identities stresses that
resources cannot be investigated in isolation from
other resources. The SFB 1070 developed the con-
cept of ResourceComplexes to facilitate the analy-
sis of these interdependencies between resources.
This contribution aims to explain the concept and
using the ResourceComplex sh as an abstract
example its strengths for interdisciplinary re-
search are discussed in an inductive way.
The above cited newspaper headlines indicate that
the public perception of resources often revolves
around scarce raw materials, such as metals and
minerals, wood or fossil fuels, or on dwindling
vital goods such as water. The public discourses
seemingly focus on so-called natural resources or
rather rare and exhaustible earth resources, their
relevance for economic growth and consumption
or on their impact on power relations, con icts
and on the destructive effects of resource extrac-
tion and use. Of course, these perspectives ad-
dress basic needs of human life but neglect that
re sources are socially and culturally constructed,
and as such depend on cultural and social appro-
priation and valuation.
A recent essay on the use of the words or
terms resource and resources between antiq-
uity and the 21st cent. shows that until early mod-
ern times a resource was seen as something use-
ful to overcome a personal weakness. A resource,
in the singular, thus was considered a structural
quality of a thing or a being (Hausmann/Perreaux
2018, 190). Since the 18th cent., in correspondence
with the rise of capitalism and industrialisation
there are discourses on resources in the plural, as
things external to oneself, which can be tapped,
but, above all, accumulated, for various activities
(Hausmann/Perreaux 2018, 190).
A classical definition of the economic per-
spective omnipresent today in relation to human
needs can be found in Mengers Principles of Eco-
nomics (originally published in 1871). As an ear-
ly representative of the marginal utility school of
thought Menger (2007, 52) gives four conditions
for turning something into a good: 1. A human
need. 2. Such properties as render the thing ca-
pable of being brought into a causal connection
with the satisfaction of this need. 3. Human knowl-
edge of this causal connection. 4. Command of the
thing su cient to direct it to the satisfaction of the
need.
Though talking about a good instead of a re-
source, Menger focused on a human need and
the satisfaction of the need, but also on human
knowledge as a causal connection between them.
This seems to be near to the Oxford English Dic-
tionary, which has a rather long list of de nitions
for the term resource (Stevenson/Waite 2018),
among others a means of supplying a de ciency
or need; something that is a source of help, infor-
mation, strength, etc.. For resources in the plural
the dictionary states: Stocks or reserves of money,
materials, people, or some other asset, which can
be drawn on when necessary and The collective
means possessed by a country or region for its
own support, enrichment, or defence (Stevenson/
Waite 2018). There the focus is again on needs,
means and materials, but people are included, and
some other asset, though not further speci ed.
However, in contemporary economic contexts,
the term resource is widely used with a focus on
so-called natural resources. Since Adam Smith
and David Ricardo these have generally been
seen as bene cial for the economic development
of countries (Badeeb et al. 2017, 123 f.). Using the
examples of oil, gas and hard minerals, i.e. non-
renew able natural resources only to be extract-
ed (Badeeb et al. 2017, 124), Gelb (1988) and Auty
(1993) were the first to argue, that natural re-
sources can be a curse for economic development.
Sachs and Warner (1999) then con rmed the no-
tion of the curse of natural resources (Sachs/
Resources Rede ned 11
Warner 2001) with further empirical evidence. De-
spite a richness in raw materials such as oil, gas
or minerals, it is ascertained that the economic de-
velopment of countries rich in natural resources is
smaller than that of countries without it, and that
resource booms lead to resource dependence.
Of course, recent approaches in economy
have quite differentiated views on tangible or in-
tangible resources as factors of production and
organisational requirements for economic suc-
cess (see Hardenberg et al. 2017, 13). However,
economic studies on resources rely in general on
the economic model of a homo oeconomicus, who
ratio nally chooses the best alternative to maxim-
ise the bene ts of any decision. Explanations for
underdevelopment also depend on the rational
choice premise. While many textbooks refer to
an ideal homo oeconomicus, Kirchgässner (2008)
argues that individuals act by making ration-
al choices among the alternatives which are at
their disposal (Kirchgässner 2008, 1). Restrictions
and pref er ences limit the alternatives and full ra-
tionality cannot be achieved: It is not necessary
that the individual knows all alternatives. Gener-
ally, he knows only part of his choices and often
merely a very limited one, and he is aware of only
some of their consequences (Kirchgässner 2008,
12 f.). Still, among the available alternatives, the
rational choice for any individual is to maximise
their own bene ts. The rational choice perspec-
tive on the economy has been widely criticised,
among others by Gudeman (2001, 2; 2012, 9698).
