Explore the vast range of titles available.

The methods, concepts and practices of KU Leuven’s Sagalassos Archaeological Sagalassos speaks to the imagination in more ways than one. The authentic and natural beauty of the site no doubt plays a role in that. The Sagalassos Project testifies to the fact that its core business, archaeology, also appeals to the imagination. Learning about the past is fascinating, for young and old alike. Curiosity unquestionably plays a role in this. Archaeologists, as any other scientist, are driven to really know about past human activities. As they leave no stone unturned in their endeavours, archaeologists also stimulate the curiosity of society. The public at large is not only interested in the results per se, but also wants to understand how knowledge about the past comes about. This volume gives the word to the archaeologists and other scientists of the Sagalassos Archaeological Research Project. They explain their ways, methods and concepts as they reconstruct and interpret the past of the archaeological site of Sagalassos and the surrounding study region. By bringing testimony to the broader discipline of archaeology, this book deserves to be read by scholars and students with an open interest in classical archaeology who wish to (re)discover some of the basics of the science and process. It will also be of interest to professionals involved with archaeologists and the wider interested public. Ebook available in Open Access. This publication is GPRC-labeled (Guaranteed Peer-Reviewed Content). Contributors: Sam Cleymans (Gallo-Roman Museum Tongeren), Ebru Torun, Göze Üner and Özge Başağaç (independent architects), Rinse Willet (Radboud University) and Philip Bes (Österreichisches Archäologisches Institut), Fran Stroobants (Royal Library of Belgium), Dries Daems (KU Leuven) Johan Claeys (KU Leuven), Bas Beaujean (KU Leuven), Peter Talloen (Bilkent University), Ralf Vandam (Vrije Universiteit Brussel ), Patrick Willett (ARIT).

In the 1970s and 1980s, regional analysis was an influential part of archaeological research, providing a discrete set of geographical tools inspired by a processual epistemological and interpretive perspective. With the advent of new technologies, new methods, and new paradigms, archaeological research on regional space has undergone significant changes. This article reviews the state of regional archaeology, beginning with a consideration of its history and a discussion of the fundamental issues facing regional investigations before focusing on developments over the last several years. On one hand, the diversification of archaeological theory has created new paradigms for thinking about human relationships with one another and with the physical environment across regional space; in this regard, historical ecology, landscape archaeology, and evolutionary theory have been particularly influential in recent years. This has led to a corresponding diversification of the traditional methods of regional analysis. Most notably, the advent of powerful digital technologies has introduced new tools, especially those from the geographic information sciences, that build on the quantitative methods of past approaches. The investigation of regional data is no longer based on a discrete toolkit of simple mathematical and graphical procedures for representing spatial relationships. Instead, regional archaeology has matured into a diversity of multiscalar spatial and geostatistical techniques that inform many areas of archaeological inquiry.

Indigenous archaeology focuses on laudable processes of collaborative community research and decolonization. In contrast, theoretical contributions of Indigenous archaeology in terms of interpreting archaeological materials have been minimally articulated beyond praxis. Does Indigenous archaeology have an interpretative theoretical agenda? This paper addresses this question and articulates an agenda through distillation of theoretical developments and concerns from the considerable literature on Indigenous archaeology that has emerged from the Americas, Australia, and Africa over the past two decades. A shared fundamental concern is challenging ontological and epistemological divides and dualisms within mainstream Western archaeology. Two key dimensions of Indigenous archaeology are elaborated to provide broader scope to contextualize and address these theoretical challenges. First, encountering the past challenges objectivist tangibility of the archaeological record with ancestral presence and contexts where artifactual absence is the (in)tangible signature of spiritual association. Second, historicing the present challenges secularist archaeologies of a detached past with archaeologies of the more familiar ethnographically known recent past linked to identity and diachronic explorations of ontology and spiritualism. An agenda that embraces these theoretical challenges presents major opportunities for mainstream archaeology to reorient its Eurocentric focus and produce more cross-culturally relevant and culturally nuanced and sensitive understandings of the past.

