The Middle Palaeolithic period represents a crucial phase in the Prehistory of Europe, marked by the dominance of Neanderthal populations and their adaptive strategies. In Portugal, this period is characterized by a wealth of archaeological sites that provide valuable insights into the lifeways, technology, and environmental adaptations of its inhabitants (Aubry et al., 2011; J. L. Cardoso & Cascalheira, 2024; Cascalheira et al., 2022; Zilhão, 2001; Zilhão et al., 2021). One of the most significant is Gruta da Figueira Brava, located near the modern coastline: recent research has highlighted its role as a key site for understanding coastal adaptation by Neanderthals (Zilhão et al., 2020). Almonda Cave System is another pivotal area (Marks et al., 2001; Marks et al., 1994), offering a long stratigraphic sequence that includes Middle Palaeolithic layers . A prominent site is also and Foz do Enxarrique (Cunha et al., 2019), rich in lithic artifacts indicating a reliance on local hunting and foraging . The lithic technology of the Middle Palaeolithic in Portugal is largely characterized by the widespread use of the Levallois method, with variations reflecting local adaptations and raw material availability. Quartz, quartzite and flint were commonly used, indicating a strategic selection of materials based on functionality and proximity.

The Côa Valley, located in northern Portugal, is renowned for its rich archaeological record spanning from the Middle Palaeolithic to the Upper Palaeolithic (Aubry et al., 2012, 2016). The region’s significance lies not only in its rock art but also in its evidence of human occupation and technological development during the Pleistocene. Middle Palaeolithic sites in the Côa Valley are characterized by lithic assemblages associated with Neanderthal populations. These sites reveal a predominance of quartzite and flint tools, typical of Middle Palaeolithic technology. Excavations at sites like Cardina-Salto do Boi have uncovered stratified deposits with stone tools and faunal remains, shedding light on subsistence strategies and mobility patterns. As shown by the work presented by Patricia Ramos & Thierry Aubry, the tools from these layers exhibit a range of core reduction techniques, including Levallois flaking. The chosen approach for studying the lithic assemblage emphasizes the significance of raw materials in defining the technological behaviours employed by Neanderthal groups. Specifically, the study highlights the intensive use of quartz as a primary resource. The classification of different types of quartz, based on defined criteria and categories, reveals variations in material selection and technological practices across the analysed layers. This detailed analysis allows for a deeper interpretation of the technological strategies adopted by Neanderthal groups at the Cardina-Salto do Boi site. The work of Patricia Ramose and Thierry Aubry demonstrates how the Middle Palaeolithic record of the Côa Valley continues to provide interesting insights into Neanderthal life in the Iberian Peninsula. 

References

Aubry, T., Barbosa, A. F., Luís, L., Santos, A. T., and Silvestre, M. (2016). Quartz use in the absence of flint: Middle and Upper Palaeolithic raw material economy in the Côa Valley (North-eastern Portugal). Quaternary International, 424, 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.067

Aubry, T., Dimuccio, L. A., Almeida, M., Neves, M. J., Angelucci, D. E., and Cunha, L. (2011). Palaeoenvironmental forcing during the Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition in central-western Portugal. Quaternary Research, 75, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yqres.2010.11.002

Aubry, T., Luís, L., Llach, J. M., and Matias, H. (2012). We will be known by the tracks we leave behind: Exotic lithic raw materials, mobility and social networking among the Côa Valley foragers (Portugal). Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 31(4), 528–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2012.05.003

Cardoso, J. L., and Cascalheira, J. (2024). 40,000 years later: what we know about the presence of Neanderthals in Portuguese territory and their extinction. Academia das Ciências de Lisboa. https://doi.org/10.58164/qhdw-y588

Cascalheira, J., Gonçalves, C., and Maio, D. (2022). The spatial patterning of Middle Palaeolithic human settlement in westernmost Iberia. Journal of Quaternary Science, 37(2), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/JQS.3286

Cunha, P. P., Martins, A. A., Buylaert, J. P., Murray, A. S., Gouveia, M. P., Font, E., Pereira, T., Figueiredo, S., Ferreira, C., Bridgland, D. R., Yang, P., Stevaux, J. C., and Mota, R. (2019). The lowermost Tejo River terrace at Foz do Enxarrique, Portugal: A palaeoenvironmental archive from c. 60–35 ka and its implications for the last Neanderthals in westernmost Iberia. Quaternary, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/quat2010003

Marks, A. E., Bich, N., Ferring, C. R., and Zilhão, J. (1994). Upper pleistocene prehistory in portuguese estremadura: Results of preliminary research. Journal of Field Archaeology, 21(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1179/JFA.1994.21.1.53

Marks, A., Monigal, K., and Zilhão, J. (2001). The lithic assemblages of the Late Mousterian at Gruta de Oliveira, Almonda, Portugal. Trabalhos de Arquelogia, 17, 145–154.

