TBC

No Data Entered

The Eurasian Bronze Age trade of metals has long been recognised as the driving force of the West-East economic network, later known as the Silk Roads. Central to this network was the demand for copper-base items from the rising political leadership of agrarian states and empires and the richness of Eurasian Steppe ore deposits. Previous steppe research often relied on materials that are scarce by nature, like organics, or highly mobile and recyclable, such as metal artefacts, leading to a limited view of steppe communities as relatively homogenous societies that carried objects and genes and simplifying their trade networks with arrows and circles on the map of Eurasia. Preliminary research by PI and colleagues has revealed evidence for an unparalleled scale of exploitation, production and circulation of Bronze Age metals within and beyond the vast grasslands, suggesting that the steppe communities might have been the key drivers of a metal-based and interconnected economy across Eurasia. How and why did Bronze Age steppe metallurgy scale up to unprecedented levels of production and circulation (c. 3500-1000 BC)? Studies exploring patterns of mobility of steppe metals and societies rarely focus on innovation in metal production and its environmental impact. Yet production debris, in particular metallurgical slag, carries fundamental information about complex interactions between environment, metallurgy and society. I will take an original interdisciplinary approach to analyse steppe metal production and plant debris, and to create and predict multi-layered datasets that will feed into high-resolution explanatory models for the evolution, organisation and environmental impact of Eurasian Steppe metallurgy in the context of Eurasian connectedness. Integrated approaches from Archaeology, Geography, Materials, Environmental, Earth and Complexity Sciences and Artificial Intelligence will deliver a paradigm shift in generating new knowledge of Eurasian (pre)history.

With escalating climate impacts, adapting to climate change is an increasingly urgent global priority. The UNFCCC Paris Agreement committed signatory nations to a step change in adaptation finance. This is likely to be accelerated by the 2021 global climate negotiations in Glasgow which are anticipated to usher in a huge increase in international financing for climate change adaptation, with tens of billions of additional dollars committed annually. This significant rise in climate finance is a huge opportunity to prioritise longer-term adaptation in the face of pressing socio-economic challenges. Yet, adaptation investments have not always reduced vulnerability: in some cases they have even led to increased risk, especially for marginalised groups. It is vital this is addressed before the next wave of finance is distributed. Alongside the urgency to act and to scale up adaptation, there is a need to work harder at including marginalised groups and building accountability, both to those affected by climate change and to the international community providing finance. These goals do not always align well, with a risk that accountability and inclusion will be trumped by the demands for rapid and large-scale action. This Fellowship will open a new research agenda on the tensions between urgency and scale, and inclusion and accountability in climate change adaptation, and will generate research, networks and capabilities to increase the effectiveness and equity of new funds. Metrics offer an original lens to analyse these tensions. Metrics are not just neutral measurement tools: they can influence policy and practice, as seen for example in how the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have consolidated a global understanding of extreme poverty. Within adaptation, metrics define what constitutes success in processes and outcomes, who should benefit, and over what timeframe. For example, success might be defined as putting in place a new adaptation policy or increasing awareness of climate impacts within a community. These concepts of success are often defined through international processes, without engagement from national policymakers or marginalised groups. There has now been over a decade of experience of applying adaptation metrics, offering an as-yet unexplored body of empirical evidence; with the coming large increase in adaptation finance now is a crucial juncture to leverage this data, and open metrics up to focused scrutiny. The Fellowship will apply theory rarely used in adaptation research from Science and Technology Studies (STS) to analyse the development and application of adaptation metrics, and their influence on decision-making. This will build understanding of how tensions around accountability are being navigated, and how they might be addressed through new approaches. The Fellowship will also advance STS theory through analysing qualities of adaptation that offer new perspectives, for example, the interactions between international and national finance and policy, the under-explored empirical contexts in the Global South, and the multiple forms of knowledge embedded within adaptation decision-making. This will develop STS theory on how knowledge production influences decision-making across international and national finance and policy and will also be of interest to scholars of public finance and accountability in other fields where funds are rapidly scaled up. The Fellowship will not only advance scientific knowledge but also influence how climate finance is framed, implemented and evaluated to support more effective adaptation. Research will be coproduced through iterative engagement with policymakers and practitioners and will develop and test new approaches to accountability. The Fellowship will convene an international community of practice of academics and practitioners to develop research and policy advances beyond the Fellowship and through which it will offer global leadership on this topic.