Anglo-American Archaeology Research Articles

Archaeology and Human–Animal Relations: Thinking Through Anthropocentrism

Archaeology is a field of research that relies largely on the remains of past humans and nonhuman animals and the traces of their interactions within a range of material conditions. In archaeology, as in sociocultural anthropology, the dominant analytical perspective on human–animal relations is ontologically anthropocentric: the study of the human use of nonhuman animals for the benefit of human beings, and scholarly inquiry that is largely for the sake of elucidating what nonhuman animals can tell us about the human condition. This review outlines the historical trajectory of Anglo-American archaeology's encounters with animal remains, and human–animal interactions, within this framework and considers recent attempts to move beyond anthropocentrism.

Demographic Continuities and Discontinuities in Neolithic Europe: Evidence, Methods and Implications

Observations of continuities and discontinuities in the archaeological record depend in important ways on the spatial and temporal scale at which we make the observations, which are in turn affected by the observational tools we have available. Nowhere is this more important than in matters of chronological resolution and its impact on our sense of stability and change. But theoretical considerations are also relevant and specific theoretical positions and observational tools tend to go together. A variety of new methods have made it possible to attain levels of chronological resolution not previously accessible and also to obtain information about aspects of past societies that were not previously available, such as the genetic make-up of their members. These developments have undermined the long-standing view in Anglo-American archaeology that change is gradual and autonomous and are leading to a view of the past that is much more dynamic. The implications of these new developments are examined in relation to the demographic patterns of the European Neolithic. It is argued that demographic fluctuations—‘boom-bust’ patterns—play a key role in accounting for patterns of cultural change over the course of the Neolithic and that a variety of methods can inform on them, including the use of summed radiocarbon probability distributions, which have the advantage that the information to construct them is very widely available. Given the speed with which demographic processes operate, it is important that the temporal resolution of our methods is sufficient to characterise the patterns that result from them. While the demographic patterns are becoming clearer, much more work needs to be done to understand the cultural, social and economic processes at work following regional collapse in populations, where this does not simply lead to reoccupation by new groups from elsewhere.

Shell midden archaeology in Japan: Aquatic food acquisition and long-term change in the Jomon culture

This paper reviews recent progress of Japanese shell midden archaeology and discusses how the information from shell middens can help answer some of the key questions in anthropological archaeology today. Over the past several decades, shell midden archaeology in Japan has made significant advances both in terms of theory and method. Active interaction with Japanese and Anglo-American archaeology has resulted in the development of new theoretical approaches, including environmental archaeology, zooarchaeology, and hunter-gatherer archaeology. Methodologically, the adoption of the flotation and water-screening methods has enabled archaeologists to collect quantitative data of faunal assemblages, and sometimes of floral assemblages as well. The dense distribution of shell middens in northeastern Japan and its changes through time are closely related to the regional and temporal variability of the prehistoric Jomon culture (ca. 14,000–500 BC). In this article, shell middens from four regions of Japan are examined: 1) Tohoku, 2) Kanto, 3) Chubu, and 4) Western Japan. The final section of this paper discusses the implications of regional and temporal variability observed among these shell middens.

A decade of debate

The present issue marks the tenth birthday of Archaeological dialogues as an international academic journal. What once began as an English-language periodical established by a small group of Dutch graduate students has now evolved into a leading international journal for debating interpretative, theoretical, methodological, historical and political issues in archaeology. This development has taken us as much by surprise as it has far exceeded original intentions and expectations. When the journal was set up in Leiden in the early 1990s, the key aim of Archaeological dialogues was to promote and, indeed, provoke theoretical discussion in Dutch archaeology. Inspired by the fascinating theoretical developments in Anglo-American archaeology and anthropology of that time, the editors sought to reconcile these exciting new ideas with the long-standing empirical traditions of continental European archaeology. This ambition was readily evident from the subtitle that was carried on the cover for the first four years: ‘Dutch perspectives on current issues in archaeology’.

Archaeology: the loss of isolation

It is interesting to reflect that only nine years separate David Clarke’s paper ‘Archaeology: the loss of innocence’ and the publication of Symbolic and structural archaeology (Hodder 1982), which may be taken to mark the beginning of a ‘post-processual’ archaeology. Many of the ideas put forward in that book were being discussed and developed at Cambridge from around 1978. David’s paper, and its publication in ANTIQUITY, may be taken as representing the highwater mark of ‘new’ or processual archaeology in the academy. Almost as soon as the ideas had been presented, and not really very well developed in the practice of doing archaeology, they were under fire and being replaced. Yet David was still attacking ‘traditional’ archaeology, fighting for his own position in the 1973 paper, and putting foward an agenda for the future of archaeology. It was a manifesto for future work. New Archaeology was then 11 years old and had already achieved a certain hegemony in Anglo-American archaeology, at least among younger academics more interested in ideas than recovering and describing evidence. In 1998 what is labelled ‘post-processual’ archaeology differs fundamentally from many of the ideas presented in the Hodder volume and it is doubtful whether anyone would still wish to follow David’s agenda or advocate early ‘post-processual’ ideas. The pace of thinking has inexorably heated up. Both David’s paper and the Hodder book are now primarily of historical interest in the development of a disciplinary consciousness in which archaeology is becoming increasingly self-reflexive, critically interrogating its intellectual presuppositions, procedures and practices.

Relativism, Politics and Debate

Firstly, we would like to extend our thanks to the editorsof Archaeological Dialoguesand those authors who took the trouble to consider our article and write their responses to it. This discussion is a welcome extension to the workshop we had in Lampeter, and represents the open debate and pluralism which we believe is vital for an active and self-critical discipline. In this reply we would like to concentrate mainly on substantive issues raised by the respondents, rather than engage in point-scoring against individual participants. Nonetheless, there are a number of what we feel are mis-readings or mis-representations of our original article, which in themselves may be symptomatic of the type of ‘debate’ which has unfortunately characterised much of the discussion of recent theoretical and political issues, particularly within Anglo-American archaeology. In particular, it is regrettable that several commentators discussed our paper very much in the context of the old dichotomy of processual and postprocessual archaeologies. While Veit (p. 192), Bintliff, Kohl and, to some extent, Raven considered the paper as an attempt to moderate a single, established postprocessual position which may go some way towards a ‘convergence’ of both camps, Veit also viewed it in terms of a ‘counter-attack against processual archaeology’ (p. 189). We would like to emphasise that our multivocal discussion should not be seen as being written by, or on behalf of a certain ‘camp’ within current debates in our discipline, but by a diverse mix of theoretically interested archaeologists with a wide range of opinions, some of which conflict with one another. Other issues of polemic, rhetoric and form are dealt with at the end of this reply. At this point, however, it may be helpful to reiterate the origins and aims of our article.

Changing perspectives on hunter-gatherers in Continental and in Anglo-American archaeology

How different are the intellectual traditions of Continental and of Anglo-American archaeology, and how is each changing? Counting papers in the standard journals which address aspects of hunter-gatherer archaeology may show.