G
Gamio Martnez, Manuel
Haydee Lopez Hernandez and
Fernando Lopez Aguilar
Direccion de Estudios Historicos-INAH,
Mexico City, DF, Mexico
Basic Biographical Information
Manuel Gamio Martinez was a Mexican archae-
ologist and anthropologist and a promoter of the
welfare of indigenous Mexicans. He was born in
Mexico City on March 2, 1883, and died on July
16, 1960, in the same city at age 77. Gamio
completed his basic studies in the colleges
Fournier and Colon and his high school studies
in the National Preparatory School from which
he graduated in 1903. Pressured by his father, he
went to the School of Engineering but
soon abandoned it due to lack of interest
(Comas 1956; Gallegos 1996). In 1905, he
obtained the post of Assistant in Evening
Elementary School Supplemental Instruction
No. 5, and in 1907, he joined as editor of
the Spanish section in the Revista Moderna de
Mexico (Modern Mexico Magazine) where he
wrote about the Indians (Gallegos 1996: 25-65)
In 1906, he attended courses in archaeology at
the National Museum taking classes on Nahuatl,
and ethnology given by Nicolas Leon and Andres
Molina Enriquez. In 1907 he was appointed
Assistant Professor of History class and he
presented, along with Leon the project
C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2,
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Archaeological Guide to Mexico, which was
rejected. Being a student of the Museum, after
an excursion to Zacatecas his work The archae-
ological monuments in the vicinity of
Chalchihuites, Zacatecas, was published in
Anales del Museo Nacional, (Annals of the
National Museum 3rd season, vol. II) (Gallegos
1996: 29-65). With the support of Zelia Nuttall,
he studied at Columbia University with Franz
Boas and Marshall Saville from 1909 to 1911.
When he returned to Mexico he was appointed
Professor of Archaeology and Practice Professor
of Archaeology in charge of the tours in the
National Museum at the National Museum
(August 1911January 1912). In parallel, he
became a fellow at the International School of
American Archaeology and Ethnology, and he
was appointed Assistant Inspector of the Inspec-
torate of Monuments, which caused his dismissal
from the Museum due to the neglect of his work
(Gallegos 1996: 65-98). The constant duplication
of work caused him problems with Franz Boas,
who repeatedly complained about his informality
with the International School. In June 1913, he
quit the International School to take up the post
of Inspector in the General Inspectorate of
Monuments. The following year he was
appointed Head of Inspection, and he removed
this office from the Museum (Gallegos 1996;
Rutsch 2007).
Gamio held a number of important adminis-
trative positions throughout his career. He was
member of the Supreme Council of Welfare from
1929 to 1932. In 1933, he held various positions
G 2944
in Public Education, National Economy, and
the Agricultural Department. In 1934, he was
General Director of Rural Population and Settle-
ment in the Ministry of Agriculture and from
1935 to 1937 was a member of the Technical
Advisory Committee of the SEP and, from 1938
to 1942, Head of Vital Statistics of the Ministry
of Interior (Comas 1956: 12-7). In 1942, he was
appointed Director of the Inter-American
Indigenist Institute, which allowed him to join
the indigenismo. He was reelected twice in
this post, which he held until his death. One of
his main concerns in the Institute was the
improvement of indigenous peoples by the
introduction of American soybeans in their diet
(Comas 1956; Gallegos 1996).
Major Accomplishments
Gamio is sometimes considered to be the father
of modern anthropological studies in Mexico. He
postulated that anthropology should be consid-
ered as an applied science that focused on solving
problems of contemporary peoples and on the
cultural identification of indigenous cultures
based on social, paleontological, archaeological,
anthropological, linguistic, and historical
knowledge (Gallegos 1996; Rutsch 2007).
Gamio is also considered one of the key practi-
tioners of stratigraphic excavation (Adams 1960).
From 1910 to 1912, he excavated a series of
deep trenches in the refuse deposits at San
Miguel Amantla (Azcapotzalco) in Mexico City
under the direction of Boas, who proposed the
sequence of De los Cerros-Teotihuacan-Azteca
for Mexico Basin.
In his classic work Forjando Patria (1916),
Gamio portrayed contemporary Indians as
backwards, uneducated, and poor. He advocated
stronger education programs, with an emphasis
on Spanish education and the sciences. He saw
cultural fusion, linguistic unification, and eco-
nomic equilibrium as a means of building a new
nation. His approach was launched in the new
Department of Ethnographic and Archaeological
Studies founded in 1917 (called also Department
of Anthropology from 1919) in the Ministry of
Gamio Martnez, Manuel
Agriculture and Development. As Director of the
institution, he proposed regional studies as
tools to understand and improve the indigenous
population in their physical and cultural
aspects and to exercise good governance.
He proposed the use of applied anthropology as a
tool of government, taking into account Molina
Enriquez and Boas proposals. With these
concerns in mind, Gamio attended the Second
International Congress of Eugenics in New York,
representing the Mexican government (Uras
2002; Lopez 2003).
Since 1917, Gamio conducted a regional study
of the Teotihuacan Valley integrating archaeo-
logical, historical, and anthropological investiga-
tions. He held workshops to teach people
Spanish; science and craft manufacturing, to
encourage economic activity complementary to
agriculture, were established. The results were
published in The Population of the Teotihuacan
Valley (Gamio 1922).
When Gamio was appointed Assistant
Secretary of Public Education, he moved the
Department of Archaeology to the Secretariat
(with the name of Department of Anthropology).
He denounced the inflated expenses in several
purchases of the Secretariat and had to leave the
post and the country since Plutarco Elias Calles
rejected all these allegations and supported the
secretary Puig Casauranc. With his departure,
the Department was converted into an office
for archaeological research (Department of
Archaeology), canceling the second regional
project in Monte Alban, Oaxaca (Uras 2002;
Lopez 2003). Gamio sought refuge in America.
There he joined the archaeological-ethnographic
exploration of the American Archaeological
Society of Washington in Guatemala and
then, sponsored by the Social Science Research
Council and the Rockefeller Foundation
Spellman, took the migration to the USA as
subject of research, studying its impact on econ-
omy and society and the reasons why migrants
had preserved their traditions and customs
without full integration to the American lifestyle
(Gamio 1930, 1931).
Gamio never lost hope of regaining the
confidence of President Calles and maintained
Garden Hunting
a constant correspondence in which he always
showed his unconditional support, despite the
disdain of Mexican politics. He returned to
the Mexican public administration occupying
minor positions; this fact was the end of his
archaeological career and also an impasse in
his interest in improving indigenous races
(Uras 2002: 110-3).
Cross-References
Mesoamerica: Complex Society Development
Nationalism and Archaeology
References
ADAMS, R. 1960. Manuel Gamio and the stratigraphic
excavation. American Antiquity 26(1): 99.
COMAS, J. 1956. La vida y obra de Manuel Gamio, in
Estudios antropologicos publicados en homenaje al
doctor Manuel Gamio: 1-26. Mexico: Direccion
General de Publicaciones-Universidad Nacional
Autonoma de Mexico/Sociedad Mexicana de
Antropologa.
GALLEGOS, J. R. 1996. Manuel Gamio y la formacion de la
nacionalidad: el problema de los indios y de los
derechos de los pueblos. Unpublished Bachelor disser-
tation, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
- 1999. La artesana, un modelo social y tecnologico para
los indgenas. Poltica y Cultura 12: 223-41.
GAMIO, M. M. 1913. Arqueologia de Atzcapotzalco, D. F.
Mexico. Proceedings of the Eighteenth International
Congress of Americanists: 180-7.
- 1916. Forjando patria: pro nacionalismo. Mexico City:
Libreria de Porrua Hermanos
- 1922. La poblacion del valle de Teotihuacan. Mexico
City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
- 1930. Mexican immigration into the United States:
a study of human migration and adjustment. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
- 1931. The life story of the Mexican immigrant. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
LOPEZ, H. 2003. La arqueologa mexicana en un periodo de
transicion, 1917-1938, Unpublished Bachelor disser-
tation, Escuela Nacional de Antropologa e Historia.
RUTSCH, M. 2007. Entre el campo y el gabinete.
Nacionales y extranjeros en la profesionalizacion de
antropologa mexicana (1877-1920). Mexico City:
Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia-
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
URIAS, B. 2002. Las ciencias sociales en la encrucijada del
poder: Manuel Gamio (1920-1940). Revista Mexicana
de Sociologa 64(3): 93-121.
2945 G
Further Reading
GAMIO, M. 1935. Hacia un Mexico nuevo: problemas
sociales. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
- 1948. Consideraciones sobre el problema del
indigenismo. Mexico City: Instituto Indigenista
Interamericano.
GONZALEZ -GAMIO, A. 1987. Manuel Gamio. Una lucha sin
final. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma
de Mexico.
GONZALEZ -MELLO, R. 2004. Manuel Gamio, Diego Rivera,
and the politics of Mexican anthropology. Res 45:
161-85.
HANSEN, L. D. T. 2003. Resena de El inmigrante
mexicano: la historia de su vida. Entrevistas
completas, 1926-1927, de Manuel Gamio.
Migraciones Internacionales 2(1): 171-75.
MATOS, E. 1998. Las piedras negadas. De la Coatlicue al G
Templo Mayor. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la
Cultura y las Artes.
RUTSCH, M. 2002. Ramon Mena y Manuel Gamio.
Una mirada oblicua sobre la antropologa mexicana
en los anos veinte del siglo pasado. Relaciones 88:
81-118.
Garden Hunting
Peter W. Stahl
Department of Anthropology, University of
Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Introduction
Garden hunting was originally proposed as an
indigenous subsistence strategy associated with
pre-Hispanic tropical agroforestry in western
Panama. At the time, it was offered as
a potential means for farmers to supplement
their carbohydrate-dominated diets in tropical
environments that were traditionally viewed as
protein deserts (Nigh & Nations 1980).
As a subsistence option that exploited wild
game animals that were either passively or
intentionally attracted to indigenous agroecolog-
ical landscapes, the possibilities of garden
hunting subsequently engaged the attention of
archaeologists working in different areas of the
world and biologists who were interested in
its possible conservation implications within
anthropogenic landscapes.
G 2946
Definition
Garden hunting refers to subsistence exploitation
of local animals that are attracted to the
concentrated foraging opportunities provided in
horticultural settings throughout the tropics.
Although it refers to the opportunistic
hunting of prey items whose availability in and
around tropical gardens is increased simply as
a by-product of farming, it is often used to con-
note the intentional game farming of anthropic
(related to humans) faunas.
Historical Background
The term garden hunting was first introduced
by Olga Linares (1976) to refer to a game
procurement system less reminiscent of tropical
forest hunting than of agricultural harvesting
and maritime collecting. Previously, Conklin
(1957: 102103) had described a pattern of
hunting in Philippine Hanunoo shifting gardens
that was undertaken primarily for crop protection
but also partly for food and sport. In particular,
Linares (1976) inferred a pre-Columbian garden
hunting pattern from preserved archaeofaunal
specimens recovered at the site of Cerro Brujo
which was occupied between CE 960 and CE 985
Garden Hunting,
Fig. 1 Skinning a garden-
hunted paca (Cuniculus) or
hochi (San Calixto, Beni,
Bolivia) (Photo by author)
Garden Hunting
in northwestern Bocas del Toro province,
Panama. The assemblage was overwhelmingly
comprised of specimens identified as terrestrial
mammals with strong predilections toward
disturbed habitats and the increased foraging
opportunities associated with swidden gardens.
These included principally agouti (Dasyprocta),
paca (Cuniculus), and armadillo (Dasypus),
along with collared (Tayassu) and white-lipped
(Pecari) peccaries, white-tailed (Odocoileus) and
brocket (Mazama) deer, as well as rats
(Sigmodon, Oryzomys, Hoplomys) and opossum
(Caluromys, Marmosa). This cultural faunal
assemblage differed markedly from fauna
associated with natural undisturbed habitats as
it was predominantly composed of disturbance
taxa that readily invade anthropogenic clearing
and excluded canopy-dwelling, shy, forest
animals. The cultivation of root crops in tropical
swidden gardens, which affects the locally
available biomass of animals behaviorally
preadapted to commensality, may have been
a form of neotropical domestication in the
manner of animal tending. Garden hunting
has become a popular strategy for understanding
how indigenous agroecology can provide suffi-
cient protein in tropical forest environments
traditionally characterized as protein deserts
(Nigh & Nations 1980) (Fig. 1).
Garden Hunting
Key Issues/Current Debates
The number of different kinds of species
(richness) and their relative abundance
(equitability) tend to be much higher in tropical
forest ecosystems that have developed over
longer periods of time under optimal growing
conditions. Unlike temperate ecosystems which
tend to be dominated by eurytopic taxa (general-
ists with broad niche requirements), tropical
ecosystems contain more stenotopic taxa (spe-
cialists with narrow niche requirements). The
latter have not had to adapt to extreme seasonal
fluctuations, which enables them to increasingly
partition their habitats and focus on environmen-
tal heterogeneity (Eldredge 1991). Tropical
ecosystems composed of canopied forests are
dominated by small-bodied animals which tend
to be stenotopic as they perceive their environ-
ments in a relatively fine-grained manner. Many
of their larger mammalian counterparts tend to be
eurytopic as they exploit their temporally and
spatially dispersed resources in a relatively
coarse-grained manner and thus require greater
foraging space (Mares & Willig 1994). Stable
environments with low levels of resources tend
to favor small populations with narrow niche
tolerance and low reproduction rates. Small
populations of K-selected (producing larger
and/or fewer offspring less frequently) specialists
can exploit heterogeneous environments that
have reached maximum population levels more
effectively. Stable environments with low
resource levels tend to be characterized by
many different kinds of species (high richness)
with comparable population sizes (high equita-
bility). This is in contrast to unstable environ-
ments with high and fluctuating resource levels
which favor populations tolerant of broader
niches and with high reproduction rates. Large
populations of r-selected (producing smaller or
more offspring more frequently) generalists
are favored under conditions where the most
food can be harvested and the largest families
can be reared (MacArthur & Wilson 1967;
Valentine 1971).
Environmental instability is important for
understanding the historic evolution of biological
2947 G
diversity in the tropics. Although classical char-
acterizations of tropical forest ecosystems have
depicted a steady accumulation of species in
benign settings over long periods of time, more
recent models emphasize continuous but modest
change as the engine behind high species
richness. The ecological history of tropical
forests is one of dynamic stability, which relies
on temporally and spatially localized instability
to prevent monopolization by a few species while
presenting new opportunities for others (Connell
1978; Colinvaux 2001). Sporadic and localized
instability in canopied forests may be caused by
a variety of natural perturbations including tree G
fall, fire, disease, drought, flood, or animal
activity. As a universal cultural footprint, anthro-
pogenic clearance is an important feature in land-
scape modification that contributes to changing
plant and animal diversity in the forested tropics.
Ecologically, indigenous gardens can be consid-
ered as mechanisms that produce higher net
productivity while maintaining or increasing
high diversity through a pattern of intermediate
disturbance (Nigh & Nations 1980).
Indigenous cultivation is characterized by
a wide range of land-intensive as well as
land-extensive practices but is today dominated
by shifting cultivation, so named because the
technique usually involves leaving older gardens
to fallow for periods of variable length when
farmers shift their focus to preparing, planting,
and harvesting newer gardens. The practice
normally involves the selective clearing of
vegetation in small garden plots, after which the
slash can be mulched or dried and burned for
additional fertilization. Indigenous gardens are
diverse and multistoried plots characterized by
multiple cropping and interaction with natural
vegetation. Early succession gardens often
feature plantings of higher nutrient-demanding
annuals requiring greater ambient sunlight.
Subsequently, with increased vegetational
maturity and complexity, less nutrient-
demanding shade-tolerant perennials, particu-
larly root crops, dominate later succession
gardens. Over time, farmers manage and utilize
forest fallows in an active form of agroforestry.
Old fallows are returned to for various reasons
G 2948
Garden Hunting,
Fig. 2 Neotropical chakra
or swidden garden
(Jasiaquiri, Beni, Bolivia)
(Photo by author)
and can be considered both structurally and
functionally as orchard fallows. Fallow utiliza-
tion is a way to convert a system of short-term
cropping into a longer-term agroforestry system;
however, eventual abandonment is not
a moment in time but a process over time
(Denevan et al. 1984: 347) (Fig. 2).
Garden hunting is generally considered as an
integrated feature of indigenous tropical
agroecology. It is undertaken throughout the
entire cycle of garden life but can continue
particularly during the management of later
stage swidden fallows. For the same reason that
farmers who manage the succession of their
fallow orchards continue to harvest relic
products, these sites also continue as favorite
foraging locales for eurytopic and synanthropic
(wild animals living near and benefitting from
humans) species. In most cases, this latter
propensity should be viewed as an actively
managed outcome of fallow orchards in order to
take advantage of the increased productivity
found in unstable forest clearings. Mosaic land-
scapes created by indigenous agroecological
systems can be productive habitats for human
populations as they provide multiple, dispersed,
and productive venues in tropical forest settings.
Controlled field studies in neotropical forests are
identifying the ecological effects of habitat frag-
mentation and edge creation on the abundance
Garden Hunting
and distribution of animal life. These are linked
to body size, mobility, and trophic status, along
with the willingness and physical ability of
organisms to cross non-forested gaps, the mini-
mum area of forest necessary to maintain normal
behavior, the degree of spatial/temporal patchi-
ness of resource distribution, and the effects of
edge environments on animals (Dale et al. 1994).
Fragmentation and edge creation create condi-
tions that can favor certain synanthropic faunas
which have a propensity for dramatic population
increase under anthropogenic conditions. Many
of these animals are preferred prey items that
thrive in fragmented mosaics and thus comple-
ment the agroecological strategy of tropical
agroforestry.
The production and exploitation of
agroecological landscape mosaics in the past
can be potentially inferred from an analysis of
recovered and preserved archaeofaunal and
archaeobotanical specimens. However, the
reliability of these inferences is subject to many
of the problems usually inherent in archaeologi-
cal data interpretation, particularly those
associated with assemblage accumulation and
preservation. For example, the original accumu-
lation of many of the faunas recovered at the site
of deposition in an archaeological site may have
actually been incidental to garden hunting.
However, in certain kinds of depositional
Garden Hunting
contexts, it is possible to identify the mode of
accumulation in the archaeological record based
upon patterned preservation. The natural
histories of incidentally accumulated faunas,
moreover, might also suggest local conditions
that can be used to support an interpretation that
suggests habitat fragmentation. Recognizing
a pattern of garden hunting in the archaeological
record involves identifying a suite of eurytopic
taxa that proportionately dominates the recovered
sample in a cultural assemblage. These can be
compared and contrasted to faunal distributions
associated with continuous primary forest
habitats. The relative proportions of eurytopic
taxa supporting the inference of garden hunting
and expressed in the form of richness and even-
ness values can be assessed through ubiquity
measures, rank correlations, and techniques
that are sensitive to sample size differences like
rarefaction, regression, sampling to redundancy,
and computer simulation (Stahl 2000; Stahl &
Pearsall 2012).
In its first appearance, garden hunting was
presented as a potential indigenous subsistence
strategy practiced by pre-Hispanic neotropical
horticulturalists. It was originally an archaeolog-
ical interpretation that was based upon patterning
of animal bone specimens recovered from
archaeological contexts in forested Panama
and coupled with inferences derived from ethno-
graphic analogy and ecological observations.
Critical issues surrounding garden hunting as
a prehistoric subsistence strategy have been
raised in archaeological studies from areas out-
side the tropics. Field-based studies of garden
hunting by tropical subsistence farmers have
also been undertaken to understand its possible
implications for conservation. It has been argued
that the relationship between increasing agricul-
tural effort, human sedentism, and hunting is
a complex and interrelated issue. Citing
diachronic data from archaeological assemblages
in the Near East, North America, and particularly
the American Southwest, Speth and Scott (1989)
suggest that reliance on large game actually
increased in association with increasing settle-
ment stability. This appears to have arisen
independently of environmental change,
2949 G
demographic increase, or technological innova-
tion. Instead, they suggest that increased reliance
on large game is causally linked to fundamental
socioeconomic changes associated with larger
community size, residential stability, and
augmented horticultural commitment. Larger
and more permanent communities tend to deplete
local game, while increased horticultural effort
also places constraints on time and labor which
involves a rescheduling of hunting effort.
Additionally, the increased stability afforded by
a predictable agricultural diet enables hunters to
engage in greater risk-taking. Hunters, therefore,
increasingly tend to spend more time farther G
afield pursuing larger, high-quality game. This
critique, however, does not clearly define what
is meant by large and small game animals
nor does it substantiate how increased reliance on
larger animals is established in the archaeological
record. It also relies on research undertaken
among neotropical, primarily Amazonian,
farmers and foragers to critique the application
of an hypothesis which was originally proposed
for pre-Hispanic neotropical horticulturalists to
archaeological assemblages in ecologically
unrelated geographical areas like the desert
Southwest.
Recent field-based studies of tropical
horticulturalists, mainly conducted among
non-indigenous small-holding riberenos and sub-
sistence farmers, have been undertaken specifi-
cally to examine the contemporary practice of
garden hunting. An 18-month study of 60
non-indigenous farms in the Peruvian Amazon
found that the most common game animals
above 2 kg in live weight consisted of species
that regularly consume agroforestry crops.
In order of importance, these included the follow-
ing: agouti (Dasyprocta), paca (Cuniculus),
collared peccary (Tayassu), tayra (Eira),
armadillo (Dasypus), brocket deer (Mazama),
and rabbit (Sylvilagus). Large game animals like
capybara (Hydrochoerus), tapir (Tapirus), and
white-lipped peccary (Pecari) were seldom
observed (Naughton-Treves 2002). A related
study of non-indigenous colonist and lowland
Quechua farms in the Peruvian Amazon deter-
mined that older forests contained significantly
G 2950
more wildlife per unit area; however, animals
were more readily available to hunters in second-
ary vegetation both in terms of biomass and
number of collection events (Gavin 2007). It has
been suggested that non-indigenous hunters pre-
fer to pursue wild game in primary forest and tend
to spend more time there. Although anthropo-
genic habitats may be more productive in terms
of hunting effort, primary vegetation may be
preferred because of less dense understory,
increased prey predictability, and the opportunity
to combine hunting with the pursuit of other
forest products (Parry et al. 2009). Highly prized
game like paca is usually hunted in gardens and
fallow, where hunting takes on the dual role of
guarding crops. The choice of technology is also
a factor as some hunters will not waste
a relatively expensive shotgun shell on a small
game item like an agouti (Naughton-Treves
2002: 498). It has been suggested that
non-indigenous riberenos do not manage gardens
in order to intentionally attract game, a pattern
also followed by the indigenous Bugle of western
Panama. Bugle hunters encounter most of their
wild game within agricultural areas and do not
consider it necessary to garden intentionally in
order to attract crop pests that would be normally
attracted anyway. The primary reason that Bugle
hunt in their gardens is due to the constant threat
that animal pests pose to agricultural production.
As in other tropical areas of the world, garden
hunting is a complementary activity that is under-
taken within a broader cultural ecological pattern
(Smith 2005).
International Perspectives
Garden hunting as a potential subsistence
strategy has been pursued by archaeologists
in different world areas, but it remains best
studied and recognized in tropical areas as
a complement to indigenous agroforestry. Con-
servation biology is particularly interested in
garden hunting as it relates to conservation
efforts linked to expanded farming, global
deforestation, and the loss of animal
Garden Hunting
biodiversity. Throughout tropical regions of
South America, Africa, and Asia, secondary for-
ests are particularly important for the acquisition
of wild meat (Parry et al. 2009). Open anthropo-
genic landscapes are particularly productive in
this regard as the tropical wildlife most likely to
survive in the fragmented conditions created
through farming tend to be a suit of relatively
small, highly adaptable, rapidly reproducing,
and pervasive faunas that include rodents, deer,
and peccary in South America; cane rat, porcu-
pine, pig duiker, baboon, and vervet monkeys in
Africa; and, pig, deer, and primates in Southeast
Asia (Naughton-Treves 2002). Typically, high-
canopy species are rare, minimally due to can-
opy removal, and farmers often clean the forest
of large predators (Naughton-Treves 2002:
499). However, the removal of large predators
may also be a preventative measure, particularly
by farmers who maintain domestic stock. It is
particularly because of their habits that small,
pervasive, r-selected, and highly adaptable
eurytopic species are in low risk of extinction
and consequently of no interest for conservation
(Naughton-Treves 2002: 500). The higher spe-
cies richness that often accompanies anthropo-
genic habitats also does not take into account the
rare endemic species that are of particular inter-
est for conservation (Smith 2005: 527). Conser-
vation biology has considered secondary forests
as a possible source for replenishing game
depleted through hunting in primary forests
(Gavin 2007). Also, hunting in anthropogenic
habitats is also considered as a potential
source for relieving hunting pressure of primary
forest prey. Nevertheless, the former primarily
consist of terrestrial species of low interest for
conservation, whereas the latter include many
of the canopy dwellers like birds and primates
that are targeted by conservation efforts (Parry
et al. 2009: 1785). Studies undertaken through-
out the tropics suggest that humans do indeed
prefer large wild prey over their smaller coun-
terparts; however, the former decrease in num-
bers and can become locally extinct in
association with settlement age (Wilkie & Lee
2004). Hunting effort is often greater in fallow
Garden Hunting
forests than in primary forests and continues to
be a complementary activity within agroforestry
throughout the tropics. Animals are hunted
and meat protein is obtained while crops are
cultivated and protected from predation (Wilkie
& Lee 2004: 358). Field studies have however
suggested that human hunting in agroforestry
landscapes does not otherwise necessarily alle-
viate the pressure of species loss, nor is it
a strategy that is more productive than the main-
tenance of animal domesticates, nor does it
support game biomass similar to that found in
savanna habitats. Fallow hunting currently
appears to supply sufficient protein for human
populations when their density is kept under
four people per square kilometer (Wilkie &
Lee 2004: 366). The metaphor of gardens as
enclosed spaces for attracting animals, as
opposed to enclosed spaces for excluding ani-
mals, has been criticized as a false allegory that
was originally coupled with an ancient dream of
human harmony with nature (Naughton-Treves
2002).
