New Archaeology Research Articles

Kia kōrerorero tonu ai: a review of the dialogue at the interface of Indigenous oral tradition and archaeology in Aotearoa New Zealand and Oceania

ABSTRACTThis paper examines the previous theoretical interfaces of Indigenous oral tradition and archaeology in Oceania, specifically in Aotearoa (New Zealand). Historical processes of writing down kōrero, or oral histories, by amateur historians and ethnologists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, culminated in the romanticised traditions of the early Polynesian society and influenced contemporary archaeological scholarship. In response to criticisms, archaeologists attempted to validate kōrero using Western research methodologies. However, attempts often fell short and processual archaeologists of the mid‐late‐20th century considered oral tradition and archaeology as incapable of cross‐validation. Parallel ethnological scholarship focused on the symbolism in oral histories as indicators of their function in contemporary society or as legitimate forms of recounting actual historical events after critical evaluation. More recent archaeologists use kōrero about the last few centuries like any other historical source. Māori scholars have taken inspiration from previous theoretical arcs to position kōrero in a postmodern space of relative truths or to critically analyse its historical and functional values. The review concludes with how the interface of oral history and archaeology might follow Kaupapa Māori research methodologies and current materialist critiques of dominant settlement pattern theory.

Agency amongst the entrepôts: Negotiating exchange associations between Motu hiri and Mailu seafaring exchange networks at Hood Bay on Papua New Guinea’s south coast

The exchange of specialized items and the social connections those exchanges engender play a fundamental role in the trajectories of societal relations. Processual archaeologists developed a core–periphery model to understand how these exchange relations work. The model evoked complex societal “cores” and “peripheries” at societal edges where exchanges with other cultures take place. The rigidity of core–periphery modeling led to the emergence of more nuanced network analyses to explain the qualitative as well as quantitative dimensions of cultural exchange. Yet contemporary models still focus on the agency of societal cores as central places. The agency and experiences of communities negotiating connections between exchange networks have gained little attention. In this study, we address this knowledge gap by exploring how the people of Hood Bay on Papua New Guinea’s south coast negotiated their position between the famed Motu hiri and Mailu seafaring exchange networks. Drawing on archaeological, ethnographic, and historical data, we examine how Hood Bay communities maintained and altered dynamic regional exchange associations through time. By highlighting the agency of communities living between exchange networks, this study contributes to understandings of the complex negotiation and organizing of exchange relations between cultures.

A History of Lithic Technological Studies in the Paleoindian Archaeology in the United States of America

Lithic analyses have long been at the core of Paleoindian studies in the United States, but despite crucial changes in method and orientation, the earliest typological approaches continue to exert a strong influence on archaeologists’ understanding of Paleoindian assemblages. This chapter argues against these normative approaches by advocating in favor of dynamic perspectives on human behavior. It does so by outlining the historical contributions of technological studies to the discipline, from the early European influences to the more holistic frameworks used today. Our discussion underscores three fundamental phases of development, starting with key experimental work on the Folsom point in the mid-twentieth century. This led to an increased focus on the technological aspects of tool production and use. The second phase is heavily influenced by the development of processual archaeology, which had a profound effect on the conceptualization of lithic assemblages. It generated a wealth of systems-oriented approaches focused on the economy of lithic raw materials. Finally, and most recently, the boom in cultural ecological studies has again reshaped this landscape by creating modes of analysis that understand lithic technology as a strategic adaptation rather than a cultural fossil. To integrate these developments within the broader field of Paleoindian studies, we consider seminal papers and their role in heralding new orientations, alongside data illustrating these trends in publication.