According to Gudeman (2001, 4) economic trans-
actions in contemporary societies do not exist in
isolation. Instead, these interactions happen in
two realms, in impersonal (inter-) regional or even
international markets with the focus on trade and
in local communities, which have common values,
depend on social networks and connect people
(Gudeman 2012, 98 f.). He introduced the concept
of base, which consists of lasting resources such
as water or land, produced goods or things, and
ideational constructs such as knowledge, laws or
customs (Gudeman 2001, 7 f.). More broadly, the
base of any economy is made up of the social and
material space created by a community (Gudeman
2012, 95 f.). This base is locally and historically
constructed, maintained, and altered, and shapes
the identity of the community (Gudeman 2012, 99).
Contrary to Kirchgässner (2008, 7 f.) who states
that rational choices are made in all social inter-
actions be it in economic or other social relations,
Gudeman argues that the homo oeconomicus pre-
requisite does not account for the formation of the
base.
The Concise Dictionary of Social and Cultural
Anthropology (Morris 2012) has an entry explain-
ing the homo oeconomicus, but none for econ omy
or resource. More general, it has been point-
ed out, that there are no entries for resource in
relevant dictionaries of human or social sciences
(Hausmann/Perreaux 2018, 179). This nding also
suggests that the term resource in its current use
is closely connected to economics and economic
development not only within contemporary so ci-
ety, but also in scienti c contexts and respective-
ly politics. To give but one example, the website
of the Federal Environmental Agency of Germany
on resource use and its consequences has a strong
focus on raw materials. Social aspects are only
present in the form of the impact resource use has
on the access to clean water and food security, es-
pecially in the developing world (UBA 2018). Other
resources, such as knowledge, are not mentioned.
This completely neglects the socio-cultural dynam-
ics connected to resource use (Bartelheim et al.
2015; Hardenberg et al. 2017), which are research
topics of the SFB 1070 RESOURCECULTURES.
The SFB 1070 RESOURCECU LTUR ES aims at under-
standing socio-cultural dynamics of formations
and change of communities, societies and identi-
ties in relation to uses, practices and valuations of
basic resources, that is, the ways these resources
come into being, are used, embedded and con-
verted within different socio-cultural units. In this
perspective, resources can be seen as an analyti-
cal category for the reconstruction of socio-cultur-
al dynamics and practices of different cultures in
space and time. Main issues address the correla-
tion of resources to developments in different so-
cial contexts, how this is connected to movements
of people, goods and knowledge, and how process-
es of valuation are intertwined with resources that
Sandra Teuber and Beat Schweizer
12
are central for respective cultural contexts. Fur-
ther, the extended conceptualisation of resources
within the SFB 1070 RESOURC ECULT URE S sees re-
sources as the tangible and intangible means by
which social relations, units, or identities are cre-
ated, sustained, or altered (Hardenberg et al. 2017,
14). Taking up Gudemans idea of base, this indi-
cates that besides his lasting resources ideational
constructs become resources as well. According
to this, intangible goods and values can have the
status of resources, if they affect identity forma-
tion. An example for this is given by Klocke-Daffa
(2017, 253268), who analyses the Sambatra ritual
as a resource for identity creation in Madagascar.
The Sambatra is a circumcision rite for boys up to
fourteen years, celebrated every seven years as a
collective event attended by large family associa-
tions and thousands of participants (Klocke-Daffa
2017, 253). It transforms male children into so-
cially accepted members of the patrilines and
the participation in the ritual remains important
today to identify as a member of the community
(Klocke-Daffa 2017, 259 f.). The ritual as an impor-
tant resource for change of status shows more-
over, that in a cultural studies perspective a strict
dichotomy between tangible and intangible has to
be avoided (Hardenberg et al. 2017, 19), because
intangible and tangible elements are combined in
the performances and affect the participants bod-
ies and senses directly.
Resources are according to the SFB 1070
RESOURCE CULTURES in particular de ned as means of
identity formation in a framework of cultural con-
struction and valuation (Bartelheim et al. 2015,
39 f.; Hardenberg et al. 2017, 1620). The re sources
societies value today, such as fossil fuels or rare
earths, only became resources recently, due to
technical and as such cultural as well as social de-
velopments. This can also be seen by looking at the
different archaeological epochs, e.g. the Bronze
and Iron Ages, which are de ned by the use of a
speci c metal (Schweizer 2018, 193). Prior to these
respective epochs, the minerals (e.g. iron ore) of
course existed on the planet but were not seen
as resources, because they were neither used nor
valued. Resources are, therefore, not de ned as a
matter, a naturally occurring stock, but as contin-
gent means of social practices of actors. To remain
with the example of iron, resources and their
respective uses only became possible through so-
cio-cultural changes, which led to the valuation
of the resource as such (Schweizer 2018, 193). Pri-
marily relevant are not so much notions of util-
ity, technical innovation, or even development of
civil i sation but integration in social communica-
tions and exchange relationships, sacred practices,
orders and representations. Considering resources
as means for identity construction focusses on tan-
gible and intangible elements. Therefore, it is not
possible to understand a resource in isolation. In-
stead, resources depend on and interact with oth-
er resources and elements due to the cultural ap-
propriation connected to the resource in question.