Patrícia O. S. Ramos, and Thierry J. Aubry (2024) Latest updates on the study of the Middle Palaeolithic Lithic assemblages of Cardina- Salto do Boi site (Côa Valley, Portugal) . OSF preprints, ver. 11 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/s3jd2

Zilhão, J. (2001). Middle Paleolithic settlement patterns in Portugal. In N. Conard (Ed.), Settlement dynamics of the Middle Palaeolithic and Middle Stone Age (pp. 597–608). Kerns Verlag.

Zilhão, J., Angelucci, D. E., Araújo Igreja, M., Arnold, L. J., Badal, E., Callapez, P., Cardoso, J. L., d’Errico, F., Daura, J., Demuro, M., Deschamps, M., Dupont, C., Gabriel, S., Hoffmann, D. L., Legoinha, P., Matias, H., Monge Soares, A. M., Nabais, M., Portela, P., … Souto, P. (2020). Last Interglacial Iberian Neandertals as fisher-hunter-gatherers. Science, 367(6485). https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.AAZ7943

Zilhão, J., Angelucci, D. E., Arnold, L. J., d’Errico, F., Dayet, L., Demuro, M., Deschamps, M., Fewlass, H., Gomes, L., Linscott, B., Matias, H., Pike, A. W. G., Steier, P., Talamo, S., and Wild, E. M. (2021). Revisiting the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic archaeology of Gruta do Caldeirão (Tomar, Portugal). PLoS ONE, 16(10 October). https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0259089

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

It currently seems obvious that the Mediterranean basin is a place of great exchanges of cultures, populations and goods. Although studies have focused quite extensively on the archaeology of maritime exchanges [1–3], it is challenging to assess archaeologically to what extent these networks had an influence on the biology of domesticated animals in the past, or even if animals were part of the trip. The question of past populations establishing extensive connections in the Mediterranean basin during the Iron Age and Persian period and especially, if these population exchange livestock and how these connections contributed to the animals phenotype or morphotype diversity is still difficult to document in the (zoo)archaeological record. These are amongst the questions Harding et al. [4] are making an attempt at documenting. Focusing on archaeological deposits from Cyprus and Israel in the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin, they use sheep astragali as a proxy to explore the potential connections that might have existed between evolution of the animals’ morphology and exchanges through sea travel. Postulating that animals from inland sites should have variant morphology from those of coastal sites due to more intensive exchanges for the latter, mainly because of the incorporation of non-native animals, they conducted geometric morphometrics analyses to make an attempt at documenting the phenomenon. Observing changes in size and shape, but also an increased morphological variability within the assemblages from coastal sites, they nicely discuss and put their results in perspectives with the archaeological record and literature [5,6]. Although, as they acknowledge, their sample size is rather limited to draw any general conclusion, this paper sheds new lights on the influence of maritime transport and its influence over domesticated sheep diversity between Cyprus and the southern Levant, paving the way for future studies.

References
1.     Leidwanger, J. and Knappett, C. (2018). Maritime Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean World. (Cambridge University Press). https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108555685
2.     Leidwanger, J. (2020). Roman Seas: A Maritime Archaeology of Eastern Mediterranean Economies. (Oxford University Press). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190083656.001.0001
3.     Bernard Knapp, A., Russell, A. and van Dommelen, P. (2022). Cyprus, Sardinia and Sicily: A Maritime Perspective on Interaction, Connectivity and Imagination in Mediterranean Prehistory. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 32, 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774321000330
4.     Harding, S. A., Hadjikoumis, A., Vermeersch, S., Shafir, R. and Marom, N. (2024) The contribution of Mediterranean connectivity to morphological variability in Iron Age sheep of the Eastern Mediterranean. bioRxiv2022.12.24.521859 https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.24.521859.
5.     Price, M. D., Perry-Gal, L. and Reshef, H. (2023). The Southern Levantine pig from domestication to Romanization: A biometrical approach. J. Archaeol. Sci. 157, 105828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2023.105828
6.     Vigne, J., Zazzo, A., Cucchi, T., Briois, F. and Guilaine, J. (2014). The transportation of mammals to Cyprus shed light on early voyaging and boats in the mediterranean sea. Eurasian Prehistory 10, 157–176.