Cross-References
Agroforestry: Environmental Archaeological
Approaches
Anthropogenic Environments, Archaeology of
Historical Ecology and Environmental
Archaeology
Landscape Archaeology
Landscape Domestication and Archaeology
Sustainability and Cultural Heritage
Vertebrate Taphonomy in Archaeological
Research
References
COLINVAUX, P. 2001. Paradigm lost: Pleistocene
environments of the Amazon basin (continued forest
cover in perpetual flux, part 2). Review of Archaeology
22: 20-31.
CONKLIN, H.C. 1957. Hanunoo agriculture. A report on an
integral system of shifting cultivation in the Philip-
pines. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations.
2951 G
CONNELL, J.H. 1978. Diversity in tropical rain forests and
coral reefs. Science 199: 1302-10.
DALE, V.S.M., H.L. OFFERMAN & R.V. ONEILL. 1994.
Relating patterns of land-use change to faunal biodi-
versity in the central Amazon. Conservation Biology
8:1027-36.
DENEVAN, W.M., J.M. TREACY, J.B. ALCORN, C. PADOCH,
J. DENSLOW & S. FLORES PAITAN. 1984. Indigenous agro-
forestry in the Peruvian Amazon: Bora Indian man-
agement of swidden fallows. Interciencia 9: 347-57.
ELDREDGE, N. 1991. The miners canary: unraveling the
mysteries of extinction. New York: Prentice Hall.
LINARES, O.F. 1976. Garden hunting in the American
tropics. Human Ecology 4: 331-49.
GAVIN, M.C. 2007. Foraging in the fallows: hunting pat-
terns across a successional continuum in the Peruvian
Amazon. Biological Conservation 134: 64-72. G
MACARTHUR, R.H. & E.O. WILSON. 1967. The theory of
island biogeography. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
MARES, M.A. & M.R. WILLIG. 1994. Inferring biome asso-
ciations of recent mammals from samples of temperate
and tropical faunas: paleoecological considerations.
Historical Biology 8: 31-48.
NAUGHTON-TREVES, L. 2002. Wild animals in the garden:
conserving wildlife in Amazonian agroecosystems.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers
92: 488-506.
NIGH, R.B. & J.D. NATIONS. 1980. Tropical rainforests.
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 36(3): 12-19.
PARRY, L., J. BARLOW & C.A. PERES. 2009. Allocation of
hunting effort by Amazonian smallholders: implica-
tions for conserving wildlife in mixed-use landscapes.
Biological Conservation 142: 1777-86.
SMITH, D.A. 2005. Garden game: shifting cultivation,
indigenous hunting and wildlife ecology in western
Panama. Human Ecology 33: 505-37.
SPETH, J.D. & S.L. SCOTT. 1989. Horticulture and large-
mammal hunting: the role of resource depletion and
the constraints of time and labor, in S. Kent (ed.)
Farmers as hunters. The implications of sedentism:
71-9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
STAHL, P.W. 2000. Archaeofaunal accumulation,
fragmented forests, and anthropogenic landscape
mosaics in the tropical lowlands of prehispanic
Ecuador. Latin American Antiquity 11: 241-57.
STAHL, P.W. & D.M. PEARSALL. 2012. Late Pre-Columbian
agroforestry in the tropical lowlands of western
Ecuador. Quaternary International 249: 43-52.
VALENTINE, J.W. 1971. Resource supply and species
diversity patterns. Lethaia 4: 51-61.
WILKIE, D.S. & R.J. LEE. 2004. Hunting in agroforestry
systems and landscapes: conservation implications in
west-central Africa and southeast Asia, in G. Schroth,
G.A.B. da Fonseca, C.A. Harvey, C. Gascan,
H.L. Vascancelos & A.-M. N. Izac (ed.) Agroforestry
and biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes:
347-70. Washington (DC): Island Press.
G 2952
Further Reading
BALEE, W. 1994. Footprints of the forest. Kaapor
ethnobotany the historical ecology of plant utiliza-
tion by and Amazonian people. New York: Columbia
University Press.
DENEVAN, W.A. 2001. Cultivated landscapes of Native
Amazonia and the Andes. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
POSEY, D.A. 2002. Kayapo ethnoecology and culture.
London: Routledge.
POSEY, D.A. & W. BALEE. (ed.) 1989. Resource manage-
ment in Amazonia: Indigenous and folk strategies.
Bronx: New York Botanical Gardens.
STAHL, P.W. 2006. Microvertebrate synecology and
anthropogenic footprints in the forested neotropics, in
B. Balee & C.L. Erickson (ed.) Time and complexity in
historical ecology: 127-49. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Gardin, Jean-Claude
Michelle Ammons
Queens College, CUNY, Flushing, NY, USA
Basic Biographical Information
Jean-Claude Gardin has not only left a lasting
impression on archaeological theory but he was
also an avid contributor to Middle Eastern
Archaeology, as well as a pioneer for the utiliza-
tion of computer and information sciences to the
social sciences. Gardin, a native of France, served
in the French Free Army during the Second
World War, receiving the Croix du Guerre
among several other honorable awards for excep-
tional service. After leaving the army, Gardin
enrolled at the London School of Economics
where he completed his B.Sc. in Economics in
1948. Gardin continued his studies at the
Sorbonne in Paris where he studied Computer
and Information science. His early research
focused on the use of computers for organizing
and cataloging the archaeological record. Later in
his research, Gardin became interested in the role
that cognitive sciences have in archaeology of
interpretation, specifically semiotics.
Gardins primary geographic focus was West-
ern and Central Asia, where his publications
Gardin, Jean-Claude
reflect his growing interest in the semiotics of
style. Gardins use of semiotics in relation to
archaeological fieldwork has influenced the recent
work of several archaeologists, including that of
Robert Preucel. In the United States, Gardin has
been compared with Processualism, especially his
research and incorporation of mathematics in
archaeology. He is associated with the University
of Indiana in the United States, as well as serving
as director of research at the Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), director of stud-
ies at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences
Sociales in Paris. In 1958, he founded the Centre
dAnalyse Documentaire pour lArcheologie and
in 1970 founded the Centre de Recherches
Archeologiques of the CNRS. He also served as
director of the UNESCO committee that produced
the General Information Program (UNISIST) for
the sharing of scientific knowledge and was
a recipient of the Prix International de la Founda-
tion Fyssen in cognitive studies in 1989. Gardin is
also a founding member of the Arkeotek associa-
tion and a member of the House of Archaeology
and Ethnology at the University of Nanterre
in Paris.
Major Accomplishments
The main focus of Jean-Claude Gardins research
was concentrated around semiotics in archaeo-
logical theory. He was particularly interested in
how an archaeologist can look at an object and
interpret its meaning. According to Gardin, one
of the central issues in archaeology was the dis-
connection between an artifact and the interpre-
tation given to that artifact by the archaeologist
(Gardin 1997a, 2000). He strove to help create
a universal system that allowed for precise clas-
sification of artifacts, ultimately leading to better
communication of interpretation (Gardin 1958,
1980). In order to create this universal system
for classification, Gardin introduced mathematics
and scientific methodology to semiotics (Gardin
1958, 1980). The use of mathematics and scien-
tific method in Jean-Claude Gardins work
appealed to the Processualist archaeology in the
United States. Later research by Gardin involved
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): Applications in Archaeology
the use of semantics in interpretation, specifically
the use of declensions in descriptive analysis of
artifacts (Gardin 1989a, 1997a, b). Much of his
research involves the use of coding in descriptive
analysis in order to achieve accurate physical
descriptions of artifacts.
Jean-Claude Gardin conducted archaeological
research in the Western and Central Asia, specif-
ically in Afghanistan and the Indus Valley. His
system for codes and semiotics was applied to his
research on the pottery of the ancient culture of
Bactria (Gardin 1985, 1998). Among the most
recent of Gardins research interests in the area
include the study of artificial intelligence and the
role of technology among the humanities (Gardin
1989a), as well as the role of local knowledge in
archaeology (Gardin 1989b). Regarding the role
of local knowledge in archaeology, Gardin is
particularly interested in the role of universal
versus local semantics in providing interpreta-
tions of artifacts (Gardin 1989b: 110). Universal
semantics is described as symbols that are gener-
ally accepted without argument and local seman-
tics as more relative to a certain context and not
common knowledge (Gardin 1989b: 110-111).
Jean-Claude Gardin was a pioneer for the role
of mathematics and semiotics in the humanities,
specifically in archaeology. His primary research
included the use of semiotics in classification
systems, artificial intelligence, and the impor-
tance of semantics within archaeology. His
work has influenced many archaeologists regard-
ing the use of coding to aid in descriptions of
artifacts. Gardins primary goal was to simplify
classification systems and coding systems for the
description and interpretation of artifacts to pro-
vide a universal system of classification to the
discipline of archaeology.
Cross-References
Interpretation in Archaeological Theory
Middle East Archaeology: Sites, Texts,
Symbols, and Politics
Preucel, Robert W.
Processualism in Archaeological Theory
Semiotics in Archaeological Theory
2953 G
References
GARDIN, J.-C. 1958. Four codes for the description of
artefacts: an essay in archeological technique and
theory. American Anthropologist 60: 335-57.
- 1980. Archaeological constructs: an aspect of theoreti-
cal archaeology. London: Cambridge University
Press.
- 1985. Les relations entre la Mediterranee et la bactriane
dans lantiquite dapres des donnees ceramologiques
inedites, in J. Deshayes (ed.) De LIndus aux
Balkans: 447-60. Paris: Editions recherche sur les
civilizations.
- 1989a. Artificial intelligence and the future of semiot-
ics: an archaeological perspective. Semiotica 77: 5-26.
- 1989b. The role of local knowledge in archaeological
interpretation, in S. J. Shennan (ed.) Archaeological G
approaches to cultural identity: 110-22. London:
Routledge.
- 1997a. Le questionnement logiciste et les conflits dinter-
pretation. Enquete 5: 35-54.
- 1997b. Quand on voit cquon voit, quand on sait cquon
sait. LHomme 143: 83-90.
- 1998. Prospections archeologiques en Bactriane
orientale (1974-1978): description des sites et notes de
synthese. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
- 2000. Approches semiotiques du raisonnement en
archeologie: un contribution au probleme du pont, in
P. Perron, L.G. Sbrocci, P. Colilli & M. Danesi (ed.)
Semiotics as a bridge between the humanities and the
sciences: 27-48. New York: Legas.
Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectrometry (GC-MS): Applications
in Archaeology
Eleanora A. Reber
Department of Anthropology, University of
North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington,
NC, USA
Introduction
Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
(GC-MS) is an analytical technique that allows
the separation of mixtures of volatile organic
compounds and the identification of each constit-
uent compound. Due to its sensitivity, speed,
versatility, inexpensiveness, and the ability to
identify many different compounds in a mixture,
G 2954 Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): Applications in Archaeology

it is a favorite instrumental technique for archae-

ological organic chemistry and can be applied to
analyze any substance containing volatile organic
compounds are expected. It is commonly used to
analyze absorbed pottery residues, visible pottery
residues, organic binders and pigments in paint-
ings and artwork, resins, sealants, and many other
substances.

Definition

GC-MS is the combination of two well-known

analytical techniques: gas chromatography and
mass spectrometry. Gas chromatography utilizes
variable compound retention time on a carefully
selected column to separate complex mixtures.
The separated compounds can then be analyzed
with a variety of detectors attached to the end of
the GC column. In the case of GC-MS, the detec-
tor is a mass spectrometer.
Once the volatile compounds are separated by
the GC, the mass spectrometer (MS) ionizes each
separated compound and measures the mass-
to-charge ratio (m/z) of each positive ionic frag-
ment that enters the analyzer. The result is a mass
spectrum, a graph showing the molecular weights
of the ionic fragments coming from a single com-
pound (Fig. 1). Since the molecule fragments
according to the unique structure of the parent
compound, each compounds mass spectrum is
unique and reflects its original structure. The
compound can then be identified by comparison
with a sample library or by comparison with
a known control sample. If a compound cannot
be identified by either of these methods,
then interpretation of the chemical structure
confirmed by comparison with a known control
is usually used.
When applying this type of analysis, an
organic archaeological sample is dissolved in
a solvent and a very small amount (13 ml) is
injected into the GC portion of the instrument.
The result is a gas chromatogram showing the
presence and abundance of volatile compounds
in a sample, with the area underneath each sam-
ple peak corresponding with the abundance of
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS):
Applications in Archaeology, Fig. 1 Mass spectrum
of caffeine from Ilex vomitoria tea. This spectrum reflects
the molecular structure of caffeine and can be matched
with a known sample of caffeine in a computer database
a compound (Fig. 2). If a known amount of inter-
nal standard has been added to the initial sample,
the amount of each separated compound in the
sample can be calculated.
Many variables are present in the GC portion
of the instrument, including solvent used, injec-
tion type and temperature, carrier gas type and
velocity, column type and length, stationary
phase type and thickness, and temperature pro-
gramming. A change in any of the variables
affects compound separation, and all of these
variables must be tweaked to maximize the
desired result when using the GC for archaeolog-
ical science applications. Fortunately, for most
archaeological science applications of the GC,
there are standard instrumental methodologies
to aid the investigator and give consistency to
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): Applications in Archaeology 2955 G
Gas Chromatography-
Mass Spectrometry
(GC-MS): Applications in
Archaeology, Fig. 2 Gas
chromatograph of the total
lipid extract of an
experimentally produced
sherd from a pot used to
make a caffeine-containing
tea from Ilex vomitoria
(yaupon holly) that was
buried for two months in
southeastern North
Carolina. Note that many of
the sugars have already
washed out of the residue,
although a few still remain. G
Also, the free fatty acid
pattern is typical of a plant
origin, having a high
abundance of C16:0 and
18-carbon unsaturated fatty
acids (C18:2 and C18:1)
relative to C18:0. The cyclic
octaatomic sulfur is a soil
contaminant

results across different laboratories (Evershed unknown compounds or structural determina-

et al. 1990; Regert et al. 1993).
The mass spectrometer in most archaeological
science applications is set to scan a range of ionic
fragment weights, for example, from 50 to 650.
This allows complete mass spectra to be pro-
duced for almost every compound in a sample.
Such a scan does take a small amount of time,
however, and so there is a slight trade-off
between sensitivity and completeness in mass
spectrum detection. If a very sensitive analysis
of a known compound is needed, the mass spec-
trometer may be run in selected ion monitoring
(SIM) mode, so that the mass spectrometer is
only detecting a small range of selected com-
pounds. This dramatically increases the sensitiv-
ity of the analysis, at the cost of not detecting any
nonselected mass fragments. As a result, SIM is
not appropriate for definite identifications of
tions of related compounds. Instruments run in
SIM mode will not detect any unexpected com-
pounds present in the sample.
In some cases, an isotope-ratio monitoring
mass spectrometer (GC-IRMS) is attached to
the end of the GC column, with the result that
the carbon or oxygen stable isotope ratios of each
compound separated by the GC can be deter-
mined. The GC-IRMS is generally applied to
mixture that has already been analyzed by
GC-MS, so that the identity of each compound
undergoing compound-specific isotopic analysis
is known. GC-MS analysis only works on com-
pounds that are volatile enough to vaporize in the
GC column, and archaeological science applica-
tions of this technique often involve a mixture of
compounds of varying (and sometimes unknown)
volatility. In order to maximize compound
G 2956 Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): Applications in Archaeology
volatility, a sample is often derivatized. In this
procedure, a sample undergoes a chemical reac-
tion to produce a derivatized sample in which
most of the compounds are more volatile and
stable than the original compounds and have bet-
ter GC separation than the un-derivatized parent
compounds. There are many types of derivatiza-
tion, but in archaeological science applications,
trimethylsilyl esters (TMS esters) are often used
in samples containing a mixture of compounds,
including alcohols, fatty acids, terpenoids, and
acylglycerols. Methyl esters are often used in
samples consisting primarily or entirely of fatty
acids.
Historical Background
The GC-MS was invented in 1955 by Roland
Gohlke and Fred McLafferty while working for
the Dow Chemical Company (Gohlke &
McLafferty 1993: 367). The first application of
gas chromatography to archaeological science
was published in 1976 by Condamin et al. when
they used the technique to confirm the survival of
olive oil residues in Roman amphorae. Gas chro-
matography alone was also used by a few analysts
to analyze assorted organic materials during the
1980s (Rottlander & Schlichtherle 1979; Morgan
et al. 1984). The first application of GC-MS to
archaeological science was published in 1985 by
Evershed et al. and identified the origin of pitch
from the anaerobically preserved shipwreck the
Mary Rose. GC-MS was used occasionally
through the late 1980s in archaeological science,
generally to identify pure substances, such as
sealants and adhesives (Beck et al. 1989; Heron
et al. 1989).
In 1990, Evershed et al. published the first
description of using high-temperature GC-MS
to analyze complex mixtures of intact archaeo-
logical residues, such as pottery residues. This
paper began a new era of using GC-MS in
archaeological science and formed the basis for
what became the standard methods of pottery
residue extraction and analysis. It was soon
followed by a raft of other papers utilizing the
technique in a variety of situations, many
produced by Richard Evershed and his students.
From this beginning, GC-MS has become the
standard instrumental application for the analy-
sis of most complex organic mixtures found on
an archaeological site or in anthropogenic soils,
including but not limited to absorbed pottery
residues, visible pottery residues, and organic
binders in painting.
In 1994, Evershed and colleagues first applied
GC-IRMS to archaeological science (Evershed
et al. 1994). Although this technique is not yet
widespread, probably due to the expense and
rarity of the instrument, it is extremely useful in
the identification of isotopically unique resources
in residues and soils, such as dairy products and
maize (Dudd & Evershed 1998; Reber et al.
2004).
Key Issues
The key issue in the application of GC-MS to
archaeological science is the successful interpre-
tation of data from GC-MS analysis. Since any
volatile mixture of organics can be successfully
analyzed by this technique, it is easy for anyone
with a background in organic chemistry to obtain
results from archaeological samples. Interpreta-
tion of these is always challenging and often
problematic, however, and requires familiarity
with a wide range of biochemical and chemical
knowledge. Difficulties in the interpretation of
GC-MS data from archaeological samples
include issues in residue degradation, issues of
resource mixing in organic mixtures known or
suspected to come from a variety of sources,
and modern contamination.
A good example of these issues is shown in
the interpretation of pottery residues, a common
application of GC-MS in archaeological sci-
ence. Residue degradation occurs in two major
phases. First, compounds in a residue can
undergo thermal degradation during cooking
and processing. Then, after the pottery sherd is
deposited in the archaeological site, some of the
compounds will wash into the soil, while others
undergo oxidation and hydrolysis. As a result,
the GC-MS analysis of an archaeological extract
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): Applications in Archaeology
of even a known resource often looks remark-
ably different from a modern control extract of
the same resource. In general, compounds with
longer carbon chains survive intact for longer
than those with shorter chains, while compounds
with fewer double bonds (saturated compounds)
survive longer than those with more double
bonds (unsaturated compounds) (Eglinton &
Logan 1991). This problem varies according to
environment, with dry and anaerobic environ-
ments providing the best preservation for
organic compounds. The probable loss and deg-
radation of compounds in an archaeological
mixture must always be kept in mind during
interpretation.
The second major issue in the interpretation
of archaeological GC-MS data is that of resource
mixing. For example, an extracted organic pot-
tery residue is comprised of a mixture of lipids,
including acyl lipids, fatty acids, long-chain
alcohols, alkanes, terpenoids, and many others.
Unless the pottery vessel was known to have
processed only one resource, these compounds
cannot be assumed to have come from the same
source. Often, these compounds were derived
from all of the resources processed in a vessel
over its lifetime. For example, the common fatty
acid C16:0 (palmitic acid) in a residue may derive
from literally every resource ever processed in
a pot, with no way of knowing how much of
the compound derived from any one resource.
For this reason, interpretations of vessel con-
tents based only on common compounds such
as fatty acids and acyl lipids tend to be problem-
atic, aside from issues of oxidative degradation
mentioned above. A general interpretation of
primarily vegetable in origin (more unsatu-
rated fatty acids and more abundant C16:0 vs.
C18:0 fatty acids) or primarily animal or meat
in origin (more saturated fatty acids and more
abundant C18:0 vs. C16:0 fatty acids) is usually
the most precise interpretation that can be
derived from fatty acid and acyl lipid abun-
dances in most organic residues of mixed origin.
This is generally disappointing to the excavator,
who was hoping for a more precise characteri-
zation. An exception to this issue is present in
the case of vessels that are known to have
2957 G
contained only one resource, such as transport
amphorae, labeled chocolate pots, etc.
Given the issue of resource mixing in many
residues, most resource identification from this
type of analysis rests on the identification of
relatively rare compounds, also known as bio-
markers. Biomarkers are compounds that are
unique to a particular resource or class of
resources. For example, the presence of choles-
terol in a residue allows a confident interpretation
of meat being processed in a vessel. Much of
modern GC-MS analysis of archaeological resi-
dues and soils rests on the identification and
detection of such biomarkers. Plant resins, G
chocolate, marine resources (in the presence
of heat), and other resources all produce bio-
markers known to survive in the archaeological
record (Mills & White 1977; Hurst et al. 1989;
Hansel et al. 2004). An important part of bio-
marker interpretation is a solid knowledge of
the biome from which an organic sample derived.
Many biomarkers may exist in several different
sources around the planet, but be unique in
a particular biome. For example, caffeine
detected in a residue from Mesoamerica gener-
ally indicates chocolate, while the same com-
pound identified in a Chinese residue would
indicate tea, and in the Southeastern United
States would indicate Ilex vomitoria, the main
ingredient in black drink.
Compound-specific isotope analysis using
GC-IRMS may be used in some circumstances
to help in the analysis of mixed residues, such as
when an isotopically unique resource or
resources is present in the mixture in large
enough amounts to affect the stable isotope ratios
of a given compound. As in any isotopic study,
a good understanding of the archaeological
biome is crucial when performing compound-
specific analysis. For example, a compound-
specific carbon isotope analysis of fatty acids
may detect a primarily C4 component in fatty
acids or other compounds from a residue. If the
residue is from Eastern North America, the
source of the C4 component is probably maize
(Reber et al. 2004). If the residue originates from
another biome, the source of the C4 component
might be completely different.
G 2958 Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS): Applications in Archaeology
Modern contamination is also an issue in the
interpretation of GC-MS analysis of archaeolog-
ical samples. Due to the sensitivity of the tech-
nique, compounds from excavators bug spray
and sunscreen often enter the analyzed residue.
Contamination from modern plasticizers is ubiq-
uitous and appears to be exceptionally difficult to
eliminate. Contamination also commonly arises
from modern fertilizers and pollution, as well as
archaeological labeling procedures. For this rea-
son, all samples taken for GC-MS analysis should
ideally be handled minimally by excavators and
placed in aluminum foil in the field. Contact with
plastic bags should be minimized, if possible.
That said, the ability of GC-MS to separate com-
plex mixtures means that contaminants, if cor-
rectly identified, may be separated from the
remainder of the sample with minimal problems
to interpretation.
A secondary issue in GC-MS analysis is the
correct selection of instrumental analysis.
GC-MS is generally the best instrumental tech-
nique to use when a complex mixture of volatile
organic compounds is known to be present. When
a complex mixture of nonvolatile compounds is
present, liquid chromatography-mass spectrome-
try (LC-MS) is preferred. If a substance is known
to come from a single source, then Fourier-
Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) analy-
sis may be considered, although it does not allow
for the separation of different compounds. If
a mixture contains a mixture of volatile and non-
volatile organic compounds, derivatization
may allow the analysis of the entire mixture by
GC-MS.
Future Directions
GC-MS analysis has a bright future in archaeo-
logical science. As more background research is
performed, more biomarkers will be identified.
As a result, the number of biomarker identifica-
tions of prehistoric resources in a residue will
increase. Further, the ability to compare results
from similar GC-MS analysis across sites in
a region or a time period will allow this technique
to be more helpful in addressing human behavior
than has been the case heretofore. The future
direction of standalone GC-MS analysis seems
to be one of increasing maturity and helpfulness
to the understanding of past human behaviors.
Continuing developments in compound-
specific isotope analysis and other combined
GC-MS techniques will almost certainly develop
in the future, as instrumental analysis techniques
improve in complexity and sensitivity, and the
availability of inexpensive GC-IRMS analysis
increases.