Thus, the SFB 1070 RESOURCECULTURES speci es that
resources are part of ResourceComplexes. This
term is used in correspondence to Gudemans base
(2001, 7 f., 36), to refer to a contingent and histori-
cally grown combination of things or objects, per-
sons or individuals, knowledge, technologies and
practices (Bartelheim et al. 2015, 40; Hardenberg
et al. 2017, 15), and bodies or spaces of knowledge
and representation, images, monuments and my-
thologies, hierarchies and discourses as well. Sim-
ilar to Latours (2011) actor-network-theory (ANT)
approach and his understanding of network as a
mode of enquiry on how to list all the beings nec-
essary for any entity to exist (Latour 2011, 799),
the ResourceComplex as an analytical tool brings
to the fore the elements necessary for social prac-
tices around speci c resources. Latour argues that,
whenever you wish to de ne an entity (an agent,
an actor) you have to deploy its attributes, that
is, its network (Latour 2011, 800). While Latour
(1999, 21) focusses on how to record world-build-
ing abilities of actors systematically, the SFB 1070s
ResourceComplex combines tangible and intangi-
ble resources or elements and interdependencies
between them to understand the temporal and
spatial development of use and valuation of spe-
ci c resources and elements. With this de nition
of resources as contingent means of social prac-
tices and ResourceComplexes as combination of
objects, persons, knowledge, technology and prac-
tices, discourses of natural and cultural resources
are no longer relevant. The separation of humans
and nature has been widely discussed as a cultur-
al construct. Ingold (2011, 8), for example, states
that human social life is not cut out on a separate
Resources Rede ned 13
plane from the rest of nature but is part and par-
cel of what is going on throughout the organic
world. As early as 1993, he wrote: the rhythmic
pattern of human activities nests within the wider
pattern of activity for all animal life, which in turn
nests within the pattern of activity for all so-called
living things, which nests within the life-process of
the world (Ingold 1993, 164). Ingold, thus, did not
separate culture from nature. A similar notion of
humans and the environment is found in ecologi-
cal research, as Berkes and Folke (1998, 4) showed
with their work on social-ecological systems in the
context of resource management. They observed
that depending on the discipline, resource man-
agement and, therefore, resource use either
focusses on social systems or on ecological sys-
tems, but rarely on both at the same time (Berkes/
Folke 1998). Ostrom, thus, proposed a framework
consisting of resource systems, resource units,
governance systems and users, with each consist-
ing of several variables as well, and interactions
between them. This multilevel nested framework
(Ostrom 2009, 420), however, as a kind of systemic
thinking again divides the system in natural and
social. Nearer to Ingolds (1993) nesting approach,
the ResourceComplex on the other hand relates
tangible and intangible resources and elements of
different materiality such as widely known raw
materials, knowledge, spirituality, and practices
with each other, and, thus, includes social, cultural
and ecological aspects of resources. It, thus, is an
analytical tool through which individual research-
ers can explore the different elements needed to
use the central resource of the investigation. This
means, that the individual researcher decides
which resource is central for the investigation and
then tries to identify all elements that affect the re-
source and, thus, the social identity and relations
within a society.
By looking at the Atlantic cod as a marine re-
source, the resource concept of SFB 1070 and the
properties of the ResourceComplex can be illus-
trated. The Atlantic cod can be seen as one of the
basic resources for shermen today because soci-
ety attributed it a certain value, which can have
monetary, nutritional, or symbolic dimensions.
However, the use of the resource Atlantic cod does
not only depend on the quality and taste of the sh
as well as on the valuation of it by society, but also
on the presence and quality of waters. It, further,
requires intangible resources, such as the knowl-
edge about the sh itself (where does it live, how
does it procreate) and about techniques to catch
the sh. The use of the Atlantic cod ( sh in gener-
al) also requires different types of equipment and
infrastructure like boats, shing nets, or spears,
which in turn in uence the practices used for sh-
ing. Other elements needed are harbours, trans-
port vessels, technology of cooling, trade options.
