“On the Physics and Metaphysics of Classification in Archaeology” by M. Okumura and A.G.M. Araujo (1) is a welcome contribution to our upcoming edited volume on type-thinking and the uses and misuses of archaeological typologies. Questions of type-delineation and classification of archaeological materials have recently re-emerged as key arenas of scholarly attention and interrogation (2–4), as many researchers have turned to a matured field of cultural evolutionary studies (5–7) and as fine-grained archaeological data and novel computational-quantitative methods have becomes increasingly available in recent years (8, 9). Re-assessing the utility and significance of traditional archaeological types has also become pertinent as macro-scale approaches to the past have grown progressive to the centre of the discipline (10, 11), promising not only to ‘re-do’ typology ‘from the ground up’, but also to put types and typological systems to novel and powerful use, and in the process illuminate the many understudied large-scale dynamics of human cultural evolution which are so critical to understanding our species’ venture on this planet. As such, the promise is colossal yet it requires a solid analytical base, as many have insisted (e.g., 12). Types are often identified as such foundational analytical units, and much therefore hinges on the robust identification and differentiation of types within the archaeological record. Typo-praxis – the practice of delineating and constructing types and to harness them to learn about the archaeological record – is therefore also increasingly seen as a key ingredient of what Hussain and Soressi (13) have dubbed the ‘basic science’ claim of lithic research within human origins or broader (deep-time) evolutionary studies.

The stakes are accordingly incredibly high, yet as Okumura and Araujo point out there is still no need to ‘re-invent the wheel’ as there is a rich literature on classification and systematics in the biological sciences, from which archaeologists can draw and benefit. Some of this literature was indeed already referenced by some archaeologists between the 1960s and early 2000s when first attempts were undertaken to integrate Darwinian evolutionary theory into processual archaeological practice (14, 15). It may be argued that much of this literature and its insights – including its many conceptual and terminological clarifications – have been forgotten or sidelined in archaeology primarily because the field has witnessed a pronounced ‘cultural turn’ beginning in the early 2000s, with even processualists expanding their research portfolio to include what was previously considered post-processual terrain (16, 17). Michelle Hegmon’s (16) ‘processualism plus’ was perhaps the most emphatic expression of this trajectory within the influential Anglo-American segments of the profession. Okumura and Araujo are therefore to be applauded for their attempt to draw attention again to this literature in an effort to re-activate it for contemporary research efforts at the intersection of cultural evolutionary and computational archaeology. Decisions need to be made on the way, of course, and the authors defend a theory-guided (and largely theory-driven) approach, for example insisting on the importance of understanding the metaphysical status of types as arbitrary kinds. Their chapter is hence also a contribution (some may say intervention) to the long-standing tension between the tyranny of data vs. the tyranny of theory in type-construction. They clearly take side with those who argue that typo-praxis cannot evade its metaphysical nature – i.e., it will always be concerned (to some extent at least) with uncovering basic metaphysical principles of the world, even if the link between types and world is not understood as a simple mapping function. Carving the investigated archaeological realities ‘at their joints’ remains an overarching ambition from this perspective. Following Okumura and Araujo, archaeologists interested in these matters therefore cannot avoid to become part-time metaphysicians.

Okumura and Araujo’s contribution is timely and it brings key issues of debate to archaeological attention, and many of these issues tellingly overlap substantially with foundational debates in the philosophy of science (e.g. monism vs. pluralism, essentialism vs. functionalism, and so forth). Their chapter also showcases how critical (both in an enabling and limiting way) biological metaphors such as ‘species’ are (see esp. the discussion of ‘species as sets’ vs. ‘species as individuals’) for their and cognate projects. Whether such metaphors are justified in the context of human action is a longstanding point of contention, and other archaeologies – for example those with decidedly relational, ontological, and post-humanist aspirations – have developed very different optics (see e.g. 18, esp. Chapter 6). This being said, Okumura and Araujo’s contribution will be essential for those interested in (re-)learning about the ‘physics and metaphysics’ of archaeological classification and their chapter will be an excellent place to start with such engagement.