Cross-References
Anthropogenic Sediments and Soils:
Geoarchaeology
Archaeological Chemistry: Definition
Biomolecular Archaeology: Definition
Ceramics: Scientific Analysis
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
(FTIR): Applications in Archaeology
Isotope Geochemistry in Archaeology
References
BECK, C.W., C.J. SMART & D.J. OSSENKOP. 1989. Residues
and linings in ancient Mediterranean transport ampho-
ras, in R.O. Allen (ed.) Archaeological chemistry IV:
369-80. Charlottesville: American Chemical Society.
CONDAMIN, J., F. FORMENTI, M.O. METAIS, M. MICHEL &
P. BLOND. 1976. The application of gas chromatogra-
phy to the tracing of oil in ancient amphorae.
Archaeometry 18: 195-201.
DUDD, S.N. & R.P. EVERSHED. 1998. Direct demonstration
of milk as an element of archaeological economies.
Science 282: 1478-81.
EGLINTON, G. & G.A. LOGAN. 1991. Molecular preserva-
tion. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of
London B 333: 315-28.
EVERSHED, R.P., K. JERMAN & G. EGLINTON. 1985. Pine
wood origin for pitch from the Mary Rose. Nature:
314: 528-30.
EVERSHED, R.P., C. HERON & L.J. GOAD. 1990. Analysis of
organic residues of archaeological origin by high-
temperature gas chromatography and gas
chromatography-mass spectrometry. Analyst 115:
1339-42.
EVERSHED, R.P., K.I. ARNOT, J. COLLISTER, G. EGLINTON &
S. CHARTERS. 1994. Application of isotope ratio
Gava Mining Site: Fieldwork
monitoring gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to
the analysis of organic residues of archaeological ori-
gin. Analyst 119: 909-14.
GOHLKE, R.S. & F.W. MCLAFFERTY. 1993. Early gas chro-
matography/mass spectrometry. Journal of the Amer-
ican Society for Mass Spectrometry 4: 367-71.
HANSEL, F.A., M.S. COPLEY, L.S. MADUREIRA & R.P. EVERSHED.
2004. Thermally produced o-(o-alkylphenyl) alkanoic
acids provide evidence for the processing of marine
products in archaeological pottery vessels. Tetrahe-
dron Letters 45: 2999-3002.
HERON, C., R.P. EVERSHED, B. CHAPMAN & P. BUDD. 1989.
Glue, disinfectant and chewing gum in prehistory, in
P. Budd, P. Chapman, C. Jackson, R. Janaway &
B. Ottway (ed.) Archaeological sciences 1989:
325-31. Bradford: Oxford University Press.
HURST, W.J., R. MARTIN, S. TARKA JR. & G.C. HALL. 1989.
Authentication of cocoa in Mayan vessels using high-
performance liquid chromatographic techniques. Jour-
nal of Chromatography 466: 279-89.
MILLS, J.S. & R. WHITE. 1977. Natural resins of art and
archaeology, their sources, chemistry, and identifica-
tion. Studies in Conservation 22: 12-31.
MORGAN, E.D., L. TITUS, R.J. SMALL & C. EDWARDS. 1984.
Gas chromatographic analysis of fatty material from
a Thule midden. Archaeometry: 26: 43-8.
REBER, E.A., S.N. DUDD, N.J. VAN DER MERWE & R.P. EVERSHED.
2004. Direct detection of maize processing in archae-
ological pottery through compound-specific stable iso-
tope analysis of n-dotriacontanol in absorbed organic
residues. Antiquity 78: 682-91.
REGERT, M., N. GARNIER, O. DECAVALLAS, C. CREN-OLIVE
& C. ROLANDO. 1993. Structural characterization of
lipid constituents from natural substances preserved
in archaeological environments. Measurement Science
and Technology 14: 1620.
ROTTLANDER, R.C.A. & H. SCHLICHTHERLE. 1979. Food
identification of samples from archaeological sites.
Archaeo-Physika 10: 260-8.
Gava Mining Site: Fieldwork
Josep Bosch
Gava Museum, Barcelona, Spain
Brief Definition of the Topic
Gava, a village by the sea at the mouth of the
Llobregat river in the northeast Iberian Peninsula,
is the site of the only known Neolithic mine in
Europe extracting variscite. This green mineral,
2959 G
similar to turquoise, is found in Neolithic tombs;
its color is probably linked symbolically with the
regeneration of life. At Gava it occurs as seams of
slate within layers of limestone and dolomite or
sealed under clay where it outcrops. The prehis-
toric miners followed the seams, digging shafts
leading to tunnels between 5 and 10 m long and
about 2.5 m wide. These later expanded into more
complex galleries with chambers, reaching
depths of 30 m and more. In general the prehis-
toric mining cavities had been backfilled with
extraction debris, including broken mining tools
(stone picks and bone wedges); this saved the
labor of transporting it outside the mine. Some G
of the cavities were reused as graves in Neolithic
times (Figs. 1 and 2).
The first task of archaeological investigation
was to make the mining galleries safe. Shoring
with metal frames and concrete, as in modern
mining, was unsuitable, as it would mask the
surface of the rock, where prehistoric tool marks
are still visible. Instead, metal anchors are placed
on the rock with a resin coating that protects and
secures the surface. Cracks and fissures are also
filled with resin. The rock surface is impregnated
with a product that allows moisture to escape.
Humidity and the flow of water inside the mines
are controlled with high precision, and warning
instruments monitor the stability of the rock.
Excavation to date has focused on the deposits
inside the mine. A full stratigraphic record of the
strata in the galleries, chambers, and minor cav-
ities is being made, both to define any features
such as the graves and to investigate the patterns
of extraction and discard noted in the debris. The
assemblage includes different kinds of lithics,
ceramics, and animal bones. Systematic screen-
ing maximizes recovery and has allowed the find
of a variscite necklace. The date of the mining,
from radiocarbon, is between 4100 and 3400 cal.
BCE.
After nearly four decades since its discovery,
a sizable, but unknown, proportion of the mine
has been examined. The mine was declared a site
of National Cultural Interest in 1996, and there is
a plan to open it to the public once safe access and
robust conservation measures are in place.
G 2960 Gava Mining Site: Fieldwork

Gava Mining Site:

Fieldwork, Fig. 1 The
drawing process (Museu de
Gava, Josep Bosch)

Gava Mining Site:

Fieldwork,
Fig. 2 Restoration of one
of the mines (Museu de
Gava, Benet Solina)

Cross-References Field Method in Archaeology: Overview

Archaeological Record
Conservation and Management of
Archaeological Sites
Conservation and Preservation in Archaeology
in the Twenty-First Century
Cultural Heritage and the Public
Europe: Mesolithic-Neolithic Transition
Excavation Methods in Archaeology
Public and Archaeology
Spain: Archaeological Heritage Management
Western Europe: Historical Archaeology
Further Reading
PARC ARQUEOLOGIC MINES DE GAVA. n.d. Available at:
http://www.parcarqueologic.cat/cat/imgpcn/m.asp.
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
Gender, Feminist, and Queer
Archaeologies: Australian
Perspective
Cherrie De Leiuen
Department of Archaeology, Flinders University,
Adelaide, SA, Australia
Introduction
Gender, feminist, and queer archaeologies in
Australia, as elsewhere around the world, are
represented by a multiplicity of approaches and
individual experiences. The progress of their
development can, however, be traced to the emer-
gence and influence of feminism and the
womens movement. They are linked by
a concern with examining the social construction
of gender and its representations, ideologies,
identities, and other such manifestations in the
archaeological record. Uniquely Australian
political and institutional settings have also
impacted the evolution and outputs of gender,
feminist, and queer archaeologies in this country,
in combination with theoretical and research
progress in these areas of archaeology globally.
Definition
Feminist, gender, and queer archaeologies are
commonly associated together as they examine
the social construction of gender and their mate-
rialization in the archaeological record, but are
not mutually exclusive. They have also been
grouped together under post-processualist
archaeology. Feminist archaeology critiques
androcentric interpretative biases and validates
the place of women, either as subjects of study
or as practitioners in archaeology. It also
concerns the need to examine gender roles and
inequalities within the archaeological profession
and how this impacts on archaeological theory
and method. Feminist archaeology also takes
a political standpoint and often examines power
relations.
2961 G
Gender archaeology can be differentiated as
an approach which foregrounds gender (which is
the socially constructed conception of
women and men, not biological sex), with other
social categories, such as class, age, ethnicity,
religion, and kin. It can also be practiced within
a nonfeminist framework and may examine the
relative positions of men and women in relation
to each other and how these manifest
archaeologically.
Queer archaeology challenges
heteronormative interpretations by seeking to
take the perspective of marginalized sexual,
intellectual, or cultural groups. It is not concerned G
only with homosexuality; rather it presents
alternatives to mainstream archaeological
discourse.
Historical Background
A distinctively Australian archaeology devel-
oped in the 1960s and 1970s (see Colley 2002).
Prior to this time it was possible to study
anthropology and the archaeology of other conti-
nents, but it was during this period that Australian
archaeology was first taught at Australian
universities, and theory and method were
modified for Australian conditions. Fieldwork
was essential in providing archaeological
evidence for environmental and cultural diversity
and in growing an understanding of the antiquity
of Indigenous occupation as well as increasing
the number of recorded sites, including
those resulting from post-European contact.
Explanations of the human past were framed in
terms of environment and technology, and
cultural materialism was the dominant theoretical
framework (Huchet 1991: 44). A strong
processual platform still characterizes Australian
archaeology. This backdrop of disciplinary
culture is essential in understanding the develop-
ment of feminist and gender archaeology in
Australia as it has been characterized as
distinctively male (see Smith & du Cros 1995;
Smith & ODonnell 2006; Moser 2007). Moser
observed: With its connections to colonialism
and penetration of the frontier, fieldwork has
G 2962 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
been instrumental in attributing archaeology
a masculine status (Moser 2007: 251). Thus,
a dominant theoretical setting which
de-emphasized social archaeology and human
agency, combined with a masculinist subculture
of fieldwork, left little room for a feminist or
gender archaeology to penetrate the mainstream
research agenda. Indigenous archaeology had
been further complicated by a Western and male
bias towards perceived mens activities in
complex Indigenous social and knowledge
systems, such as hunting and stone artifact man-
ufacture, often laden with assumptions about the
meaning and universality of gendered task
attribution. Despite this, research on womens
and mens roles had been undertaken, but work
had not come together under the umbrella of any
theoretical or professional association. For
example, as early as 1939 Phyllis Kaberry
recorded women painting rock art and their
roles in economic systems and information
exchange in Northern Australia (Kaberry 1939).
Women such as Judy Birmingham, Sandra
Bowdler, Isabel McBryde, Betty Meehan, and
Sharon Sullivan played a critical role in the
formation of the discipline in Australia, but
gender was not fostered as a legitimate research
area until the 1990s.
In Australia the response to a gender and
feminist archaeology is distinctive yet follows
the path of similar academic traditions in Europe
and North America. Although the first feminist
and gender archaeology emerged from Scandina-
via, Margaret Conkey and Janet Spectors 1984
paper Archaeology and the Study of Gender can
be credited as the watershed article globally.
Being in English it is still widely cited and can
be seen as the first influential summary of the
feminist critique of the discipline in Australia.
Outside Australia feminist archaeology enjoyed
an earlier emergence and greater support among
the archaeological community. The 1989
Canadian Chacmool Conference, where overtly
feminist papers were presented in conference
symposia and published in the The Archaeology
of Gender (1991) monograph, was undoubtedly
an influence which led to the first meeting of the
Women in Archaeology Conference in Australia
in 1991. The attendance of international keynote
speakers Margaret Conkey, Joan Gero, and
Alison Wylie aided in the perception that gender
was a legitimate research area, and their presence
assisted in garnering support for an Australian
agenda. Thus, the 1991 Women in Archaeology
Conference is highly significant with respect to
research on gender in Australia. It was a turning
point for gender as a field of study in Australian
archaeology. It reflected both a broader change in
Australian society about gender roles, national
identity, and workplace rights and a change in
the research directions for archaeology. This
conference triggered formal discussions of
gender and feminist archaeology and legitimized
research interests and groups, generating five
subsequent conferences and three published
monographs (see du Cros & Smith 1993; Balme
& Beck 1995; Casey et al. 1998). Much later in
1998, the first session on gender was held
at an annual conference of the Australian
Archaeological Association.
Key Issues
The key issues and influences to have emerged in
Australia can be seen to pertain to two main areas
of research. First there are issues of professional
identity, equity, status, and the employment of
women in Australian archaeology which are
linked to personal and political motivations.
Second there are issues relating to the establish-
ment and recognition of gender in the archaeo-
logical record and, further to this (but to a lesser
extent), the development of distinctive Australian
feminist theory and interpretation. Queer
archaeology has had the least impact of the
three standpoints in Australia in terms of publi-
cation and influence.
Of the small number of published articles
on gender or with a feminist perspective in
Australia, the majority are thematically on
womens status as archaeologists, not gender,
queer, or feminist theory, or on women as sub-
jects of archaeological enquiry (e.g., Bowdler &
Clune 2000; Smith & Burke 2006; OConnor
2008). As such, it is difficult to distinguish the
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
influence of gender archaeology from that of the
broader impacts of the womens movement.
However, it can be surmised that women may
have felt marginalized or a sense of inequity in
the archaeological workforce or perhaps experi-
enced personal discrimination. This is likely to
have been the initial impetus for research and
publication directed into this area, as has been
the case internationally (see Nelson et al. 1994).
It is also an indication of the nature of the archae-
ological workforce in Australia where there has
been some degree of segregation; most women
archaeologists have worked in consulting and
cultural heritage management (CHM) and few
in senior research or academic positions (with
women clustering in lower paid and lower status
positions). This is echoed in a study undertaken
by du Cros and Smith (1995), who found that it
was workplace issues, such as inequity or dis-
crimination, rather than a theoretical standpoint
or familiarity with feminist literature, that
prompted most participants to attend the first
Women in Archaeology Conference in 1991. As
recently as 2007 Stephanie Moser has argued for
the existence of a hegemonic (heterosexual)
masculinity in the discipline in Australia, perpet-
uated through the subculture of fieldwork. In
a 2006 study Smith and Burke found that there
were systemic barriers to womens progress in
academic archaeology. They found that there
was what they term a two-tiered glass ceiling
where women are less likely to gain entry level
and tenured positions into academic archaeology.
Of those who have obtained tenure at universi-
ties, they were underrepresented in senior
positions. Bowman and Ulm (2009) have inves-
tigated the disparity between men and womens
success in obtaining project funding. Their
analysis of 20012008 Australian Research
Council (ARC) grants found a link between the
sex of the funding panel members and the sex of
the successful applicants. They also found that
more men receive fellowships than women,
despite more women undertaking research. This
means that women are disadvantaged as early
career researchers in Australia; the majority of
research is undertaken by women, but the major-
ity of funding is going to the minority, who are
2963 G
men. Though overt discrimination has dimin-
ished in recent years and women have made up
the majority of the paid archaeological workforce
in Australia, they are still not breaking through
the proverbial glass ceiling.
In terms of perspectives on homophobia,
there is silence on the issue in Australian
publications not because the problem does not
exist but, as writers such as Dowson (2000) have
pointed out, because there has perhaps been
a need for professionals to downplay their sexu-
ality to maintain authority and/or shield them-
selves from discrimination. Australia has
a history of repression of homosexuality in G
society largely until the 1990s. Postmodern fem-
inist theory since that time has influenced theo-
ries and gender research on sexuality, as well as
masculinity in archaeology. A postmodern
approach to researching historic masculinity/ies
was advocated by Knapp (though not an
Australian archaeologist) at the 1995 Australian
Women in Archaeology Conference, and archae-
ologists such as Casella (2000) have demon-
strated the validity of interpreting female
homosexuality on Australian historic sites.
A heterosexual hegemony, however, remains
unchallenged in the archaeology of Australias
Indigenous past. This is because Australian
archaeologists rely heavily on ethnographic
information to complement interpretations of
Indigenous archaeologies. Indigenous Australian
social and kinship systems operate in terms of
malefemale relationships, and traditionally
homosexuality is a taboo topic, presumed not
to exist or remaining unquestionable in many
communities, as well as the added dimension of
mens business/womens business and sacred-
secret knowledge (whereby particular customs,
rituals, and practices are undertaken by men and
women separately [see Smith & Jackson 2005]).
Men and women have separate systems of mean-
ing, and these can also be public or private. This
is further complicated as Australian archaeology
has largely not come to grips with the notion of
sex and gender as spectrums rather than as binary
male/female dichotomies. Queer archaeology
can potentially fill a gap in analyses and be
applied to a range of sites by potentially asking
G 2964 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
new questions (not only in terms of homosexual-
ity), which may in fact be complementary to
Indigenous perspectives, and encouraging
archaeologists to think outside the box of
Western and male perspectives.
Dominant models and narratives of
Indigenous occupation have failed to move
beyond male female dichotomies. In 1990
Wendy Beck and Lesley Head pointed to the
lack of Australian prehistorians moving beyond
simplistic male and female assignment of gender
to material culture, for example, continuing to
identify stone artifacts with males and shell
middens or seed grinding stones with women,
rather than challenging the idea that
a prehistoric division of labor existed. They
state, . . .there has been little systematic feminist
influence on either theory or methodology in
Australian prehistory (Beck & Head 1990: 41).
Given the minimal output of work in the area of
gender prehistory to date in Australia, it is appar-
ent that there is still a reluctance to move beyond
evidence derived via natural sciences and safe
interpretations of hunter gatherer societies and
male female dichotomies based on ethnogra-
phy. There has been some work directed towards
reexamination in the areas of stone artifact use,
manufacture, and hunting, whereby women
making stone artifacts are often dismissed as
exceptions. The groundbreaking article in this
respect was by Bird (1993), who evidences
womens manufacture and use of stone artifacts
across Australia and New Guinea. For example,
in the western desert of Australia, women used
stone artifacts for woodworking and meat cut-
ting, including the manufacture of bowls, digging
sticks, fighting sticks, and flake scrapers. As well
as differences in use, the raw materials selected
also differed from those selected by men. Bird
demonstrated that women could and did make
stone artifacts; mens and womens technology
is organized differently, but it should not be
presumed that women were less skilled at manu-
facture than men. This area of research exem-
plifies much of the work on gender in Australian
archaeology. It still focuses on making women
visible; to date the majority of analyses have
been concerned with establishing the mere
presence and contribution of women. It is also
important to note that publication in this area has
decreased since the 1990s.
Rock art is an area where some contribution
has been made to the consideration of gender as
archaeologically significant. Rock art is found in
all environmental zones of the continent, with
examples of Pleistocene antiquity, although
most sites are dated to the Holocene. Early
ethnographic research had assumed that only
men were responsible for its production. This
was disputed by Smith (1991), who collated
a number of ethnographic and archival examples
from regions of Northern Australia. She
contended that gender was a variable that needed
to be factored into rock art interpretation; that
rock art may have been produced by men,
women, and children; and that it may encode
information on the age and gender of the artist.
Likewise, McDonald (1992) systematically chal-
lenged the androcentric interpretation in several
papers, while providing evidence that men,
women, and children had a role in the stencilling
of hands and implements in an analysis of rock art
and excavated material. Such studies have
permeated the study of rock art and led to
a recognition of both genders in art production.
Despite ethnographic records which indicate men
are responsible for most rock art in recent
generations, the contexts of production over
thousands of years are most likely to have been
much more diverse.
Several studies have sought to reassess the
interpretation and assumptions made in terms of
sex and gender of human remains held in museum
collections. Donlon (1993) found that in the
sexing of human remains held in the Australian
Museum, there was systematic bias in the
attribution towards males, particularly those
from the Pleistocene and early mid-Holocene.
This may be explained by differences in male
and female burial practices or simply the bias of
researchers. Hope (1998) also found bias in
interpretations of Indigenous burials in Southern
Australia. In a similar fashion, McCardle (2002)
found that Indigenous bark burials of the Central
Queensland Highlands included both sexes and
all age groups, which contradicted prior
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
researchers who had assumed these types of
burial were only for young men and children.
Historical archaeology was first taught in
Australia in 1974 at the University of Sydney,
and Judy Birmingham is accredited with being
instrumental in its development. With its links
by way of British colonialism and European
invasion of an Indigenous population, Australian
historical archaeology is similar to that practiced
in the United States. Although potentially able to
provide more detailed social perspectives as
aided by text, pictorial, and other evidence,
gender is often left to a few sentences together
with ethnicity and class and, like Indigenous
archaeology, is practiced with a processual
focus. As discussed by Lydon (1995), the influ-
ential Birmingham and Jeans (1983) model had
less to say about social structures than economic
and technological ones and was highly
androcentric. Though historical archaeology has
progressed since the Birmingham and Jeans
model, the main focus in the areas of gender to
date has been the construction of gentility
(Russell 1994; Young 1998), the status of
women (Hourani 1990), identifying women in
male dominated spheres such as mining, whaling,
and frontiers (Lawrence & Davies 2010), and
more general issues of cultural identity (Lydon
1999; Ireland 2002). In maritime archaeology,
which has undergone significant growth in
Australia over the past two decades, there has
also been a technological focus, but some work
has been directed into the nuances of social
relationships (Staniforth & Lawrence 1998).
While the complex nature of the relationships
between such phenomena as social organization
and spatial organization has been recognized and
addressed theoretically and despite papers which
identify women in the archaeological record,
there has been no substantial development of
a particularly Australian feminist framework.
The significant body of feminist theory
developed from the United States has established
a context for historical (and Indigenous) archae-
ology into which gender and feminist theories can
be integrated. A reluctance to include such
theoretical perspectives is perhaps a reflection
of the passive opposition to gender and feminist
2965 G
archaeology in Australia. In a similar sense,
a shunning of a feminist heritage and theory,
in favor of a post-processual narrative, or a mere
change to gender neutral language, can be
interpreted either as taking a safer option or as
an attempt at some degree of political
correctness.
International Perspectives
One of the major research questions for archae-
ologists working in Australia is the timing and
means by which Sahul (and hence the continent G
of Australia) was first colonized by humans and
the origins of those humans. Theories on coloni-
zation in this region are distinctive, following the
argument put forth by Davidson and Noble
(1992) that the maritime colonization of Austra-
lia must have been linked to people with language
and therefore probably constitutes some of the
earliest evidence of modern human behavior.
Research of this nature thus continues to generate
interest and contribute to debates of international
significance. There is consensus that the first col-
onization was by anatomically modern humans
and is central to understanding human evolution.
Balme and Bowdler (2006) have put forth an
argument for the role of gender in the coloniza-
tion of Australia. While the binary assumptions
and universalizing regarding gender that serve as
the basis of their arguments are likely to be
flawed, Balme and Bowdler nevertheless raise
important considerations about the role of gender
in such processes as colonizing new lands, an
area where discussions on gender or women as
active participants in this process is traditionally
absent.
An internationally significant study also
undertaken in Australia is that by Casella (2000)
(although not an Australian archaeologist
herself). Gender, sexuality, and power were
strong emergent themes in her analysis of net-
works of black market exchange throughout the
inmate population at the Ross Female Factory,
a nineteenth-century Australian colonial prison
for transported British female convicts in
Tasmania. She concluded that both material
G 2966 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
objects and sexual encounters fuelled systems of
illicit barter by relating the differential distribu-
tion patterns within the button assemblage to
sexual dynamics of the convict black market.
Asking and testing whether same-sex relation-
ships can be archaeologically interpreted has
highlighted the validity of asking such questions
in these environments and demonstrated how
a rigorous and gendered archaeology can be
produced.
Future Directions
Despite efforts to construct and include gender
theory in Australian archaeology, few methodo-
logical or theoretical breakthroughs have
occurred in any mainstream sense. This lack of
progress is due to several factors, including the
issue that fundamental terms such as gender, sex,
and queer have been used inconsistently and are
often used interchangeably, which indicates
a negligence in theoretical understanding or
interest. This has also led to a misconception
that all studies in these areas are concerned with
the conflation of the status of women. The notion
that gender is invisible archaeologically also
persists especially in relation to Indigenous
women and the archaeology of deep time. Such
archaeology is largely thought only to be acces-
sible through perishable, organic (gatherers)
material remains or other invisible social pro-
cesses. There is also, perhaps, a reluctance to
consider gender in isolation from other social
categories, such as ethnicity, particularly in his-
torical and maritime archaeology. Despite some
of the aforementioned work and given the dis-
tancing of much of gender archaeology from
feminism, the discipline in Australia is still in
the process of adding women (proving their
existence) and thus has only achieved what
Engelstad (2007) refers to as simply a cosmetic
change to our interpretations of past societies. In
this sense distancing gender from the political,
and from theorizing, even within the gender
archaeology camp may have contributed to
the decline in inclusion and relevance in publica-
tions over the last decade in Australia.
To clearly delineate a future trajectory for
such archaeologies, it is necessary to acknowl-
edge that gender, queer, and feminist archaeol-
ogies do have a history and a tradition in
Australia. Though this may be short and small,
an agreed version of events, a recognition of an
Australian discourse, may in fact prompt
archaeologists into generating further discussion
or regain the traction that was lost at the end of
the 1990s. What is needed is an acknowledge-
ment of those who worked so hard in these areas
in the past and new ways to inspire the younger
generations of conservative Australian archaeol-
ogists to recognize that there is still much more
work to be done. These issues could be addressed
in future by the creation of new communities as
occurred through conferences in the past. The
inclusion of the theoretical aspects of gender,
queer, and feminist archaeologies in teaching at
undergraduate level at universities within main-
stream archaeology, as was done in the 1990s,
would also provide opportunities for greater
understanding and debate. Following Bowman
and Ulm (2009) it can also be asserted that
individuals lack the capacity and/or funding to
undertake directed research or publish on gender
archaeology, as this is an area that has seen
a decline in interest and attracts fewer funding
opportunities. This is a problem not easily
addressed, and not one confined to this discipline.