This paper (Stephan 2023) is about the use of video games as a pedagogical tool in class. Instead of taking the perspective of a lecturer, the author seeks the student’s perspectives to evaluate the success of an interactive teaching method at the crossroads of history, archaeology, and classics. The paper starts with a literature review, that highlights the intensive use of video games among college students and high schoolers as well as the impact video games can have on learning about the past. The case study this paper is based on is made with the game Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey, which is introduced in the next part of the paper as well as previous works on the same game. The author then explains his method, which entailed the tasks students had to complete for a class in classics. They could either choose to play a video game or more classically read some texts. After the tasks were done, students filled out a 14-question-survey to collect data about prior gaming experience, assignment enjoyment, and other questions specific to the assignments.

The results were based on only a fraction of the course participants (n=266) that completed the survey (n=26), which is a low number for doing statistical analysis. Besides some quantitative questions, students had also the possibility to freely give feedback on the assignments. Both survey types (quantitative answers and qualitative feedback) solely relied on the self-assessment of the students and one might wonder how representative a self-assessment is for evaluating learning outcomes. Both problems (size of the survey and actual achievements of learning outcomes) are getting discussed at the end of the paper, that rightly refers to its results as preliminary. I nevertheless think that this survey can help to better understand the role that video games can play in class. As the author rightly claims, this survey needs to be enhanced with a higher number of participants and a better way of determining the learning outcomes objectively. This paper can serve as a start into how we can determine the senseful use of video games in classrooms and what students think about doing so.

“Archaeology, Typology and Machine Epistemology” submitted by G. Lucas (1) offers a refreshing and welcome reflection on the role of computer-based practice, type-thinking and approaches to typology in the age of big data and the widely proclaimed ‘Third Science Revolution’ (2–4). At the annual meeting of the EAA in Maastricht in 2017, a special thematic block was dedicated to issues and opportunities linked to the Third Science Revolution in archaeology “because of [its] profound and wide ranging impact on practice and theory in archaeology for the years to come” (5). Even though the Third Science Revolution, as influentially outlined by Kristiansen in 2014 (2), has occasionally also been met with skepticism and critique as to its often implicit scientism and epistemological naivety (6–8), archaeology as a whole seems largely euphoric as to the promises of the advancing ‘revolution’. As Lucas perceptively points out, some even regard it as the long-awaited opportunity to finally fulfil the ambitions and goals of Anglophone processualism. The irony here, as Lucas rightly notes, is that early processualists initially foregrounded issues of theory and scientific epistemology, while much work conducted under the banner of the Third Science Revolution, especially within its computational branches, does not. Big data advocates have echoed Anderson’s much-cited “end of theory” (9) or at least emphatically called for an ‘empirization’ and ‘computationalization’ of theory, often under the banner of ‘data-driven archaeology’ (10), yet typically without much specification of what this is supposed to mean for archaeological theory and reflexivity. The latter is indeed often openly opposed by archaeological Third Science Revolution enthusiasts, arguably because it is viewed as part of the supposedly misguided ‘post-modernist’ project.

Lucas makes an original meta-archaeological contribution here and attempts to center the epistemological, ontological and praxeological dimensions of what is actually – in situated archaeological praxis and knowledge-production – put at stake by the mobilization of computers, algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI), including its many but presently under-reflected implications for ordering practices such as typologization. Importantly, his perspective thereby explicitly and deliberately breaks with the ‘normative project’ in traditional philosophy of science, which sought to nail down a universal, prescriptive way of doing science and securing scientific knowledge. He instead focuses on the practical dimensions and consequences of computer-reliant archaeologies, what actually happens on the ground as researchers try to grapple with the digital and the artefactual and try to negotiate new insights and knowledge, including all of the involved messiness – thereby taking up the powerful impetus of the broader practice turn in interdisciplinary science studies and STS (Science and Technology Studies (11)) (12–14), which have recently also re-oriented archaeological self-observation, metatheory and epistemology (15). This perspective on the dawning big data age in archaeology and incurred changes in the status, nature and aims of type-thinking produces a number of important insights, which Lucas fruitfully discusses in relation to promises of ‘automation’ and ‘novelty’ as these feature centrally in the rhetorics and politics of the Third Science Revolution. 