References

1. M. Okumura and A. G. M. Araujo (2024) The Physics and Metaphysics of Classification in Archaeology. Zenodo, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7515797

2. F. Riede (2017) “The ‘Bromme problem’ – notes on understanding the Federmessergruppen and Bromme culture occupation in southern Scandinavia during the Allerød and early Younger Dryas chronozones” in Problems in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Research, pp. 61–85.

3. N. Reynolds and F. Riede (2019) House of cards: cultural taxonomy and the study of the European Upper Palaeolithic. Antiquity 93, 1350–1358. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.49 

4. R. L. Lyman  (2021) On the Importance of Systematics to Archaeological Research: the Covariation of Typological Diversity and Morphological Disparity. J Paleo Arch 4, 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-021-00077-6

5.  A. Mesoudi (2011) Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences, University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226520452

6. N. Creanza, O. Kolodny and M. W. Feldman (2017) Cultural evolutionary theory: How culture evolves and why it matters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 7782–7789. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620732114

7. R. Boyd and P. J. Richerson (2024) Cultural evolution: Where we have been and where we are going (maybe). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2322879121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322879121

8. F. Riede, D. N. Matzig, M. Biard, P. Crombé, J. F.-L. de Pablo, F. Fontana, D. Groß, T. Hess, M. Langlais, L. Mevel, W. Mills, M. Moník, N. Naudinot, C. Posch, T. Rimkus, D. Stefański, H. Vandendriessche and S. T. Hussain (2024) A quantitative analysis of Final Palaeolithic/earliest Mesolithic cultural taxonomy and evolution in Europe. PLOS ONE 19, e0299512, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299512

9. L. Fogarty, A. Kandler, N. Creanza and M. W. Feldman (2024) Half a century of quantitative cultural evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2418106121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2418106121

10. A. M. Prentiss, M. J. Walsh, E. Gjesfjeld, M. Denis and T. A. Foor (2022) Cultural macroevolution in the middle to late Holocene Arctic of east Siberia and north America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 65, 101388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2021.101388

11. C. Perreault (2023) Guest Editorial. Antiquity 97, 1369–1380.

12. F. Riede, C. Hoggard and S. Shennan (2019) Reconciling material cultures in archaeology with genetic data requires robust cultural evolutionary taxonomies. Palgrave Commun 5, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0260-7

13. S. T. Hussain and M. Soressi (2021) The Technological Condition of Human Evolution: Lithic Studies as Basic Science. J Paleo Arch 4, 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-021-00098-1

14. R. C. Dunnell (1978) Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43, 192–202.

15. R. C. Dunnell (2002) Systematics in Prehistory, Illustrated Edition, The Blackburn Press.

16. M. Hegmon (2003) Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity 68, 213–243. https://doi.org/10.2307/3557078

17. R. Torrence (2001) “Hunter-gatherer technology: macro- and microscale approaches” in Hunter-Gatherers: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Cambridge University Press.

18. C. N. Cipolla, R. Crellin and O. J. T. Harris (2024) Archaeology for today and tomorrow, Routledge.

Anything related to underwater archaeology, either survey, excavation, or documentation processes, poses important challenges that were already once tackled and overcome in ground archaeology. While the archaeological and historical goals of researching the underwater heritage have already been defined and studied in the last decades, i.e. maritime economy, archaeology of harbour constructions, or life within ancient vessels, some of the methodological aspects that we consider normal in the surface are still a matter of concern for underwater archaeologists. Most of these issues are related to a general question: how to acquire geospatial data below the surface. That question related to the problem of acquiring spatial data with GPS data that could be analysed through established tools such as GIS. One could get spatial data with relative positions. However, it has to be inserted in a GIS using a projection.

Drones and GPS are one of the most significant archaeological documentation advances in the last decades. Both systems have become available due to the popularisation of affordable systems and software and the widespread use of GPS for civil uses. Recently, different scholars (Campana, 2017; Stek, 2016; Verhoeven et al., 2021; Waagen, 2019) have elaborated on the use of drones in (Mediterranean) archaeology and beyond. Nevertheless, once one starts working in a completely different setting as underwater archaeology, the need to answer the same methodological questions emerges one more time. How to create digital models of the (sea bottom) surface that could be useful to answer archaeological questions? Those questions could be posed in intra-site contexts (shipwrecks) of “submerged landscape” contexts, like a harbour context, an anchorage area, or a bay used through the past due to favourable conditions.