Australian archaeology has moved forward in
developing some aspects of feminist archaeol-
ogy, such as equity in employment opportunities,
and removing overt discrimination. Despite its
promising development, particularly in the
1990s, the future of an archaeology of gender
(and especially of feminist archaeology) in Aus-
tralia is uncertain. Given the recent focus on job
and fieldwork training, the emphasis on test-
able data, combined with the general apathy
towards feminism, and a major focus on CHM
employment particularly in areas where mining is
being undertaken, most archaeologists in
Australia will never work in a university or pur-
sue a higher degree. With a small pool of aca-
demics as compared to other countries, the
percentage of the archaeological population who
could focus on gender is small compared to the
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Australian Perspective
proportion who will earn a living from never
having to do it. The question must be asked,
does feminist, gender, and queer archaeology
have a future in Australia at all?
Cross-References
Australias Archaeological Heritage
Post-Processualism, Development of
Social Archaeology
References
BALME, J. & W. BECK. (ed.) 1995. Gendered archaeology.
The second Australian Women in Archaeology
Conference. Canberra: Archaeology and Natural
History Publications, Australian National University
Press.
BALME, J. & S. BOWDLER. 2006. Spear and digging stick:
the origin of gender and its implication for the coloni-
zation of new continents. Journal of Social Archaeol-
ogy 6: 379401.
BECK, W. & L. HEAD. 1990. Women in Australian prehis-
tory. Australian Feminist Studies 11: 2942.
BIRMINGHAM, J. & D. JEANS. 1983. The Swiss family
Robinson and the archaeology of colonisations.
Australian Journal of Historical Archaeology
1: 1314.
BIRD, C.F.M. 1993. Woman the toolmaker: evidence for
womens use and manufacture of flaked stone tools in
Australia and New Guinea, in H. du Cros & L. Smith.
(ed.) Women in archaeology: a feminist critique
(Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23): 2230.
Canberra: Australian National University Press.
BOWDLER, S. & G. CLUNE. 2000. That shadowy band: the
role of women in the development of Australian
archaeology. Australian Archaeology 50: 2735.
BOWMAN, J. & S. ULM. 2009. Grants, gender and glass
ceilings? An analysis of ARC-funded archaeology
projects. Australian Archaeology 68: 316.
CASELLA, E. 2000. Doing trade: a sexual economy of
nineteenth-century Australian female convict prisons.
World Archaeology 32 (2): 20921.
CASEY, M., D. DONLON, J. HOPE & S. WELLFARE. (ed.) 1998.
Redefining archaeology: feminist perspectives.
Canberra: Archaeology & Natural History Publica-
tions, RSPAS, Australian National University.
COLLEY, S. 2002. Uncovering Australia. Archaeology,
Indigenous people and the public. Crows Nest: Allen
and Unwin.
DAVIDSON, I. & W. NOBLE. 1992. Why the first colonization
of the Australian region is the earliest evidence for
modern human behaviour. Archaeology in Oceania
27: 13542.
2967 G
DONLON, D. 1993. Imbalance in the sex ratio in collections
of Australian Aboriginal remains, in H. du Cros &
L. Smith (ed.) Women in archaeology: a feminist
critique (Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23):
98103. Canberra: Australian National University
Press.
DOWSON, T.A. 2000. Why queer archaeology? An
introduction. World Archaeology 32(2): 1615.
DU CROS, H. & L. SMITH. (ed.) 1993. Women in archaeol-
ogy: a feminist critique (Occasional Papers in
Prehistory 23). Canberra: Australian National
University.
ENGELSTAD, E. 2007. Much more than gender. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 14(3): 21734.
HOPE, J. 1998. Making up stories: bias in interpretations of
Aboriginal burial practices is southern Australia, in
M. Casey, D. Donlon, J. Hope & S. Wellfare (ed.) G
Redefining archaeology: feminist perspectives:
23945. Canberra: Archaeology and Natural History
Publications, Australian National University Press.
HOURANI, P. 1990. Spatial organisation and the status of
women in nineteenth century Australia. Australian
Journal of Historical Archaeology 8: 707.
HUCHET, B.M.J. 1991. Theories and Australian prehistory:
the last three decades. Australian Archaeology 33:
4451.
IRELAND, T. 2002. Giving value to the Australian historic
past: historical archaeology, heritage and nationalism.
Australasian Historical Archaeology 20: 1525.
KABERRY, P. 1939. Aboriginal women: sacred and
profane. London: Routledge.
LAWRENCE, S. & P. DAVIES. 2010. An archaeology of
Australia since 1788. New York: Springer.
LYDON, J. 1995. Gender in Australian historical archaeol-
ogy, in J. Balme & W. Beck (ed.) Gendered archaeol-
ogy. The second Australian Women in Archaeology
Conference: 729. Canberra: Archaeology and
Natural History Publications, Australian National
University Press.
- 1999. Many inventions: the Chinese in the rocks,
Sydney, 18901930. Melbourne: Monash Publications
in History.
MCCARDLE, P. 2002. The Aboriginal bark burial mortuary
practice of the Central Queensland Highlands.
Undergraduate Honors dissertation, University of
New England, Australia.
MCDONALD, J. 1992. The Great Mackerel rockshelter
excavation: women in the archaeological record?
Australian Archaeology 35: 3550.
MOSER, S. 2007. On disciplinary culture: archaeology as
fieldwork and its gendered associations. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 23563.
NELSON, M.C., S.M. NELSON & A. WYLIE. (ed.) 1994.
Equity issues for women in archaeology (Archaeolog-
ical Papers of the American Anthropological Associa-
tion 5). Arlington (VA): American Anthropological
Association.
OCONNOR, S. 2008. Engendering Australian and Southeast
Asian prehistory. . .beyond epistemological angst.
G 2968 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
More unconsidered trifles: papers to celebrate the
career of Sandra Bowdler. Australian Archaeology
67: 8794.
RUSSELL, P. 1994. In search of womans place: an histor-
ical survey of gender and space in nineteenth-century
Australia. Australasian Historical Archaeology
77: 2832.
SMITH, C.E. 1991. Female artists: the unrecognised factor
in sacred rock art production, in P. Bahn & A.
Rosenfeld (ed.) Rock art and prehistory: proceedings
of the 1st Australian Rock Art Research Association
(AURA) Congress: 4552. Oxford: Oxbow.
SMITH, C.E. & H. BURKE. 2006. Glass ceilings, glass
parasols and Australian academic archaeology.
Australian Archaeology 62: 1325.
SMITH, C.E, & G. JACKSON. 2005. Living and learning
on Aboriginal Lands: decolonising archaeology
in practice, in C. Smith & H. M. Wobst (ed.):
Indigenous archaeologies decolonizing theory
and practice. 32851. London and New York:
Routledge.
SMITH, C.E. & E. ODONNELL. 2006. Gender and the
disciplinary culture of Australian archaeology, in S.
M. Nelson (ed.) Handbook of gender in archaeology:
691732. Lanham (MD): AltaMira.
SMITH, L. & H. DU CROS. 1995. Reflections of women in
archaeology, in J. Balme & W. Beck (ed.) Gendered
archaeology. The second Australian Women in
Archaeology Conference: 728. Canberra: Archaeol-
ogy and Natural History Publications, Australian
National University.
STANIFORTH, M. & S. LAWRENCE. (ed.) 1998. The
archaeology of whaling in southern Australia and
New Zealand (Australian Institute for Maritime
Archaeology, Special Publication 10). Canberra:
Australasian Society for Historical Archaeology and
the Australian Institute for Maritime Archaeology.
YOUNG, L. 1998. The material construction of gentility:
a context for understanding the role of women in early
nineteenth-century sites, in M. Casey, D. Donlon,
J. Hope & S. Wellfare (ed.) Redefining archaeology:
feminist perspectives: 1347. Canberra: Archaeology
& Natural History Publications, RSPAS, Australian
National University.
Further Reading
BECK, W. & J. BALME. 1994. Gender in aboriginal
archaeology: recent research. Australian Archaeology
39: 3946.
CONKEY, M.W & J.D. SPECTOR. 1984. Archaeology and the
study of gender. Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory 7: 138.
DAVIDSON, I. & W. NOBLE. 1992. Why the first colonization
of the Australian region is the earliest evidence for
modern human behaviour. Archaeology in Oceania
27: 13542.
HOURANI, P. 1990. Spatial organisation and the status of
women in nineteenth century Australia. Australian
Journal of Historical Archaeology 8: 707.
Gender, Feminist, and Queer
Archaeologies: European
Perspective
Liv Helga Dommasnes
Cultural History Collections, University of
Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Introduction
In some European countries, gender archaeology
started as early as the 1970s; in others the first
gender-related research projects have yet to be
created. Thus, there will be considerable differ-
ences within Europe regarding the interest in and
development of the field, and it seems right to
speak of European gender archaeologies in the
plural rather than one monolithic gender archae-
ology. On the other hand, the interaction between
the different approaches, gender, feminist, and
queer archaeologies, has been so close that
treating them separately becomes meaningless.
In this entry, the historical development of
European gender archaeologies will be traced in
terms of four distinct regions, each defined by
common traits in language and academic culture:
Scandinavia, the British Isles, the German-
language area, and the Mediterranean region.
Central and Eastern Europe would be a fifth
region. Gender archaeology here is still in its
incipient stage, however, and will only occasion-
ally be referred to. Chronologically, the discus-
sion will be restricted to prehistoric and early
medieval archaeology, following regional defini-
tions. A European perspective is understood as
archaeology by scholars working in Europe and
dealing with the European past. Nevertheless,
there will be a bias toward Northern Europe, the
region best known to this author. Within North
Europe more attention will be paid to Scandina-
via and the German-language area than to the
United Kingdom and Ireland, simply because
Anglophone European gender archaeology
has been addressed extensively elsewhere
(Gilchrist 1999; Srensen 2000; Whitehouse
2006). Spanish gender archaeology is addressed
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
in a separate entry in this encyclopedia
( Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies:
Spanish Perspective).
Overviews of European gender archaeology
have been presented in two recent papers, by
Whitehouse (2006) and by Dommasnes and
Monton-Subias (2012). While the first study is
organized by categories of evidence and discusses
almost exclusively Anglophone research, the sec-
ond presents a chronological/thematic discussion of
four different European regions, referring to litera-
ture both in English and local languages.
Definition
Gender archaeology is often used as an
umbrella term for several related but separate
approaches:
Studies of women in the past (women are the
subjects of study)
Archaeology that investigates past societies,
including gender arrangements, based on fem-
inist theory, critique, and epistemology
(defined by its theoretical approach, feminist
archaeology)
Analyses of gender and gender relations in past
societies (gender as an analytical category)
Masculinist archaeology (still in a nascent
stage)
Queer archaeology (investigates difference,
sexualities, and the character of gender)
A common factor in these approaches is the
inclusion of gender as a central element of social
structures. All modern gender archaeology pre-
supposes problematizing gender as a social con-
struct, rather than taking it for granted, and
analyzing the consequences of different gender
arrangements. Studies focusing on women or
gender without problematizing the concepts are
sometimes termed gender-relevant research.
Historical Background
General Overview
Gender has been one of many aspects consid-
ered in interpretations of archaeological
2969 G
material from the early days of archaeology as
an academic discipline, in the sense that arti-
facts have been ascribed to men and women,
respectively.
Modern gender archaeology, going back to the
1970s, was from its inception firmly based in
the second wave of feminism. European archae-
ologies were, at the time, overwhelmingly culture
historical or processual (see the entry in this
encyclopedia entitled Processualism in Archae-
ological Theory) and science was considered to
be objective in the sense that it should be unbi-
ased. In archaeology, feminism therefore became
an early introduction to the idea that scholarship G
could, and should, be value-laden.
The invisibility of women in archaeology and
in the past was considered to be a central problem
and as a result early feminist archaeology was to
a certain extent simply an archaeology about
women. But it was soon realized that feminist
approaches must dig deeper. Challenging basic
concepts, epistemologies, and practice became
one of the hallmarks of feminist scholarship.
Sex essentialism was rejected, while gender as
a social structure was considered to be
a pervasive element of any society. Asymmetri-
cal power relations between men and women
were seen to be part of most gender systems,
and gender roles were conceptualized as social
constructions which had to be investigated within
their specific cultural contexts.
Post-processual archaeology, emerging in
Europe from the early 1980s onward, brought
new impulses from the social sciences and human-
istic scholarship as well as an increasing emphasis
on cultural diversity in the past. Diversity also
became a key word in later developments of gen-
der archaeology, largely inspired by third-wave
feminists who were critiquing, often from black,
lesbian, or third-world points of view, the mono-
lithic constructions of femininity and masculinity
prevalent in previous feminisms.
In spite of the fact that men and masculinities
have sometimes been explicitly addressed in
post-processual archaeology, the scholars
involved do not necessarily think of themselves
as gender researchers (Treherne 1998). Mascu-
linity theory and masculinity studies as such have
G 2970 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
so far been very rare in European archaeology.
In a paper advocating the development of
a masculinist archaeology inspired by feminism
Knapp (1998: 94) distinguishes between
reactionary masculinities and motivated
masculinities. Motivated masculinities are
influenced by feminist research and problematize
masculinities in much the same way that femi-
ninities have been investigated. In a few cases,
studies of masculinity are undertaken by women,
from a feminist standpoint.
In the context of archaeological gender studies
in Europe, postmodern deconstruction of the
concepts of sex and gender has emerged as
a dominant approach to gender studies, an
approach that does not focus on women only.
Postmodernism in archaeology has tended to
favor the study of individuals, constructed iden-
tities, and personhood rather than groups, socie-
ties, and systems. In this process, focus in the sex/
gender dichotomy has moved from gender to
sexuality and embodiment, paving the way for
queer archaeology, which can basically be
described as an archaeology of difference, and
in this sense includes anybody and anything that
does not fit into the society in question.
In a narrower sense, queer archaeology is under-
stood as investigation into genders and various
sexual identities in the past. The impact of queer
archaeology (in the narrower sense) in Europe
has so far been limited mainly to the United
Kingdom. A Scandinavian study of gender and
the role of the main god Odin in Old Norse
religion and ideology is based partly on queer
approaches (Solli 2002).
The many approaches sketched above now
exist side by side in gender archaeology, globally
and in Europe. In sum, gender research is still
developing and is characterized by critique on the
one hand and theoretical eclecticism on the other.
Chronology: Where and When
Scandinavia, and particularly Norway, seems to
have been the first place where a new feminist-
inspired archaeology took hold, in the early
1970s. The inspiration was derived mainly
from two sources, the critical theory of the Ger-
man Frankfurter school and second-wave
feminism from Simone de Beauvoir to Ameri-
can standpoint theorists.
The first Scandinavian gender archaeology
initiatives took place among students in the
early 1970s and were related to equity issues.
A Norwegian conference organized by teachers
and museum curators, Var de alle menn?
(Were they all men?), followed in 1979.
In 1985 the organization K.A.N. Kvinner
i Arkeologi i Norge (Women in Archaeology in
Norway) was founded. Its concomitant
journal became the main publication venue of
gender archaeology in Scandinavia until it was
discontinued in 2005. Thus, critical theory
and feminist/gender perspectives had already
become part of Scandinavian archaeology
when British post-processualism became a
strong force in international archaeology during
the late 1980s.
British gender archaeology, on the other hand,
developed in parallel with post-processualist
approaches. Again, the gender initiative came
from students who dedicated a whole issue of
Archaeological Review from Cambridge (Arnold
et al. 1988) to gender issues. In addition to
presenting prehistoric women and discussing
feminism as a basis for archaeological interpre-
tations; gender as an analytical category was now
introduced. In the following decades, this was
going to become one of the most influential
approaches of British gender archaeology.
Language is probably the reason why the vast
amount of German-language gender archaeol-
ogy, steadily increasing in volume from its incep-
tion in 1988 and addressing a wide variety of
topics, is little known outside its own linguistic
area. Like in Britain, German gender archaeology
developed from student initiatives (Mertens &
Koch 2005). The German-language archaeologi-
cal tradition in the 1980s was strictly culture
historical and processual but also deeply
influenced by neighboring humanistic disci-
plines. Early gender-relevant inspirations varied
from popular engagement with the idea of matri-
archies in the past to gender constructivism
(Julia Koch, pers. comm. 2011). The Netzwerk
archaologisch arbeitender Frauen (FemArc),
which was to become the focal point of much
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
German-language gender archaeology, was
founded in 1991. FemArc now publishes
a newsletter for its members and a book
series, Frauen-Forschung-Archaologie, on the
renowned Waxmann Verlag.
As a whole, southern Europe has so far shown
relatively little interest in gender archaeology.
Spain is a special case, with a strong tradition of
womens and gender archaeologies going back
to the 1980s and addressing many different
issues (Sanchez Romero 2005; Prados Torreira
& Ruiz Lopez 2008) (see also the entry in this
encyclopedia entitled Gender, Feminist, and
Queer Archaeologies: Spanish Perspective).
During the 1990s, a new and innovative strand
of gender archaeology emerged from the basis of
Marxist and feminist standpoint theories. This
maintenance archaeology examines small
events and the routines of daily life as part of
social structures, often reevaluating their impor-
tance for the well-being of society and techno-
logical and political progress (Gonzalez-Marcen
et al. 2008).
In Eastern Europe, gender archaeology is still
in its incipient stages, dependent on a few active
scholars (Berseneva 2008). Like many Eastern
scholars, gender archaeologists still tend to
work within the processual paradigm, although
changes are on the way (Palincas 2008). A few
papers on gender in East and Central Europe have
also been published by scholars based in Western
universities.
The chronological sequence presented here
also indicates a process of diversification and
specialization where different regions have been
taking leading roles at different times. The golden
years of Scandinavian gender archaeology were
from 1985 onward, with a clear focus on feminist
approaches. Later on, British (and American)
gender archaeology took on leading roles inter-
nationally, developing gender as an analytical
tool and anthropologically inspired approaches
to past genders, respectively. At the same time,
a German-language gender archaeology strength-
ened its position in its own cultural area, combin-
ing detailed analyses of archaeological finds with
new theoretical impulses. At present, the Spanish
development holds promises for a future
2971 G
archaeology where gender and daily-life activi-
ties are included in the study of social structures,
history, and development.
Key Issues/Current Debates
In a historical perspective, gender and feminist
archaeologies are mainly associated with the
study of women and the relationship between
women and men. This is now slowly changing
as queer and masculinist archaeologies are
emerging.
It should also be mentioned that in a European G
setting, the archaeology of childhood has been
closely associated with gender archaeology.
Two early papers (Lillehammer 1986, revised
and enlarged English version 1989; Sofaer
Derevenski 1994), published in the K.A.N.
journal and the Archaeological Review from
Cambridge, respectively, focused on how to
identify children in the archaeological record. In
tune with the development of gender archaeology
proper, interest has since moved from visibility to
the question of childrens roles in prehistoric
societies and relations between children and
adults (e.g., Moore & Scott 1997; Roder 2002;
Sanchez Romero 2004; Berseneva 2008). The
archaeology of children is now recognized as
a separate field represented all over Europe and
is organized in The Society for the Study of
Childhood in the Past (http://www.sscip.org.uk/).
In the following section, primary issues will be
discussed against the background of goals and
aims of early gender archaeology. Early publica-
tions and the agendas of the two gender archae-
ology organizations founded in 1985 and 1991,
respectively, will provide keys to what was
deemed important at the time.
The edited volume Were they all men?
(Bertelsen et al. 1987), one of the very first
volumes in English dedicated to gender archae-
ology, presented papers from the above-
mentioned Norwegian conference held in 1979.
The editors stated that their aim was identifying
individuals in a prehistoric context but also
acknowledged their debt to the feminist move-
ment which may have provided a better basis for
G 2972 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
viewing not only the present but also the far past
with a feminist perspective in mind, and the
table of contents reveals that focus was almost
exclusively on women (Bertelsen et al. 1987).
K.A.N. (Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge, Women
in Archaeology in Norway), the organization
founded by Norwegian women archaeologists in
1985, presented its aims and goals in the first
volume of its journal (published in Norwegian
[English from 1996]) by the same name:
To promote well-established research on and
by women in archaeology
To present traditional research areas as well as
new aspects of research into prehistory
To be a medium for archaeologists seeking
a qualitatively new research strategy through
the development of new theories,
reassessment of methodological principles,
new ways of evaluating sources, and search
for new source material
To be a medium of thoughts and opinions on
the working conditions and the work of
women in archaeology and in society
In the United Kingdom, the editors (Arnold
et al. 1988: 2) of the 1988 Women and archae-
ology volume of Archaeological Review from
Cambridge argued that the subject of women in
archaeology demanded a critical evaluation of
the following points:
The conditions under which women work in
all areas of archaeological practice.
How women are portrayed in the interpreta-
tion and presentation of the past.
What gender is and what epistemological
questions an archaeology of gender forces us
to recognize in terms of social theory.
The German FemArc organization (founded
1991) presents its aims and goals on its English-
language website (http://www.femarc.de/) like
this:
Create contact between women who are
involved with archaeology and its related
fields.
Prevent the isolation of female archaeologists.
Encourage the exchange of experiences
between women.
Improve the employment situation of female
archaeologists.
Promote the discussion between archaeolo-
gists and other academics involved in
womens and gender studies.
Establish an interdisciplinary approach
between female archaeologists, scientists of
other fields, and interested amateurs.
Expand the theoretical foundations for femi-
nist archaeology.
Open feminist archaeology to the public and to
all women.
Establish feminist archaeology and gender
studies as themes and methods in archaeology.
In slightly different terms, these declarations
of intent all agree on three areas of concern:
equity issues, the ways that women had been
presented in archaeological narratives, and theo-
retical approaches. These three issues have been
constant companions to gender and feminist
archaeologies ever since.
Equity Issues
Equity issues were one of the main issues of
second-wave feminism. Equity issues which
have been addressed in archaeology include:
The number of women archaeologists and
women working in archaeology
Positions held by women in archaeology
Research fields dominated by women and
men, respectively
Archaeological arenas (research, teaching,
museum, excavations) dominated by women
and men, respectively
The prestige of women-dominated research
fields
Research carried out in the 1980s and 1990s
shows that in some countries, women made up
a fair proportion of the archaeologists, but even
so, few held permanent positions and even fewer
held top positions. Power and prestige followed
the subfields or arenas where men dominated.
The number of women professionals in archaeol-
ogy is now increasing all over Europe but gender
inequality is still a serious problem in many
European archaeological communities. As for
gender archaeology, this is still dominated by
women.
Learning about the history of women in
archaeology became part of equity research.
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
An edited volume Excavating Women:
A History of Women in European Archaeology
(Daz-Andreu & Srensen 1998) addressed
womens contributions to archaeology in many
European countries. Similarly, the FemArc pub-
lications Eine Dame zwischen 500 Herren (Koch
& Mertens 2002) and Ausgraberinnen,
Forscherinnen, Pionierinnen. Ausgewahlte
Portrats fruher Archaologinnen im Kontext
ihrer Zeit (Fries & Gutsmiedl-Schumann 2013)
present portraits of female pioneers in the
German-language area.
Representations of Women and Gender
It is only a short step from noting the asymmetri-
cal relationship between female and male practi-
tioners of archaeology to asking if this would also
have affected the interpretations of the past.
Rock Art and Other Depictions
Past depictions of women, varying from statues
to embroideries and rock carvings, were particu-
larly important in early womens archaeology, as
part of the project of making past women visible.
Rock carvings, which are relatively common
over many parts of Europe and cover a time
span from the Early Stone Age to the Early Iron
Age, were a special challenge, as they
highlighted the problem of identifying sex as
well as gender when confronted with foreign
picture conventions. It has been claimed that all
the humans depicted, for example, on Scandina-
vian rock carvings were male. Gender
researchers have challenged such viewpoints
and presented convincing arguments that
women, womens activities, and in some cases
even different (ethnic) gender ideologies are
represented on European rock art panels
(Figs. 1 and 2).
Graves and Funerary Assemblies
Funerary assemblies will often be associated with
individuals and have for that reason been central
in gender studies, which have often focused on
hierarchical statuses, power relations, and social
roles.
Jewelry and weapons have been generally
accepted as tentative gender markers. An
2973 G
G
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies:
European Perspective, Fig. 1 Woman, man, and rein-
deer. Mesolithic rock carving, Vingen, West Norway
(Photo: Svein Skare. # The University Museum of
Bergen, Norway)
example of a study based mainly on jewelry is
Ursula Kochs (1997) study of two Merovingian
cemeteries in Germany. Intimate knowledge
of the archaeological material enabled her to
divide the burials into families (households) and
analyze the female burials in order to reveal
geographical origins, ethnicity, and relative
ranks of the women in each household. Skeletons
were examined in order to determine age and
other aspects such as whether the women had
given birth. Kochs study does not aim to funda-
mentally challenge existing conceptions of early
medieval women. But through meticulous ana-
lyses of finds and contexts, one of the hallmarks
of German archaeology, new insights in womens
gendered lives are generated and our understand-
ing widened.
