This paper (Sosic et al. 2024) explores the Neolithic landscape of the Sopot culture in Đakovština, Eastern Slavonija, revealing a network of settlements through a multi-faceted approach that combines aerial archaeology, magnetometry, excavation, and field survey. This strategy facilitates scalable research tailored to the particularities of each site and allows for improved representations of buried archaeology with minimal intrusion. 

Using the site of Tomašanci-Dubrava as an example of the overall approach, the study further explores the use of drone imagery for 3D surface modeling, revealing a consistent correlation between crop surface elevation during full plant growth and ground terrain after ploughing, attributed to subsurface archaeological features. Results are correlated with magnetic survey and test-pitting data to validate the micro-topography and clarify the relationship between different subsurface structures.

The results obtained are presented in a comprehensive way, including their source data, and are contextualized in relation to conventional cropmark detection approaches and expectations. I found this aspect very interesting, since the crop surface and terrain models contradict typical or textbook examples of cropmark detection, where the vegetation is projected to appear higher in ditches and lower in areas with buried archaeology (Renfrew & Bahn 2016, 82). Regardless, the findings suggest the potential for broader applications of crop surface or canopy height modelling in landscape wide surveys, utilizing ALS data or aerial photographs.  

It seems then that the authors make a valid argument for a layered approach in landscape-based site detection, where aerial imagery can be used to accurately map the topography of areas of interest, which can then be further examined at site scale using more demanding methods, such as geophysical survey and excavation. This scalability enhances the research's relevance in broader archaeological and geographical contexts and renders it a useful example in site detection and landscape-scale mapping.

References

Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. (2016). Archaeology: theories, methods and practice. Thames and Hudson. 

Sosic Klindzic, R., Vuković, M., Kalafatić, H. and Šiljeg, B. (2024). Digital surface models of crops used in archaeological feature detection – a case study of Late Neolithic site Tomašanci-Dubrava in Eastern Croatia, Zenodo, 7970703, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7970703

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

The paper 'A database of lapidary artifacts in the Caribbean for the Ceramic Age' by Queffelec et al. [1] presents a description of a dataset of nearly 5000 lapidary artefacts from over 100 sites. The data are dominated by beads and pendants, which are mostly made from Diorite, Turquoise, Carnelian, Amethyst, and Serpentine. The raw material data is especially valuable as many of these are not locally available on the island. This holds great potential for exchange network analysis. The data may be especially useful for investigating one of the fundamental questions of this region: whether the Cedrosan and Huecan are separate, little related developments, with different origins, or variants or a single tradition [2].

In addition to metric and technological details about the artefacts, the data include a variety of locational details, including coordinates, distance to coast, and altitude. This enables many opportunities for future spatial analysis and geostatistical modelling to understand human behaviours relating to ornament production, use, and discard. I recommend the authors make a minor revision to Table 1 (spatial coverage of the dataset) to make the column with the citations conform to the same citation style used in the rest of the text.

I warmly commend the authors for making transparency and reproducibility a priority when preparing their manuscript. Their use of the R Markdown format for writing reproducible, dynamic documents [3] is highly impressive. This is an excellent example for others in the international archaeological science community to follow. The paper is especially useful for researchers who are new to R and R Markdown because of the elegant and accessible way the authors document their research here.

[1] Queffelec, A., Fouéré, P. and Caverne, J.-B. 2021. A database of lapidary artifacts in the Caribbean for the Ceramic Age. SocArXiv, 7dq3b, ver. 4 Peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/7dq3b

[2] Reed, J. A. and Petersen, J. B. 2001. A comparison of Huecan and Cedrosan Saladoid ceramics at the Trants site, Montserrat. In Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology (pp. 253-267).

[3] Marwick, B. 2017. Computational Reproducibility in Archaeological Research: Basic Principles and a Case Study of Their Implementation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 24, 424–450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9

“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.

Standardization and quality of data collection are identified as challenges for the future in zooarchaeology [1]. These issues were already identified in the early 1970s when the International Council for Archaeozoology (ICAZ) recommended to “standardize measurements and data in publications”. In the recent years, there is strong recommendations by publishers and grant to follow the FAIR Principle i.e. to “improve the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reuse of digital assets” [2]. As zooarchaeologists, we should make our methods more clear and replicable by other researchers to produce comparable datasets. In this paper the authors make a significant step in proposing a tool to replace traditional data recording softwares. The problems related to data recording are clearly identified and discussed. All the features offered by TIPZOO allow to standardize the data, to reduce the errors when entering the data, to save time with auto-filling entries. The coding system used in TIPZOO is based on variables taken from the most used and updated literature in zooarchaeology. Its connections with various R packages allow to directly export the data and to transform the raw data to produce summary tables, graphs and basic statistics. Finally, the advantage of this tool is that it can be improved, debugged, or implemented at any time. TIPZOO provides a standardized system to compile and share large and consistent datasets that will allow comparison among assemblages at a large scale, and for this reason, I have recommended the work for PCI Archaeology.

References

[1] Steele, T.E. (2015). The contributions of animal bones from archaeological sites: the past and future of zooarchaeology. J. Archaeol. Sci. 56, 168–176. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2015.02.036
[2] https://go-fair.org/fair-principles/