Depending on those practices and knowledge,
symbols or myths might emerge, which in turn
influence the practices and shape the intricate
Resource Complex existing around the resource At-
lantic cod.
Generalising the example of the Atlantic cod,
a ResourceComplex sh would consist of sh as
the central resource, but also of equipment, infra-
structure, knowledge, practices and symbols or
myths/stories, which revolve around the resource
fish. Similar to the proposition of Latour (2011,
800) to record all attributes in order to de ne any
actor, all other elements connected to the resource
sh have to be assessed. But instead of investigat-
ing the network of an actor, the ResourceComplex
identi es correlated material and immaterial re-
sources or elements. Humans, thus, are part of
this intricate ResourceComplex. They are building
social relations and identities by turning things
into resources through valuation processes. This is
comparable to Ingolds (2011, 8) idea that human
beings produce themselves and one another by
establishing, through their actions, the conditions
for their ongoing growth and development Hu-
man actions, of course, establish such conditions
not only for other humans. They also do so for as-
sorted non-humans (Ingold 2011, 8). As part of the
ResourceComplex, humans shape and transform it
through their knowledge and their practices and
are also transformed by it.
Fundamental for the SFB 1070 resource con-
cept is the notion, that a ResourceComplex around
a central resource forms, sustains or alters so-
cial identities, social units and social relations of
shermen. Individuals as well as social units or
groups should identify themselves as shermen in
recourse to shared stories, a common attire worn
for fishing, learned practices, and much more,
they, thus, distinguish themselves from farmers
Sandra Teuber and Beat Schweizer
14
or other social units. However, according to the
base concept of Gudeman (2001), shing would be
only one part of the base of the shermen, which
in uences their economic transactions. As sher-
men usually are part of a community, which also
consists of people belonging to other professions,
their base would not solely rest on fishing. The
ResourceComplex also affects relations of the sh-
ermens social unit with other units of their soci-
ety, depending on the structure of the broader
society and the role shing plays for that society.
As part of the base, the ResourceComplex fish
shapes economic interactions or transactions in
the market as well as in the community spheres.
The briefly outlined and abstract example of a
ResourceComplex sh was given to show that in-
terdependencies between a central resource and
other correlated tangible and intangible re sources,
elements, practices and discourses have to be con-
sidered to understand socio-cultural dynamics
around the construction of social identities and re-
lations. ResourceComplexes in general make inter-
dependencies and relations between these differ-
ent elements visible. Analysing those opens up the
possibility to investigate resources way beyond a
purely functionalist dimension as simple problem
solving means or as monocausal push and pull fac-
tors leading to reductionist explanations. Müller
stated for a history of resources: Questions about
the history of resources formulate one could ar-
gue the merely obvious: resources are always
important, scarce, and, therefore, contested. And:
what exactly is the epistemological interest in re-
searching resources? (Müller 2018, 209). In the
perspective of the SFB 1070 RESOURCECULTU RES an
answer to this question would be: The importance,
scarcity, contestedness has to be analysed as socio-
cultural constructs. The method applied is using
ResourceComplexes as a kind of framing, that al-
lows to focus on the extent of the embeddedness
of the means (Müller 2018, 211), on socio-cultural
dynamics and on identity building. Not the re-
sources themselves build the centre of expla-
nation, but the correlation between resources,
elements and practices. That means rstly, these
networks or meshworks as formulated by Ingold
(2011, 6394) conceptualised through Resource-
Complexes affect social identities and relations.
More generally spoken, this framing ensures the
shift from an analytic etic category resources to
an emic point of view of each social group or actor
investigated (see Danwerth et al. 2018, 223), which
corresponds to the notion of resources as contin-
gent historically and culturally bounded means.
And secondly, the comparative and inter- or
transdisciplinary approach within the SFB 1070
RESOURCECULTURES is directed not on single resources,
but on social processes, relevant in relation to re-
sources (Hardenberg et al. 2017, 18), be it connect-
ed to sacralisation, valuation, social change or mo-
bility. This is in accordance with requirements of
inter- or transdisciplinary research, with a strong
emphasis on thematic focussing (Berger et al. 2014,
21). As Lucas argued, the issues of archaeologists
as well as anthropologists are abstract subjects,
generalisations about processes (Lucas 2010, 30;
see Hardenberg 2017, 28). ResourceComplexes as
de ned here according to ideas of Gudeman, but
also Latour and Ingold in an analytical perspective
are situated on a lower level of generalisation, but
on a higher level of concrete inter- or transdisci-
plinarity as differentiated by Behrendt (2004, 118
g. 2, all contextualised within scienti c contexts).
