Review of \u3ci\u3e Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective\u3c/i\u3e

Although but six years old, our library copy of Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology (1990; edited by Allen, Stanton, and Zubrow) is tattered and in need of rebinding. Such has been the interest in this volume and its subject, the adaptation of Geographic Information System (GIs) technology to archaeological needs. Archaeology and Geographical information Systems complements Interpreting Space in several ways. Where the latter features mostly North American authors, European authors are the main contributors to the former. An4 in an effort to educate readers, the first offers brief reviews of hardware, software, and GIS concepts; such items are mentioned in the new book\u27s postscripts. Predictive modeling applications of GIs that incorporate environmental data layers are unashamedly displayed in the first; the sophistication and suitability of such models for understanding the dense and complex archaeological landscapes of Europe are questioned in the latter

Review of \u3ci\u3e Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems: A European Perspective\u3c/i\u3e

Although but six years old, our library copy of Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology (1990; edited by Allen, Stanton, and Zubrow) is tattered and in need of rebinding. Such has been the interest in this volume and its subject, the adaptation of Geographic Information System (GIs) technology to archaeological needs. Archaeology and Geographical information Systems complements Interpreting Space in several ways. Where the latter features mostly North American authors, European authors are the main contributors to the former. An4 in an effort to educate readers, the first offers brief reviews of hardware, software, and GIS concepts; such items are mentioned in the new book\u27s postscripts. Predictive modeling applications of GIs that incorporate environmental data layers are unashamedly displayed in the first; the sophistication and suitability of such models for understanding the dense and complex archaeological landscapes of Europe are questioned in the latter

Solving Meno\u27s Puzzle, Defeating Merlin\u27s Subterfuge: Bodies of Reference Knowledge and Archaeological Inference

THE MIND OF Lewis Binford is nimble and constantly evolving. In part, one can map Binford\u27s prodigious intellectual growth by looking at the research trajectories of his students, who often continue on paths they began under his tutelage. In my case, certainly, this is very true. When I arrived at the University of New Mexico in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Binford was exploring the nature of the archaeological record: how to understand past human organization at a supra-ethnographic scale, what we might learn from bones and site structure, and how to reliably give meaning to the archaeological record. This chapter, harking back to the early 1980s, focuses on the latter and attempts to organize some of the many thoughts that have been offered on the notion initially known as middle-range theory. Fundamental questions in archaeology are: What is it? How old is it? Why did people make it? Why did they stop making it? What do these patterns in artifacts, structures, and so forth mean at a deeper level? When students of archaeology ask and answer these questions, they are confronted with Meno\u27s Puzzle and Merlin\u27s subterfuge. Meno was the imaginary debater with whom Plato puzzled over the detection of Virtue (Evans 1995). If we knew how to recognize Virtue in a person, then we could and would do so. But, if Virtue\u27s distinguishing characteristics are a mystery to us, how will we recognize a virtuous individual when one appears? Mark Twain\u27s Merlin, the resident magician in King Arthur\u27s court, was capable of discerning activities happening at great distances, even 10,000 miles away. Shockingly, however, Merlin could not reckon the contents of the Connecticut Yankee\u27s pocket, though both were located in the same room. In archaeology, three related problems surface. First, without traveling back in time, how can we really know what the past was like? Second, can we learn about the past without imposing the present on the past (Wobst 1978)? That is, can the past somehow speak for itself and tell us something different than we think we already know? Finally, assuming that we can learn about the past, how do we know those knowledge claims are secure

Review of \u3ci\u3eThe Archaeology of Regions: A Case for Full-Coverage Survey\u3c/i\u3e by Suzanne K. Fish and Stephen A. Kowalewski, eds.

The goal of this volume is “to expand the explicit rationale for [full-coverage survey], to affirm it as a practicable technique, and to illustrate its superiority as a basis for archaeological inference” (p. 2). Full-coverage survey (FCS) involves “the systematic examination of contiguous blocks of terrain at a uniform level of intensity” (p. 2), but stipulates no minimum areal extent and no special intensity of coverage. This volume argues that justification for expending limited resources on FCS lies in its potential to capture settlement patterns, which somehow reflect settlement systems and which cannot be approached by sample survey. S. Fish and Kowalewski introduce the theme of the book, which is that of a general reaction to sample survey studies. Eight substantive chapters provide examples of FCS from a variety of archeological contexts, covering areas 50 to 2,150 sq km in extent. The regional archeological pictures from the Basin of Mexico (Parsons), the Valley of Oaxaca (Kowalewski), and the Kur River Basin of Iran (Sumner) are depicted. Wilson updates settlement-pattern studies in coastal Peru, the home-hearth of such work. P. Fish and Gresham describe the survey of a defoliated reservoir-take area from the vegetated Georgia piedmont. In arid North America, survey results from Long House Valley, Arizona (Dean) and the northern Tucson Basin (S. Fish, P. Fish, and Madsen) are presented. Also, Whalen compares simulated sample-based projections with those obtained through FCS of the Hueco Bolson (Texas), thereby duplicating findings of similar 1970s exercises. He introduces his endeavor with a thoughtful section on the why behind full-coverage survey

The Spatial Dimension of Time

Archaeological research depends on the temporal structural of archaeological deposits. Temporal structure includes deposit age and the sequencing or the relative temporal order of one deposit to another. Another aspect is the temporal scale and resolution, or the degree of contemporaneity shared by deposits, Archaeology is also concerned with ethnographic time, that domain in which formation events occur, i.e., the temporal characteristics of activities with respect to the piece of land on which those activities occur. This chapter explores the issue of temporal resolution or deposit grain is it relates to the tempo of use witnessed by a locale