Re-considering Processual and Post-Processual Archaeology: Can a Historical Approach Help Nuance the Usage of aDNA and Archaeogenetics

This article addresses the question of the use of modern archaeogenetics, taking into account the history of the discipline of archaeology itself, and comparing the criticisms that processual archaeology received with the criticisms that are currently directed to the use of archaeogenetics and “new” scientific methods. This paper illustrates that there are several parallels between processual archaeology in the 1980s and the criticisms received by contemporary users of archaeogenetics. This can be seen by examining the criticism that both have received and are currently receiving. This article aims to stimulate discussion about how the discipline best applies these scientific methods which are being increasingly used. The paper likewise aims to add to the discourse on how the discipline of archaeology best moves beyond the current concept of mobility and how a historical approach can be useful. At the same time, the work tries to emphasize the importance of learning from the history of one’s discipline and why it is worth taking history as a starting point.

Negotiated Positivism: The disregarded epistemology of Arne Furumark

Archaeological theory during the twentieth century is often presented according to a tri-partite scheme. This article serves to put this model into question through the explication of the epistemology of the Swedish classical archaeologist Arne Furumark. He introduced a heuristic model for ceramic studies in 1941 that bears the hallmarks of logical positivism. This early appropriation of analytical philosophy in classical archaeology does not resonate with the above-mentioned model of archaeological theory. However, Furumark did not adopt the agenda of processual archaeology wholeheartedly as the greater part of his research was founded on a culture historical framework. Furumark’s epistemology was negotiated between two archaeological paradigms, or two branches of positivism.

Sven Nilsson and the Invention of Modern Man

During the early 18th century archaeology was both materialistic and idealistic. Since the end of the century idealism has been excluded. Processual archaeology was, for example, highly materialistic. In this article an idealistic principle is reintroduced, though in a different form. Idealism is instead understood as an ethic.

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION OF FOREST-STEPPE POPULATION OF THE LEFT-BANK OF THE DNIEPERLAND DURING THE CLASSICAL SCYTHIA (the 2nd half of 6th—4th/3rd century BC)

The main goal of the article was to present a new method of analysing and interpreting the role of selected aspects of funerary rites in reconstructing the social structure of the inhabitants of the forest-steppe areas of the left-bank Dnieperland between the 2nd half of the 6th and 4th/3rd century BC. The source database for this paper consists of 247 grave complexes. In the first stage of research, an attempt was made to determine which elements of the mortuary practices could be regarded as a reliable source for social analysis. The evaluation was based on the previous publications on the matter, historic sources (The Histories of Herodotus), and new observations concerning funerary customs of the analysed societies. It was concluded that the most reliable indicator of the position of a deceased in a social hierarchy is the amount of effort (energy expenditure) devoted by mourners to build a grave structure and organize funeral ceremonies. The the amount of work needed to construct a funerary complex can be deduced from the size and complexity of a grave and a burial mound, as well as «richness» and diversity of grave goods. In some cases, presence, or absence, of selected mortuary practices (such as accompanying horse and human burials) could also be useful. The aim of the second stage of the analysis was to propose a new classification of the funerary complexes of the studied communities. The method of systematization was based on a theoretical framework of the processual archaeology and review of written historical sources. Grave complexes were classified using statistical methods (multivariate data analysis). The evaluations resulted in identifying various classes of graves, which can be assigned to individuals occupying a specific place in social structure. One of the most important characteristics of the obtained classification of grave complexes is its hierarchical organization — the subsequent classes could be characterized by decreasing energy expenditure devoted to constructing a grave, and increasingly «poorer» grave goods.

Specification a model for study of symbolic processualism

A groso modo, el procesualismo simbólico se refiere a cuatro fases de cambio social: 1) vicisitud, 2) conflicto, 3) resignificación y 4) construcción. El objetivo del presente trabajo fue establecer las redes discursivas procesales en torno al emprendimiento cafetero en informantes de una localidad del centro de México. Se realizó un estudio exploratorio, transversal e interpretativo con una selección intencional de informantes nativos. Los resultados muestran diferencias entre los participantes con respecto a las categorías de decadencia y prosperidad. Se advierten líneas de investigación sobre el ciclo de producción y comercialización del café en relación con el ciclo de representación simbólica para interpretar escenarios de desarrollo local.