He refers to interdisciplinarity as having common
de nitions and terms, and a jointly developed re-
search question, however, cooperation depends
on the respective disciplinary methods. Transdis-
ciplinarity in contrast would be characterised by
common development of new methods adapted
to the formulation of new research questions and
terms, but at the same time by an opening of disci-
plinary borders. ResourceComplexes as analytical
tools correspond to both perspectives, otherwise
usually summarised under the heading of inter-
disciplinarity. They offer the possibility to inte-
grate results and ndings of different disciplines
or research fields as well as to extend their re-
spective research questions. At rst, the Resource-
Complex facilitates interdisciplinary research: In
an archaeological excavation, archaeologists may
start analysing equipment, settlement spaces or
images, while archaeo-zoologists and biologists
study the sh bones, and cultural anthropologists
Resources Rede ned 15
the structures of contemporary shing communi-
ties. Historians and philologists have their focus
on knowledge and myth, and environmental sci-
entists might survey the surrounding area using
soil scienti c and hydrologic methods or GIS for
a better understanding of the landscape and spa-
tial connections between different regions. This
would indicate an interdisciplinary perspective
as proposed by Behrendt (2004, 118). However, if
the involved scientists focus on a shared research
question and develop a tool that facilitates their
interdisciplinary collaboration, this would move
the collaboration towards transdisciplinarity.
Further, ResourceComplexes can be analysed
by different disciplines using different theoretical
approaches. While archaeologists might focus on
the development of a prehistoric shing commu-
nity next to a lake, an analogous Resource Complex
sh can be used by cultural anthropologists to
study networks within a contemporary fishing
community. As Hardenberg (2017, 26 f.) argues:
Anthropologists can directly ask people [] they
identify hierarchies of value and thus distinguish
between more and less valuable resources. Ar-
chaeologists, on the other hand, derive social
value more indirectly from the relationships be-
tween material objects in terms of context, time,
quantity, quality, spatial distribution, etc. [] they
derive meaning from the contextual arrange-
ment of artefacts, the dialectic between people
and things or the relationship between material
qualities and usages of objects. Of course, due to
limitations of the archaeological record, archaeol-
ogists might not be able to investigate knowledge
and cultural practices in their entirety, but they
can provide information on the life in the prehis-
toric village next to the lake. They might be able
to show how the village developed and nd ev-
idence supporting the notion that shing was an
important part of the daily lives of the villagers.
They can illustrate which resources were impor-
tant in the village and suggest interdependencies
between them by using the ResourceComplex.
However, their statements about cultural prac-
tices and belief systems have to rely on theoreti-
cal models, if there are no written records. On the
other hand, cultural anthropologists studying a
contemporary lake settlement might focus on net-
works between individual shermen, on rituals
connected to shing, or on knowledge generation
within the shing community. They use and gener-
ate theories, which are connected to knowledge or
valuation processes and to the networks between
people. Despite the different foci, the Resource-
Complex needed for fishing is the same in both
studies. While the approach used for the investi-
gation differs, it enables scientists from both dis-
ciplines to compare their nds, and, thus, leads to
a better understanding of how the resource sh
affects identity formation. This is achieved be-
cause the scientists are able to use their respective
scienti c background for the analysis of their re-
search interest. By using the ResourceComplex as
an analytical tool, each discipline cooperates with
scientists from other disciplines and considering
the interactions of the different elements within
a shared Resource Complex. This is on the way to
Behrendts transdisciplinary work, exchange and
discussion. For example, if in an archaeological ex-
cavation evidence connected to shing, equipment
or sh bones, is found, the focus of the investiga-
tion might be on tools or animals, but thinking of
these as elements of a ResourceComplex sh al-
ways requires the investigation of social and ritual
practices, relationships and dynamics, and of their
respective representations and orders. As intangi-
ble elements are not part of direct evidence in pre-
historic archaeological sites, the ResourceComplex
allows one to think about the interactions of the
different tangible and intangible elements, which
might lead to new interpretations of the nds.
Resources and ResourceComplexes are not static.
Instead, they are subjected to changes, which can
be analysed in connection to other resources and
their respective ResourceComplexes within broad-
er socio-cultural contexts or within a base, as con-
ceptualised by Gudeman. Concerning the example,
the ResourceComplex fish in modern societies
cannot be seen without referring to trade, which
as a ResourceComplex includes the goods being
traded, different modes of transportation (ships,
horse carriages, trucks, trains, planes), networks
between traders, and trading practices. Change of
Sandra Teuber and Beat Schweizer
16
valuations and practices around resources then
affect connected ResourceComplexes and con-
sequently social dynamics of identity building.
