Contributions of GIS and Satellite-based Remote Sensing to Landscape Archaeology in the Middle East

This article explores the coevolution of landscape approaches and geospatial tools in Middle Eastern archaeology. From the first aerial reconnaissance programs, archaeologists recognized the value of a view from above to address overarching human–environmental questions that underpin regional historical narratives. The diversity and density of visible remains in the landscape of the Middle East has required an integrative approach, encompassed in the perspective of landscape as a static artifact, landscape as built features, landscape as a system, and landscape as a dynamic construct, which cuts across modern political boundaries. Recent advances in geospatial tools and datasets have enabled archaeologists to make significant progress on four long-standing questions of how to (1) best document and manage rapidly disappearing ancient landscapes, (2) understand landscape formation processes, (3) identify and interpret economic, environmental, and social influences that result in long-term settlement and land use patterns, and (4) recognize and contextualize the interplay between environment and human agency in the evolution of ancient economies and transformations in socio-organizational complexity.     

Exploring the Archaeology of the Modern City: Issues of Scale,Integration and Complexity

Historical archaeologists have advocated the need to explore the archaeology of the modern city using several different scales or frames of reference—the household and the district being the most common. In this paper, we discuss the value of comparisons at larger scales, for example between cities or countries, as a basis for understanding archaeology of the modern western city. We argue that patterns of similarity and dissimilarity detected at these larger scales can (and should) become part of our interpretive and explanatory armoury, when it comes to understanding patterns and processes at smaller scales. However, we also believe that these larger scale enquiries do not by any means exhaust (or diminish the importance of) the site- or household-specific questions that continue to demand adequate answers. By reporting some of the thinking behind the work that has been done in Melbourne, Sydney and shortly to begin in London, we seek to more clearly establish the value of this broader comparative agenda in urban historical archaeology.     

An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions

This review calls for the definition of a landscape approach in archaeology. After tracing the development of the landscape idea over its history in the social sciences and examining the compatibility between this concept and traditional archaeological practice, we suggest that archaeology is particularly well suited among the social sciences for defining and applying a landscape approach. If archaeologists are to use the landscape paradigm as a pattern which connects human behavior with particular places and times, however, we need a common terminology and methodology to build a construct paradigm. We suggest that settlement ecology, ritual landscapes, and ethnic landscapes will contribute toward the definition of such a broadly encompassing paradigm that also will facilitate dialogue between archaeologists and traditional communities.     

Using provenance data to assess archaeological landscapes: an example from Calabria, Italy

Ceramic provenance studies have helped archaeologists examine trade and exchange in multiple scales, the organization of production, and even vessel function. Yet, they may go even further, to provide a venue for the examination of past people’s perception of their landscape. To do so, a methodology is needed that links the choices prehistoric potters made, as reflected in their ceramics, with the choices their landscape could afford them, as reflected in the extent and distribution of local clays, and the physical, chemical and mineralogical characteristics of these clays. Using the region of Bova Marina in southwestern Calabria as a case study, we have combined a raw materials survey with field and laboratory experiments, along with chemical and mineralogical analyses of the collected sediments to understand the distribution and the physical, chemical and mineralogical variability of locally available clays and provide baseline data against which prehistoric ceramic materials from the region may be compared. We show that the local sediments can be divided into three major units, based on their macroscopic, mineralogical and chemical characteristics, that correspond well with the major geological units outcropping in the study area. While two of these units have internally consistent properties, the third is variable.     

Archaeological Ethnography,Heritage Management,and Community Archaeology: A Pragmatic Approach from Crete

This article examines the introduction of archaeological ethnography as an approach to establish positioned research and bring context-specific and reflexive considerations into community archaeology projects. It considers recent critiques of heritage management in archaeology and the role of archaeologists as experts in it, contending that smaller and less prominent sites exist in different contexts and pose different problems than large-scale projects usually addressed in the literature. We describe how the ‘Three Peak Sanctuaries of Central Crete’ project, investigating prehistoric Minoan ritual sites, involves communities and stakeholders and what demands the latter pose on experts in the field. Archaeological work is always already implicated in local development projects which create and reproduce power hierarchies. It is therefore important that archaeologists maintain their critical distance from official heritage discourses, as they are materialized in development programmes, while at the same time engaging with local expectations and power struggles; they also have to critically address and position their own assumptions. We use examples from our community archaeology project to propose that these goals can be reached through archaeological ethnographic fieldwork that should precede any archaeological project to inform its methodological decisions, engage stakeholders, and collaboratively shape heritage management strategies.     