The Role of Maize and the Theoretical Approaches of Archaeology to the Food Resources in the Ancient Maya Culture

Several theoretical approaches exist for the study of ancient Maya cultures. In the beginning, only limited information was available for these cultures and the early portrayals were greatly influenced by European concepts of antiquity. After this period of Early Maya archaeology, however, the newly-developed processual archaeology was applied. Processualist theory focused on understanding the process of cultural change and relating it to environmental adaptation. Soon after its inception, criticism of this approach led to the emergence of post-processual archaeology, which stressed the importance of pre-Columbian Maya symbolism. In this case, the popularity of post-processualism was spearheaded by the decipherment of Maya glyphs and new information supporting cultural continuities between ancient and past Maya groups.Problems related to both approaches are well exemplified by the meaning of maize in the ancient Maya culture. Processual archaeology treats maize as merely a food source, while post-processualism regards maize as one of the most important sym-bols of the ancient Maya, a plant with a special status. Thus, research on ancient Maya subsistence and the meaning of maize in ancient belief systems have been based on interpretations that were constructed from a single perspective. However, to fully understand the role of maize in the Maya culture, we must integrate and apply different perspectives, multidisciplinary appro-aches and methodological dialectics. It is postulated that, in the future, past approaches will be complimented by newly retrieved information thanks to a new paradigm called symmetric anthropology.

Survey, sense and sensibilities: reflections on old and new spatial archaeologies on the Project Panormos Survey

Survey, sense and sensibilities: reflections on old and new spatial archaeologies on the Project Panormos Survey

Against object agency 2. Continuing the discussion with Sørensen

AbstractThis paper expands upon some of the arguments and issues surrounding object agency that have been discussed in this journal (Lindstrøm 2015; 2017; Ribeiro 2016a; 2016b; Sørensen 2016; 2018). More specifically, it challenges Sørensen’s support of object agency in his latest discussion on the topic (2018). The paper is divided into three parts: first, it questions the relevance of replacing the conventional usage of ‘agency’, generally attached to sociological studies and reserved to describe human action, with one supported by the New Materialists; second, it identifies a series of contradictions in how agency is defined according to the New Materialisms, namely how it can be very labile and scalable yet simultaneously universal and applicable across all cultures and time periods; and lastly, it questions the quality of the philosophical ideas supporting the New Materialist conception of agency, and its disadvantages in light of the current re-emergence and repopularization of processual archaeology.

It is Not New Archaeology it is Fiction

It is Not New Archaeology it is Fiction

Od archeologii osadnictwa do biografii krajobrazu: archeologia polska wobec współczesnych perspektyw badań relacji między człowiekiem a środowiskiem w przeszłości

The paper contains a review of theoretical and methodological approaches to the issue of archaeological research on the relationship between humans and their environment in the second half of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. In culture-historical and processual archaeology, settlement research plays an important role both in American New Archaeology and in Polish archaeology, emphasizing the ecological and economic determinants of spatial settlement patterns. Post-processual archaeology introduced an interest in the landscape, which is understood to be a result of the mutual interactions of humans and the environment, with an emphasis on intangible, symbolic aspects and mental imaging of the landscape. An attempt to synthesize these research orientations is what compels the writing of cultural biographies of landscapes, in which, apart from the results of scientific research, elements of folklore and social memory are also taken into account.

