Fig 1.
The Escalation–De-escalation Pyramid (E–D Pyramid).
Table 1.
Examples of indicators at different levels of the E–D Pyramid.
Table 2.
Guidelines for assigning confidence scores (CS): Five equi-distant points on a scale from 0 to 1 and their interpretation.
Fig 2.
Symbolization conventions from pyramid to timelines.
A-O are indicators occupying all the different cells of the pyramid.
Fig 3.
Aoristic distribution of weapons (sword, lance, arrowhead), cooking stone pits and deposition finds in Schleswig-Holstein during the Bronze Age.
(After [58]).
Fig 4.
Approximate chronology of the indicators described in the Schleswig-Holstein case study.
Fig 5.
Upper panel: Aoristic distribution of weapons (sword, lance, arrowhead) and fortified settlements in Poland during the Bronze and Early Iron Age. (After [58]). Lower panel: General sum calibration of 14C-dates for fortified sites. (After [90]).
Fig 6.
Aoristic distribution of the different context of the weapon finds in Poland.
Fig 7.
Approximate chronology of the indicators described in the Poland case study.
Fig 8.
Approximate chronology of the indicators described in the Crete case study.
Since precise dating is often challenging, absolute chronologies must be considered tentative. The dynamics of developments at different sites vary, for instance with a certain degree of continuity observed at Phaistos [124], in contrast to a more abrupt change, perhaps following a horizon of destruction, at Mallia [125]. Furthermore, the onset of the Protopalatial period differs from site to site, with ranges spanning several centuries from the palace’s foundations dating to the MM IA period or even the EM III at Knossos and Mallia, while they date to the MM IIA at Petras.
Fig 9.
Approximate chronology of the indicators described in the Sambia case study.
Fig 10.
Approximate chronology of the indicators described in the Rome case study.
Table 3.
Tariff zones in Tiberian times according to [177].
Fig 11.
Historically evidenced concept of trade in the Roman Empire showing the economic parameters in place for Italy on the left side and all other regions on the right side.
Fig 12.
Hedeby at the inner end of the Schlei-Fjord.
Fig 13.
Approximate chronology of the indicators described in the Hedeby case study.
For three of the indicators dates are not available, thus no timelines are shown in these cases.
Fig 14.
Approximate chronology of the indicators described in the Rus’ case study.
Fig 15.
Approximate chronology of the indicators described in the Teutonic Order case study.
Fig 16.
Approximate chronology of the indicators described in the Bohemia case study.
Fig 17.
Approximate chronology of the indicators described in the Volga Germans case study.
Fig 18.
Rounded values of mean normalized time spans in the different pyramid cells.
Fig 19.
a-j. Conflict fingerprints based on medians for the different case studies.
Fig 20.
Weighted means of escalation and de-escalation cells plotted against each other.
Fig 21.
Spearman correlations between median confidence scores in pyramid cells and escalation and de-escalation levels, respectively.
The red lines separate the four major regions of the plot.
Table 4.
Truth table for p → q and distribution of combinations of clines of confidence scores in the vertical dimension of the E–D Pyramid.