The paper by Diamanti and colleagues (2024) tackles these issues related to drone-based SfM in underwater archaeology. First, they introduced, albeit generally, drone imagery in archaeology to jump into the evolution of drone technology and its applications to marine archaeology. In this section, the main issues regarding the application of drones underwater are familiar to drone practitioners, such as payload capacity, portability, or affordability; other problems are mostly related to underwater devices, such as dive keep, real-time assessment or positioning using USBL (Ultra short baseline). 

Diamanti and colleagues present two study cases stemming from an ongoing project conducted in the Phournoi archipelago in the North Aegean Sea, Greece. The first study case is a Late Roman/ Early Byzantine shipwreck, and the second case study is an anchorage area. Both cases are relevant to the paper's overall scope and fit the reader's interest in how to apply underwater drone archaeology in a site context, the shipwreck, and in a broad context/ landscape, the anchorage point. The former a fascinating topic that has been tackled systematically in other areas of the Mediterranean sea (Quevedo et al., 2024)

I won’t explain both cases deeply, but both demonstrate the capabilities of drone-based SfM in underwater contexts. The authors use different devices with different cameras and make an interesting comparison with diver-based 3D models, perhaps the most used method to produce orthophotography of the sea-bottom surface for more than half a century (Drap, 2012; Yamafune et al., 2017). The authors lost a good opportunity to present a more exhaustive comparison of dive-based and drone-based SfM results besides the textual explanation. As a reviewer commented a summary table with camera characteristics and data from the processing results could have given way more depth to that interesting analysis. The authors present a workflow of the process when dealing with complex technological elements, starting with the hardware components such as drones, USBL, and cameras, and the software component of the process, from frame extraction to SfM. This addition contributes to the reproducibility of methodologies, as it is expected from methodological paper as this one. Kudos for that.

In general, Diamani et al.'s paper is a valuable contribution to understanding the impact of drone surveys underwater. It offers information about two relevant study cases that could be used as paradigms for upcoming innovation in underwater archaeology. The recommendation remains to elaborate further on the comparative perspective as the only way to make the research truly innovative.

References

Campana, S., 2017. Drones in Archaeology. State-of-the-art and Future Perspectives. Archaeol. Prospect. 24, 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1569

Diamanti, E., Ødegård, Ø., Mentogiannis, V. and Koutsouflakis, G. (2024) Underwater Drones as a Low-Cost, yet Powerful Tool for Underwater Archaeological Mapping: Case Studies from the Mediterranean. Zenodo, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13460949

Drap, P., 2012. Underwater Photogrammetry for Archaeology, in: Special Applications of Photogrammetry. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/33999

Quevedo, A., Aragón, E., de Dios Hernández García, J., Rodríguez Pandozi, J., Mukai, T., Segura, A., Bellviure, J. and Muñoz Yesares, R., 2024. Isla del Fraile. Reconstructing Coastal Dynamics in Southeastern Spain Through Underwater Archaeological Survey. Archaeol. Prospect. 31, 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1937

Stek, T., 2016. Drones over Mediterranean landscapes. The potential of small UAV’s (drones) for site detection and heritage management in archaeological survey projects: A case study from Le Pianelle in the Tappino Valley, Molise (Italy). J. Cult. Herit. 1066–1071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2016.06.006

Verhoeven, G., Cowley, D. and Traviglia, A., 2021. Archaeological Remote Sensing in the 21st Century: (Re)Defining Practice and Theory. https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-0365-1376-8 

Waagen, J., 2019. New technology and archaeological practice. Improving the primary archaeological recording process in excavation by means of UAS photogrammetry. J. Archaeol. Sci. 101, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.10.011

Yamafune, K., Torres, R. and Castro, F., 2017. Multi-Image Photogrammetry to Record and Reconstruct Underwater Shipwreck Sites. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 24, 703–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-016-9283-1

3D technologies are now standard methods for documenting artefacts and archaeological sites. In order to make the resulting digital cultural heritage accessible to current and future generations, a long-term approach to data management is required, with continuous adjustments and consideration of the changing needs of the users. This is the conclusion of the authors Bonelli and colleagues [1], who present a project in which such a holistic approach was applied in practice.