Studying roles and statuses from burial finds is
most fruitful where burials are individual and
gendered differences are indicated in terms of
monuments, in body treatment, or in grave gifts.
One should note, however, that dichotomous gen-
der roles and other easily recognizable variations
will be overrepresented in studies based on
supposedly exclusive gender-related artifacts.
Another source of error is that often
G 2974 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
Gender, Feminist, and
Queer Archaeologies:
European Perspective,
Fig. 2 Mesolithic woman.
Vingen, West Norway
(Photo: Svein Skare. # The
University Museum of
Bergen, Norway)
a considerable percentage of burials in the ceme-
teries investigated cannot be gendered through
the grave gifts. They therefore tend to be left
out of the interpretations, thereby possibly creat-
ing sharper gender divisions than warranted.
Finally, a question related to all representations
of women (and men) in the past is whether the
representations are idealized or realistic ones,
gender ideologies or gender in action.
Subsistence, Trade, and Technology
In spite of the great number of prehistoric settle-
ments known in Europe, these have played
a relatively small role in gender studies. One
reason may be that tools found in settlement
contexts can rarely be definitely attributed to
any gender. Interpretations tend to rely on ethno-
graphic and historic evidence, inviting the inter-
pretation of subsistence activities like hunting or
farming as mens work. But there also seems to
be a general agreement that both women and men
must have participated in economic activities in
all kinds of societies. Grave gifts sometimes
indicate what kind of work the people buried
engaged in. As an example, agricultural imple-
ments in female graves may indicate that women
have taken active parts in farm work during the
Scandinavian Iron Age, and scale-weights found
in graves indicate that Viking women in Russia
may also have been traders, probably participants
in family businesses (Stalsberg 1987). More gen-
erally, women seem to have been engaged in
textile work all over Europe. Again, this is
supported both by grave gifts and iconography
(spindle whorls, weaving equipment, and depic-
tions of women weaving).
Technology is a masculine laden word, effec-
tively often leaving women out of fields such as
metalwork or boat building, although the ques-
tion of womens participation has been raised
(e.g., Srensen 1996). A fruitful approach is to
point to the fact that activities traditionally con-
sidered female, such as ceramic production, tex-
tile work, the preparation of food, and caring for
people, require skill and knowledge and therefore
represent sophisticated technologies. This is the
strategy of the Spanish maintenance
archaeologists (Gonzalez Marcen et al. 2008;
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies:
Spanish Perspective in this encyclopedia) who
claim that these and related activities are basic
for the structure and continuation of societies.
Theoretical Approaches/Current Debates
Insofar as the theories are applicable to archaeol-
ogy, European gender archaeologies have
followed the development of second (and third)-
wave feminisms. Two issues, however, may be
said to characterize the European archaeological
scene. One is a sometimes explicit discussion of
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
the relationship between feminist and gender
research; second is the conflation of postmodern
deconstruction and gender analyses as keys to
understanding genders of the past.
Feminist studies are defined by their approach.
A feminist study in archaeology may have as its
subject any aspect of the archaeological past,
men, women, the emergence of agriculture, tech-
nological innovations, or religious ideologies.
The ensuing new interpretations would not only
include women but be made from womens
standpoints. Although feminist theories have
been fundamental to the critiquing of androcen-
tric science and vital to the early development of
gender scholarship in Europe, feminism has not
remained a preferred framework of interpretation
for all gender archaeologists. Some scholars con-
sider feminism to be political, or biased, while
true scholarship should be objective and unbi-
ased. Others claim that objectivity is impossible
in humanistic scholarship and that the solution is
to recognize your bias and take it into account in
interpretations, as recommended by standpoint
feminists.
The study of gender (or women), on the other
hand, is defined by its subject and may take at
least two different directions. One is the anthro-
pologically inspired study of how gender works,
that is, how people of the past have lived their
lives as women, men, and possible other genders
within different cultural contexts. Another
approach, which will be discussed in the follow-
ing paragraphs, is closely linked to the impact of
postmodern scepticism and deconstruction in
parts of European archaeology and concentrates
on the character of gender and gender as an
analytical concept.
British archaeologists signalled the analysis of
gender as a central concern as early as 1988
(Arnold et al. 1988: 2). Discussion concerning
the relationship between gender and material
culture as archaeologys special contribution to
gender research (cf. Srensen 2000) is a further
development of this theme, postmodern decon-
struction and analysis another.
An early comment on the relationship between
postmodernism and the study of gender in archae-
ology relates to the danger inherent in approaches
2975 G
that advocate pluralism and open-ended interpre-
tations, namely, that with no fixed authority to
appeal to, interpretation becomes a matter of
power (Engelstad 1991). Power is still predomi-
nantly male in academic circles, and Engelstads
comment thus reflects the basic idea of feminist
scholarship, namely, critique of androcentrism in
any form. Another comment would be that by
deconstructing the concept of gender, gender
studies no longer have an object, and conse-
quently the legitimacy of the field as such is
undermined.
In a relatively recent paper, Whitehouse
(2007) claims that European gender archaeology G
as a whole has developed in a post-processual and
even postmodern direction, with the consequence
that European gender archaeologists tend to
neglect the fact that most people worldwide do
in fact live and identify themselves as women and
men. Central issues like male/female power rela-
tions and the role that reproduction and mother-
hood must have played in womens lives are
likewise excluded. In sum, claims Whitehouse
(2007), European gender archaeology has
removed itself from the lives of real women and
men of the past.
This is a legitimate critique of strands of gender
archaeology that seem to have problems accepting
the category of gender at all. But it is a mistake
to assume that this attitude characterizes European
gender archaeology. Whitehouses discussion is
based almost exclusively on Anglophone gender
archaeology. The trends she criticizes represent
one particular European tradition which, because
English is the academic lingua franca, tends to
dominate the international field. European gender
archaeologies are, however, situated within
national archaeological communities of scholars.
Spanish, German-language, British, Scandinavian,
and the emerging East/Central European gender
archaeologies all carry the hallmarks of their own
local academic traditions, which may be culture
historical, processual, post-processual, or post-
modern, and favor different issues, approaches,
and forms. In many European languages, it is
also the case that biological sex and gender are
intrinsically linked even covered by the same
term. Native speakers of such languages think
G 2976 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
differently about gender, thus contributing to the
multivocality that is a precondition for new
insights.
With these reservations, it is probably still the
case that the analysis of gender in all its variations
has become one of the most important in terms
of papers presented maybe the most important
strands of archaeological gender research in
Europe today. Most British gender archaeology
today falls into the category of gender analysis.
The approach is represented in Scandinavian and
Spanish archaeologies as well, although feminist
archaeology is relatively strong in these regions.
In German-language archaeology, some scholars
prefer working within a feminist framework,
while others have emphasized the importance
of finding a place for nonideological gender
research (Mertens & Koch 2005), as, for
example, gender analysis.
International Perspectives
Viewed from a Norwegian perspective, the first
years of gender archaeology were characterized
by a high degree of Scandinavian cooperation and
enthusiasm. With the advent of the first English-
language publications in the 1980s, a feeling of
sharing a common frame of reference and work-
ing toward a common goal developed. On
a European level, the British TAG conferences
became an international meeting place for gender
archaeological discussions.
From then on, gender archaeology was defi-
nitely an international phenomenon, with steadily
increasing communication across borders. The
number of publications increased dramatically,
especially English-language books and papers.
A positive effect was that scholars who wanted
to participate on the international arena were
often encouraged to publish in English, thus
reaching a wider (academic) public. On the neg-
ative side is the fact that those who chose to write
in their native languages, and thereby also to
communicate with the general public in their
countries, became more marginalized than ever
internationally. The end result of the ongoing
internationalization may be that in many
European countries, gender archaeology is only
occasionally disseminated to local publics.
International communication did not stop at
the European borders. Conferences in Europe,
North America, and Australia attracted partici-
pants from many continents, and the conference
papers were read by everyone with an interest in
gender and archaeology. Some sources of
inspiration were shared by almost all gender
researchers. Foremost among these are the
writings by feminist theorists like Simone de
Beauvoir from France and American
standpoint feminists like Nancy Hartsock and
Sandra Harding, who became household names
to anyone working with women and gender.
Donna Haraway and Judith Butler have also
influenced European gender archaeology consid-
erably, as have the philosopher/archaeologist
Alison Wylie and gender archaeological pioneers
like Margaret Conkey and Janet Spector.
International contacts tend to be unilateral
between Britain (or the USA), where well-known
international centers of education are to be found,
and individuals of other nationalities. In the
context of gender archaeology, however, multi-
lateral contacts within Europe should not be
underestimated. Naturally, these tend to go
between regions with related traditions in culture
and language, as reflected in the regions
discussed above, but wider networks have also
been established. From 2008 onward, European
gender archaeologists have had a common meet-
ing place in the working group Archaeology and
Gender in Europe (http://www.upf.edu/mate-
rials/fhuma/age/), part of the European Associa-
tion of Archaeologists (EAA). One of the goals of
this network is to ensure that information and
inspiration will cross borders and oceans in all
directions.
Future Directions
In archaeology, gender research has been mainly
an academic field or a discourse between archae-
ologists. But archaeology also has a role to play in
society at large. Doing gender archaeology
should, among other things, mean reaching out
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
to the general public and presenting recent
research through popular books and papers,
museums, and other media.
Gender Studies and the Archaeological
Record
The archaeological record, or the material
remains recognized mainly through surveys and
excavations, kept in the landscape or stored in
museum collections, is the basis of all archaeo-
logical interpretations. Today, most of the addi-
tions to the archaeological record are results of
rescue excavations taken on not for academic
reasons but because the land in question is being
developed for new purposes.
Increasingly, rescue archaeology is carried out
by commercial firms, although guided by local
heritage legislation and international agreements.
In Europe, rescue archaeology works closer to the
processual paradigm than does academic archae-
ology. The general opinion seems to be that
(gender) theory is not relevant to rescue excava-
tions or to the excavation phase at all: interpreta-
tion comes later. Large-scale excavations also
tend to be headed by men, something that has
not favored gender or feminist approaches.
In future, a closer relationship between rescue
archaeology and academic research would be
desirable in order to generate gender-relevant
discoveries in creating the archaeological record
and activating its potential in research and
dissemination.
Gender in Teaching, in Museums, and in
Books Directed at the General Public
Gender archaeology has a long history in teach-
ing departments and many universities offer
courses in gender archaeology at different levels.
Dissertations in gender archaeology have also
been defended all over Europe from 1976
onward, in sum an imposing body of new
knowledge.
The dissemination of all this newly generated
knowledge to the general public, however, seems
to be lagging behind. Museum archaeologists
have been involved in gender archaeology from
early on, but in spite of this there have been far
too few permanent museum exhibitions
2977 G
incorporating gender-relevant questions or
women. Occasionally smaller, temporary exhibi-
tions dedicated to women in the past are shown.
A future task would be to include a gender
aspect in all museum exhibitions, especially the
permanent ones.
Another arena not yet conquered is that of
general historical accounts, in textbooks and
overviews aimed at nonspecialists. Like museum
exhibitions, these tend to be conservative, and
gender is seldom in focus. Incorporating the
results of gender archaeology into the great
narratives of humankind has been the main moti-
vation of gender archaeology from the 1970s G
onward. It is now time to make this a priority in
future work.
Cross-References
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies:
Spanish Perspective
Post-Processual Archaeology
Post-Processualism, Development of
Processualism in Archaeological Theory
References
ARNOLD, K., R. GILCHRIST, P. GRAVES & S. TAYLOR. (ed.)
1988. Women and archaeology. Archaeological
Review from Cambridge 7: 2-9.
BERSENEVA, N. 2008. Women and children in the Sargat
culture, in K.M. Linuff & K.S. Rubinson (ed.) Are all
warriors male? Gender roles on the ancient Eurasian
steppe: 131-52. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
BERTELSEN, R., A. LILLEHAMMER & J.-R. NSS. (ed.) 1987.
Were they all men? An examination of sex roles in
prehistoric society (AmS Varia 17). Stavanger:
Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger.
DIAZ-ANDREU, M. & M.L. SRENSEN. (ed.)1998. Excavat-
ing women. A history of women in European
archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.
DOMMASNES, L.H. & S. MONTON-SUBIAS. 2012. European
gender archaeologies in historical perspective. Euro-
pean Journal of Archaeology 15(3): 367-91.
ENGELSTAD, E. 1991. Images of power and contradiction:
feminist theory and post-processual archaeology.
Antiquity 65: 502-14.
FRIES, J.E. & D. GUTSMIEDL-SCHUMANN. (ed.) 2013.
Ausgraberinnen, Forscherinnen, Pionierinnen.
Ausgewahlte Portrats fruher Archaologinnen im
G 2978 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
Kontext ihrer Zeit (Frauen-Forschung-Archaologie
10). Munster: Waxmann Verlag.
GILCHRIST, R. 1999. Gender and archaeology contesting
the past. London and New York: Routledge.
GONCALES-MARCEN, P., S. MONTON-SUBIAS & M. PICAZO
(ed.) 2008. Towards an archaeology of maintenance
activities, in S. Monton-Subas & M. Sanchez-Romero
(ed.) Engendering social dynamics: the archaeology of
maintenance activities (British Archaeological
Reports International series 1862): 3-8. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
KNAPP, A.B. 1998. Whos come a long way, baby? Mas-
culinist approaches to a gendered archaeology.
Archaeological Dialogues 5: 91-106.
KOCH, U. 1997. Die Hierarchie der Frauen in
merowingischer Zeit, beobachtet in Pleidelsheim
(Kr. Ludwigsburg) und Klepsau (Hohenlohekreis), in
H. Brandt & J.K. Koch. (ed.) Konigin, Klosterfrau,
Bauerin. Frauen im Fruhmittelalter (Frauen-
Forschung-Archaologie 2): 29-54. Munster: Agenda
Verlag.
KOCH, J. & E.-M. MERTENS. (ed.) 2002. Eine Dame
zwischen 500 Herren. Johanna Mestorf Werk und
Wirkung (Frauen-Forschung-Archaologie 4). Munster:
Waxmann.
LILLEHAMMER, G. 1986. Barna i Nordens forhistorie. Drft
metodegrunnlaget og kildenes brekraft. K.A.N.
Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge 2: 3-21.
- 1989. A child is born. The childs world in an archaeo-
logical perspective, Norwegian Archaeological
Review 22 (2): 89-105.
MERTENS, E.M. & J.K. KOCH. 2005. Jenseits von
weiblichen Kammern und Sargen. Entwicklung der
archaologischen Geschlechterforschung in Deutschland,
in J.E. Fries & J.K. Koch (ed.) Ausgraben zwischen
Materialclustern und Zeitscheiben. Perspektiven zur
archaologischen Geschlechterforschung (Frauen-
Forschung-Archaologie 6): 25-56. Munster: Waxmann.
MOORE, J. & E. SCOTT. (ed.) 1997. Invisible people and
processes. Writing gender and childhood into
European archaeology. London and New York:
Leicester University Press.
PALINCAS, N. 2008. Living for the others: gender relations
in prehistoric and contemporary archaeology of
Romania, in L.H. Dommasnes, T. Hjrungdal,
S. Monton-Subas, M. Sanchez Romero & N.L. Wicker CONKEY, M. & J. SPECTOR. 1984. Archaeology and the
(ed.) Situating gender in European archaeologies
(Series Minor 29): 93-117. Budapest: Archaeolingua.
PRADOS TORREIRA, L. & C. RUIS LOPEZ. (ed.) 2008.
Arqueologa del genero. 1erEncuentro Internacional
en la UAM. Madrid: UAM Ediciones.
RODER, B. 2002. Statisten in der Welt der Erwachsenen:
Kinder auf archaologischen Lebensbildern, in K. W. Alt
& A. Kemkes-Grottenthaler (ed.) Kinderwelten.
Anthropologie-Geschichte-Kulturvergleich: 96-106.
Koln, Weimar, Wien: Bohlau Verlag.
SANCHEZ ROMERO, M. 2004. Children in south east of Ibe-
rian peninsula during Bronze Age. Ethnographisch-
Archaologische Zeitschrift 45: 377-87.
- (ed.) 2005. Arqueologia y genero. Granada: Universidad
de Granada.
SOFAER DEREVENSKI, J. 1994. Where are the children?
Accessing children of the past. Archaeological Review
from Cambridge 13: 7-30.
SOLLI, B. 2002. Seid, myter, sjamanisme og kjnn i
vikingenes tid. Oslo: Pax Forlag.
SRENSEN, M.L. 1996. Women as/and metalworkers,
in A. Devonshire & B. Wood (ed.) Women in industry
and technology: 45-52. London: Museum of London.
- 2000. Gender archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
STALSBERG, A. 1987. The implications of the womens
finds for the understanding of the activities of the
Scandinavians in Rus during the Viking Age. K.A.N.
Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge 5: 33-50.
TREHERNE, P. 1998. Whos come a long way, Dr. Knapp?
Archaeological Dialogues 5: 115.
WHITEHOUSE, R. 2006. Gender archaeology in Europe, in
S.M. Nelson (ed.) Handbook of gender in archaeol-
ogy: 733-85. London: Altamira Press.
WHITEHOUSE, R. 2007. Gender archaeology and archaeol-
ogy of women. Do we need both?, in S. Hamilton,
R.D. Whitehouse & K.I. Wright (ed.) Archaeology
and women. Ancient & modern issues: 41-54. Walnut
Creek: Left Coast Press.
Further Reading
AGE ARCHAEOLOGY AND GENDER IN EUROPE. n.d. Available
at: http://www.upf.edu/materials/fhuma/age/.
ARWILL-NORDBLADH, E. 1998. Genuskonstruktioner
i nordisk vikingatid. Forr och nu. (Gothenburg
Archaeological Theses series B 9). Gothenburg:
GOTARC.
BARBER, E.W. 1994. Womens work. The first 20,000
years. Women, cloth and society in early times.
New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company.
BERGMANN, S., S. KASTNER & E.M. MERTENS. (ed.) 2004.
Gottinnen, Graberinnen und gelehrte Frauen (Frauen-
Forschung-Archaologie 5). Munster: Waxmann.
BRANDT, H. & J. KOCH. (ed.) 1997. Konigin, Klosterfrau,
Bauerin. Frauen im Fruhmittelalter (Frauen-
Forschung-Archaologie 2). Munster: Agenda Verlag.
BUTLER, J. 1990. Gender trouble: feminism and the
subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
study of gender. Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory 7: 1-38.
DIAZ-ANDREU, M., S. LUCY, S. BABIC & S.D. EDWARD. (ed.)
2005. The archaeology of identity. Approaches to gen-
der, age, status, ethnicity and religion. London and
New York: Routledge.
DOMMASNES, L.H. 1982. Late Iron Age in Western
Norway. Female roles and ranks as deduced from an
analysis of burial customs. Norwegian Archaeological
Review 15: 70-85.
- 1992. Two decades of women in prehistory and in
archaeology in Norway. A review. Norwegian Archae-
ological Review 25: 1-15.
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: European Perspective
DOMMASNES, L.H. & M. WRIGGLESWORTH. (ed.) 2008.
Children, identity and the past. Newcastle: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
DOMMASNES, L.H., T. HJRUNGDAL, S. MONTON-SUBIAS,
M. SANCHEZ-ROMERO & N.L. WICKER. (ed.) 2010.
Situating gender in European archaeologies (Series
Minor 29): 93117. Budapest: Archaeolingua.
DU CROS, H. & L. SMITH. (ed.) Women in archaeology. A
feminist critique. Canberra: Department of Prehistory,
Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian
National University.
EHRENBERG, M. 1989. Women in prehistory. London:
British Museum Publications.
ENGELSTAD, E. 2001. Desire and body maps: all the women
are pregnant, all the men are virile, but. . ., in
K. Helskog (ed.) Theoretical perspectives in rock
art research: 263-89. Oslo: Instituttet for
sammenlignende kulturforskning, Novus forlag.
ESCORIZA MATEU, T. 2002. Representations of women in
Spanish Levantine art: an intentional fragmentation.
Journal of Social Archaeology 2: 81-108.
FEMARC NETZWERK ARCHAOLOGISCH ARBEITENDER FRAUEN.
n.d. Available at: http://www.femarc.de/-
FRIES, J. E. & J. K. KOCH. (ed.) 2005. Ausgegraben zwischen
Materialclustern und Zeitscheiben. Perspektiven zur
archaologischen Geschlechterforschung (Frauen-
Forschung-Archaologie 6). Munster: Waxmann.
FRIES, J. E., U. RAMBUSCHECK & G. SCHULTE-DORNBERG.
(ed.) 2007. Science oder Fiction? Geschlechterrollen
in archaologischen Lebensbildern (Frauen-
Forschung-Archaologie 7). Munster: Waxmann.
GILCHRIST, R. 1994. Gender and material culture. The
archaeology of religious women. London and
New York: Routledge.
GORANSSON, E.M.Y. 1999. Bilder av kvinnor och
kvinnlighet. Genus och kroppssprak under
overgangen till kristendomen (Stockholm Studies
in Archaeology 18). Stockholm: Stockholms
Universitet.
GUTSMIEDL-SCHUMANN, D. 2011. Alters- und geschlechts-
spezifische Zuweisung von Hand- und Hauswerk
im fruhen Mittelalter nach Aussage von Werkzeug
und Gerat aus Grabern der Munchner Schotterebene,
in J. E. Fries & U. Rambuscheck (ed.) Von
wirtschaftlicher Macht und militarischer Starke.
Beitrage zur archaologischen Geschlechterforschung.
Bericht der 4. Sitzung der AG Geschlechterforschung
der 79. Jahrestagung der Nordwestdeutschen
Verbandes fur Altertumsforschung e.V. in Detmund
2009 (Frauen-Forschung Archaologie 9): 37-74.
Munster: Waxmann.
HARDING, S. 1998. Is science multicultural? Postcolo-
nialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington
and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
HJRUNGDAL, T. 1991. Det skjulte kjnn. Patriarkal
tradisjon og feministisk visjon i arkeologien belyst
med fokus pa en jernalderkontekst (Acta
Archaeologica Lundensia series 8/19). Lund:
Almqvist & Wiksell.
2979 G
INSOLL, T. (ed.) 2007. The archaeology of identities.
A reader. London and New York: Routledge.
K.A.N. Kvinner i Arkeologi i Norge. 1995-2005.
KARLISCH, S.M., S. KASTNER & H. BRANDT. 2002. Women
in the underground: gender studies in German archae-
ology, in H. Harke (ed.) Archaeology, ideology and
society. The German experience (Gesellschaften und
Staaten im Epochenwandel 7): 289-307. Frankfurt am
Main: Peter Lang.
KARLISCH, S.M., S. KASTNER & E.M. MERTENS. (ed.) Vom
Knochenmann zur Menschenfrau. Feministische
Theorie und archaologische Praxis (Frauen-
Forschung-Archaologie 3). Munster: Agenda Verlag.
LINDUFF, K.M. & K.S. RUBINSON. (ed.) 2008. Are all war-
riors male? Gender roles on the ancient Eurasian
steppe. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
LOZANO, S. 2010. Gender thinking in the making: feminist G
epistemology and gender archaeology. Norwegian
Archaeological Review 44: 21-39.
MANDT, G. 1998. Vingen revisited. A gendered perspec-
tive on hunters rock art. KVHAA Konferenser
40: 201-24. Stockholm.
MERTENS, E.-M. 2002. Womens situation as archaeolo-
gists in West Germany, in H. Harke (ed.) Archaeology,
ideology and society. The German experience
(Gesellschaften und Staaten im Epochenwandel 7):
275-88. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
MINA, M. 2009. Island histories, gender stories: a compar-
ative view through Neolithic and early Bronze Age
anthropomorphic figurines from Cyprus and Crete.
Medelhavsmuseet Focus on the Mediterranean
5: 171-86.
MONTON-SUBIAS, S. & M. SANCHEZ-ROMERO. (ed.) 2008.
Engendering social dynamics: the archaeology of main-
tenance activities (British Archaeological Reports
International series 1862). Oxford: Archaeopress.
NELSON, S.M. (ed.) 2006. Handbook of gender in archae-
ology. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
NELSON, M.C., S.M. NELSON & A. WYLIE. 1994. Equity
issues for women in archaeology. Archaeological
Papers of the American Anthropological Association 5.
RAMBUSCHECK, U. (ed.) 2007. Zwischen Diskursanalyse und
Isotopenforschung. Methoden der archaologischen
Geschlechterforschung (Frauen-Forschung-
Archaologie 8). Munster: Waxmann.
REBAY-SALISBURY, K., M.L. STIG SRENSEN & J. HUGHES.
(ed.) 2010. Body parts and bodies whole. Changing
relations and meanings. Oxford and Oakville: Oxbow
Books.
RODER, B., J. HUMMEL & B. KUNZ. (ed.) 2001. Gottinnen-
dammerung: Das Matriarchat aus archaologischer
Sicht. Konigsforde: Konigsfurt Verlag.
SHINGIRAY, I. 2010. Gender, identity and display: varia-
tions in materiality among different groups of the
north-western Caspian region during the early Middle
Ages, in L.H. Dommasnes, T. Hjrungdal, S. Monton-
Subas, M. Sanchez Romero & N.L. Wicker (ed.)
