News

Publication date: Available online 22 May 2017Source:Journal of Archaeological Science Author(s): Heather Richards-RissettoUntil recently Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have held center stage in the archaeologist’s geospatial toolkit, and there is no doubt that archaeologists have moved beyond the map—but into what? In the early years, criticisms voicing GIS as environmentally-deterministic were abundant. What methods and tool have archaeologists used to overcome these criticisms? New geospatial technologies such as airborne lidar and aerial photogrammetry are allowing us to acquire inordinate amounts of georeferenced 3D data— but do these 3D technologies help overcome criticisms of environmental determinism? Together—GIS + 3D— can link georeferenced 3D models to underlying data adding a ground-based humanistic perspective lacking in the bird’s eye view of traditional GIS. This paper situates GIS and 3D within a semiotic framework to offer some ideas on using 3DGIS to intertwine environmental and cultural factors to work toward new approaches for landscape archaeology.

Publication date: Available online 22 May 2017Source:Journal of Archaeological Science Author(s): Mark GillingsSince the widespread adoption of GIS by archaeologists in the early 1990s, analyses of visibility have steadily gained traction, becoming commonplace in landscape and regional analysis. This is in large part due to the routine way in which such products can be generated, bolstered by a raft of landscape-based studies that have placed varying degrees of emphasis upon human perception and direct bodily engagement in seeking to understand and explore the past. Despite this seeming popularity, two worrying trends stand out. The first is the lack of any coherent theoretical framework, applications preferring instead to seek justification in the very first wave of experiential landscape approaches that emerged in the early 1990s. Needless to say, the intervening 20 or so years have seen considerable development in the conceptual tools we draw upon in order to make sense of past landscapes, not to mention considerable finessing of the first-wave developments alluded to above. Second is the tendency to relegate viewshed analysis to certain types of predictable problem or question (i.e. viewshed analysis has become typecast). These trends have been compounded by a host of other issues. For example, whilst there have been refinements, tweaks and variations to the basic viewshed (and the frequency with which they are generated and combined), not to mention establishment of robust calibration criteria for controlling them and statistical approaches for assessing the patterns tendered, these have yet to be brought together in any coherent fashion and their veracity critically assessed. Likewise, a failure to establish an agreed vocabulary has resulted in a number of proverbial wheels being reinvented time and again. The argument presented here is that viewsheds have considerably more to offer archaeology but to realise this entails confronting these issues head on. That this is possible and desirable is illustrated through discussion of a new theoretical framework for visibility-studies that draws upon developments in assemblage theory and the author’s own work on affordance and relationality. To demonstrate the value of this approach in encouraging different ways of thinking about what viewsheds are and how we might begin to draw creatively upon them, a case-study is described where viewsheds are folded into a detailed exploration of landscape liminality.

Publication date: Available online 22 May 2017Source:Journal of Archaeological Science Author(s): Marieka Brouwer BurgWhile the benefits of GIS are widely touted among archaeologists today, less attention has been paid to the potential pitfalls and drawbacks of this undeniably important methodological tool. One of the greatest challenges of geospatial modeling is unbalanced data: due to the nature of the archaeological record, we can never assume that the remnants of past behavioral processes we are working with constitute a fully representative sample. Rather, our datasets are reflective of differential social and natural preservation conditions, as well as research biases. Most regional geospatial studies must collate diverse data collected over decades by researchers with varying backgrounds and goals, using assorted spatial scales and levels of technological sophistication. Such factors contribute substantial uncertainty to our models, uncertainty that should be recognized, quantified, and mitigated. If GIS techniques are to continue shifting the way we conduct archaeology and improve our abilities to answer questions regarding past behavior, then we must question the infallibility of GIS as a methodological tool and direct more attention toward developing robust geospatial applications that can meet the idiosyncratic needs of archaeological analysis. This paper explores one example of how such uncertainty investigation can be conducted.