With regard to automation, Lucas makes the important point that machine or computer work as championed by big data proponents cannot adequately be qualified or understood if we approach the issue from a purely time-saving perspective. The question we have to ask instead is what work do machines actually do and how do they change the dynamics of archaeological knowledge production in the process? In this optic, automation and acceleration achieved through computation appear to make most sense in the realm of the uncontroversial, in terms of “reproducing an accepted way of doing things” as Lucas says, and this is precisely what can be observed in archaeological practice as well. The ramifications of this at first sight innocent realization are far-reaching, however. If we accept the noncontroversial claim that automation partially bypasses the need for specialists through the reproduction of already “pre-determined outputs”, automated typologization would primarily be useful in dealing with and synthesizing larger amounts of information by sorting artefacts into already accepted types rather than create novel types or typologies. If we identity the big data promise at least in part with automation, even the detection of novel patterns in any archaeological dataset used to construct new types cannot escape the fact that this novelty is always already prefigured in the data structure devised. The success of ‘supervised learning’ in AI-based approaches illustrates this. Automation thus simply shifts the epistemological burden back to data selection and preparation but this is rarely realized, precisely because of the tacit requirement of broad non-contentiousness. 

Minimally, therefore, big data approaches ironically curtail their potential for novelty by adhering to conventional data treatment and input formats, rarely problematizing the issue of data construction and the contested status of (observational) data themselves. By contrast, they seek to shield themselves against such attempts and tend to retain a tacit universalism as to the nature of archaeological data. Only in this way is it possible to claim that such data have the capacity to “speak for themselves”. To use a concept borrowed from complexity theory, archaeological automation-based type-construction that relies on supposedly basal, incontrovertible data inputs can only ever hope to achieve ‘weak emergence’ (16) – ‘strong emergence’ and therefore true, radical novelty require substantial re-thinking of archaeological data and how to construct them. This is not merely a technical question as sometimes argued by computational archaeologies – for example with reference to specifically developed, automated object tracing procedures – as even such procedures cannot escape the fundamental question of typology: which kind of observations to draw on in order to explore what aspects of artefactual variability (and why). The focus on readily measurable features – classically dimensions of artefactual form – principally evades the key problem of typology and ironically also reduces the complexity of artefactual realities these approaches assert to take seriously. The rise of computational approaches to typology therefore reintroduces the problem of universalism and, as it currently stands, reduces the complexity of observational data potentially relevant for type-construction in order to enable to exploration of the complexity of pattern. It has often been noted that this larger configuration promotes ‘data fetishism’ and because of this alienates practitioners from the archaeological record itself – to speak with Marxist theory that Lucas briefly touches upon. We will briefly return to the notion of ‘distance’ below because it can be described as a symptomatic research-logical trope (and even a goal) in this context of inquiry. 

In total, then, the aspiration for novelty is ultimately difficult to uphold if computational archaeologies refuse to engage in fundamental epistemological and reflexive self-engagement. As Lucas poignantly observes, the most promising locus for novelty is currently probably not to be found in the capacity of the machines or algorithms themselves, but in the modes of collaboration that become possible with archaeological practitioners and specialists (and possibly diverse other groups of knowledge stakeholders). In other words, computers, supercomputers and AI technologies do not revolutionize our knowledge because of their superior computational and pattern-detection capacities – or because of some mysterious ‘superintelligence’ – but because of the specific ‘division of labour’ they afford and the cognitive challenge(s) they pose. Working with computers and AI also often requires to ask new questions or at least to adapt the questions we ask. This can already be seen on the ground, when we pay attention to how machine epistemologies are effectively harnessed in archaeological practice (and is somewhat ironic given that the promise of computational archaeology is often identified with its potential to finally resolve "long-standing (old) questions"). The Third Science Revolution likely prompts a consequential transformation in the structural and material conditions of the kinds of ‘distributed’ processes of knowledge production that STS have documented as characteristic for scientific discoveries and knowledge negotiations more generally (14, 17, 18). This ongoing transformation is thus expected not only to promote new specializations with regard to the utilization of the respective computing infrastructures emerging within big data ecologies but equally to provoke increasing demand for new ways of conceptualizing observations and to reformulate the theoretical needs and goals of typology in archaeology. The rediscovery of reflexivity as an epistemic virtue within big data debates would be an important step into this direction, as it would support the shared goal of achieving true epistemic novelty, which, as Lucas points out, is usually not more than an elusive self-declaration. Big data infrastructures require novel modes of human-machine synergy, which simply cannot be developed or cultivated in an atheoretical and/or epistemological disinterested space. 