Situating gender in European archaeologies (Series
Minor 29): 181-204. Budapest: Archaeolingua.
G 2980 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Spanish Perspective
SKOGSTRAND, L. 2010. Prehistoric hegemonic
masculinities, in L.H. Dommasnes, T. Hjrungdal, S.
Monton-Subas, M. Sanchez Romero & N.L. Wicker
(ed.) Situating gender in European archaeologies
(Series Minor 29): 35-50. Budapest: Archaeolingua.
SOFAER DEREVENSKI, J. (ed.) 2000. Children and material
culture. London and New York: Routledge.
THE SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF CHILDHOOD IN THE PAST. n.d.
Available at: http://www.sscip.org.uk/.
THOMAS, J. Time, culture and identity. An interpretive
archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.
TREHERNE, P. 1995. The warriors beauty: the masculine
body and self-identity in Bronze Age Europe. Journal
of European Archaeology 3: 105-45.
WALDE, D. & N.D. WILLOWS (ed.) 1991. The archaeology
of gender. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual
Conference of the Archaeological Association of the
University of Calgary. Calgary: University of Calgary
Archaeological Association.
WYLIE, A. 1997. The engendering of archaeology.
Refiguring feminist science studies. Osiris 12(2):
80-99.
Gender, Feminist, and Queer
Archaeologies: Spanish Perspective
Sandra Monton-Subas
Departament dHumanitats, ICREA/Universitat
Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
Introduction
In the 1970s, in the aftermath of second-wave
feminism, feminist scholars identified androcen-
tric sexist biases behind scientific research, which
included archaeology. They noticed that both
the professional practice and the interpretation/
presentation of the past were permeated by values
enmeshed in the twentieth-century hegemonic
gender system, and argued for a culture of equal-
ity within the discipline.
In the following decade, Spanish archaeology
began to incorporate this critique, lead until then
by archaeologists working in Norway and the
USA. Since then, the momentum gained by
a growing number of researchers has turned fem-
inist and gender studies into one of the most
dynamic fields of the discipline in Spain, a field
in its own right both in the general context of
gender and feminist archaeology and in the par-
ticular context of theoretical and methodological
discussion in the Iberian Peninsula. In the same
way as the pioneers of this field, these researchers
have promoted self-criticism and reflexivity
within the discipline, provided alternative inter-
pretations to problems previously examined, and
developed new fields of inquiry. This does not
include, however, the queer archaeologies that
developed from the end of the 1990s, fundamen-
tally in English-speaking and Scandinavian
countries. Because of this, the majority of this
entry focuses only on the development of femi-
nist and gender archaeologies, since queer
archaeology is practically nonexistent in Spain.
Definition
Gender, feminist, and queer archaeologies refer to
those archaeologies that explicitly problematize
sex, gender, and/or sexuality in interpretations of
the past and/or in the practice of the discipline
itself. Feminist and queer archaeologies are
politically engaged with the end of patriarchy
and, therefore, promote a cultural change in the
discipline that removes its sexist and heterosexist
biases. The archaeology of gender may have such
a political dimension, but this is not always the
case there are both feminist and nonfeminist
archaeologies of gender. When the political
dimension is not present, the archaeology of gen-
der only broadens the content of other interpretive
frameworks in considering the sociocultural
interpretation of sexual difference as a structural
principle in society, therefore adding gender to
the study of the past.
Historical Background
In Spanish archaeology, the explicit interest in
questioning androcentrism and problematizing
questions linked to the experiences and practices
of women began only a little later than in the
pioneering countries, since the first related paper
was published at the end of the 1980s (Sanahuja
& Picazo 1989). Since then, the rejection of
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Spanish Perspective
the double discrimination of women, in the
profession and in the explanation/presentation
of the past, has promoted a critical review of
archaeological practices and narratives, new
hypotheses for interpreting and reinterpreting
the archaeological record, and new analytical
categories for understanding historical dynamics
in the past. Currently, the volume of publications
is such that there are already compilations that
track events until present day (e.g., to mention
just a few, Zarzalejos 2008; Daz-Andreu &
Monton-Subas 2012).
As in Norway and the USA, Spain also
incorporated these concerns from feminist per-
spectives. However, both the theoretical-
methodological context that received them and
the interpretive model that supported them were
different. While in the aforementioned countries
processual archaeology already had a lengthy
history and the post-processual critique was
beginning to emerge, in Spain, cultural histori-
cism prevailed and, above all, the description of
archaeological materials was the primary
concern. This traditional way of understanding
and practicing archaeology was primarily
questioned from historical materialism well
informed, nonetheless, by the processual
methodology so popular in the English-speaking
world. This early theoretical phase should be
understood within the context of the unique polit-
ical and historical situation of Spain at that time.
The Spanish University had just experienced
a transition, due to the end of the Francoist
dictatorship in 1975, and a number of archaeolo-
gists engaged in Marxism and, in the case of
some women, feminism too were recruited into
the team (on this process, see Vincent 1994).
For the previous reason, the first feminist
archaeologists in Spain were also immersed in
Marxist ideology. This union between Marxism
and Feminism initially lead to the distrust of
gender archaeologists in the USA and England,
which were seen as examples of historical
idealism and low-intensity political practice.
From this standpoint, the category of gender
was initially met with suspicion, perhaps even
dismissal, and the concept of sex was preferred:
relations between the sexes and sexual roles,
2981 G
among others, were the expressions in use
(Colomer et al. 1993: 5). An explicit wish to
differ from gender archaeologies continues to be
present in some of the current proposals from the
Marxist tradition, such as those that also seek
links with feminism connected to the French
and Italian theories of sexual difference
(Sanahuja 2002; Escoriza & Sanahuja 2005).
That is why in Spain, apart from the fact that
there are feminist and nonfeminist archaeol-
ogies of gender, there are also gender and non-
gender feminist archaeologies.
Despite the fact that in the 1980s interest in
gender studies was very minor in Spanish G
archaeology, it had a significant weight within
the group of professionals interested in promot-
ing theoretical debate. For instance, one of the
sessions of the first and only Reunion de
Arqueologa Teorica (Meeting of Theoretical
Archaeology, RAT), held in Santiago de
Compostela in 1992, was devoted to
Arqueologa y Mujeres (Archaeology and
Women). This was the first time that the discus-
sion of androcentrism in the discipline, including
concerns of some female archaeologists for their
professional practice, was transferred from indi-
viduals and specific groups to a wider national
academic framework. As had happened previ-
ously in Norway, the USA, Canada, Great
Britain, Germany, and Australia, the session pro-
vided much-needed reference for some female
archaeologists who had personal experience of
sexism and spurred interest in the issue, and at
the end of the 1990s, the first book about
archaeology and feminism was published
(Colomer et al. 1999). It was a reader with 12
seminal works, mostly produced in England and
the USA, but also in Norway, Sweden, and
Mexico, aimed at facilitating access to the
Spanish-speaking public to some of the most
significant contributions in the development of
feminist archaeology. It was also at the end of
the 1990s when, faced with the unstoppable tide
of Anglophonic production and the influence of
other disciplines like anthropology or history, the
archaeology of gender strictly speaking, that
which incorporates gender as an analytical cate-
gory also entered into Spanish academia, giving
G 2982 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Spanish Perspective
rise to feminist archaeologies different to the
earlier Marxist ones.
Finally, it was during the first years of the
twenty-first century that feminist and gender
archaeologies were firmly established in Spain.
In this period, the first monographs were
published. In the year 2000, for instance,
the Seminario de Arqueologa y Etnologa
Turolense dedicated the 22nd volume of
Arqueologa Espacial to gender and space in
archaeology. Furthermore, new gatherings of
women in archaeology were organized in differ-
ent universities. The first was the course
Archaeology and Gender that took place at
Granada in 2003 (Sanchez-Romero 2005).
Inspired by the Wedge conference procedure,
and its influential Engendering Archaeology,
this occasion also saw various archaeologists
discuss their ways of understanding and practic-
ing feminist and gender archaeology in front of
the student body of the university. Soon after,
thematic seminars on specific questions, such as
maintenance activities (see below), held in
Barcelona in 2005 and 2007 (Monton-Subas &
Sanchez Romero 2008), began to be organized.
In 2006, the Museum of Prehistory in Valencia
organized the first museum exhibition of women
in prehistory (Soler 2006). Originally designed
with a provincial character, it soon aroused
the interest of other Spanish museums and
institutions, generating debates, courses, and cir-
cuits of academic dissemination where it was
exhibited.
Key Issues/Current Debates
In over 20 years of research on gender and
feminist archaeology in Spain, works on diverse
themes have been published. Drawing on the
critique of androcentrism, concerns similar to
those demonstrated first in the pioneering coun-
tries have prospered. Thus, we have publications
on the work and contributions of women in the
past, works that analyze the labor situation of
female archaeologists, that expose the sexist
bias of archaeological discourse and language
verbal and nonverbal , that discuss new ways of
presenting the past, that reflect on fundamental
concepts like those of space, time, and
identity , and that propose new categories of
historic analysis (a more detailed examination
of those works can be seen in Daz-Andreu &
Monton-Subas 2012). Some of these concerns
have been brought together around two specific
lines of inquiry that Spanish archaeologists have
and are contributing to the global scene: mainte-
nance activities and the sociohistorical construc-
tion of gendered personhood and self-identity
(see also Monton Subas & Lozano 2012). The
approach of maintenance activities arose at the
beginning of the 1990s among a group of feminist
archaeologists linked to a research team at the
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, within the
emphasis given by a feminism of Marxist inspi-
ration to the analysis of womens work and the
material conditions of their existence. Mainte-
nance activities were initially aimed at investi-
gating a specific sphere of social production and
reproduction, a sphere that had been forgotten in
the traditional historical narrative (including that
of Marxism). Soon other researchers joined their
efforts. They shared with them concern and dis-
satisfaction of the sexist biases affecting the prac-
tice of archaeology and the motivation to create
new categories of analysis to evaluate the prac-
tices and experiences of women. Inevitably,
many of these contributions, although not all,
exceeded the original theoretical framework,
adding and/or combining concerns stemming
from feminist theories different to the Marxist
ones. Currently, this approach continues to be
enriched by the contributions of different
researchers within and outside of Spain (see,
e.g., Monton-Subas & Sanchez-Romero 2008).
The concept of maintenance activities
embraces all basic activities necessary to create,
regulate, stabilize, and reproduce (in the short,
medium, and long term) social life. Related to the
management of everyday life and the well-being
of all of its members, they include, grosso modo,
caregiving, cooking, basic weaving and cloth
manufacture, hygiene and public health, the
socialization of children, and the fitting out and
organization of related spaces. Specialized in
maintaining the groups connections and links,
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Spanish Perspective
they are part and parcel of the relational frame-
work in which they take part and which they
create. Although the specific content of mainte-
nance activities is not always the same, and may
vary depending on chrono-geographical coordi-
nates, what remains stable is the structural func-
tion to which the term refers (Gonzalez Marcen
et al. 2008: 4). In any case, both the historical and
ethnographic record show continuity with respect
to the relations and practices that articulate the
day-to-day management of the communities, and
their long-term sustainability. For this reason,
with slight variations, the study of the previous
tasks, in their possible conjugations, is what often
appears in the analyses of maintenance activities
(see Monton-Subas & Lozano 2012 and of the times and roles of many women has been
Sanahuja 2002: 172-89 for a review of the Marx-
ist perspective).
The approach emphasizes, therefore, the
structural character of these activities, whose ulti-
mate goal consists in securing continuity of life-
ways, either through repetition and recurrence or
through channeling changes into new patterns of
repetition and recurrence. Because of this, it has
been unveiled as a tool with great potential to
evaluate social dynamics over vast lapses of
time and periods considered to be historic
transitions (see, for instance, section 3 in
Monton-Subas & Sanchez-Romero 2008).
Analyzing daily life in the long run, their forms
of permanence and change, allows us to better
understand the articulation of the different
variables also those considered macro that
integrate the social fabric, as well as their changes
and modifications.
In this already established approach, one of the
most recurrent debates has referred to the nature
of the association between women and these
practices (Picazo 1997: 60; Gonzalez et al.
2008: 3; Lozano 2011: 31). It is true that the
proposal was initially partly aimed at interpreting
the experiences and practices of women in an
alternative way and that, therefore, there was an
implicit link between maintenance activities and
practices carried out by women. But already in
the first contributions, it was stressed that their
dismissal by mainstream archaeology was due to
their association with the female sphere in
2983 G
modern times. Subsequently, their relational
character and their recurrent rhythm, in direct
opposition to change, individuality, and power
the values highlighted by history, which is the
discourse created to legitimate Modernity
(Hernando 2005), were added as main reasons
in their concealment. In any case, many different
works have insisted that the association between
women and maintenance activities has
a historical character, and that in the origins of
humankind, the whole group men, women, and
children would have been involved in their
practice.
Subscribing the perspective of maintenance G
activities and suggesting that an important part
overlooked do not mean defending that mainte-
nance activities represent the whole set of (poten-
tial) activities carried out by them (in fact some of
the professionals that work on maintenance activ-
ities also investigate the presence of women in
other spheres of action, traditionally assigned to
men [Sanchez-Romero & Onorato 2005]). It
does, of course, mean understanding this sphere
of action in its singularity and articulating it with
the rest of the social, economic, political, and
ideological variables that orchestrate the course
of life for human societies.
The feminist politics in this line of inquiry is
underpinned by reflection on the values that
should be integrated in the writing of history
and how they might help building a new form of
public rationality. With the inspiration of authors
grouped around the ethics of care, like Nancy
Chodorov or Carol Gilligan, unorthodox Marxist
authors like Anna Jonasdottir, and others linked
to the feminism of difference connected to the
Milan Womens Bookstore Collective such as
Luisa Muraro and Adriana Cavarero, emphasis
is placed on the value of relationality and
interdependence, hitherto deemed as exclusively
feminine. This endeavor is shared with another of
the most original contributions of feminist
archaeology in Spain: that which proposes to
explain the historical reasons for gender inequal-
ity in the Western world starting from the study of
the mechanisms through which we construct self-
identity.
G 2984 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Spanish Perspective
This line of investigation, which arose in
Madrid in the late 1990s, started from
a different point than the majority of feminist
studies. It did not initially focus on women, but
rather on the way that human beings construct
their identity (Hernando 2005; Hernando et al.
2011). On the basis of his own previous
ethnoarchaeological work in oral societies and
drawing from studies in psychology, sociology,
philosophy, and anthropology that had already
examined the differences between relational and
individualized identity, Hernando suggested
that individuality and relationality constitute
packages of characteristics that are combined
in complex and dynamic ways within one single
person, depending on their position of power or
control in the social group. The author analyzed
the genealogy of contemporary gender identities
in the Western world, concluding that, initially,
all men and women in human societies would
have had relational identities (similar, in
structural terms, to those that characterize con-
temporary hunter-gatherers).
This means, according to Hernando, that
the so-called feminine identity would be the
relational identity typical of both men and
women in the beginnings of humankind, which
allows her to escape from essentialisms linked to
sex. In accordance with this perspective, men
would have been slowly and gradually develop-
ing individuality, while women would have
maintained the relational identity until modern
times. Since then women would have also
developed characteristics of individuality, but
by virtue of their different historical trajectories,
there would be a difference between the current
individuality of men and women. Obviously, this
line of work was aimed at analyzing the reasons
of this differentiation or, in other words, the gen-
esis of the patriarchal order. To this end,
Hernando accepted that the extreme fragility of
the Homo offspring played an important role in
the differentiation of identity trajectories
between males and females, although unlike
other approaches, she did not argue that the
central tenet of this differentiation was due to
biological factors, but rather to cultural factors
related to differential mobility between men and
women. Caring for the highly dependent human
offspring would have implied travelling shorter
distances or less mobility for women than for
men. This fact would have been critical in
hunter-gatherer societies, considering the vital
importance that oral societies place on the spatial
dimension in the construction of the world
(Hernando et al. 2011). These initial subtle
differences in mobility did not establish power
relationships between the sexes, but could have
constituted the base for a progressive increase of
masculine individuality and, with this, the
subsequent appearance of the patriarchal order.
International Perspectives
Feminist archaeology in Spain has always shown
great interest in knowing debates generated
abroad. This openness has lead researchers to
integrate similar concerns from other countries
and to develop strategies to internationalize their
own reflections. Out of this, exchanges and
collaborations have followed, which make this
field one of the most dynamic and international
in Spain. These external influences were first
expressed through the weight that the Women
the Gatherer movement of US anthropology in
the 1970s had in promoting interest on the origins
of humankind (Querol 2001; Sanahuja 2002).
Some years later, in the RAT of 1992, the title
Somos todas hombres? (Are we all men?) was
selected to present a paper about sexism in the
practice of contemporary Spanish archaeology. It
was the recognition paid by a group of Spanish
female archaeologists to the first workshop on the
subject Were they all men, held in Norway in
1979. Equally decisive was the arrival of Engen-
dering Archaeology, published by Meg Conkey
and Joan Gero in 1991, that would inspire many
later works on feminist and gender archaeology
in Spain (see also Cruz Berrocal 2009: 124).
Spanish feminist and gender archaeologies
have repaid this initial input, bringing to the
global scene more examples of how sexist and
androcentric values have inappropriately
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Spanish Perspective
influenced archaeological practice and archaeo-
logical knowledge, alternative or new interpreta-
tions of the Iberian archaeological record that,
as a consequence, begins to be much more
renowned internationally (the Iberian Iron Age
is an outstanding example (Prados & Izquierdo
2006; Garca-Luque & Rsquez 2008)), and new several Spanish archaeologists in the creation
analytical categories or perspectives, such as the
ones reviewed in the previous section.
This spirit of internationalizing Spanish
production has resulted in diverse forums. There
have been international conferences in Spain, such
as seminars on maintenance activities in Barce-
lona, which have brought together female archae-
ologists from the Peninsula and abroad to reflect
on concrete aspects of the approach (Monton-
Subas & Sanchez-Romero 2008). In the same
vein, conferences abroad have been attended,
including the organization of sessions in the
annual editions of the EAA (European Association
of Archaeologists) and the SAA (Society for
American Archaeology), and publications on plat-
forms of international scope have also appeared
(e.g., Berrocal 2009; Monton-Subas 2010; influential Were They All Men and Engendering
Lozano 2011; Hernando et al. 2011), however
mostly in English (in September 2011, only 5 of
the 81 journals listed for archaeology in the
Thomson Reuters Arts and Humanities citation
index were in Spanish). It is important to value
the extra effort that this fact implies and the situ-
ation of double (or triple, or quadruple) demand
faced by many of these archaeologists: on the one
hand, to find a way in a national and international
academia dominated by androcentric power struc-
tures and, on the other hand, to do it in an interna-
tional academia of Anglo-American hegemony,
much more receptive to the empirical cases
proposed by Spaniards than the theoretical
approaches generated in our language. In fact, by
the works cited in the English-speaking world, one
could reach the misleading conclusion that there
are very few theoretical contributions outside of its
own linguistic area.
Furthermore, forums of debate to bring
together Spanish-speaking feminist archaeolo-
gists from both sides of the Atlantic have also
been created. For example, the interest in
2985 G
exploring the relationship between feminism
and historical materialism has joined Spanish
archaeologists with representatives of the Latin
American Social Archaeology (see, e.g., Vargas
2004). The promotion of multilateral, interna-
tional contacts is also behind the presence of
and functioning of AGE, the Archaeology and
Gender in Europe working party of the European
Association of Archaeologists (http://www.upf.
edu/materials/fhuma/age/), a network designed
to bring scholars of different nationalities and
academic traditions together in order to develop
and exchange information on gender in archaeol- G
ogy in its many dimensions (Dommasnes &
Monton-Subas: 2012).
This internationalist vocation has been in part
supported by the Spanish research policy
conducted after the Francoist dictatorship in rela-
tion to the concession of fellowships for research
residencies in foreign research centers (Daz-
Andreu & Monton Subas 2012). Thanks to
these visits, for example, the first news of the
Archaeology reached Spain.
Future Directions
The strength and importance that research on
feminist and gender studies holds in Spanish
archaeology is established. This said, it should
be also clarified that there are obstacles and
challenges, both internal and external, for this
research. The explicit involvement or the affinity
of many of these researchers with feminist
approaches and the resulting critique of academic
androcentrism, often experienced in first person,
cause doubt, reticence, hostility, and rejection in
one part of the academic establishment. Without
doubt, the progressive popularization of the issue
has diminished public critiques, as they would be
perceived as politically incorrect. However, from
less visible platforms, such as anonymous
decision-making panels, a veiled discrimination
may act against research and candidacies related
to the investigations of gender. These forms of
G 2986 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Spanish Perspective
discrimination are not only more difficult to iden-
tify but also more difficult to challenge.
Furthermore, the very dynamic nature and
development of this research raises questions
that demand greater attention and confront
challenges of a different character depending on
whether or not the research has a political
involvement. A first necessary challenge would
be to explicitly clarify the differences and
affiliations among feminist archaeologies,
archaeologies of gender, and womens archaeol-
ogies to avoid conceptual ambiguities. In fact,
conceptual ambiguity has begun to happen
already within archaeologies of gender. Since
the popularization of the issue in the 1990s,
some authors have just targeted gender, but
ignored or rejected its original critical theoretical
framework. In these works, gender is no longer
a concept, but instead a term with which to des-
ignate women and, to a lesser extent, also men.
By incorporating gender as only a word, one can
continue writing about men and women in
a conceptual framework that perpetuates stereo-
types and gender roles characteristic of the
traditional imaginary and from the same andro-
centric positions confronted initially by feminist
archaeologies. Although the original desire of
those who devote themselves to gender archaeol-
ogy from a feminist position was and is to trans-
form the mainstream, the opposite effect has
often times resulted from less politicized
approaches. In these cases, the mainstream has
transformed gender archaeology, diffusing its
feminist critique. Still, it should remain clear
that in Spain, currently, the majority of the
works on gender are elaborated from positions
involved with feminism.
In Spain, as in other countries, feminist and
gender research has mainly been identified with
that of women. Indeed, women were the first who
drew from their gender stereotypes and expressed
the need to find themselves in another way in
written history. This being acknowledged, it is
however now important to associate feminist and
gender archaeologies not only with women, espe-
cially when this fact particularizes their study and
prevents the understanding of the social and
power dynamics of which they are part. While it
is important, for example, to continue writing
historiographies about female archaeologists, it
is even more vital to incorporate women in the
general historiography of the discipline.
Precisely, to move in this dual field, which is
not incompatible, constitutes one of the most
important challenges that feminist archaeologies
and gender archaeologies face.
On the other hand, questioning the hege-
monic gender system from which history has
been written also means understanding that men
of the past have been constructed following the
dominant contemporary model of masculinity,
a model which has assigned them a particular
way of being and behaving, associated with
success, heterosexuality, aggression, and vio-
lence. But, above all, it means understanding
that the very writing of history has been associ-
ated with these values and has oversized activi-
ties, such as war, related with them. Despite the
fact that in 1998 Thomas Dowson published an
article in the 14th edition of the Catalan journal
Cota Zero calling for queer archaeology (see the
entry on Engendered Archaeologies, in this
encyclopedia) and that the construction of mas-
culinity has become a growing concern in other
fields of the social sciences in Spain, this issue
has gone practically unnoticed in the archaeology
of our country. Recently, however, prevailing
assumptions related to the hegemonic model of
masculinity have begun to be questioned to crit-
ically reevaluate, for instance, the supposedly
structural character of warfare and warriors in
the Argaric Bronze Age of Southeast Spain
(Aranda et al. 2009).
As occurs in other countries, feminist
archaeologists in Spain also should reflect more
upon the implementation and the implications of
their political involvement in archaeological
practice. Building a new disciplinary culture
should imply awareness and change of the
different forms that patriarchal power structures
adopt (in fieldwork, in the teaching of the
discipline, in Ph.D. supervision, in academic
management or, among others, in the nature of
the links with nonprofessional communities
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: Spanish Perspective
interested in archaeology (on this last aspect, see
Gonzalez Marcen 2005)). Otherwise, we run the
risk of modifying archaeological discourse the
most visible front but perpetuating an andro-
centric structure through the gears of its
production.
Cross-References
Engendered Archaeologies
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies:
Australian Perspective
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies:
European Perspective
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies:
USA Perspective
References
ARANDA, G., S. MONTON-SUBIAS & S. JIMENEZ-BROBEIL.
2009. Conflicting evidence? Weapons and skeletons
in the Bronze Age of south-east Iberia. Antiquity 83
(322): 1038-51.
COLOMER, L., S. GILI, P. GONZALEZ MARCEN, S. MONTON
SUBIAS, M. PICAZO, C. RIHUETE, M. RUIZ, M.E.
SANAHUJA & M. TENAS. 1993. Genero y Arqueologa:
las mujeres en la prehistoria. Arqcrstica 6: 5-7.
COLOMER, L., P. GONZALEZ MARCEN, S. MONTON SUBIAS &
M. PICAZO. 1999. Arqueologa y teora feminista.
Estudios sobre mujeres y cultura material en
arqueologa. Barcelona: Icaria.
CRUZ BERROCAL, M. 2009. Feminismo, teora y practica de
una arqueologa cientfica. Trabajos de Prehistoria
66 (2): 25-43.
