Earthquakes and archaeology

This article examines the use of archaeological evidence for the assessment of historical earthquakes in the Eastern Mediterranean region and Middle East, long before the advent of modern seismology. We ask the questions when and where have large earthquakes happened in the past? How can this evidence contribute to our scientific understanding of earthquake activity? Is it possible on literary and archaeological grounds to distinguish between earthquake damage and damage from other causes? It is found that archaeological evidence for an earthquake is not always clear or unambiguous and that there is a need for collaboration between archaeologists, historians, geologists, engineering seismologists and workers in other disciplines, to evaluate the traces of earthquakes in excavations, both for understanding their effects at the site and for the information they can provide about the nature of the earthquake implicated.     

Palaeolithic archaeology and the evolution of mind

This paper reviews recent archaeological studies concerning the evolution of mind. It is structured around four themes: language, intelligence, symbolism, and social learning. It includes reference to recent work in other disciplines that is either having, or likely to have, considerable impact on archaeological thought. The evolution of mind is a highly contentious subject, plagued by problems of definition and lacking an explicit methodology. This paper argues that the two most positive trends of recent work have been greater attempts at interdisciplinary studies and the integration of the study of cognition with that of hominid lifestyles.     

Experimental archaeology and boats

Experimental archaeology has now a definite place in research and the late Paul Johnstone was a pioneer in organizing such experiments especially with boats. In our February issue we published a reconsideration of his experiment, in collaboration with Professor Marstrander, on building a hide boat. We now welcome a discussion by Mr Christensen and Dr Morrison on the recent publication The building and trials of the replica of an ancient boat: the Gokstad faering Part 1. Building the replica by Sean McGrail. 59 pp. 50 figs. Part 2. The sea trials by Eric McKee. 38 pp. 25 figs. National Maritime Museum. Maritime monographs and reports no. 11, 1974. London. Ed .     

Earth science and archaeology

Rapp, George, Jr., and John A. Gifford. eds. Archaeological Geology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. xvii + 435 pp. including figures, chapter references, appendix, and index. $35.00 cloth.

Stein, Julie K., and William R. Farrand, eds. Archaeological Sediments in Context. Orono: University of Maine, Center for the Study of Early Man, Peopling of the Americas Edited Volume Series 1, 1985. xi + 147 pp. including figures, chapter references, and index. $19.00 paper.     

Touchstones of archaeology

European archaeological collections record hundreds of thousands of stone artefacts from the Early Middle Ages described as whetstones. However, traces of non-ferrous metals, including precious metals preserved on a number of such artefacts. Many of the finds served in fact as touchstones – tools to test the quality of a particular metal. These artefacts are concentrated mainly in Vendel and Viking Age and Slavic coastal settlements and trade centres in the Baltic Sea basin, the coast and islands of Northwestern Europe, at Central and Eastern European fortresses and suburbia. Many finds also come from rural settings. In early medieval graves the touchstones join balance scales and weights as a sign of the buried individual’s access to precious metals. Especially the rural finds with traces of precious metal provide a strong reason for a revision of present views on the social stratification of the early medieval society in Europe. Chemical microanalysis allows identifying the composition of the alloys. Besides new perspectives on the fields of the social history and the circulation of precious metals, the method also provides new information for the field of archaeometallurgy.     

Walter Taylor and the history of American archaeology

Walter Taylor’s place in the history of archaeology is well secured. Not only is he noted for his uncredited anticipation of the theoretical and methodological innovations of the 1960s and 1970s in his infamous book A Study of Archeology, but he is also well-known for committing professional suicide by short-sightedly attacking numerous key figures in American archaeology for their methodological shortfalls, and yet never publishing a report utilizing his controversial method. Although these statements have inundated the historical literature on American archaeology, they are received wisdom rather than the reality of Taylor’s contributions to the field. Many aspects of Taylor’s conjunctive approach were at odds with the stated aims of processual archaeology. Although Taylor did not live up to his critics’ (or his own) demands for a grand display of his approach, he did on several occasions demonstrate its potential. The irony of Taylor in the history of archaeology is not that he was uncredited for his prescience or that his attacks on the archaeological establishment were a naïve failure; but rather that he receives too much credit for what he didn’t do, and not enough for what he did.     