The ResourceComplex approach can be used on
different scales of social units and identities. Re-
sources and elements in one ResourceComplex
might gain the status of a central resource in an-
other ResourceComplex, That is in a certain sense
in line with Latour, who states that any entity can
be seized either as an actor [] or as a network
[]. It is in this complete reversibility an actor
is nothing but a network, except that a network is
nothing but actors that resides the main original-
ity of this theory (Latour 2011, 800). However, dif-
ferently to Latour, not all elements of a Resource-
Complex are a resource. The same is true for the
resource sh, which is central for the Resource-
Complex sh, but only one of the resources pro-
vided by waters in general. Waters also provide
transportation and, thus, the prerequisite for trade
with the elements water and wind currents, ships,
boats, navigational knowledge, and more, which
in uences the identity of tradesmen. It also affects
cultural practices. Under the heading Mediterrani-
zation Morris (2005) presented a historical per-
spective for the increasing interconnection of the
Mediterranean as a corrective against essential-
ist notions of mediterranism. Mediterranization
thereby referred to a kind of globalised mediter-
ranean identity that came into existence in corre-
spondence to the different local or regional social
and cultural spaces around the Mediterranean.
Cultural phenomena, e.g. types of monuments
and distributed things as well as speci c types of
sacred places, some of which connected to forms
of mobility, interaction and trade (Schweizer 2015)
can be seen as resources or ResourceComplexes of
the Mediterranean identity as well as of different
local or regional identities. In the case of rivers or
freshwater lakes, potable as well as irrigation wa-
ter is also a resource provided by waters. For some
societies, environmental conditions can be related
to socio-cultural practices, which lead to depen-
den cies on this resource. In Egypt, for example,
the agrarian use of the regularly occuring oods
in the Nile Valley led to a prospering society that
made use of the oodwater and the nutrients and
soil material it provided. However, the oodwa-
ter is not the relevant factor for turning it into a
resource in the de nition of SFB 1070. Instead, the
practices of distributing it onto the eld, as well
as the building of irrigational channels and other
mechanisms needed to make use of the central
resource oodwater, sustained the society in the
Nile Valley and affected the social relations and
identities of the people. Waters, thus, can be ana-
lysed as a ResourceComplex with different central
resources, e.g. sh, trade, politics or religion relat-
ed to mobility and processes of valuation. This can
be useful to understand the importance of a spe-
ci c water body. Waters can be the overarching
ResourceComplex with several smaller, but no less
relevant ones.
The SFB 1070 RESO UR CE CULT URES introduced a
new resource concept. This concept aims at under-
standing the development of resource use and its
effect on the creation of identities and social re-
lations. The concept is useful to understand what
turns things into resources, by considering valu-
ation processes in social units. By analysing these
processes, ResourceComplexes emerge, because
any resource requires other elements for its use.
The ResourceComplex as an analytical tool
enables scientists to investigate interactions and
interdependencies of different elements to make
use of a central resource. These resources and
the connected ResourceComplexes affect identi-
ty formation by creating or altering social units.
If changes within ResourceComplexes occur, this
alters social relations and identities. Therefore,
simple models are insu cient to understand the
complex developments connected to resource use.
Intricate connections between tangible and intan-
gible objects and resources exist and influence
identities and social units. While these units inter-
act in markets and exchange, thus, participate in
economic transactions, focusing on an economic
perspective with the rational choice premise does
not explain, how things become resources and
how these in turn affect social identities. This also
neglects the different socio-cultural dimensions
that resource use has within a social unit. The
extended conceptualisation of resources within
SFB 1070 RESOURCE CULTURES adds social and cultural
Resources Rede ned 17
Sandra Teuber
Universität Tübingen
SFB 1070 RESSOURCENKULTUREN
Gartenstraße 29
72074 Tübingen
sandra.teuber@uni-tuebingen.de
Beat Schweizer
Universität Tübingen
SFB 1070 RESSOURCENKULTUREN
Gartenstraße 29
72074 Tübingen
b.schweizer@uni-tuebingen.de
perspectives to the current debate about resourc-
es. By investigating all elements needed to make
use of a speci c resource through the Resource-
Complex concept, individual researchers can de-
termine the central resource and investigate its
interactions with other elements. This en ables
interdisciplinary exchanges, as scientists from
different disciplines have intricate knowledge of
the different elements of a ResourceComplex and
can, thus, contribute to a better understanding of
identity formation. Further, the ResourceComplex
is an approach that could be used to develop new
research questions and enable not only collabora-
tion between disciplines but inter- or transdisci-
plinary perspectives.
