Latest recommendations
Id | Title * | Authors * | Abstract * | Picture * | Thematic fields * | Recommender | Reviewers▼ | Submission date | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
02 Mar 2024
![]() A note on predator-prey dynamics in radiocarbon datasetsNimrod Marom, Uri Wolkowski https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.12.566733A new approach to Predator-prey dynamicsRecommended by Ruth BlascoVarious biological systems have been subjected to mathematical modelling to enhance our understanding of the intricate interactions among different species. Among these models, the predator-prey model holds a significant position. Its relevance stems not only from its application in biology, where it largely governs the coexistence of diverse species in open ecosystems, but also from its utility in other domains. Predator-prey dynamics have long been a focal point in population ecology, yet access to real-world data is confined to relatively brief periods, typically less than a century. Studying predator-prey dynamics over extended periods presents challenges due to the limited availability of population data spanning more than a century. The most extensive dataset is the hare-lynx records from the Hudson Bay Company, documenting a century of fur trade [1]. However, other records are considerably shorter, usually spanning decades [2,3]. This constraint hampers our capacity to investigate predator-prey interactions over centennial or millennial scales. Marom and Wolkowski [4] propose here that leveraging regional radiocarbon databases offers a solution to this challenge, enabling the reconstruction of predator-prey population dynamics over extensive timeframes. To substantiate this proposition, they draw upon examples from Pleistocene Beringia and the Holocene Judean Desert. This approach is highly relevant and might provide insight into ecological processes occurring at a time scale beyond the limits of current ecological datasets. The methodological approach employed in this article proposes that the summed probability distribution (SPD) of predator radiocarbon dates, which reflects changes in population size, will demonstrate either more or less variation than anticipated from random sampling in a homogeneous distribution spanning the same timeframe. A deviation from randomness would imply a covariation between predator and prey populations. This basic hypothesis makes no assumptions about the frequency, mechanism, or cause of predator-prey interactions, as it is assumed that such aspects cannot be adequately tested with the available data. If validated, this hypothesis would offer initial support for the idea that long-term regional radiocarbon data contain signals of predator-prey interactions. This approach could justify the construction of larger datasets to facilitate a more comprehensive exploration of these signal structures.
References [1] Elton, C. and Nicholson, M., 1942. The Ten-Year Cycle in Numbers of the Lynx in Canada. J. Anim. Ecol. 11, 215–244. [2] Gilg, O., Sittler, B. and Hanski, I., 2009. Climate change and cyclic predator-prey population dynamics in the high Arctic. Glob. Chang. Biol. 15, 2634–2652. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.01927.x [3] Vucetich, J.A., Hebblewhite, M., Smith, D.W. and Peterson, R.O., 2011. Predicting prey population dynamics from kill rate, predation rate and predator-prey ratios in three wolf-ungulate systems. J. Anim. Ecol. 80, 1236–1245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01855.x [4] Marom, N. and Wolkowski, U. (2024). A note on predator-prey dynamics in radiocarbon datasets, BioRxiv, 566733, ver. 4 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.11.12.566733 | A note on predator-prey dynamics in radiocarbon datasets | Nimrod Marom, Uri Wolkowski | <p>Predator-prey interactions have been a central theme in population ecology for the past century, but real-world data sets only exist for recent, relatively short (<100 years) time spans. This limits our ability to study centennial/millennial... | ![]() | Bioarchaeology, Environmental archaeology, Palaeontology, Paleoenvironment, Zooarchaeology | Ruth Blasco | 2023-12-12 14:37:22 | View | |
10 Jun 2024
![]() Hypercultural types: archaeological objects in fast times.Artur Ribeiro https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10567441The Postmodern Predicament of Type-Thinking in ArchaeologyRecommended by Shumon Tobias Hussain“Hypercultural types: archaeological objects in fast times” by A. Ribeiro (1) offers some timely, critical and creative reflections on the manifold struggles of and disappointments in type-thinking and typological approaches in recent archaeological scholarship. Ribeiro insightfully situates what has been identified as a “crisis” in archaeological typo-praxis in the historical conditions of postmodernity and late capitalism themselves. The author thereby attempts what he himself considers “quite hard”, namely “to understand the current Zeitgeist and how it affects how we think and do archaeology” (p. 4). This provides a sort of historical epistemology of the present which can of course only be preliminary and incomplete as it crystallizes, takes shape, and transforms as we write these lines, is available only in fragments and hints, and is generally difficult to talk about and describe as we (the author included) lack critical distance – present-day archaeologists and fellow academics are both enfolded in postmodernity and continue to