image/svg+xml
3
IX/1/2018
InterdIscIplInarIa archaeologIca
natural scIences In archaeology
homepage: http://www.iansa.eu
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+xml
IANSA 2018 ● IX/1 ● 3–4
Roderick 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).
Figure 1.
CE TAG Conference in Vienna
2017. Photo by Estella Weiss-Krejci.