Auty 1993: R. M. Auty, Sustaining Development in Mineral Economies. The Resource Curse Thesis (London
1993).
Badeeb et al. 2017: R. A. Badeeb/H. H. Lean/J. Clark, The Evolution of the Natural Resource Curse Thesis. A
Critical Literature Survey. Resources Policy 51, 123134. DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2016.10.015.
Bartelheim et al. 2015: M. Bartelheim/R. Hardenberg/T. Knopf/A. Scholz/J. Staecker, RESOURCECULTURES. A
Concept for Investigating the Use of Resources in Different Societies. In: A. Danielisová/M. Fernán-
dez-Götz (eds.), Persistent Economic Ways of Living. Production, Distribution, and Consumption in
Late Prehistory and Early History. Archaeolingua 35 (Budapest 2015) 3949.
Behrendt 2004: H. Behrendt, Multi-, Inter- und Transdisziplinarität. Und die Geogra e? In: F. Brand/
F. Schaller/H. Völker (eds.), Transdisziplinarität. Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven. Beiträge zur
THESIS-Arbeitstagung im Oktober 2003 in Göttingen (Göttingen 2004) 115128.
Berger et al. 2014: W. Berger/V. Winiwarter/G. Dressel/K. Heimerl, Methoden und Praktiken interdiszipli-
närer und transdisziplinärer Wissenschaft. In: G. Dressel/W. Berger/K. Heimerl/V. Winiwarter (eds.),
Interdisziplinär und transdisziplinär forschen. Praktiken und Methoden. Science Studies (Bielefeld
2014) 1728.
Berkes/Folke 1998: F. Berkes/C. Folke, Linking Social and Ecological Systems for Resilience and Sustaina-
bility. In: F. Berkes/C. Folke (eds.), Linking Social and Ecological Systems. Management Practices and
Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience (Cambridge 1998) 125.
Danwerth et al. 2018: O. Danwerth/T. Dittmer/S. Hardjana/D. Hausmann/N. Perreaux/L. Richter/C. Scheidler/
F. Steinfeld/D. Weidgenannt, Resources in a Social World. In: I. Amelung/H. Leppin/C. A. Müller (eds.),
Discourses of Weakness and Resource Regimes. Trajectories of a New Research Program. Discourses
of Weakness and Resource Regimes 1 (Frankfurt/Main 2018) 223253.
Gelb 1988: A. Gelb, Oil Windfalls. Blessing or Curse? (Oxford 1988).
Gudeman 2001: S. Gudeman, The Anthropology of Economy. Community, Market, and Culture (Malden,
Mass. 2001).
Gudeman 2012: S. Gudeman, Community and Economy. Economys Base. In: J. G. Carrier (ed.), A Hand-
book of Economic Anthropology 2nd Edition (Cheltenham 2012) 95108.
Sandra Teuber and Beat Schweizer
18
Hardenberg 2017: R. Hardenberg, Dynamic Correspondences. RESOURCECULTURES. In: A. K. Scholz/M. Bartel-
heim/R. Hardenberg/J. Staecker (eds.), RESOURCECULTURES. Sociocultural Dynamics and the Use of Re-
sources. Theories, Methods, Perspectives. RessourcenKulturen 5 (Tübingen 2017) 2534.
Hardenberg et al. 2017: R. Hardenberg/M. Bartelheim/J. Staecker, The Resource Turn. A Sociocultural Per-
spective on Resources. In: A. K. Scholz/M. Bartelheim/R. Hardenberg/J. Staecker (eds.), RESOURCE CULTURES.
Sociocultural Dynamics and the Use of Resources. Theories, Methods, Perspectives. Ressourcen-
Kulturen 5 (Tübingen 2017) 1323.
Hausmann/Perreaux 2018: D. Hausmann/N. Perreaux, Resources. A Historical and Conceptual Roadmap.
In: I. Amelung/H. Leppin/C. A. Müller (eds.), Discourses of Weakness and Resource Regimes. Trajecto-
ries of a New Research Program. Discourses of Weakness and Resource Regimes 1 (Frankfurt/Main
2018) 179208.
Ingold 1993: T. Ingold, The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25, 1993, 152174.
Ingold 2011: T. Ingold, Being Alive. Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description (London 2011).
Kirchgässner 2008: G. Kirchgässner, Homo Oeconomicus. The Economic Model of Behaviour and Its Ap-
plications in Economics and Other Social Sciences (New York 2008).