Lucas’ exploration ultimately prompts us to ask big questions (again), and this is why this is an important contribution. The elephant in the room, of course, is the overly strong notion of objectivity on which much computational archaeology is arguably premised – linked to the vow to eventually construct ‘objective typologies’. This proclivity, however, re-tables all the problematic debates of the 1960s and – to speak with the powerful root metaphor of the machine fueling much of causal-mechanistic science (19, 20) – is bound to what A. Wylie (21) and others have called the ‘view from nowhere’. Objectivity, in this latter view, is defined by the absence of positionality and subjectivity – chiefly human subjectivity – and the promise of the machine, and by extension of computational archaeology, is to purify and thus to enhance processes of knowledge production by minimizing human interference as much as possible. The distancing of the human from actual processes of data processing and inference is viewed as positive and sometimes even as an explicit goal of scientific development. Interestingly, alienation from the archaeological record is framed as an epistemic virtue here, not as a burden, because close connection with (or even worse, immersion in) the intricacies of artefacts and archaeological contexts supposedly aggravates the problem of bias. The machine, in this optic, is framed as the gatekeeper to an observer-independent reality – which to the backdoor often not only re-introduces Platonian/Aristotelian pledges to a quasi-eternal fabric of reality that only needs to be “discovered” by applying the right (broadly nonhuman) means, it is also largely inconsistent with defendable and currently debated conceptions of scientific objectivity that do not fall prey to dogma.  

Furthermore, current discussions on the open AI ChatGPT have exposed the enormous and still under-reflected dangers of leaning into radical renderings of machine epistemology: precisely because of the principles of automation and the irreducible theory-ladenness of all data, ecologies such as ChatGPT tend to reinforce the tacit epistemological background structures on which they operate and in this way can become collaborators in the legitimization and justification of the status quo (which again counteracts the potential for novelty) – they reproduce supposedly established patterns of thought. This is why, among other things, machines and AI can quickly become perpetuators of parochial and neocolonial projects – their supposed authority creates a sense of impartiality that shields against any possible critique. With Lucas, we can thus perhaps cautiously say that what is required in computational archaeology is to defuse the authority of the machine in favour of a new community archaeology that includes machines as (fallible) co-workers. Radically put, computers and AI should be recognized as subjects themselves, and treated as such, with interesting perspectives on team science and collaborative practice.

Bibliography

1. Lucas, G. (2022). Archaeology, Typology and Machine Epistemology. https:/doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7620824.

2. Kristiansen, K. (2014). Towards a New Paradigm? The Third Science Revolution and its Possible Consequences in Archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology 22, 11–34. https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2014.01.

3. Kristiansen, K. (2022). Archaeology and the Genetic Revolution in European Prehistory. Elements in the Archaeology of Europe. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009228701

4. Eisenhower, M. S. (1964). The Third Scientific Revolution. Science News 85, 322/332. https://www.sciencenews.org/archive/third-scientific-revolution.

5. The ‘Third Science Revolution’ in Archaeology. http://www.eaa2017maastricht.nl/theme4 (March 16, 2023).

6. Ribeiro, A. (2019). Science, Data, and Case-Studies under the Third Science Revolution: Some Theoretical Considerations. Current Swedish Archaeology 27, 115–132. https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2019.06

7. Samida, S. (2019). “Archaeology in times of scientific omnipresence” in Archaeology, History and Biosciences: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, pp. 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110616651

8. Sørensen, T. F.. (2017). The Two Cultures and a World Apart: Archaeology and Science at a New Crossroads. Norwegian Archaeological Review 50, 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2017.1367031

9. Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/.

10. Gattiglia, G. (2015). Think big about data: Archaeology and the Big Data challenge. Archäologische Informationen 38, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.11588/ai.2015.1.26155

11. Hackett, E. J. (2008). The handbook of science and technology studies, Third edition, MIT Press/Society for the Social Studies of Science.

12. Ankeny, R., Chang, H., Boumans, M. and Boon, M. (2011). Introduction: philosophy of science in practice. Euro Jnl Phil Sci 1, 303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0036-4

13. Soler, L., Zwart, S., Lynch, M., Israel-Jost, V. (2014). Science after the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science, Routledge.

14. Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts, Princeton University Press.

15. Chapman, R. and Wylie, A. (2016) Evidential reasoning in archaeology, Bloomsbury Academic.

16. Greve, J. and Schnabel, A. (2011). Emergenz: zur Analyse und Erklärung komplexer Strukturen, Suhrkamp.

17. Shapin, S., Schaffer, S. and Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life, including a translation of Thomas Hobbes, Dialogus physicus de natura aeris by Simon Schaffer, Princeton University Press.

18. Galison, P. L. and Stump, D. J. (1996).The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, Stanford University Press.

19. Pepper, S. C. (1972). World hypotheses: a study in evidence, 7. print, University of California Press.

20. Hussain, S. T. (2019). The French-Anglophone divide in lithic research: A plea for pluralism in Palaeolithic Archaeology, Open Access Leiden Dissertations. https://hdl.handle.net/1887/69812 

21. A. Wylie, A. (2015). “A plurality of pluralisms: Collaborative practice in archaeology” in Objectivity in Science, pp. 189-210, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14349-1_10