Publication date: Available online 19 May 2017Source:Journal of Archaeological Science Author(s): Tiffany Earley-SpadoniGeospatial technologies are transforming the practice of the Digital Humanities, and these developments have direct relevance to the practice of scientifically oriented archaeology. The most recent “spatial turn” among digital humanists can be attributed to both the prevalence of tools like ArcGIS that facilitate such investigations as well as an interdisciplinary convergence upon theoretical models that conceive of socially constructed space. This article will briefly review the current state-of-the-art in the field of Spatial History as well as discuss a number of emerging trends such as deep mapping, digital storytelling and data visualization, utilizing examples from a variety of applications. Moreover, archaeologists can benefit from the substantial investments by the academy in the Digital Humanities, particularly in the United States and Canada. In sum, the article proposes that the scope of archaeological applications of geospatial technologies would be productively broadened through an increased engagement with the Digital Humanities.

Publication date: Available online 17 May 2017Source:Journal of Archaeological Science Author(s): Eric E. JonesOver 30 years ago, Kintigh and Ammerman (1982) outlined and applied a heuristic approach to spatial archaeology that balanced quantitative analyses and culturally and historically contextualized archaeology. The theoretical and methodological messages were that we need to do more than “eyeball” spatial patterns, we need to apply the proper analyses based on the characteristics of our datasets, and we need to ensure that our models, quantitative analyses, and resulting interpretations are based in the proper cultural and historical contexts. My goal in this paper is to examine how two of the concepts in this approach, significance and context, apply to a modern spatial archaeology that heavily utilizes geospatial computing tools. Although these tools help to solve several concerns that existed in the field 30 years ago, they can also cause others, such as mistaking autocorrelation for correlation or confusion about which of the multitude of available analytical tools is appropriate for particular questions and datasets. In this paper, I present a simplified version of the methodology I have used to address these concerns. I use archaeological, historical, and GIS-modeled data to compare the regional patterning of hierarchical and egalitarian societies in southeastern North America to examine why hierarchical sociopolitical organizations may have arose where they did. I end with a critical review of this approach and a discussion of how such research can be improved moving forward.

Publication date: Available online 18 May 2017Source:Journal of Archaeological Science Author(s): Thomas G. WhitleyIn the more than 25 years since Allen et al. (1990), GIS and other kinds of geospatial analysis have become tools used almost as ubiquitously in archaeology as the trowel and the total station. However, can we consider it a “paradigm-shifter?” One fundamental distinction between archaeology and other scientific pursuits is the lack of a formal experimental procedure for testing large-scale hypotheses. We can experiment with some material culture methods or archaeological ‘models’ on a 1:1 analogue scale, but we rarely examine ideas about larger mechanisms; particularly those that encompass wide geographic areas in a formal experimental way. Geospatial technologies give us new tools and abilities to recognize patterns in archaeological sites and landscapes. Nevertheless, have they truly changed the way we make the transition from material remains to interpreting human behavior? We tend to present geospatial research that is either descriptive or methodological in nature rather than interpretive or explanatory. What is missing is the recognition that the ‘patterns’ we can see are an incomplete and abstract product of past human agency or behavior that cannot be worked backwards from, but must be envisioned as mechanisms in action. Within a mechanistic framework, we can experiment with archaeological research questions in much greater depth and detail, in a manner more akin to psychology than the ‘harder’ sciences. Although these techniques bring with them some theoretical assumptions and methodological challenges, their outcomes can provide logical and convincing visualizations of dynamic phenomena in enlightening ways. Presented here are several brief examples.

Publication date: Available online 16 May 2017Source:Journal of Archaeological Science Author(s): Meghan C.L. Howey, Marieka Brouwer BurgThe early pioneers of archaeological Geographic Information Systems (GIS) advocated for a future where this technology was more than a data-management tool. To this end, they emphasized harnessing the analytic power of GIS to advance innovative understandings of past social landscapes. This paper introduces the special issue, explaining its aims to offer a current assessment of how this vision has been realized. Three themes related to both persistent questions and emergent horizons in archaeological GIS are explored in the context of the contributions. We present our own set of ideas for how to unbind our analyses from some of the methodological and conceptual constraints inherent in the analytic GIS approaches on which we have long relied to explore past landscapes. We argue it is important to keep moving beyond analytic approaches tethered to discrete points, to push forward geospatial modeling of cultural processes across entire landscapes, and to incorporate uncertainty and iteration directly into our work. Through such efforts, we can develop robust insights into the ways past communities considered, reconfigured, and renewed patterns of social, economic, and ideological interaction, flow, and circulation through the variegated landscapes they inhabited. In doing this, we will get closer to realizing the ambitious vision early pioneers had for archaeological GIS – a technology they believed could let us ask entirely new questions about the past.