Northern Iroquoian Ethnic Evolution: A Social Network Analysis

Ethnicity is one kind of social relationship that archaeologists explore. The evolution of the northern Iroquoian ethnic landscape in New York, southern Ontario, and the St. Lawrence Valley has been of long-standing interest to archaeologists. Since MacNeish’s (1952) pottery typology study, the predominant model for this evolution has been cladistic. Collar decoration served as a means of signaling attributes of the potter and pottery users that mirrored other more visible signals. We use social network analysis to determine whether pottery collar decoration data best fit MacNiesh’s cladistic or an alternative rhizotic model. The results better fit the rhizotic model.     

Order in movement: a GIS approach to accessibility

The aim of this paper is to extend the range of current analytical procedures that archaeologists use to understand movement. In particular, how a landscape becomes ordered by simply defining a destination. More specifically, this study proposes the derivation of a focal mobility network, i.e. the network of most likely paths towards a given destination, and explores several of its applications within a landscape archaeology framework. The suggested extensions are based on existing standard procedures within most GIS. A series of synthetic control surfaces and an archaeological study focused around Iron Age hillforts in Galicia (NW Spain) are used as case studies to illustrate different analytical possibilities.     

Monuments in the Desert: A Maritime Landscape in Namibia

Eduard Bohlen II, wrecked in 1909 on the coast of Namibia in Africa, has an illustrious history, which is part of a larger maritime cultural landscape linked to the diamond mining industry. The ship, like many artifacts and sites, served many different purposes over time and the historical and archaeological record incorporates different levels of meaning, some of which may be nationally divisive or reconciliatory. The role of historical archaeologists is not only to document, interpret, preserve and manage grandiose elements of heritage that evoke stakeholder nationalism, but also to explore the mundane, unsavory aspects of the historical narrative. In 2010, a team from the Program in Maritime Studies of East Carolina University supported by the Maritime Archaeology Division of the Windhoek Underwater Club investigated a surf boat, diamond mining settlement and some of the remaining structure of Eduard Bohlen II, while posing mitigation and management questions about legacy of historical memory within Skeleton Coast Park.     

The Origins and Ethics of Maritime Archaeology – Part I

Abstract

For archaeologists, the principal value of prehistoric figurines is that they offer a means – however limited – into the cultures and lives of prehistoric peoples. There is a long tradition of archaeologists assuming that the figurines they unearth had a religious significance for the people who created them (since anthropomorphic figurines have a religious use in many cultures with which we are familiar). However, just as archaeologists began questioning their attribution of divine status to prehistoric figurines in the 1960s, practitioners of neopagan and goddess spiritualities – particularly those in the feminist spirituality movement – were adopting it. Moreover, in addition to describing prehistoric figurines as images of a Great Goddess who dominated prehistoric religious life, these contemporary feminist neopagans use reproductions of prehistoric figurines to inspire and enact their own spirituality. Feminist neopagan appropriation of prehistoric figurines has been problematic for many archaeologists, who quarrel – legitimately – with the conclusions feminist neopagans make about prehistory based on these artefacts. Yet, as this article argues, the contemporary religious use of prehistoric figurines should not be a matter for archaeologists to decide.     

Storied landscapes makes us (Modern) Human: Landscape socialisation in the Palaeolithic and consequences for the archaeological record

The unusual nature of the Neanderthal archaeological record has attracted the attention of archaeologists for the past 150 years. On the one hand, the technical skill apparent in their lithic technology, the practice of symbolic cultural behaviours (such as burials), and their successful survival in harsh environmental conditions for more than 200,000 years demonstrate the adaptive success and underlying humanity of the Neanderthal populations. On the other hand, the apparent lack of abundant and repeated use of symbolic material culture has resulted in a number of researchers arguing that these populations were largely incapable of symbolism – a conclusion with significant implications for social organisation. This paper reviews ideas regarding the use of ‘place’ or ‘landscape’ by Neanderthals and argues that the identified differences between the archaeological records of Neanderthals and late Pleistocene Modern Humans is not so much the result of significant variance in cognitive capacities, but rather the use of contrasting approaches to interaction with the physical landscape. ‘Landscape socialisation’ is a Modern Human universal, but what if Neanderthals did not participate in this kind of landscape interaction? Would this difference in behaviour result in the apparently contradictory archaeological record which has been created? The ideas presented in this paper are drawn together as a hypothesis to be developed and tested.     