Klocke-Daffa 2017: S. Klocke-Daffa, ResourceComplexes, Networks, and Frames. The Sambatra in Mada-
gascar. In: A. K. Scholz/M. Bartelheim/R. Hardenberg/J. Staecker (eds.), RESOURCECULTURES. Sociocultural
Dynamics and the Use of Resources. Theories, Methods, Perspectives. RessourcenKulturen 5 (Tübin-
gen 2017) 253268.
Latour 1999: B. Latour, On Recalling ANT. The Sociological Review 47, 1999, 1525.
Latour 2011: B. Latour, Networks, Societies, Spheres. Re ections of an Actor-Network Theorist. Internatio-
nal Journal of Communication 5, 2011, 796810.
Lucas 2010: G. Lucas, Triangulating Absence. Exploring the Fault-Lines between Archaeology and An thro-
pology. In: D. Garrow/T. Yarrow (eds.), Archaeology and Anthropology. Understanding Similarity, Ex-
ploring Difference (Oxford 2010) 2839.
Menger 2007: C. Menger, Principles of Economics (Auburn, Ala. 2007) [Translation: J. Dingwall/B. F. H.
Hoselitz (Glencoe, Ill. 1950). Original: Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (Wien 1871)].
Morris 2005: I. Morris, Mediterranization. In: I. Malkin (ed.), Mediterranean Paradigms and Classical Anti-
quity (London 2005) 3055.
Morris 2012: M. Morris, Concise Dictionary of Social and Cultural Anthropology (Chichester 2012).
Müller 2018: C. A. Müller, Perspectives of a Resource History. Actions Practices Regimes. In: I.
Amelung/H. Leppin/C. A. Müller (eds.), Discourses of Weakness and Resource Regimes. Trajectories
of a New Research Program. Discourses of Weakness and Resource Regimes 1 (Frankfurt/Main 2018)
209221.
Ostrom 2009: E. Ostrom, A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems.
Science 325.5939, 2009, 419422.
Sachs/Warner 1999: J. D. Sachs/A. M. Warner, The Big Push, Natural Resource Booms and Growth. Journal
of Development Economics 59, 1999, 4376. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-3878(99)00005-X.
Sachs/Warner 2001: J. D. Sachs/A. M. Warner, The Curse of Natural Resources. European Economic Review
45, 2001, 827838. DOI: 10.1016/S0014-2921(01)00125-8.
Schweizer 2015: B. Schweizer, Sakrale Räume des Mittelmeerraums. Kontexte von Kultur-
kontakten. In: A.-M. Witt ke (ed.), Frühgeschichte der Mittelmeerku lturen, Historisch-
archäologisches Handbuch, Der Neue Pauly. Supplemente 10 (Stuttgart 2015) 923950.
DOI:org/10.1163/2468-3418_dnpo10_COM_009525.
Resources Rede ned 19
Schweizer 2018: B. Schweizer, Dinge in Gräbern. Artefakte als Ressourcen. In: S. Wefers/I. Balzer/M. Aug-
stein/J. Fries-Knoblach (eds.), KunstHandWerk. Beiträge der 26. Tagung der AG Eisenzeit gemeinsam
mit der Keltenwelt am Glauberg und der hessenARCHÄOLOGIE im Landesamt für Denkmalp ege
Hessen in Bad Salzhausen, 3.6. Oktober 2013. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 84
(Langenweißbach 2018) 193205.
Stevenson/Waite 2018: A. Stevenson/M. Waite (eds.), Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford 2018), <http://
www.oed.com/view/Entry/163768?rskey=B1Ou84&result=1&isAdvanced=false#contentWrapper> (last
access 05.08.2018).
Bilow 2013: U. Bilow, Ressourcen. Der Schlüssel zu den Rohstoffen. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 7.12.2013,
<http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/physik-mehr/ressourcen-der-schluessel-zu-den-rohstoffen-
12691978.html> (last access 18.10.2018).
Ruz 2011: C. Ruz, The Six Natural Resources Most Drained by our 7 Billion People. The Guardian
31.10.2011,
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/oct/31/six-natural-resources-population> (last
access 18.10.2018).
Schmitz 2010: T. Schmitz, Machtfaktor Wasser. Süddeutsche Zeitung 17.5.2010,
<https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/ressourcenknappheit-machtfaktor-wasser-1.176609> (last ac-
cess 18.10.2018).
UBA 2018: Umweltbundesamt, Resource Use and its Consequences, <https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/
en/topics/waste-resources/resource-use-its-consequences> (last access 05.10.2018).
Watts 2018: J. Watts, Earths Resources Consumed in Ever Greater Destructive Volumes. The
Guardian 23.7.2018, <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/23/earths-resources-
consumed-in-ever-greater-destructive-volumes> (last access 18.10.2018).