Introduced is the BitFROST platform (Bridging Research Across Heritage Studies) of the Museum of Cultural History at the University of Oslo. This self-hosted platform has been in existence since 2021 and is dedicated to optimising the long-term storage and reuse of 3D data. The project arose from the museum's legal obligations and long tradition of keeping archaeological information usable. The platform was developed with explicit consideration of user feedback to fulfil the different expectations and needs at an early stage. The BitFROST project is therefore a wonderful illustration of how change management should be practised.

The article repeatedly provides brief insights into the functionalities and best practices of the platform but is particularly impressive due to its in-depth contextualisation within the state-of-the-art of digital data management. The authors show a high level of expertise and provide numerous references to further literature. The results of the user feedback are also extensively analysed, and it is explained how, for example, individual technical competence or institutional awareness lead to a great diversity of needs and how this can be counteracted with cooperation, ongoing training and continuous development (as mentioned above).

I recommend this article as a very interesting case study and a well-researched white paper on complex digital data management.

References

Bonelli L., Pantos G. A.s, Indgjerd H., Uleberg E. (2024) Experiences from the BItFROST Project. Zenodo, ver.5 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8310062

The paper entitled “IT- and machine learning-based methods of classification: The cooperative project ClaReNet – Classification and Representation for Networks” submitted by Chrisowalandis Deligio and colleagues presents the joint efforts of numismatists and data scientists in classifying a large corpus of Celtic coinage. Under the project banner “ClaReNet – Classification and Representation for Networks”, they seek to explore the possibilities and also the limits of new computational methods for classification and representation. This approach seeks to rigorously keep humans in the loop in that insights from Science and Technology Studies inform the way in which knowledge generation is monitored as part of this project. The paper was first developed for a special conference session convened at the EAA annual meeting in 2021 and is intended for an edited volume on the topic of typology, taxonomy, classification theory, and computational approaches in archaeology.

Deligio et al. (2024) begin with a brief and pertinent research-historical outline of Celtic coin studies with a specific focus on issues of classification. They raise interesting points about how variable degrees of standardisation in manufacture – industrial versus craft production, for instance – impact our ability to derive tidy typologies. The successes and failures of particular classificatory procedures and protocols can therefore help inform on the technological contexts of various object worlds and the particularities of human practices linked to their creation. These insights and discussion are eminently case-transferrable and applies not only to coinage, which after all is rather standardised, but to practically all material culture not made by machines – a point that gels particularly well with the contribution by Lucas (2022) to be published in the same volume. Although Deligio et al. do not flag this up specifically, the very expectation that archaeological finds should neatly fall into typological categories likely related to the objects that were initially used by pioneers of the method such as Montelius (1903) to elaborate its basic principles: these were metal objects often produced in moulds and very likely by only a very small number of highly-trained craftspeople such that the production of these objects approached the standardisation seen in industrial times (Nørgaard 2018) – see also Riede’s (2023) contribution due to be published in the same volume.