Lest We Forget: An Estimate of Vikuosa Nienu’s Contribution to the Archaeology of Northeast India

The present paper is the outcome of a small documentary research that the author undertook since the year 2009 on the early life and academic foundation of an archaeologist – Vikuosa Nienu, wherein his contribution to the archaeology of the region seem like an unfamiliar one to the majority of us from Northeast India. But the value of his work stands out for two reasons – firstly, prior to this research, no archaeological investigations had ever been conducted in Nagaland beyond mere archaeological reconnaissance. It was a time when political situations in Nagaland were tense, and field archaeology at that time was considered problematic and challenging. Secondly, this pioneering work is laudable because of its theoretical underpinnings of three dominant paradigms – culture-historical, processual and behavioural archaeology where Nienu gained exposure as a student at the University of California, Berkeley and at the Grasshopper Pueblo Field School during the early 1970s. The paper thus, examines Nienu’s formative years at the School of Archaeology, New Delhi, and thereafter his field experiences, academic environment and the major paradigms that shaped his understanding of the region’s prehistory in the course of his later research.

Humans in the Environment: Plants, Animals and Landscapes in Mesolithic Britain and Ireland

Environmental archaeology has historically been central to Mesolithic studies in Britain and Ireland. Whilst processual archaeology was concerned with the economic significance of the environment, post-processual archaeology later rejected economically driven narratives, resulting in a turn away from plant and animal remains. Post-processual narratives focused instead on enigmatic ‘ritual’ items that economic accounts struggled to suitably explain. Processual accounts of landscapes, grounded in economic determinism, were also rejected in favour of explorations of their sociocultural aspects. However, in moving away from plant and animal remains, such accounts lacked the ability to rigorously explore the specificities of particular landscapes and humans actions within them. This paper will bridge this gap by considering how palaeoecological and zooarchaeological analyses can be used to explore human interactions with plants and animals, which were key in developing understandings and relationships that ultimately structured landscapes, influenced past human actions and shaped archaeological assemblages.

Pottery Studies and Archaeometry: Between Scientific Analyses and Archaeological Interpretation

The consideration of the relationship between pottery studies and the application of hard sciences in archaeology includes the scrutiny of the importance of pottery studies in the history of archaeology as a discipline, and especially the differences in the approach to material culture between European and North American researchers. After modest beginnings during the 19th century, petrographic analyses were introduced into ceramology during the first decades of the 20th century, mainly thanks to the works of Anna Shepard. She was one of the initiators of the first conference on the ceramic technology, held as early as 1938. For archaeology in general, it is significant to note that the beginning of pottery studies, stressing the importance of social anthropology as well as the application of hard science methods, markedly predates the expansion of processual archaeology.
 It is also vital to explore certain tensions and differences in approaches to ceramics, exiting today as the consequence of polarization inside archaeology, among researchers primarily leaning upon natural sciences, and the ones regarding material culture as the product of cultural processes. Archaeometry is widely applicable in ceramology, above all in identifying the pottery recipes, raw material provenance, firing regimes, and many other aspects that are the consequences of various cultural practices. Maybe paradoxically, the researchers leaning towards natural sciences have most frequently embraced the concept of technological choices, presupposing that every human activity is the consequence of social relations, leading artisans to choose one of several technical possibilities, depending upon social norms. On the other hand, ethno-archaeological research relativizes to a certain extent the “solid” and unambiguous results of natural sciences, more readily accepting the concept of technological style, i.e. considering the socially influenced technological traditions. The concept of archaeological biomarkers, i.e. research into the remains of organic matters on ceramic vessels, indicates the differences between the scientistically oriented European archaeology, as opposed to the North American, dominated by the anthropological dimension of research, and pottery is not treated as a mere source of data, but as an object of research in its own right. 
 An additional difficulty in pottery studies is presented by the essential misunderstanding between archaeologists and natural scientists, also present in Serbia. We are still faced with the insufficient knowledge of possibilities of analytical techniques. On the other hand, the majority of research is conducted by the natural scientists, resulting in one-sided or multidisciplinary outcomes, and interdisciplinary studies are extremely rare. At the same time, although with exceptional possibilities, natural sciences applied to the research into the past are not infallible, and have been criticized on several levels, concerning the issues of raw material provenance, as well as identifying the remains of organic material on pottery vessels. Interdisciplinarity should undoubtedly be considered as an advantage in archaeological research, but we should bear in mind that the aim of pottery studies is the understanding of people and processes in the past, so the ultimate responsibility of interpretation rests upon archaeologists. For this very reason, they are obliged to understand the advantages as well as limitations of analytic techniques, and above all to formulate the theoretical framework, research topics and hypotheses.