contribute to its logics and trajectories. Ribeiro’s key argument is provocative as it is interesting: he contends that archaeologists’ difficulties of coming to terms with types and typologies – staple knowledge practices of the discipline ever since – are a symptom of the changing cultural matrix of our times. The diagnosis is multilayered and complex, and Ribeiro at times only scratches the surface of what may be at stake here as he openly admits himself. At the core of his proposal is a shift in attention away from classical questions of epistemological rank, which in archaeology have tended to orbit the contentious issue of the reality of types (see also 2). Instead of foregrounding the question of type-realities – whether types, once identified, can be meaningfully said to exist and to represent something significant in the world – archaeologists are urged to recognize that typo-praxis is culturally saturated in at least two profound ways. First, devising and mobilizing types and typologies is a cultural practice itself – it may indeed have long been a foundational ‘cultural technique’ (Kulturtechnik) (3) of archaeology as a disciplined community-venture of methodical knowledge production. Typo-centric understandings of the archaeological record are quite akin to definition-centric apprehensions of the same as in both cases order, discreteness, and one-to-one correspondence are considered overriding epistemic virtues and credible pointers to a subject-independent “reality”. As such, these practices have a location of their own and they may thus notably conflict with the particularities of alternate and ever-mutating phenomenal realities and historical conditions. Discreteness may for instance lose its paradigmatic status as a descriptor of worldly order, and this is precisely what Ribeiro argues to have happened in the wake of postmodern transformations, influentially said to have deeply reconfigured the relation between the local and the global, at times even superseding such distinctions altogether. When coupled to questions of reality, types, in a similar fashion as definitions, quickly become vehicles to affirm epistemic power and knowledge authority and so help certify certain kinds of realities while supressing others. This is the paradox of modernity: to insist on monolithic understandings of the world while professing radical difference. Second, and for Ribeiro more importantly, typo-praxis is not just subject to cultural variation and thus by implication is plural, it also always has its proper associated cultural milieu in which it exerts some sort of efficacy, i.e. enables action and insight. Ribeiro maintains that this sort of efficacy has become contentious under postmodern conditions and this is because culture, under the gaze of global consumerism, has lost much of its classical significance, and as “hyperculture” (4) developed new logics, significations, and material culture correspondences, essentially “flattening” the highly textured and differentiated world of modernity (p. 6). Some of these new configurations sharply violate the expectations of traditional views of culture. The postmodern situation has in this way effectively emerged as a resistant force proffering much caution and growing scepticism among archaeologists and other academics alike as received ideas about “types” and “cultures” do not seem to work anymore the same way as before. The credibility of different modes of typo-praxis, archaeological or not, in other words, may depend much more on the cultural ecology of lived experience and contemporary diagnosis than is often realized. With Ribeiro, we may say that culture concepts and type concepts are indeed co-constitutive, and what sort of types and typologies archaeologists can persuasively deploy thus also depends greatly on how we construct the link between culture and type, and how (well) we grapple with our own realities and the lessons we draw from them – yet another important reminder of how our own subjectivities figure in such foundational debates (see esp. 5). The crisis of typo-praxis in archaeology, then, is intricately linked to the crisis of modernity, broached by Ribeiro with the labels of postmodernity and late capitalism. Upon reflection, this is not surprising at all since Tylor’s (6) influential definition of culture for example, which is extensively referenced in the paper, was both reflective of and conducive to the project of modernity and its distinctive historical formations such as empire and colonialism. Ribeiro reminds us that questions of justification and credibility, be it in the domain of type-thinking or other epistemic contexts, can never be fully divorced from the contemporary situation, and archaeologists thus need to be vigilant observers of the present, too. Typo-praxis ultimately is motivated by and draws authority from what Foucault (7) has called épistémè, the totality of pertinent parameters forming the historical a priori of understanding or the guiding unconsciousness of subjectivity within a given epoch. The crisis of archaeological typo-praxis, in this view, signifies a calling into question of the historical a priori on which much traditional type-work in archaeology was premised. Archaeologists still have to come to terms with the implications and consequences of this assessment. “Hypercultural types: archaeological objects in fast times” offers a first poignant analysis of some of these challenges of postmodern archaeological type-thinking.