At the core of Deligio and colleagues’ contribution is the exploration of machine-aided classification that should, via automation, assist in handling the often large numbers of coins available in collections and, at times, from single sites or hoards. Specifically, the authors discuss the treatment of the remarkable coin hoard from Le Câtillon II on Jersey consisting of approximately 70,000 individual Celtic coins. They proceeded to employ several advanced supervised and unsupervised classification methods to process this stupendously large number of objects. Their contribution does not stop there, however, but also seeks to articulate the discussion of machine-aided classification with more theoretically informed perspectives on knowledge production. In line with similar approaches developed in-house at the Römisch-Germanische Kommission (Hofmann 2018; Hofmann et al. 2019; Auth et al. 2023), the authors also report on their cutely acronymed PANDA (Path Dependencies, Actor-Network and Digital Agency) methodology, which they deploy to reflect on the various actors and actants – humans, software, and hardware – that come together in the creation of this new body of knowledge. This latter impetus of the paper thus lifts the lid on the many intricate, idiosyncratic, and often quirky decisions and processes that characterise research in general and research that brings together humans and machines in particular – a concrete example of the messiness of knowledge production that commonly remains hidden behind the face of the published book or paper but which science studies have long pointed at as vital components of the scientific process itself (Latour and Woolgar 1979; Galison 1997; Shapin and Schaffer 2011). In this manner, the present contribution serves as inspiration to the many similar projects that are emerging right now in demonstrating just how vital a due integration of theory, epistemology, and method is as scholars are forging their path into a future where few if any archaeological projects do not include some element of machine-assistance. 

References

Auth, Frederic, Katja Rösler, Wenke Domscheit, and Kerstin P. Hofmann. 2023. “From Paper to Byte: A Workshop Report on the Digital Transformation of Two Thing Editions.” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8214563

Deligio, Chrisowalandis, Caroline von Nicolai, Markus Möller, Katja Rösler, Julia Tietz, Robin Krause, Kerstin P. Hofmann, Karsten Tolle, and David Wigg-Wolf. 2024. “IT- and Machine Learning-Based Methods of Classification: The Cooperative Project ClaReNet – Classification and Representation for Networks.” Zenodo, ver.5 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7341342

Galison, Peter Louis. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hofmann, Kerstin P. 2018. “Dingidentitäten Und Objekttransformationen. Einige Überlegungen Zur Edition von Archäologischen Funden.” In Objektepistemologien. Zum Verhältnis von Dingen Und Wissen, edited by Markus Hilgert, Kerstin P. Hofmann, and Henrike Simon, 179–215. Berlin Studies of the Ancient World 59. Berlin: Edition Topoi. https://dx.doi.org/10.17171/3-59

Hofmann, Kerstin P., Susanne Grunwald, Franziska Lang, Ulrike Peter, Katja Rösler, Louise Rokohl, Stefan Schreiber, Karsten Tolle, and David Wigg-Wolf. 2019. “Ding-Editionen. Vom Archäologischen (Be-)Fund Übers Corpus Ins Netz.” E-Forschungsberichte des DAI 2019/2. E-Forschungsberichte Des DAI. Berlin: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. https://publications.dainst.org/journals/efb/2236/6674

Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Laboratory Life : The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Lucas, Gavin. 2022. “Archaeology, Typology and Machine Epistemology.” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7622162

Montelius, Gustaf Oscar Augustin. 1903. Die Typologische Methode. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wicksell.

Nørgaard, Heide Wrobel. 2018. Bronze Age Metalwork: Techniques and Traditions in the Nordic Bronze Age 1500-1100 BC. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology.

Riede, Felix. 2023. “The Role of Heritage Databases in Typological Reification: A Case Study from the Final Palaeolithic of Southern Scandinavia.” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8372671

Shapin, Steven, and Simon Schaffer. 2011. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

The paper by Xanthopoulos and colleagues [1] presents an approach to establish a pipeline for the analysis of osteological and biochemical data. This approach integrates novel data collection, FAIR principles for data longevity and accessibility, utilises R markdown and cloud webware. Following the changes recommended by the reviewers this paper presents a welcome contribution to osteoarcheology and bioarchaeology.

Osteoarchaeology and bioarchaeology often involves the collection of vast amounts of data both in the field and from consequential analysis in the lab. From this data we can reconstruct many aspects of past human experiences. However, issues often arise when bringing together these diverse types of data. In this regard, this paper proposes are useful methodology in which osteoarchaeological researchers can bring their data together as part of a streamlined process, from data collection to analyses. 

References

[1] Xanthopoulos, K., Georgiadou, A. and Papageorgopoulou, C. (2024). An approach to establishing a workflow pipeline for synergistic analysis of osteological and biochemical data. The case study of Amvrakia in the context of Corinthian colonisation between 625-189 BC in Epirus, Greece. Zenodo, 11156506, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8298579