This review aims to expose the potential of formal network methods for archaeology by tracing the origins of the academic traditions, network models, and techniques that have been most influential to archaeologists. A brief discussion of graph theoretic applications in archaeology reveals how graph visualization and analysis was used since the 1960s in a very similar way to later network analysis applications, but did not seem to have influenced the more widespread adoption of network techniques over the past decade. These recent archaeological applications have been strongly influenced by two academic traditions, social network analysis and sociophysics. The most influential and promising techniques and models adopted from these traditions are critically discussed. This review reveals some general trends which are considered to be the result of two critical issues that will need to be addressed in future archaeological network analysis: (1) a general unawareness of the historicity and diversity of formal network methods both within and outside the archaeological discipline has resulted in a very limited methodological scope; (2) the adoption or development of network methods has very rarely been driven by specific archaeological research questions and is dominated by a few popular models and techniques, which has in some cases resulted in a routinized explanatory process. This review illustrates, however, the great potential of formal network methods for archaeology and argues that, if this potential is to be applied in a critical way, a broad multidisciplinary scope is necessary and specific archaeological research contexts should dominate applications.

Archaeology and anthropology, despite their commonalities, have had a rather asymmetrical relationship, and the periodic attempts at closer collaboration resulted in mutual frustration. As both disciplines have recently undergone significant changes, however, with anthropology embracing more fully materiality and historicity, and archaeology engaging in contemporary research, often involving ethnography, the time is ripe for a new rapprochement. Archaeological ethnography, an emerging transdisciplinary field, offers such an opportunity. Archaeological ethnography is defined here as a transcultural space for multiple encounters, conversations, and interventions, involving researchers from various disciplines and diverse publics, and centered around materiality and temporality. It is multitemporal rather than presentist, and although many of its concerns to date are about clashes over heritage, this article argues that its potential is far greater because it can dislodge the certainties of conventional archaeology and question its ontological principles, such as those founded on modernist, linear, and successive temporality.

This paper provides an up-to-date history of archaeological computer simulation, starting with the early 1970s simulation models, but paying particular attention to those developed over the past 20-25 years. It revises earlier accounts of archaeological simulation by proposing an alternation between programmatic phases, in which published work tends to be about simulation as a method, and mature phases in which there is greater emphasis on the substantive results of simulation experiments. The paper concludes that the burgeoning interest in computer simulation since circa 2000 is largely characterized by mature application in areas where it fits naturally into existing inferential frameworks (e.g., certain strands of evolutionary archaeology) but that explicitly \"sociological\" simulation remains a challenge.

Archaeological predictive modeling has been used successfully for over 20 years as a decision-making tool in cultural resources management. Its appreciation in academic circles however has been mixed because of its perceived theoretical poverty. In this paper, we discuss the issue of integrating current archaeological theoretical approaches and predictive modeling. We suggest a methodology for doing so based on cognitive archaeology, middle range theory, and paleoeconomic modeling. We also discuss the problems associated with testing predictive models.

This paper presents Jean-Claude Gardin's distinctive approach to archaeological data, representation and knowledge in the context of his early engagement with semiotics and structural semantics and his grounding in fields as diverse as documentation, classification theory, material culture studies, argumentation theory and the philosophy of the human sciences. Pointing at Gardin's ambivalence vis-à-vis the promises of automated classification and machine reasoning in archaeology, it shows that his approach goes beyond a normative, positivist conception of archaeological research, recognizing the contextual, theory-laden nature of archaeological data constitution, the priority of focusing on actual archaeological interpretation practices and the complementarity between narrative and formal representations of archaeological reasoning. It connects his early development of archaeological descriptive and typological metalanguages with his later elaboration of a theoretically informed approach to archaeological argumentation, analysis and publication, situates his logicist programme as a relevant contribution to the development of an archaeological \"theory of practice\", grounded on reflexivity and modesty vis-à-vis the possibility of knowledge and the limits of scientism, and highlights aspects of Gardin's work that point to potentially fruitful directions for contemporary research and practice in the field of archaeological informatics and digital humanities communication.

Large-scale development-led archaeology has changed the very nature of archaeological datasets. In addition to the familiar positive evidence of structures and deposits, there is now a wealth of ‘true-negative’ evidence: the confirmed absence of archaeological remains. Making good use of such data presents a challenge and demands new ways of thinking. Using case studies based on recent developer-led work in the UK, the authors suggest that focusing on ‘fingerprints’ of past human activity at a landscape scale provides a useful approach. The results argue in favour of changes to existing recording systems, as well as the need to integrate more fully both positive and negative evidence in archaeological interpretation.