An Anthropological Archaeologist: The Contributions of William A. Longacre to Archaeological Theory, Method, and Practice

Of the “new archaeologists” who developed social models for prehistoric organization, William A. Longacre was a pioneer. Here, we review his contributions and the role he played in expanding archaeological method, theory, and practice. His innovative work in the American Southwest involving ceramic sociology was emulated, critiqued, and extended by several generations of archaeologists. Recognizing the concerns raised by this early work, Longacre developed one of the most successful ethnoarchaeological projects in the world among the Kalinga of northern Luzon in the Philippines. His work and that of his students and colleagues examined multiple, inter-connected aspects of ceramic variability linked to a variety of social, technological, functional, and economic processes. Kalinga data and analyses continue to inform archaeological practices and conclusions. Throughout his career, Longacre mentored archaeologists in both the USA and the Philippines, extending his influence geographically and establishing himself as one of the most important practitioners of processual archaeology.

Steps towards understanding medieval urban communities as social practice

The contribution by Axel Christophersen aims to present new perspectives for the archaeology of medieval and post-medieval towns. In enlisting ‘social-practice theory’, the author would like to view the town as a dynamic, ever-changing network of social and cultural practices which is registered in the archaeological data. This perspective on the town lies, therefore, somewhere between structure-centred and agent-centred approaches. As such, Axel Christophersen's contribution can be seen as more comprehensive. I assess the piece also as a programmatic contribution to the development of theory in the apparently long-term conflict between ‘processual and postprocessual archaeology’. It should be said in advance that he was successful in this. At the same time, however, his contribution makes it clear that it is not easy to transfer or apply current cultural-studies concepts to historical periods and the materiality of archaeological data.

Urbanity by its ‘smallest units’. Comments on ‘performing towns’

Any reader expecting yet another contribution on the urbanization of Scandinavia will be misguided reading Axel Christophersen's contribution on ‘performing towns’. As the author makes very clear, he focuses onurbanityin the sense ofurban social practicerather than onurbanizationitself. The latter concept is straightforwardly dismissed as belonging to processual archaeology, and was trying to understand the town as abeingstructure and neglecting the dynamic role of its individual inhabitants as a ‘crucial historical driving force’ (p. 110). Christophersen also omits the classic discussion – actually besides Christianization one of the two most prominent topics in early medieval archaeology – on the designation and character of the earliest towns in the north, where early towns are merely defined as population centres ‘larger than a village and smaller than a city’ (p. 112). Instead, with the adoption ofpractice theory, Christophersen picks one heuristic approach from modern social theory (mentalism (subjectivistic/objectivistic), intersubjectivism, textualism and practice theory itself) for the analysis of social phenomena as routinized body/knowledge/things complexes (Reckwitz 2002, 257–58).

Pattern and variety: Remembering Stanley A. Ahler's contributions to Plains Village archaeology

During his 40-year career, Stanley A. Ahler consistently applied a coherent set of theoretical principles and methodological practices to his studies of Plains Village communities in the Middle Missouri subarea. For Ahler, modes of human behavior could only be understood and explained within the context of behavioral diversity and so he regarded the detection of variation within the material record as a crucial component of archaeological research. Ahler's studies of household and community variation in the Middle Missouri embody the best qualities of processual archaeology: a willingness to challenge previous interpretations; a commitment to actualistic research and interdisciplinary collaboration; a desire to understand the complexities of human behavior; and a belief in the importance of public archaeology. In pursuing this program, Ahler and his many collaborators transformed how archaeologists think about Plains hunter-farmers.