Publication date: June 2017Source:Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 82 Author(s): Lidar Sapir-Hen, Ilan Sharon, Ayelet Gilboa, Tamar DayanThe understanding that fine mesh sieving is the optimal procedure for the recovery of minute finds poses two challenges for archeologists of historical periods: it is costly and time consuming, and it puts into question the value of data collected in excavations where sieving was conducted minimally or not at all. That hand picking causes loss of data pertaining to microfaunal remains is indisputable, but the extent of information loss regarding larger fauna is not as clear. In order to evaluate these challenges for macrofaunal remains, we carried out, for the first time, a comprehensive sieving experiment at Tel Dor, a multi-layered complex site, the most prominent site type in historical periods. We examine the effects of wet sieving on the macro- and microfauna frequencies, and discuss its implications in terms of the interpretations of the faunal assemblages and the choice of excavations’ collection protocols. We demonstrate that while sieving has a substantial effect on microfauna frequencies, it has a limited effect on those of the macrofauna. We also suggest that faunal assemblages of livestock animals that were hand collected or partially sieved, are valid for comparison with sieved assemblages. Finally, we call for an explicit presentation of the retrieval protocol in site reports and other studies, differentiating clearly between sieved and un-sieved material, and raise some points for future discussion.

Publication date: June 2017Source:Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 82 Author(s): Marcel Burger, Reto Glaus, Vera Hubert, Samuel van Willigen, Marie Wörle-Soares, Fabien Convertini, Philippe Lefranc, Ebbe Nielsen, Detlef GüntherElemental analyses using laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICPMS) have great potential in archaeometric research due to the quasi-nondestructive sampling and excellent sensitivity of the method. However, the application of LA-ICPMS in cultural heritage research is often limited because samples are too large to fit within an ablation cell or cannot be moved to the laboratory. This work reports the development of analytical routines that allow trace element quantification in ancient copper artifacts regardless their mobility, size or geometry.In this study, the LA sampling step was performed in ambient air using a portable laser ablation device (pLA). The LA module was placed on the object of interest and the laser-generated aerosol was either directly transferred into the ICPMS via a large-capacity gas exchange device (GED) or collected on polycarbonate membrane filters, which were later analyzed by LA-ICPMS. The analytical performances of both approaches were assessed using various copper reference materials. The laboratory-based, ablation-cell-independent pLA-GED-ICPMS method, yielded accuracies comparable to those obtained via conventional LA-ICPMS (±10%). Good performances (±30%) were also obtained with the pLA + filter sampling approach and subsequent LA-ICPMS analysis. Limits of detection for both approaches were in the low μg/g or sub- μg/g range, making these methods interesting for trace element analysis.After validating these laser-based techniques on an ancient copper object whose elemental composition had previously been determined by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy (GFAAS), five Neolithic copper artifacts found in Switzerland and France were analyzed using the pLA + filter sampling approach. A copper dagger found in Lattrigen, Switzerland was analyzed using the pLA-GED-ICPMS method. Furthermore, the laser-induced sample damage was investigated.The trace element profiles of the objects under investigation were compared to those of well-characterized copper artifacts. Thus, the chronological and cultural background of these artifacts could be determined. One group of copper artifacts showed high arsenic concentrations (up to 1% [w/w]) and could be attributed to “Mondsee copper”, which was particularly common in the eastern Alps during the Middle European Late Neolithic. Other objects under investigation showed trace element concentrations, which are typical for the Late Neolithic north of the Alps. One artifact had a composition typical for objects from the Late Neolithic of Southern France.

Publication date: June 2017Source:Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 82 Author(s): Vince Van Thienen, Sylvia LyckeThe diachronic development of the crossbow brooch was examined for northern Gaul during the Late Roman period (3rd to 5th century) in order to extrapolate changes in production organisation from variation in the copper-alloy composition and shape of the artefacts. A combined method of surface analysis by handheld XRF and dimensional analyses by focussing on variation or similarity was applied and interpreted in a typological framework to confirm and enhance the traditional production model of the crossbow brooch. This led to new insights into the processes of regionality and state-control in Roman metal production in a provincial context. From a simple military commodity to an elite symbol of power and authority, these changes in production and consumption reflect sociocultural changes in the Late Roman West.