image/svg+xml3 IX/1/2018 InterdIscIplInarIa archaeologIca natural scIences In archaeology homepage: Editorial IANSA 1/2018 Disciplinarity in Archaeology Roderick B. Salisbury, Ondřej Mlejnek Archaeology is inherently cross-disciplinary, borrowing from geophysics, computer science, geology, biology, art history, and other felds. Many projects today are multi-disciplinary, bringing in experts from diferent felds, and working in this way has become standard practice. IANSA, established in 2010 to take advantage of “A Window of Opportunity”, was founded to “to increase professional interaction” with “approaches to archaeology grounded in scientifc methods and cooperation with the natural sciences” (from the editorial of the frst issue of IANSA). However, there are persistent questions about how archaeologists accomplish these goals. Do we waver uneasily between subject groups, or are we integrating diferent kinds of knowledge? In what ways do the paradigms of diferent disciplines infuence the questions explored and the knowledge generated? Is it appropriate to talk about inter-disciplinarity? How are multiple disciplines integrated within actual research? These questions provided the framework for the 4 th Annual Central Europe TAG (Theoretical Archaeology Group) conference, aimed at understanding Disciplinarity in Archaeology. The conference, organized by Katharina Rebay-Salisbury, Roderick B. Salisbury and Estella Weiss-Krejci at the Institute OREA of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, was supported by the ERC-funded project VAMOS and the HERA-project DEEPDEAD, and took place over 16 and 17 October 2017. IANSA was presented at the conference as an appropriate journal to disseminate papers about exactly these kinds of questions, as well as research integrating archaeology and the natural sciences. The frst day focused on the theme Refections on Inter- disciplinarity, explicitly questioning whether the discipline of archaeology is cross-, multi-, inter-, or trans-disciplinary, and whether our discipline has been well enough defned to even ask these questions. Archaeological methods rely heavily on technological advances in science, medicine, and computers and digital technology. Unfortunately, the methodological aspect of archaeological practice does not necessarily move at the same speed, or even in the same direction, as changes in archaeological theory. Papers presented on the frst day addressed some of the challenges of engaging in multi or inter-disciplinary research, including language barriers, conceptual diferences between scientifc disciplines, wider conceptual diferences between the sciences and humanities, and diferences in traditions of doing archaeology in Eastern Europe, Western Europe and North America. All of these diferences can lead to epistemological misunderstandings. By the end of the frst day, however, there was a general agreement that a pluralist approach to method and theory is more constructive than less inclusive epistemologies, and that archaeology is strongest when combining the skills and conceptual tools of the natural sciences and humanities. The second day comprised of a series of case studies on the theme of Practicing Inter-disciplinarity. Most archaeologists recognize the need for incorporating the results of “hard science” analyses in their work, and this remains one of the motivations of the IANSA journal. Archaeological research now includes everything from human bioarchaeology to digital image analysis to palaeoenvironmental reconstructions. In the papers presented, it became obvious that archaeologists need to understand the limitations of scientifc methods so that we do not over- or underestimate the reliability or precision of the methods we employ. On the other hand, our natural science collaborators are not always aware of, or willing to accept, the limitations of archaeological data. In some cases, archaeologists become data suppliers, and concerns surrounding the comparability of small data sets have been ignored. These presentations provided important insights into how scientifc results can be subsumed by archaeological assumptions, or conversely how archaeological contributions and concerns might be lost in the structures and jargon of science. CE-TAG 2017 provided excellent examples and discussion of issues surrounding language, regional traditions, epistemological concerns, and inter-disciplinarity as a distinct subject. Another theme that arose was of dissemination to other archaeologists and presentation to the public. Dissemination now requires the ability to communicate across multiple platforms, in multiple genres, Volume IX ● Issue 1/2018 ● Pages 3–4
image/svg+xmlIANSA 2018 ● IX/1 ● 3–4Roderick B. Salisbury, Ondřej Mlejnek: Disciplinarity in Archaeology 4 and to multiple audiences, as discussed in this issue by D. Hagmann. The breadth of presentations was a strong indication that drawing from multiple disciplines strengthens archaeology and enables us to address larger societal concerns. It is important to engage with each other’s disciplines intensively to overcome the challenges in moving across disciplinary boundaries, and to address real concerns about how and why certain methods are deployed in archaeology. The content of this issue is very diverse. It begins with the paper already mentioned by Dominik Hagmann refecting the use of social networks as an interactive tool for data dissemination in digital archaeology. The second article written by Mohammad Hossein Resaei et al. presents the results of XRD and XRF analyses applied on Late Bronze Age pottery from the Iranian site of Shahrak-e Firouzeh. The next submission is written by Verónica Pérez de Dios et al. and describes the results of geochemical analyses (ICP-MS, XRD and spectrometry) conducted on Roman tesserae (tiles used in creating mosaics) excavated in Salamanca in Spain. In the study written by Mária Hajnalová et al. the results of archaeozoological and archaeobotanical analyses made on fnds from the Roman Age Structure excavated in Hurbanovo in Slovakia are described. Finally, Martin Janovský and Jan Horák publish a paper presenting the possibilities of using geochemical analyses in the archaeological research of deserted medieval villages taking the example of the deserted village Hol near Prague in Bohemia. The thematic review section of this issue is devoted to starch analyses and their use in archaeology. Jaromír Kovárník and Jaromír Beneš describe the principles of this modern method and add some case studies. In the Book Reviews section Anna Pankowská presents a book of proceedings called Children, Death and Burial, Archaeological Discourses (Archaeology of Childhood), edited by Eileen Murphy and Melie Le Roy and published by Oxbow Books in 2017, while Slavomír Haberajter reviews a book called Ancient Iran and its Neighbours edited by Cameron A. Petrie and published by Oxbow Books in 2013. Finally, in the Back-story (A Look in the Region) section Barbara Horejs presents some projects of the Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology (OREA) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. Concerning the latest news regarding the IANSA journal, Roderick B. Salisbury has agreed to be the new Chair of the Advisory Board, and Sofa Stefnovic has replaced John Chapman on the Advisory Board, thus bringing new ideas and emphasizing the role of human bioarchaeology in current scientifc and interdisciplinary archaeology. We hope that due to the wide range of topics discussed in this issue, it will attract a wide audience of archaeologists and natural scientists interested in archaeology. We are glad to announce that the next issue (IANSA 2/2018) will be devoted to the papers from the 14 th Conference of Environmental Archaeology (CEA), which took place in February 2018 in Modena (Italy).