References for \u3ci\u3eTime in Archaeology: Time Perspectivism Revisited\u3c/i\u3e

22 pages of reference bibliography for the 2008 anthology of articles on archeology, methodology, and time

Rough Cilicia Archaeological Survey Project: Report of the 2000 Season

During the 2000 season the RCASP Survey Team surveyed approximately five square kilometers in the vicinity of Lamos and along the ridges surrounding the Adanda River valley in interior Rough Cilicia. Geoarchaeological inspection of beach, lagoon, and terrace deposits of the Hacimusa River was conducted by F. Sancar Ozaner and Hülya Caner. Together Ozaner and Caner identified the locations where geomorphological trenches would be excavated during the 2001 season. Caner also collected surface sediments from lagoonal deposits of the Hacimusa and Bickici Rivers for further analysis. Under the direction of Michael Hoff and Rhys Townsend, a preliminary architectural map was made of Lamos, including the fortress, the agora, and the necropolis. The walking team, directed by LuAnn Wandsnider identified forty cultural complexes, including three previously unknown urban sites -- Tomak Asarı (RC 0019), Govan Asarı (RC 0040), and Goçuk Asarı (RC 0030). Including Lamos, all four urban sites demonstrate significant concentrations of Hellenistic and Early Roman ceramic remains. Along with Hellenistic pottery, mortar-free, dressed stone masonry is visible in some monumental structures at Lamos. Additionally, concentrations of Late Roman pottery appear to be less predominant than those encountered at sites along the coastal ridge of the survey zone

The Rough Cilicia Archaeological Survey Project: Report of the 1999 Season

In 1999 the team turned attention to an area of mountainous rural hinterland behind Iotape and some 500 m above the valley of the Delice Çay and the village of Kahyalar.Employing coarse interval survey methodology we conducted a sweep of a network of ridges extending from a peak known locally as Nergis Tepesi to the village of Kahyalar below. When evidence of past human activity or disturbances was observed by the team, especially architectural remains or ceramics clusters of more than one sherd per square meter, the area became designated as a \u27site\u27, if only for purposes of recording. Once encountering such an area we recorded our location on 1:5000 topographical maps and through static GPS measurement employing a Sokkia Locus III device. Every site location, description, and typology was recorded on field data sheets prepared by Wandsnider. If present, architectural remains were measured, photographed, and sketched. In addition, team members conducted relatively thorough ceramics collections

Mediterranean Landscape Archaeology Past and Present

Recent studies of Mediterranean landscapes have emphasized their diversity, their fragmentation, and the high degree of contact between their diverse areas, that is, their connectivity (Horden and Purcell 2000). Moreover, the Mediterranean landscape record is recognized for its length and richness and the opportunity it offers to study long-term interaction between humans and their landscape, however landscape is defined. At the same time, the particular histories of archaeological perspectives that have dominated fieldwork in the region make it difficult to compare with other areas, for example, the New World. Thus, with this volume, our intent is to address issues of relevance not only to Mediterranean archaeology but to landscape archaeology in general. There has been a dramatic expansion in the theoretical approaches-both anthropological and classical-assumed by researchers here over the last 25 years. As well, over the same time span, a huge volume of field survey projects have been carried out in the Mediterranean arena (summarized in Cherry 2003:138-40). For these two reasons, it is appropriate to take stock of what we have learned, identify lacunae, and consider new approaches to our understanding of the rich surface landscape record of the Mediterranean. Where the Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes volumes (Barker and Mattingly 1999) emphasize technique and method geared toward understanding population processes, our goal with this volume is to explore theoretically diverse interpretative themes and the methods that make those approachable. The Side by Side volume (Alcock and Cherry 2004) strives to make comparative sense of the many intensive Mediterranean surveys that have been conducted over the last twenty years. Complementarily, this volume deliberately explores paradigms--from anthropology, history, and other disciplines--within which Mediterranean landscape studies are currently being conducted

Rough Cilicia Archaeological Survey Project: Report of the Year 2000 Season

During the 2000 season the RCASP Survey Team surveyed approximately five square kilometers in the vicinity of Lamos and along the ridges surrounding the Adanda River valley in interior Rough Cilicia. Geoarchaeological inspection of beach, lagoon, and terrace deposits of the Hacimusa River was conducted by F. Sancar Ozaner and Hülya Caner. Together Ozaner and Caner identified the locations where geomorphological trenches would be excavated during the 2001 season. Caner also collected surface sediments from lagoonal deposits of the Hacimusa and Bickici Rivers for further analysis. Under the direction of Michael Hoff and Rhys Townsend, a preliminary architectural map was made of Lamos, including the fortress, the agora, and the necropolis. The walking team, directed by LuAnn Wandsnider identified forty cultural complexes, including three previously unknown urban sites -- Tomak Asarı (RC 0019), Govan Asarı (RC 0040), and Goçuk Asarı (RC 0030). Including Lamos, all four urban sites demonstrate significant concentrations of Hellenistic and Early Roman ceramic remains. Along with Hellenistic pottery, mortar-free, dressed stone masonry is visible in some monumental structures at Lamos. Additionally, concentrations of Late Roman pottery appear to be less predominant than those encountered at sites along the coastal ridge of the survey zone