Advances in the archaeology of the Pampa and Patagonia

Archaeological data reveal two distinctive cultural adaptations on the Pampa and Patagonia of Argentina: terrestrial hunter-gatherers in the former and most of the latter region and maritime hunter-gatherers along the southern extreme. Both adaptations were achieved by the end of the fifth millennium B.C. Thereafter, a stable equilibrium was maintained, with a slow drift toward greater emphasis on resources providing the maximum return for the least effort. The high productivity of the Fuegian environment sustained a population 30 times greater than occupied the Pampa and continental Patagonia prior to Araucanian penetration in the sixteenth century A.D. The long-term stability is attributable to the absence of environmental or demographic pressures or encroachments by neighboring groups, which might have made more intensive exploitation of the environment necessary.     

Middle-range theory,behavioral archaeology,and postempiricist philosophy of science in archaeology

This paper examines middle-range theory (MRT) within processual and postprocessual archaeology. An analysis of the Binford-Schiffer dispute serves as a means of clarifying what MRT in processual archaeology is or is intended to be. Postprocessualists, despite their vigorous criticisms of MRT-based approaches, are found to rely on the same resources and types of reasoning to make their inferences. In their practice they tacitly turn to processualist middle-range principles, and so the justification of postprocessual interpretations is equivalent to that of MRT-based processualist models. If the middle range is functionally defined — a space within a research program occupied by varying theories that are taken from the body of general theory to which the program is committed and that function as background knowledge in the verification of theories — MRT bridges the epistemological gap between processual and postprocessual approaches.     

Paradigms in science and archaeology

The paradigm concept as developed in western philosophy of science contexts is reviewed, and the metaphysical paradigms that govern research protocols in mainstream Old and New World prehistoric archaeology are described and compared. It is concluded that post-1970 New World archaeological research receives its intellectual mandate from anthropology, is founded on postpositivist biases, and is governed by a critical-realist ontology, a modified-objectivist epistemology, and an experimental-manipulative methodology. Post-1970 Old World archaeological research is viewed as a kind of history, remains mostly in the strict empiricist tradition, and is governed by a realist ontology, an inductivist epistemology, and by an observational methodology. The claims of various kinds of postprocessual archaeology are also evaluated in terms of the paradigm concept.     

Authenticity,antiquity and archaeology

If nationalism shaped the assumptions and methods of archaeology for well over a century, archaeological concepts and practices made a significant contribution to the nationalist ideal of the distinctive, territorial nation. This is partly because nationalism and archaeology shared a belief in the ethnic uniqueness and tangibility of archaeological cultures, and partly because of the influence of key archaeological concepts and practices. The latter included a profound concern with the authenticity of material cultures; the related belief in ethnic rootedness in the historic territory; archaeology's well‐known interest in the antiquity of civilisations; and its use of the stratigraphic method to analyse continuity and change. Aside from these contributions, the archaeological domain provides a repertoire of vivid symbolism in its often spectacular ‘finds’, which have been able to express and embody the nation's unique culture and the intimate nature of the national bond.     

The archaeology of place

It is suggested that if archaeologists are to be successful in understanding the organization of past cultural systems they must understand the organizational relationships among places which were differentially used during the operation of past systems. This point is illustrated by observations made among the Nunamiut Eskimo. Against this background it is demonstrated that the two most common forms of archaeological systematics, “assemblage”- versus “type”-based systematics, are not appropriate for the study of places. In the latter case, it is not possible to analyze places as such, while one cannot see places with different “content” as part of a single system in the former. It is concluded that current archaeological systematics are totally inappropriate for studying past systems of adaptation and their evolutionary modification.