Assessing Methodologies in Archaeological Ethnography: A Case for Incorporating Ethnographic Training in Graduate Archaeology Curricula

Abstract

Archaeologists have increasingly turned to ethnography as a tool for understanding the contemporary social context of material culture, archaeological practice, and ‘de-colonizing’ archaeology. Furthermore, ethnographers have turned their analysis to the practice of archaeology, providing insights into key ethical dilemmas. This work has produced signi?cant dialogue, demonstrating the potential for research and collaboration at the interface of two sub-disciplines. However, much of the research to date has relied on a limited range of ethnographic methods. We suggest that archaeologists working in this area would bene?t from using a wider repertoire of ethnographic data collection tools and ethics training opportunities. We advocate for greater collaboration between archaeologists and ethnographers and provide suggestions on methods that are well-suited for use in archaeological practice. In the long term, the most effective and far-reaching solution may be to incorporate ethnographic methods training as fundamental to graduate programmes in archaeology.     

The development of the agrarian landscape on gotland during the early iron age

The author discusses the investigations on prehistoric agrarian landscape recently started on the island of Gotland. Main attention is focused on traces of deserted (fossilised) fields. Systematic reconnaissance in 1972–73 all over the island has brought forth a quite new material with ‘Celtic fields’ of a very great size and regional extent. The reconnaissance and regional mapping are mainly carried out by aerial photography.

Through the field work, which started in 1973 at Uggårde‐Vinarve in Rone parish, it has been possible to demonstrate a continuous field system to a total extent of about 130 hectares (325 acres). This field pattern is superimposed by a new agrarian landscape structure with building remains and stone wall fencing systems as the dominating features. The two stratigraphically separated structures of agrarian landscape put into an agrarian economic context indicate a development from extensive farming with long fallow periods to intensive farming with established land‐use (arable, meadow, and grazing) on smaller areas than formerly. A rough dating of the two structures gives 500 — 100 B. C. and 100 B. C. ‐ A. D. 500 respectively.

The investigations carried on by geographers and archaeologists in collaboration with Quaternary geologists are included in a research project by the Swedish Council for Social Science Research.     

Working Borders: The Contexts of Copán Archaeology

The work of archaeologists and the knowledge they produce both help create, and are conditioned by, a variety of kinds of borders, including political, academic, and cultural. In this article I review a series of borders that shape and determine the social conditions in which archaeology at the well-known site of Copán in western Honduras takes place and takes on meaning. I argue that the histories of these borders, their construction, and their crossings reveal structural tensions in the overlapping registers of academia, public history and popular discourse, in which archaeological knowledge circulates. These histories must be consciously interrogated in order to be negotiated. I suggest that by becoming fluent in the cultural conversations ongoing in a place, archaeologists are best able to begin productive collaborations and make informed choices about how they participate in the border-making processes of their work.     

Why Didn’t Agriculture Develop in Japan? A Consideration of Jomon Ecological Style,Niche Construction,and the Origins of Domestication.

Over the course of some 12,000 years, Jomon cultures developed a highly refined adjustment to the Japanese landscape. Japanese archaeologists have exposed Jomon culture in great detail, but because it rested on wild resources, the Jomon era attracts little worldwide archaeological interest. This paper discusses Jomon ecological style in light of niche construction theory to consider the conditions that gave rise to agriculture and domestication. Jomon communities clearly managed much of their landscape and many plant and animal populations. Drawing on ideas from niche construction theory, we argue that qualities of potential domesticates are a central factor in the development of agriculture.     

The Cunning Means of Domination

This discussion started on the WAC listserv when I objected on 8 April 2007 to a short message sent by Claire Smith on the previous day. She had been announcing that her colleague “Heather Burke and [are] putting together a list of important non-Anglo archaeologists” and was asking whether “anyone has any recommendations” for that list and, if so, whether they would email her off list. I objected strongly. This paper explains why. In doing so I am describing the degree of complexity language use has acquired in the contemporary world with old linguistic maps quickly become obsolete. To insist that English is simply the lingua franca of academic discourse is to ignore that complexity. The wide use of English as an academic lingua franca means in practice that there are very strong asymmetries not only in individual archaeologists’ abilities to express themselves competently and confidently in that language but also in what is considered appropriate or possible to express. For a language is not simply a random code with which anything might be said to anybody. Language, and the conventions that govern how a given language is to be applied, influences to a large extent even what is a sensible thing to say in a given context. Language use in archaeology is not about translating the same archaeology into different languages but about translating between different archaeologies and associated cultural practices including languages. The only sensible way forward is for WAC to promote among its members the learning of more languages—which is something the vast majority of “non-Anglo” archaeologists already knows and accepts as a fact of life. We do not need lists of “non-Anglo” archaeologists that are considered worth reading about in English, but more archaeologists being able to appreciate the work of colleagues in its original language. In conclusion I urge exclusively Anglophone archaeologists to please stop finding excuses for learning foreign languages.     