Bibliography 1. Ribeiro, A. (2024). Hypercultural types: archaeological objects in fast times. Zenodo, 10567441, ver. 3 peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Archaeology. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10567441 2. Hussain, S. T. (2024). The Loss of Typological Innocence: An Archaeology of Archaeological Typo-Praxis. Zenodo, 10567441. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10547264 3. Macho, T. (2013). Second-Order Animals: Cultural Techniques of Identity and Identification. Theory, Culture & Society 30, 30–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413499189 4. Han, B.-C. (2022). Hyperculture: culture and globalization (Polity Press). 5. Frank, A., Gleiser, M. and Thompson, E. (2024). The blind spot: why science cannot ignore human experience (The MIT Press). https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/13711.001.0001 6. E. B. Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive Culture: Researches Into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom (J. Murray). 7. Foucault, M. (2007). The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences, Repr (Routledge). | Hypercultural types: archaeological objects in fast times. | Artur Ribeiro | <p>Although artifact typologies still play a big role in archaeology, they have certainly lost some repute in recent decades. More than just a collection of items with similar attributes, typologies are a reflection of cultural behaviour and pract... | ![]() | Theoretical archaeology | Shumon Tobias Hussain | 2024-01-25 13:40:08 | View | |
09 Dec 2024
Latest updates on the study of the Middle Palaeolithic Lithic assemblages of Cardina- Salto do Boi site (Côa Valley, Portugal)Patrícia O. S. Ramos, Thierry J. Aubry https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/s3jd2Fresh insights into the Middle Paleolithic of the Côa Valley (Portugal) and the importance of quartzRecommended by Sara DaffaraThe 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
| Latest updates on the study of the Middle Palaeolithic Lithic assemblages of Cardina- Salto do Boi site (Côa Valley, Portugal) | Patrícia O. S. Ramos, Thierry J. Aubry | <p>Cardina-Salto do Boi (Guarda, Portugal) is one of the few studied sites with Middle Palaeolithic occupations in the Côa Valley. These span MIS 6 to MIS 3, which constitutes a favourable circumstance for studying dwelling dynamics diachronically... | Lithic technology, Middle Palaeolithic | Sara Daffara | 2024-03-30 10:16:56 | View | ||
18 Oct 2024
![]() Virtual Reality Tours as an Immersive Approach to Archaeology in Higher EducationRobert Stephan, Aviva Doery, Caleb Simmons https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13255252A roadmap for implementing VR-based teaching courses in archaeologyRecommended by Thomas HuetVirtual Reality (VR), as a component of Extended Reality (XR), enables the visualization and exploration of archaeological sites and artifacts that are otherwise inaccessible or lost due to time, decay, or physical access constraints. As is common in archaeology, when a new technology becomes available, it is incorporated into the archaeologist's toolbox, but there remains a need to identify workflows and best practices. References Robert Stephan, Aviva Doery, Caleb Simmons (2024) Virtual Reality Tours as an Immersive Approach to Archaeology in Higher Education. Zenodo, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13255252 | Virtual Reality Tours as an Immersive Approach to Archaeology in Higher Education | Robert Stephan, Aviva Doery, Caleb Simmons | <p>In recent years, virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a powerful technology with the potential to impact higher education. This paper examines the use of VR as a teaching tool in college classrooms, with a specific focus on its ability to provid... | ![]() | Antiquity, Classic, Europe, Mediterranean, Theoretical archaeology | Thomas Huet | 2024-08-07 16:28:41 | View | |
07 Nov 2024