DIAZ-ANDREU, M. & S. MONTON-SUBIAS. 2012. Gender
and Feminism in the Prehistoric Archaeology of
Southwest Europe, in D. Bolger (ed.) A companion to
gender prehistory: 438-57. Malden (MA): Wiley-
Blackwell.
DOMMASNES, L. & S. MONTON-SUBIAS. 2012. European
gender archaeologies in historical perspective. Journal
of European Archaeology 15 (3): 367-91.
ESCORIZA, T. & M.E. SANAHUJA. 2005. La prehistoria de la
autoridad y la relacion, in M. Sanchez Romero (ed.)
Nuevas perspectivas de analisis para las sociedades
del pasado: Arqueologa y Genero: 109-40. Granada:
Universidad de Granada.
GARCIA-LUQUE, A. & C. RISQUEZ. 2008. Maintenance activ-
ities in the funerary record. The case of Iberian ceme-
teries, in S. Monton-Subas & M. Sanchez-Romero
(ed.) Engendering social dynamics: the archaeology
2987 G
of maintenance activities (BAR International series
1862): 49-56. Oxford: Archaeopress.
GONZALEZ MARCEN, P. 2005. Redes de complicidades
y objetos vividos, in M. Sanchez Romero (ed.)
Arqueologa y genero: 491-9. Granada: Universidad
de Granada.
GONZALEZ MARCEN, P., S. MONTON-SUBIAS & M. PICAZO.
2008. Towards an archaeology of maintenance activi-
ties, in S. Monton-Subas & M. Sanchez-Romero (ed.)
Engendering social dynamics: the archaeology of
maintenance activities (BAR International series
1862): 3-8. Oxford: Archaeopress.
HERNANDO, A. 2005. Por que la historia no ha valorado las
actividades de mantenimiento?, in P. Gonzalez Marcen,
S. Monton-Subas & M. Picazo (ed.) Dones i activitats
de manteniment en temps de canvi: 115-133. Bellaterra:
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. G
HERNANDO, A., G. POLITIS, A. GONZALEZ-RUIBAL & E.
BESERRA. 2011. Gender, power and mobility among
the Awa-Guaja (Maranhao, Brasil). Journal of Anthro-
pological Research 67 (2): 189-211.
LOZANO, S. 2011. Gender thinking in the making: feminist
epistemology and gender archaeology. Norwegian
Archaeological Review 44 (1): 21-39.
MONTON-SUBIAS, S. 2010. Black swans and archaeological
interpretation. Norwegian Archaeological Review 43
(1): 1-11.
MONTON-SUBIAS, S. & S. LOZANO. 2012. La arqueologa
feminist en la normatividad academica. Complutum 23
(2): 163-76.
MONTON-SUBIAS, S. & M. SANCHEZ-ROMERO. 2008.
Engendering social dynamics: the archaeology of
maintenance activities (BAR International series
1862). Oxford: Archaeopress.
PICAZO, M. 1997. Heart and home: the timing of mainte-
nance activities, in J. Moore & E. Scott (ed.) Invisible
people and processes: 59-67. London and New York:
Leicester University Press.
PRADOS, L. & I. IZQUIERDO. The image of women in Iberian
Culture (6th-1st century B.C.), in C. Mattusch, A.
Donohue & A. Brauer (ed.) Proceedings of the XVIth
International Congress of Classical Archaeology
(Boston)/Associazione Internazionale di Archeologia
Classica: 490-95. Oxford: Oxbow.
QUEROL, M.A. 2001. Adan y Darwin. Madrid: Sntesis.
SANAHUJA, M.E. & M. PICAZO. 1989. Los estudios de las
mujeres a lo largo de la Prehistoria y en la Antiguedad
griega: estado de la cuestion. Arqueocrtica 1: 32-7.
SANAHUJA, M.E. 2002. Cuerpos sexuados, objetos
y prehistoria. Madrid: Catedra.
SANCHEZ ROMERO, M. & A. ONORATO. 2005. Mujeres y
metalurgia: el caso de Penalosa (Banos de la Encina,
Jaen), in M. Sanchez Romero (ed.) Arqueologa
y genero: 26181. Granada: Universidad de Granada.
SOLER, B. 2006. Les dones en la prehistoria. Valencia:
Museu de Prehistoria.
VARGAS, I. 2004. Hacia una teora feminista en
arqueologa. Otras miradas 4(2): 62-75.
G 2988
VICENT, J. 1994. Perspectivas de la teora arqueologica en
Espana, in Sexto Coloquio Hispano-ruso de Historia:
215-22. Madrid: Fundacion Cultural Banesto
ZARZALEJOS, M. 2008. Los estudios de arqueologa del
genero en la Hispania Romana, in L. Prados &
C. Ruiz (ed.) Arqueologa del genero. 1er Encuentro
Internacional en la UAM: 297-326. Madrid:
Universidad Autonoma de Madrid.
Gender, Feminist, and Queer
Archaeologies: USA Perspective
Benjamin Alberti1 and
Ing-Marie Back Danielsson2
1
Department of Sociology, Framingham State
University, Framingham, MA, USA
2
Department of Archaeology and Classical
Studies, Stockholm University, Stockholm,
Sweden
Introduction
This entry presents a brief history of the emer-
gence of feminism, gender, and queer in North
American archaeology, which, along with the
United Kingdom and Scandinavia to a lesser
degree, represents the geographic origin and center
of such work. The key concepts as used by archae-
ologists are defined; the relationship among them
is explored and shown to be both problematic and
productive. The place of feminism, gender, and
queer within North American archaeology today
is characterized and, finally, likely avenues of
future research are suggested. The greatest impact
of feminist, gender, and queer archaeologies has
been on the authority of positivist approaches, the
objectivity of interpretation, equity issues within
the profession, collaborative knowledge making,
and the understanding of key archaeological inter-
pretive concepts.
Definition
None of the terms feminism, gender, or
queer have fixed meanings. Different academic
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: USA Perspective
disciplines have their own interpretations,
histories, and methods embedded in each. In the
following, the terms are defined in relation to how
they have been used and employed within
archaeology. Contrasts are drawn between North
American and other usages, where relevant. Fem-
inist archaeologies emerged in North America in
the early 1980s; queer archaeologies were inaugu-
rated in the early 2000s in both North America and
Europe. Gender as an explicit object of study
emerged with feminism. Stereotypically, feminist
and queer archaeologies have been assigned their
proper objects of study, mimicking that same divi-
sion of labor in academia more broadly: feminism
studies gender, while queer approaches are cen-
trally concerned with sexuality. In actuality, nei-
ther feminism nor queer in archaeology need be
limited to these objects of study.
Feminism
Feminism is recognized as an approach rooted
in contemporary political goals. Feminist social
science commitments are those that are relevant
to women and others oppressed by gender
structures (Wylie 2007: 211). Feminism in
archaeology is concerned with the conditions of
archaeological knowledge production in the
present and the reconstruction of the past and
past peoples lives. Since this concerns power
relations, focus is often but certainly not exclu-
sively on women (Tomaskova 2011). Feminism
in archaeology is further about recognizing
gender bias, rewriting histories of the discipline
and the past that exclude or downplay the role of
women, questioning the alleged neutrality of
science, and addressing equity issues in the
discipline and the theoretical development of
key concepts, especially gender, but also power,
bodies, and the State, among others (Conkey &
Spector 1984; Wylie 2007). Ultimately, feminist
archaeology involves a fundamental rethinking
of the questions archaeologists address
and the frameworks they use (Conkey 2005;
Wylie 2007).
The feminist critique of science has come to
dominate North American feminist archaeology
and can be seen to constitute the orthodox
approach. Work typically draws on feminist
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: USA Perspective
philosophers of science, such as Helen Longino
and Sandra Harding (Wylie 1992, 2007). This
orthodoxy co-exists with a lesser post-
structuralist feminist production inspired largely
by the work of feminist philosopher Judith Butler
(e.g., Joyce 2008), which is concerned with ques-
tions of discourse and the performance of gender.
Butler is a useful figure who crosses the divide
between continental post-structuralist feminists
and social science feminists by using
a vocabulary of gender and performance. Work
that draws on Butler in gender archaeology shares
the concern of the feminist critique of science
with empirical adequacy and evidential con-
straints (Joyce 2008). The more radical elements
of Butlers and other continental feminist philos-
ophers work tend to be re-categorized as queer.
Regardless of the type of feminism, all share a set
of concerns around reflexivity, accountability, and
reframing key debates.
Reflexivity
Reflexivity has its roots in feminisms grounding
in the experience of oppression of women, where
people are understood as constituted by their expe-
riences rather than simply having them (Conkey
2005: 27). Reflexivity also refers to a commitment
to locating the researcher on the same critical
plane as the researched (Marshall et al. 2009:
226). The importance of reflecting on daily lives
is double: research is founded on the experience of
the everyday life of women and marginalized peo-
ple in the present and aims to validate the lived
experiences of past peoples, to people the past
(Spector 1993; Joyce 2008). A reflexive, situated
archaeology is a response to the insight that all
research reflects the position of the researcher
within a given social structure and incorporates
the pragmatic interests of that position. Counter-
intuitively, this is seen as the central virtue of
reflexivity. A situated, feminist archaeology raises
the bar epistemologically because it is a critical,
theoretically informed, standpoint on knowledge
production (Wylie 2007: 213).
Accountability
Accountability to research subjects is of central
concern. The situatedness of knowledge
2989 G
production means that issues of power are recog-
nized as inherent to all aspects of the research
process. Archaeology is recognized to be ines-
capably political, as is the knowledge it engen-
ders. A concern with ethical and pragmatic norms
means that egalitarian and collaborative forms of
knowledge production are sought, leading to
community archaeology projects and alternative
writing genres (Spector 1993; Joyce & Tringham
2007; Marshall et al. 2009). Accountability also
refers to the recognition that feminist research is
simultaneously about the past and how versions
of the past are sustained or not (Conkey 2005: 33).
A widespread acknowledgment among G
feminist archaeologists is that while feminist
research starts with the experience of women, it
should ultimately lead to a general reframing of
questions, practices, theories, and goals within
the field as a whole (Conkey 2005: 26; Wylie
2007). In this regard, feminists question the
central concepts of archaeology, such as technol-
ogy, inequality, household, hunting/gathering,
gender, and bodies, as well as archaeological
practice and theory (Wylie 2007).
Gender
The original formulation of gender in archaeology
was adopted from a social science understanding
in which sex referred to biology (male and
female), and gender referred to the meanings
ascribed to that biological foundation by particu-
lar cultures. As such, gender is commonly under-
stood as a social or cultural construction.
Conkey and Spectors (1984: 16) groundbreaking
article Archaeology and the Study of Gender
defined gender as a system of social rather
than biological classification that varies cross-
culturally and changes over time and stipulated
a range of ways in which gender could be
conceptualized and studied, including roles,
identity, and ideology. Gender attribution was
a central concern. Genders could be identified
archaeologically through burials, representations,
tool use, and skeletal remains by associating
cultural items with biological sex or its represen-
tation. Ethnoarchaeology was also seen as key to
illuminating the range of activities in which males
and females were engaged.
G 2990 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: USA Perspective
Gender is now recognized as a historical pro-
cess and a major structuring principle of societies
of the past and present (Gero & Conkey 1991).
Gender is also increasingly thought of as more
a process than a static ascription of identity or one
among a list of social variables. It can also be
thought of as an ongoing embodied and perfor-
mative process of identity formation which struc-
tures relations. Thus, gender is also relational
(Joyce 2008).
Gender implies a definition of sex. The con-
ceptual foundation of gender is the ascription of
cultural meanings onto male and female bodies;
even when gender is understood to be an impor-
tant element of how societies, in general, are
organized, this foundation remains. This means
that when gender is explored as a social variable,
even a structuring one, it is used to provide inter-
pretations of historically and culturally specific
ways of organizing people on the basis of differ-
ence grounded in binary sex. The concept itself is
rarely open to theoretical reconsideration within
the social construction formulation.
The concept of gender initially served the
important purpose of liberating interpretation
from the essentialism of sex role identity, where
ones sex was assumed to determine ones capac-
ities and roles in society (Conkey & Spector
1984). Quite quickly, sex was questioned as
a static foundation for culture to ascribe gendered
meanings sex was also recognized as historical
(see Joyce 2008). The implications of the critique
of sex have resulted in work on embodiment and
performativity (Joyce 2008). Arguably, not even
these approaches manage to dispense with the
distinction between sex and gender which rests
on that between nature and culture, although the
nature of the relationship has been rethought.
Finally, some archaeologists, especially
those influenced by queer theory, question the
unconditional relevance of gender in all contexts
(Joyce 2008), while others continue to argue that
its central importance to feminist archaeology
should be given (Wylie 2007).
Queer
Queer refers to a deliberate strategy by activists
and academics to reclaim and redefine a word in
terms of identities and bodies that avoid
the essentialism of more conventional forms of
identity labeling. In North American archaeology,
queer theory has predominantly inspired work on
sexualities (Schmidt & Voss 2000; Casella &
Voss 2011). Nonetheless, queer also implies
a critique of the ubiquity of heteronormativity,
the notion that an assumption of heterosexuality
underlies many political and social structures
(Dowson 2006; Voss 2009).
Queer archaeology, in general, includes
redemptive counter-histories that bring to light
previously hidden histories of sexualities (Voss
2009), queer statements that challenge heteronor-
mativity beyond a focus on sexuality (Dowson
2000), and work on embodiment predominantly
influenced by Judith Butlers theory of gender
performativity (Joyce 2008). Thus, the naturali-
zation of heterosexual institutions such as the
family and the division of labor is challenged
(Dowson 2006; Voss 2009). Past identities are
understood to be constructed in fluid ways
(Joyce 2008). In common with feminism, queer
critiques have appeared in response to equity
issues within the discipline, such as the relation-
ship between non-straight subjectivity and
professional success and the epistemological
privilege of straight archaeologists and their
accounts of the past, although this trend is more
visible outside North America (Dowson 2006;
Voss 2009).
Historical Background
Gero and Conkey (1991) inaugurated a reflexive,
self-conscious history of feminist archaeology in
which the three fold development of feminism
in the social sciences is cited: the critique of
androcentrism and destabilizing assumptions
about womens capacities, the remedial search
for women in the past, and finally the theoretical
development of gender as a concept. As such,
feminism and gender co-emerged in archaeology.
Prior to the early 1980s feminist work had
little visibility and much was outside the
English-speaking world. Conkey and Spectors
(1984) article is a milestone in feminist and
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: USA Perspective
gender archaeology; in it, the authors presented
the case for the general applicability of gender
and feminism. They presented a critique of
androcentrism in the discipline, argued that in
the absence of an explicit framework for theoriz-
ing gender archaeologists drew on common
sense understandings, and provided a set of
conceptual tools with which to address gender
in a systematic way.
In the late 1980s, two quite different but
equally agenda-setting events occurred: the
small conference at the Wedge Plantation in
1988 and the far larger, student-organized
22nd Chacmool Calgary conference in 1989.
Frustration with the slow development of gender
archaeology led to the Wedge conference where
the goals of the 1984 article were deliberately
pursued in a series of detailed case studies
(Gero & Conkey 1991). The Chacmool confer-
ence was notable for the number of papers
presented as well as debate around the question
of the relationship between gender and feminism.
Recently, the stance that gender archaeology
in North America is feminist within the terms of
the feminist critique of science was reaffirmed
in a 2007 special issue of the Journal of Archae-
ological Method and Theory (although based on
an earlier conference) (Wylie 2007). Particular
emphasis was placed on feminist praxis. In her
introductory paper, Wylie (2007) reorients the
question away from feminist archaeology and
toward what it means to do work as a feminist
archaeologist. Epistemological issues remain
at the forefront, including questions about the
gender of theory and the intersections that are
possible among marginalized perspectives within
archaeology (see also Conkey 2005). Since Janet
Spectors (1993) groundbreaking book, What
This Awl Means: Feminist Archaeology at
a Wahpeton Dakota Village, feminist concerns
have been increasingly seen as paralleling those
of class, race, and indigeneity, resulting in col-
laborative projects and de-centered authorship. In
addition, issues of representation have led to
alternative writing genres, explorations of lan-
guage, and research in hyper-media as a means
of representation (Spector 1993; Joyce &
Tringham 2007). North American leadership in
2991 G
the field of gender archaeology was demonstrated
by the publication of the Handbook of Gender in
Archaeology (Nelson 2006), which provided an
exhaustive survey of the field from thematic,
temporal, and geographic perspectives.
Feminist archaeology has rarely influenced
feminist debate beyond archaeology except in
the form of review pieces in general interdisci-
plinary surveys of feminism, of which there
have been few. An exception is Marshalls
(2008) contribution in the journal Feminist
Theory, which prompts feminists to explore
change, transition, and transformation using
the archaeology of the Pacific Northwest as G
a case study.
Queer archaeology in North America has
its roots both in feminism and the study of
sexualities, first gaining visibility through two
edited volumes published in 2000 (Dowson
2000; Schmidt & Voss 2000). Queer work in
North American archaeology is generally
influenced by Judith Butler and work on
sexualities, resulting in specific case studies on
bodies and performance or explorations of sexual
identities, most often in historical contexts. It is
recognized that many of queer archaeologies
concerns parallel those of feminism, where its
roots lie (Voss 2009).
Queer is not overly visible in North American
archaeology today. In an attempt to galvanize
a focus on queer and gender archaeology, the
2004 Chacmool conference was organized
around the theme Que(e)rying archaeology;
even though it produced statements from leaders
in the field surprisingly few queer papers
were presented. Recent work on sexualities and
colonialism may indicate a new avenue for queer
research in archaeology (Casella & Voss 2011).
Key Issues/Current Debates
Some long-standing and some recent debates
crosscut feminist, gender, and queer interests,
while others feature more strongly in one area.
The key issues outlined here are (1) the relation-
ship between feminism and gender; (2) epistemo-
logical concerns; (3) accountability; and
G 2992 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: USA Perspective
(4) identities and embodiment. In the latter, the
question of whether gender is necessarily relevant
to all identities is raised.
The Relationship of Feminism to Gender
The question of whether gender archaeology
need necessarily be feminist emerged in the late
1980s and has not entirely gone away. Gender is
now present in many conventional archaeological
interpretations alongside other social variables,
but feminism is rarely mentioned. This is seen
as a problem for some feminists who argue that
gender without feminism loses the possibility of
producing fundamental change (Conkey 2005;
Wylie 2007). Moreover, feminist theoretical
resources enable gender to remain as a dynamic
concept in archaeology and allow us to account
for the epistemic and political commitments that
inform practice (Wylie 2007: 215).
The counterclaim is that feminism introduces
an unnecessary political bias and risks further
isolating gender from the mainstream. Though,
it has been claimed that feminist epistemological
concerns are central to gender work in archaeol-
ogy at all levels irrespective of whether the label
is used (Tomaskova 2011).
Most feminist archaeologists retain the con-
cept of gender in their work; gender as a category
of analysis is still needed, even if expanded in
scope (Conkey 2005: 19). Wylie (2007: 213)
argues for the methodological axiom that gender
should not be disappeared. Queer and some
feminist archaeologists, however, see gender as
a potential barrier to conceptualizing identities
and bodies in nonbinary ways (Joyce 2008).
Many continental feminists, for example, do not
work with the notion of gender at all, but rather
work through sexual difference. Judith Butler is
a bridging figure who draws on sexual difference
feminists but uses the social science conceptual
language of gender, which may account both for
her popularity and the misunderstanding or dis-
avowal of some of the more radical implications
of her work.
Epistemology
The charge leveled against feminists that objec-
tivity cannot be maintained when an explicitly
politically oriented approach is taken is rebuked
by feminist archaeologists who claim that
feminism can provide better, more objective
accounts of the past while simultaneously valuing
ambiguity (Conkey 2005). Thus, in common with
post-processualism, feminist archaeologists tend
to be concerned with the nature of political influ-
ence. Though, feminism is even more concerned
with equity issues, leading to some adversarial
exchanges on the grounds that post-
processualism simply reproduces androcentric
and heterosexist structures in the discipline
(Tomaskova 2011: 113-5).
Conkey and Spector (1984: 21) argued that the
greatest limitations on our knowledge of the past
are epistemological rather than lack of data (see
also Wylie 1992). Epistemological concerns have
to do with what we say about the past, how we go
about saying it in a reasonable and justifiable
way, and who has the authority to speak all
parts of the feminist method debate (Wylie
2007: 211). Questions that have concerned
North American feminist archaeologists in rela-
tion to archaeological practice include ending
inequality in the workplace, methodological
issues, especially around objectivity, and who
has the authority to speak. Workplace inequities
are real and systematic, and the politics of gender
affects data collection and interpretation in
profound ways (see contributors to Gero &
Conkey 1991).
The method debate is commonly phrased in
terms of how to have gender while keeping
archaeology objective, neutral, value-free, and
scientific. Feminist archaeology has established
itself as a legitimate field partly by addressing
conventional archaeological concerns about
empirical adequacy, hence its long-term
protagonism with processual archaeology. One
response has been the argument that gender
archaeology can lead to processual plus,
a better but fundamentally unchanged processual
archaeology (see Tomaskova 2011: 115).
The suggested has been criticized as an add-
on to an unreflexive positivist approach
(Tomaskova 2011). In contrast, by locating fem-
inist archaeology firmly within the tradition of
post-positivist feminist critiques of the sciences,
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: USA Perspective
a philosophical space is opened for an engaged
feminism without conceding the legitimating
authority of science. Feminist archaeologists
argue that it is the reflexive recognition of our
standpoint as positioned subjects that provides
the grounds for strong objectivity (Wylie
2007: 213). Wylie (1992: 30) has argued that
politically engaged science is often much more
rigorous, self-critical, and responsive to the facts
than allegedly neutral science, for which nothing
much is at stake. Accordingly, social location
rather than a polluting effect of our subjectivity is
constitutive of the research process and simulta-
neously decenters a singular, authoritative sci-
ence and hence opens the way to legitimizing
other perspectives.
Ambiguity of data and interpretation is
embraced by some feminist and queer archaeol-
ogists; data are irreducibly ambiguous, so inter-
pretations must be uncertain and open (Conkey
2005: 25). To think otherwise is to falsely reduce
complexity, to seek closure and causal simplicity
(Wylie 2007: 213). Feminist archaeology adopts
strategic ambivalence (Wylie 2007: 81) that
refuses both unreflective objectivism and reduc-
tive constructivism. Empirical constraints exist
but feminist archaeology has created an alterna-
tive epistemic position that also recognizes ambi-
guity and sociopolitical factors (Conkey 2005).
In queer theory, the impact of subjectivity on
what pasts get written meets feminist critique in
the recognition that masculine norms define
the process of professional socialization, with
institutions reproducing gendered and sexually
normative conventions (Wylie 2007; Voss 2009).
Accountability
Feminist archaeology is concerned with ethical
and political responsibility for knowledge
production. Recognizing the stakeholders in
knowledge claims implies a different type of
research practice involving the formulation of
questions, the control and management of pro-
jects, and the forms of knowledge dissemination.
Spectors (1993) work has achieved iconic status.
Her project included Wahpeton Dakota people
from the outset; she then wrote an account that
melded conventional scientific analysis and
2993 G
presentation of the data with reflexive discussion
of the research process and narrative reconstruc-
tions of the life of a young Dakota girl.
The question of accountability can also refer
to the early and ongoing effort to recover women
researchers whose contributions to the history of
archaeology had been lost. Similarly, queer
archaeologists, while signaling the danger of writ-
ing a history of deviants, stress the importance of
uncovering a queer heritage to counter sometimes
brutal contemporary politics (Voss 2009).
Joyce and Tringham (2007) stress the multi-
plicity of voices that need to be recovered from
the past. Other authors have experimented with G
nonconventional narrative reconstructions of
archaeological data (Spector 1993) in an attempt
to get away from exclusionary scientific discourse.
The BACH (Berkeley Archaeologists at
Catalhoyuk) projects Remixing Catalhoyuk
website (http://okapi.dreamhosters.com/remixing/
mainpage.html), in which knowledge of the
Neolithic site is created and mediated through an
experiment in multi-vocal open construction,
clearly draws on Ruth Tringhams earlier, explic-
itly feminist work (Joyce & Tringham 2007).
The inclusion of a broad range of publics in
archaeological debate and interpretation of the
past has resulted in the development of other
web-based projects, such as the Sister Stories
hypertext work, which presents fictional accounts
based on Nahuatl-language texts about the Aztec
capital, Tenochtitlan (Joyce & Tringham 2007).
Identities and Embodiment
Initially, the notion of gender identity was used in
a straightforward way as the compliment to
a socially constructed idea of gender (Conkey &
Spector 1984). While it is still used commonly in
this form, the introduction of post-structuralist
feminist and queer theory that challenges
the notion of a stable core to identity has led
to work that conceptualizes identity in
nonessentialist ways. Work on the archaeology
of the Chumash of coastal southern California
shows that identities may only be relationally
relevant, based more on practice and profession
than an enduring attachment to biologically
based categories (see summary of Sandra
G 2994 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: USA Perspective
Hollimons work in Joyce 2008). The case
demonstrates that we need not assume that
identities are stable or co-terminus with bodies
or that age and gender categories remain
universally recognized and fixed.