Archaeology’s quest for a seat at the high table of anthropology

Between 1900 and 1970, American archaeologists perceived themselves as second-class anthropologists because the archaeological record suggested little not already known ethnographically, archaeology served anthropology by testing ethnologically derived models of cultural evolution, the archaeological record was ethnologically incomplete as a result of poor preservation, and archaeologists used but did not write anthropological theory. Ethnologists of the period agreed with these points and regularly reminded archaeologists of their limited role in anthropology. A few archaeologists claimed in the 1950s that archaeology could contribute to anthropological theory but they were ignored. The claim was reiterated by new archaeologists of the 1960s, and by the 1970s worries about the poor preservation of the archaeological record had softened. However, most archaeologists after 1970 (and before 1990) used anthropological theory and did not write new theory on the basis of archaeological data. The root cause of American archaeology’s ninety-year absence from anthropology’s high table of theory seems to be the discipline-wide retention of the ninety-year old belief that archaeology is prehistoric ethnology and the (unnecessary and constraining) corollary that archaeologists must use anthropological theory to explain the archaeological record.     

Integrating pedological and geophysical methods to enhance the informative value of an archaeological prospection – The example of a Roman villa rustica near Regensburg,Germany

Geophysical prospection techniques are widely used to visualize the buried past. Various methods such as magnetometry, electric resistance mapping and electric resistivity tomography and ground penetrating radar yield different results. The use of all three techniques in combination with aerial photography interpretation and pedological mapping is highly effective, but it requires a multi-layer approach. This paper presents such a multi-layer approach carried out at a site with buried remnants of a Roman villa rustica in southern Germany. The integration of the various results into a geographical information system leads to a geocodation of all outcomes and a final archaeological interpretation. Several buildings in different states of preservation, different kinds of ground floors both with and without hypocausts, perimeter walls and kilns could all be detected. The soil mapping results helped in the geophysical interpretation by outsourcing soil erosion and accumulation areas. It is shown that none of the employed methods could have supplied all the compiled information on their own, and the strengths and weaknesses of each method is discussed in order to point out the implications for archaeologists.     

Airborne lidar survey of irrigated agricultural landscapes: an application of the slope contrast method

Irrigated agriculture was central to the economies of many of the world’s best known complex societies. New high-resolution digital elevation models (DEM) derived from remotely sensed lidar data give archaeologists the opportunity to study field systems at a scale not previously possible. Here we describe a method called slope contrast mapping that takes advantage of the dissimilarity between artificial and natural slopes to identify and map discrete features. We use this relatively simple method in our own research to identify complexes of agricultural terraces in the North Kohala district, Hawai’i Island. It has also proved useful for mapping the natural landscape, specifically the extent of flat land between valleys suited for irrigated agriculture.     

Early Medieval Settlement and Social Power: The Middle Anglo-Saxon ‘Home Farm’

THE LAST TWO DECADES have witnessed a marked rise in middle Anglo-Saxon settlement research, as archaeologists have become increasingly aware of the way in which this transformative period in English history can be recognised through habitation sites. Though a period during which individuals and institutions seemingly wielded unprecedented new power, archaeologists have struggled to identify many of the processes or ‘motors’ by which such authority was articulated in the landscape. This paper concerns itself with understanding one such driver, demonstrating how early medieval kings shifted power from tribute-orientated regimes to ones rooted in agricultural exploitation. The Church was fundamental to this shift in authority, and was used as a means of consolidating new power relations. In order to sustain more permanent clerical communities, the Church developed core agricultural areas surrounding their centres, known as inland, upon which were established early types of ‘home farm’. In addition to their functional purpose middle Anglo-Saxon ‘home farms’ were subject to exceptionally high degrees of spatial ordering. Such definition of settlement space, which now included property plots and houses defined by boundaries of unprecedented permanence, allowed elites to shape and consolidate perceptions of social order in the landscape. Power was now being materialised, not only through agricultural production but also through the lived experience of rural communities, as a social hierarchy which considered the place of kings as divinely appointed became firmly established.     

The Production and Exchange of Marine Shell Prestige Goods

Marine shell ornaments have several characteristics that make them significant for archaeological analysis. Made from a raw material valued by cultures throughout the world and imbued with water, life, health, and fertility symbolism, shell objects have functioned as prestige goods. Shell prestige goods circulated between individuals, groups, and societies and materialized interpersonal relationships, making them valuable for archaeologists shifting focus from objects to the people in past societies. Shell ornaments had multiple roles, including ornamentation, wealth, marking status, and as ritual paraphernalia, and had varying symbolic associations even within a society. The rich ethnographic literature on shell use provides a source for archaeological model building. Marine shell artifacts often moved between societies and across long distances, offering a way for archaeologists to explore regional relationships and the interactions between ancient societies. To do this requires using several scales of analysis to investigate archaeological residues of a system that includes marine shell ornaments, the social organization of their production and exchange, and the people who made, displayed, and circulated them.