![]() Underwater Drones as a Low-Cost, yet Powerful Tool for Underwater Archaeological Mapping: Case Studies from the MediterraneanEleni Diamanti, Øyvind Ødegård, Vasilis Mentogiannis, George Koutsouflakis https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13460949Underwater drones and semi-automatic SfM, a challenge for underwater archaeology, or are we already there?Recommended by Jesus Garcia SanchezAnything 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 | Underwater Drones as a Low-Cost, yet Powerful Tool for Underwater Archaeological Mapping: Case Studies from the Mediterranean | Eleni Diamanti, Øyvind Ødegård, Vasilis Mentogiannis, George Koutsouflakis | <p>This paper investigates the transformative impact of micro-class Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs), commonly known as underwater drones, on underwater archaeological mapping. With advancements in Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) technology lea... | ![]() | Computational archaeology, Remote sensing, Spatial analysis | Jesus Garcia Sanchez | 2024-08-28 19:50:39 | View | |
02 Feb 2025
![]() Analysis of the Abundance of Radiocarbon Samples as Count DataMiguel de Navascués, Concetta Burgarella, Mattias Jakobsson https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13381596Beyond the Sum: A Poisson Approach to Radiocarbon AnalysisRecommended by Jonathan HannaArchaeological data is inherently uncertain, which is probably why Bayesian approaches have become increasingly valued within the discipline. For radiocarbon analysis, instead of pinpointing one "true" date, Bayesian methods embrace probability, telling us how likely a sample falls within different date ranges based on what we already know (the prior) and what our data tells us (the posterior). In this new paper, Miguel de Navascués and colleagues offer a method for treating radiocarbon dates as count data (generated through a Poisson process), rather than viewing them as draws from a probability distribution. This shift allows them to model the expected number of samples per year and incorporate uncertainty in both the timing and total number of samples. The result is a more natural representation of how radiocarbon samples accumulate in the archaeological record over time. (They then demonstrate the method using data from Britain and Ireland, revealing patterns that both confirm and refine our understanding of population changes during key transitions, including a possibly earlier start to the Neolithic demographic expansion.) Overall, the paper represents a valuable contribution to quantitative archaeology that complements, rather than replaces, existing approaches like Sum Probability Distributions (SPDs) and end-to-end Bayesian methods (e.g., see Crema 2022 and Price et al. 2021). While mathematically heavy, the paper is accompanied by well-annotated R scripts that I encourage readers to experiment with. For researchers working with radiocarbon data, particularly those investigating demographic change or cultural transmission, the methods presented here offer important new analytical possibilities for understanding past human dynamics. Sometimes, to move forward, we just need to count differently.
References Crema, E. R. (2022), Statistical Inference of Prehistoric Demography from Frequency Distributions of Radiocarbon Dates: A Review and a Guide for the Perplexed. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 29(4):1387–1418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-022-09559-5 de Navascués, M., Burgarella, C. & Jakobsson, M. (2025) Analysis of the Abundance of Radiocarbon Samples as Count Data. Zenodo, ver.3 peer-reviewed and recommended by PCI Archaeology https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13381596 Price, M. H., Capriles, J. M., Hoggarth, J. A., Bocinsky, R. K., Ebert, C. E. & Jones, J. H. (2021) End-to-End Bayesian Analysis for Summarizing Sets of Radiocarbon Dates. Journal of Archaeological Science 135:105473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2021.105473
| Analysis of the Abundance of Radiocarbon Samples as Count Data | Miguel de Navascués, Concetta Burgarella, Mattias Jakobsson | <p>The analysis of the abundance of radiocarbon samples through time has become a popular method to address questions of demography in archaeology. The history of this approach is marked by the use of the Sum of Probability Distributions (SPD), a ... | ![]() | Archaeobotany, Computational archaeology, Dating, Europe | Jonathan Hanna | 2024-09-04 15:36:08 | View |
FOLLOW US
MANAGING BOARD
Alain QUEFFELEC
Nelson ALMEIDA
Johan ARIF
Marta ARZARELLO
Ruth BLASCO
Matthew COLLINS
Otis CRANDELL
Luc DOYON
Alice LEPLONGEON
Florent RIVALS
Aitor RUIZ-REDONDO