The limited work on masculinities in archae-
ology provides an interesting case of the limits of
identity archaeology (Alberti 2006). In archaeol-
ogy, successful accounts of historically and cul-
turally specific masculinities have demonstrated
that identities associated with male bodies are
highly variable and hierarchically organized
(captured by the model of hegemonic
masculinities). Most work in this genre has
been carried out on documented cases. A notable
recent example is the archaeology of the Univer-
sity of Californias chapter of the Zeta Psi frater-
nity (Wilkie 2010). Wilkie (2010) uses a rich array
of archaeological, architectural, and documentary
evidence to reconstruct the changing and hetero-
geneous nature of modern masculinity from the
late nineteenth to mid-twentieth centuries.
However, the use of the term masculinity
outside of historical contexts may have the
paradoxical effect of reinstating an ahistorical
essentialism to masculinity (Alberti 2006).
The concept embodiment was developed to
explore ways in which identity and bodies can be
thought of in nonbinary ways (see Joyce 2008).
This perspective accompanies a critique of the
sex/gender dualism as a timeless structure.
Sex is understood to be equally historically
contingent; a critique that has actually been
present since early in the history of gender
archaeology. One result has been the develop-
ment of archaeologies of embodiment and the
theory of gender performativity (Joyce 2008).
Embodiment indicates that all people experience
their worlds from specifically embodied perspec-
tives and, moreover, that a gap can exist between
an individuals or groups embodied experience
and the norms or expectations of the dominant
society. Not all people or groups experience their
bodies and societys norms the same way; such
norms have a differential and sometimes exclu-
sionary impact.
Judith Butlers theory of gender performativity
has been a major influence on the archaeology of
embodiment. The theory has been taken in
archaeology to mean that gender is a kind of
incessant action involving dress, gestures, and
material culture, in fluid relationship to the
materiality of the physical body (Joyce 2008).
Such acts enforce or naturalize sex into histori-
cally contingent organizations, stereotypically
binary in the modern West.
International Perspectives
Norway, along with Sweden, saw the establish-
ment of a feminist archaeology in the late 1970s
and 1980s; the United Kingdom was also an early
influence. Today, however, North American
archaeological publications devoted to issues
concerning feminisms, gender, and queer
dominate (Fig. 1). As such, they serve as a source
of inspiration for feminist archaeology in
Scandinavia, although the interest does not
appear to be reciprocated.
There are apparent differences in the scholar-
ship on queer archaeology between North Amer-
ica and the United Kingdom. North American
Gender research articles 2001-2010
Norway
2%
South-Africa
3% Other
Canada 8%
5%
England
12%
USA
70%
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: USA
Perspective, Fig. 1 Number of gender research articles
published in archaeology by country between 2001 and
2010 according to Thomson & Reuters Web of Science
(Arts & Humanities Citation Index, ISI). Gender research
includes keywords, such as gender, feminism, masculin-
ity, queer, embodiment, and intersectionality. There were
97 gender articles published out of a total of 3,525 archae-
ological articles
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: USA Perspective
work tends more toward studies of sexuality,
bodies, and performance (Schmidt & Voss
2000; Joyce 2008), whereas queer theorists in
the United Kingdom and Scandinavia often take
the dictum that queer is about opposition to the
norm as their starting point (see contributors to
Dowson 2000). Moreover, the genealogical rela-
tionship to feminism is stressed less in the United
Kingdom. Exclusions in feminist scholarship
have been noted, such as the assumption of nor-
mative family structures or the implication that
sexuality is a secondary effect of gender (Dowson
2006); and epistemological concerns in relation
to queer are more visible. Marginalization of
studies of sexuality in archaeology and the rec-
ognition that the past is always already hetero-
sexual has been linked to the question of
epistemological privilege whose account of
the past is given greater credibility (Dowson
2006).
Future Directions
Work that takes gender as a social variable seems
entrenched in North American archaeology. The
most exciting theoretical developments, how-
ever, are in feminism and queer archaeology,
including work on intersectionality, community
or public archaeology, and new feminist and
queer materialisms.
It has been argued that intersectionality and
the postcolonial critique represent a turning
point for archaeology in general (Conkey 2005:
10). Intersectionality is a means of describing
and theorizing the many intersections among
gender and other elements of identity, such as
race, class, age, and sexuality, within complex
sociopolitical contexts. It is clear that an analy-
sis of gender alone is inadequate gender is
constituted by its intersections. Earlier conver-
gences between the interests of feminists and
indigenous peoples in North American archae-
ology (e.g., Spector 1993) have been reframed
and explicitly theorized as intersectionality
(Conkey 2005). Within this framework it is
understood that multiple relations of domination
result in privilege, differing positions and
2995 G
hierarchies among communities and individ-
uals. In this light, Conkey (2005: 12) redefines
gender as a contingent set of ideas and practices
within multiple systems of oppression. The type
of analysis entailed directs us toward the small
scale, to daily lives, and the specific details of
singular sets of relations. One point of intersec-
tion is the need to understand how inequality, in
general, works in our present-day lives and in
the lives of past peoples. However, just as inter-
sections are needed precisely because of the
partiality of perspectives, as feminist epistemol-
ogy has outlined so clearly, Conkey (2005: 25)
warns against scaling down or making hierarchi- G
cal the relations that are intersecting, reducing,
or subordinating one relation to another. Seek-
ing clarity about gender, ironically, could pro-
duce just such a privilege.
Work in this genre includes contributions to
Casella and Voss (2011), which demonstrate the
constitutive intersections of sexualities, embodi-
ments, and colonialism. Battle-Baptiste (2011)
presents a non-formulaic Black feminist reflexive
methodology to study the intersections of race,
gender, and class in the historical archaeology
and history of Diasporic African Americans.
There are also strong connections among
intersectional approaches and recent Marxist
archaeologies of praxis.
Although located in the United Kingdom, one
model for the important convergence of feminist
and queer approaches is the archaeology of the
womens protest camps at Greenham Common
(Marshall et al. 2009). The camps were occupied
by women and children in the 1980s to protest the
deployment of Cruise missiles. Spectors (1993)
work, which emerged from a concern that archae-
ological practices and interpretation be meaning-
ful on human terms, is a clear antecedent. In
the Greenham Common case, the reflexive
autoethnographic narratives of the three women
researchers provide a possible model for feminist
and queer archaeology, where issues of authority,
vocality, and intersectionality are put into
practice. Refusing to stay outside of Greenhams
politics (Marshall et al. 2009: 233), their research
method mirrors the queer nature of the site,
with women and children living outdoors in
G 2996 Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies: USA Perspective
communities and adopting practices that were
threatening to heteronormative society.
On more speculative theoretical grounds, one
direction that diverges from current work in
North American archaeology but has its roots in
queer and feminist approaches is a renewed inter-
est in materiality. In the social sciences, in gen-
eral, there is much recent interest in post-
human approaches to materiality and identity.
This is partly a response to what are thought to
have been the excesses of the linguistic turn,
represented in archaeology by symbolic and
interpretive approaches under the umbrella of
post-processualism. The theory of gender
performativity, for example, would appear to
give culture or discourse too much power over
bodies and materiality. Archaeologists are conse-
quently returning to the materiality of their sub-
ject matter as a source of agency in social life. In
relation to sex and gender, this can take the form
of a reassessment of the agency of the body
conceived of as plastic and developmental rather
than static. Or the bodys natural variability and
peoples experiences of their embodied selves
can be thought of as never fully erased by
discourse and therefore free to challenge
the binary gender/sex model (Joyce 2008).
New queer and feminist approaches to
osteoarchaeology in North America stress that
knowledge of the sexed body is historically
bound and thus open to future reformulations
(Joyce 2008).
Tomaskova (2011: 113) has recently asked
whether gender archaeology is thriving. While
gender in archaeology clearly has an enduring
legacy and the impact of feminism on the disci-
pline is undeniable, they arguably have not pro-
duced the sought after revolution in
archaeological questions, frameworks, and prac-
tice. Has gender archaeology lost its cutting edge,
its aura of creativity? One legacy of feminist
archaeology is the space opened up for
queer archaeology (Dowson 2006; Voss 2009).
In some ways, queer has come to occupy the
position of the radical side to gender archaeology
and has taken on elements of a feminist project
not addressed by more orthodox feminist
approaches in the discipline.
Cross-References
Activism and Archaeology
African Diaspora Archaeology
Agency in Archaeological Theory
Catalhoyuk Archaeological Site
Colonial Encounters, Archaeology of
Community Archaeology
Conkey, Margaret Wright
Engendered Archaeologies
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies:
Australian Perspective
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies:
European Perspective
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies:
Spanish Perspective
Gero, Joan
Handsman, Russell G.
Indigenous Archaeologies
Joyce, Rosemary
Local Communities and Archaeology:
A Caribbean Perspective
Marxist Archaeologies Development:
Peruvian, Latin American, and Social
Archaeology Perspectives
Materiality in Archaeological Theory
Meskell, Lynn
Post-Processualism, Development of
Processualism in Archaeological Theory
Sex Assessment
Wylie, Alison
References
ALBERTI, B. 2006. Men, masculinities, and archaeology, in
S. Nelson (ed.) Handbook of gender in archaeology:
40134. Walnut Creek (CA): Altamira Press.
BATTLE-BAPTISTE, W. 2011. Black feminist archaeology.
Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.
CASELLA, E.C. & B.L. VOSS. (ed.) 2011. The archaeology
of colonialism: intimate encounters and sexual effects.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CONKEY, M.W. 2005. Dwelling at the margins, action at
the intersection? Feminist and indigenous archaeol-
ogies. Archaeologies 1: 959.
CONKEY, M.W. & J. SPECTOR. 1984. Archaeology and the
study of gender. Advances in Archaeological Method
and Theory 7: 138.
DOWSON, T. (ed.) 2000. Queer archaeologies. World
Archaeology 32: 1615.
Genetic Bottlenecks in Archaeology
DOWSON, T. 2006. Archaeologists, feminists and queers:
sexual politics in the construction of the past, in P.
Geller & M. Stockett (ed.) Feminist anthropology:
past, present, and future: 89-102. Philadelphia: Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania Press.
GERO, J.M. & M. CONKEY. (ed.) 1991. Engendering
archaeology: women and prehistory. New York:
Basil Blackwell.
JOYCE, R.W. 2008. Ancient bodies, ancient lives: sex, gen-
der, and archaeology. New York: Thames & Hudson.
JOYCE, R.W. & R. TRINGHAM. 2007. Feminist adventures in
hypertext. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 14: 32858.
MARSHALL, Y. 2008. Archaeological possibilities for fem-
inist theories of transition and transformation. Femi-
nist Theory 9: 2545.
MARSHALL, Y., S. ROSENEIL & K. ARMSTRONG. 2009. Situat-
ing the Greenham archaeology: an autoethnography of
a feminist project. Public Archaeology 8: 22545.
NELSON, S.M. (ed.) 2006. Handbook of gender in archae-
ology. Lanham (MD): AltaMira Press.
SCHMIDT, R. & B.L. VOSS. (ed.) 2000. Archaeologies of
sexuality. London: Routledge.
SPECTOR, J. 1993. What this awl means: feminist archae-
ology at a Wahpeton Dakota village. St. Paul: Minne-
sota Historical Society Press.
TOMASKOVA, S. 2011. Landscape for a good feminist. An
archaeological review. Archaeological Dialogues 18:
10936.
VOSS, B.L. 2009. Looking for gender, finding sexuality:
a queer politic of archaeology, fifteen years later, in S.
Terendy, N. Lyons & M. Janse-Smekal (ed.) Que(e)rying
archaeology: proceedings of the 37th Annual Chacmool
Conference: 2939. Calgary: University of Calgary.
WILKIE, L.A. 2010. The lost boys of Zeta Psi: a historical
archaeology of masculinity at a university fraternity.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
WYLIE, A. 1992. The interplay of evidential constraints
and political interests: recent archaeological work on
gender. American Antiquity 57: 1534.
- 2007. Doing archaeology as a feminist: introduction.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14:
20916.
Genetic Bottlenecks in Archaeology
Toomas Kivisild
Division of Biological Anthropology, University
of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Introduction
Inferences about human population histories are
often made from genetic data. These are formed
2997 G
on the basis of some theoretical assumptions
which relate the extent and nature of observed
genetic variation with certain demographic events
in the past. There are a number of factors contrib-
uting to genetic diversity of a population, but all
others being equal the populations with larger
number of breeding individuals have generally
higher genetic diversity than populations with
smaller size. The relationship between the effec-
tive population size (Ne) and genetic diversity is
dynamic and maintained by random genetic drift.
In a simplified model where a population main-
tains its size over time at a constant level in the
absence of selection, recombination, and new G
mutations, we can make predictions on how
many generations it would take before all genetic
variation would be removed from the population
by random genetic drift. In such theoretical
population with Ne breeding male individuals,
any new mutation in a genetic locus, such as
Y chromosome, will have a probability of 1/Ne
to become eventually fixed in the future genera-
tions. That means that on average the expected
time for one Y chromosome lineage to reach
100 % frequency and all others to become extinct
is Ne generations. On average, 1/Ne-th of genetic
variation is lost by drift every generation. Small
populations loose proportionally more variation
than large populations during the same time
period. Under equal sex ratios, there are four
copies of an autosomal gene for any gene on
Y chromosome in the population, and thus, the
expected time of the fixation of one autosomal
variant in a population of 2Ne breeding individ-
uals is 4Ne. Thus, autosomal loci loose genetic
variation by drift more slowly than the
Y chromosomes. Adding mutation to this model,
an equilibrium point can be considered where the
amount of new genetic variation generated by
mutation will be equal to the amount of genetic
variation lost by drift. In real life, however,
the population sizes are fluctuating over time.
During the time of population expansion, new
mutations can accumulate more rapidly than
drift eliminates them, and, conversely, when
a population is under contraction, drift eliminates
more variation than is being created by mutation
(Wright 1931).
G 2998
Definition
Genetic bottleneck is a time period in the
demographic history of a population during
which the effective population size decreases
significantly to the extent that leads to
a detectable reduction of genetic diversity of the
population.
Conceptually similar to the genetic bottleneck
is a phenomenon called founder effect, that is,
the establishment of a new population by a few
original founders (in an extreme case, by a single
fertilized female) which carry only a small frac-
tion of the total genetic variation of the parental
population (Mayr 1963).
In cases of both the founder effect and genetic
bottleneck, a population can be derived from
a small number of ancestors. The difference
between the two lies in the separation of
the parental and daughter populations either by
time or space. Bottleneck refers to a demographic
event, a disease epidemic or natural catastrophe
which reduces the size of a single population
while founder effect involves typically
a dispersal event, such as colonization of a new
territory by a small group representing a minor
subset of genetic diversity of the parental source
population.
Key Issues/Current Debates/Future
Directions/Examples
Speciation Bottleneck?
African origins of anatomically modern humans
are widely supported by genetic, archaeological,
and fossil evidence. There is less agreement,
however, on whether the human-specific traits
evolved continuously over time or emerged
suddenly as a result of a genetic bottleneck.
What is the date of birth of our species? While
recognizing humans and Neanderthals as two
separate species that split from each other
300500 ka ago (Noonan et al. 2006; Endicott
et al. 2010; Green et al. 2010), we can expect that
traits specific to humans evolved gradually over
Genetic Bottlenecks in Archaeology
time. If the evolution of human-specific traits was
indeed gradual, then the human-Neanderthal split
time should also be considered to be the birth date
of our species.
An alternative model of speciation bottleneck
claiming that the birth date of anatomically
modern humans is much younger than the split
from Neanderthals was proposed in 1990s. The
evidence for this model came from the analyses
of human mitochondrial DNA and
Y chromosome loci that showed coalescent
times less than 200 ka ago. These young coales-
cent dates along with scarce fossil evidence of
anatomically modern looking crania from Africa
dating approximately to the same time period
became to be interpreted in favor of the specia-
tion bottleneck model. According to this model,
modern humans emerged suddenly as a new
species after their ancestors had gone through
a severe bottleneck. Analyses of autosomal loci,
however, have yielded coalescent times ranging
from half a million up to a few million years,
failing to support the scenario involving a more
recent 200-ka-old speciation bottleneck. The
long-term effective population size 10,000 as
often estimated from genetic data is thus not to
be taken as a bottleneck estimate, but rather it
should be understood that the effective size of
human ancestral populations never decreased to
less than 10,000 for the last 1 Ma. Analyses of
autosomal genes have not been able to identify
a significant demographic event in the history of
human populations that would date to around
200 ka. Estimates based on the genome-wide
sequence data, instead, suggest that the size of
human ancestral populations remained relatively
stable (Ne
8,00010,000) for the last 1 Ma
(Li & Durbin 2011). The highest of Ne at
13,500 individuals was dated to the time period
approximately 150 ka ago. This peak could
reflect either a temporary increase of human
census size in Africa or be an outcome of previ-
ous fragmentation of African populations
followed by their subsequent admixture.
According to the analyses of complete genome
sequence data, the size of human ancestral
Genetic Bottlenecks in Archaeology
populations had dropped drastically down to that
level by approximately 3 Ma ago. Before that the
effective population size may have been an order
of magnitude higher.
Global Bottleneck Induced by the Toba
Volcanic Eruption 74 ka Ago?
It is widely accepted that modern humans spread
out of Africa and colonized the rest of the world
during the last 100 ka. There is much less
agreement on the route, how many times and
exactly when the dispersal(s) from Africa took
place. One of the models, the Weak Garden of
Eden hypothesis (Harpending et al. 1993),
suggests that humans dispersed out of Africa as
early as 100 ka ago, then passed through parallel
population bottlenecks and expanded again in
size around 50 ka. One of the possible causes
for a bottleneck between 50 and 100 ka according
to the paleoclimatic evidence is the volcanic
eruption of Mount Toba 74 ka ago, which is the
largest known explosive volcanic eruption of the
Quaternary. It has been thought that the volcanic
winter induced by the Toba eruption could have
decimated globally much of human population
and that only some refugee populations in the
tropical regions of the world survived (Ambrose
1998). Archaeological evidence from India
suggests continuity of occupation of some sites
below and above the Toba ash layers (Petraglia
et al. 2007) consistent with the view of early
dispersal. The hypothesis lacks support so far,
however, from paleoanthropological evidence as
no anatomically modern human fossils have been
found outside Africa before 50 ka. Coalescent
dates of mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome
haplogroups that are found outside Africa and
their closest African sister clades suggest that
the out-of-Africa dispersal had to have taken
place after the Toba eruption, sometime between
50 and 70 ka (Underhill & Kivisild 2007).
Autosomal estimates of the split times of non-
African populations have also supported the
recent chronology rather than pre-Toba dates.
While not supporting the bottleneck scenario,
evidence from autosomal, mtDNA, and
2999 G
Y chromosome loci, by showing reduced genetic
variation in populations living outside Africa, has
been commonly interpreted in terms of a founder
effect. Genetic diversity declines in correlation
with geographic distances from Africa, and this
has been taken to suggest that peopling of Eurasia
was a process involving a series of founder
effects (Ramachandran et al. 2005).
Mitochondrial Bottleneck
Bottlenecks affect not only the genetic diversity
in populations but they can also occur within the
organisms at the cellular level. Mitochondrial
bottleneck is a drastic reduction of the number G
of mitochondria in the germ cells that takes place
at certain stage of development of each individual
female. Mitochondria are present in all human
cells as vital organelles that generate the ATP
molecules that are used as chemical source of
energy by the cell. Human egg cells can contain
up to a few thousand mitochondria, and all other
human cell types have, depending on their energy
demand, a few tens up to thousands of mitochon-
dria. At one stage of the oogenesis, between the
primordial germ cells and primary oocyte, there
is a drastic reduction of mitochondria that are
carried over to the next cell generation. As
a result, all cells of the offspring can be traced
back to a small number of maternal mitochondria
(Carling et al. 2011).
Cross-References
DNA Interpretation Constraints in
Archaeology
First Australians: Origins
Human Evolution: Molecular Timescale
References
AMBROSE, S.H. 1998. Late Pleistocene human population
bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of
modern humans. Journal of Human Evolution
34: 623-51.
CARLING P.J., L.M. CREE & P.F. CHINNERY. 2011. The
implications of mitochondrial DNA copy number
G 3000
regulation during embryogenesis. Mitochondrion
11: 686-92.
ENDICOTT, P., S.Y.W. HO & C. STRINGER. 2010. Using
genetic evidence to evaluate four palaeoanthro-
pological hypotheses for the timing of Neanderthal
and modern human origins. Journal of Human
Evolution 59: 87-95.
GREEN R.E., J. KRAUSE, A.W. BRIGGS, T. MARICIC, U.
STENZEL, M. KIRCHER, N. PATTERSON, H. LI, W. ZHAI,
M.H. FRITZ, N.F. HANSEN, E.Y. DURAND, A.S.
MALASPINAS, J.D. JENSEN, T. MARQUES-BONET,
C. ALKAN, K. PRUFER, M. MEYER, H.A. BURBANO, J.
M. GOOD, R. SCHULTZ, A. AXIMU-PETRI, A. BUTTHOF,
B. HOBER, B. HOFFNER, M. SIEGEMUND, A. WEIHMANN,
C. NUSBAUM, E.S. LANDER, C. RUSS, N. NOVOD, J.
AFFOURTIT, M. EGHOLM, C. VERNA, P. RUDAN,
D. BRAJKOVIC, Z. KUCAN, I. GUSIC, V.B. DORONICHEV,
L.V. GOLOVANOVA, C. LALUEZA-FOX, M. DE LA RASILLA,
J. FORTEA, A. ROSAS, R.W. SCHMITZ, P.L. JOHNSON,
E.E.EICHLER, D. FALUSH, E. BIRNEY, J.C. MULLIKIN,
M. SLATKIN, R. NIELSEN, J. KELSO, M. LACHMANN,
D. REICH & S. PAABO. 2010. A draft sequence of the
Neanderthal genome. Science 328: 710-22.
HARPENDING, H.C., S.T. SHERRY, A.L. ROGERS &
M. STONEKING. 1993. The genetic structure of ancient
human populations. Current Anthropology
34: 48396.
LI, H. & R. DURBIN. 2011. Inference of human population
history from individual whole-genome sequences.
Nature 475: 493-96.
MAYR, E. 1963. Animal species and evolution. Cambridge
(MA): Harvard University Press.
NOONAN, J.P, G. COOP, S. KUDARAVALLI, D. SMITH,
J. KRAUSE, J. ALESSI, F. CHEN, D. PLATT, S. PAABO,
J.K. PRITCHARD & E.M. RUBIN. 2006. Sequencing and
analysis of Neanderthal genomic DNA. Science
314: 1113-18.
PETRAGLIA, M., R. KORISETTAR, N. BOIVIN, C. CLARKSON,
P. DITCHFIELD, S. JONES, J. KOSHY, M.M. LAHR,
C. OPPENHEIMER, D. PYLE, R. ROBERTS, J.L.
SCHWENNINGER, L. ARNOLD & K. WHITE. 2007. Middle
Paleolithic assemblages from the Indian subcontinent
before and after the Toba super-eruption. Science
317: 114-16.
RAMACHANDRAN, S., O. DESHPANDE, C.C. ROSEMAN, N.A.
ROSENBERG, M.W. FELDMAN & L.L. CAVALLI-SFORZA.
2005. Support from the relationship of genetic and
geographic distance in human populations for
a serial founder effect originating in Africa. Proceed-
ings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
102: 15942-47.
UNDERHILL, P.A. & T. KIVISILD. 2007. Use of
Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA population
structure in tracing human migrations. Annual Review
of Genetics 41: 539-64.
WRIGHT, S. 1931. Evolution in Mendelian populations.
Genetics 16: 97-159.
Genetics of Animal Domestication: Recent Advances
Genetics of Animal Domestication:
Recent Advances
Pamela Wiener
The Roslin Institute, R(D)SVS, University of
Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, UK
Introduction
Although domestic species of plants and animals
were key to the development of Darwins theory
of natural selection and featured prominently in
his books, domesticates have not recently been
central to the study of evolution and evolutionary
genetics. However, recent developments in
molecular genetics tools and techniques are
changing this, renewing interest in the genetics
of domestication and the use of domesticated
species as model organisms for addressing gen-
eral evolutionary questions (Wiener & Wilkinson
2011). This entry reviews how current genetic
analyses are clarifying our views of animal
domestication.
Key Issues and Examples
Detection of Selected Genes or Genomic
Regions
Selection has clearly been a key force in shaping
the histories and phenotypes of domesticated
animal species, but the processes by which this
has happened have only recently been addressed.
Various approaches, many borrowed from human
genetics, are being used to identify regions of the
genome carrying signatures of selection, which
thus may be associated with changes underlying
domestication and breed development. One
approach adopted in domestication genetics is to
examine patterns of diversity around candidate
genes, which based on their function are likely to
have been targets of selection. However, most
techniques have been developed or extended
to exploit the current availability of dense
Genetics of Animal Domestication: Recent Advances
genome-wide marker panels, allowing scans of
the genome that search for patterns consistent
with selection. These include tests identifying
breed differentiation, reduced genetic diversity,
extended linkage disequilibrium (statistical asso-
ciations between loci), or non-neutral allele
frequency patterns in specific genomic regions
as well as associations between genotype and
domestication-related phenotypes.
The application of these various population
genetic approaches has identified several classes
of genes that appear to have been under selection.
The strongest evidence for genetic changes
associated with domestication and breed devel-
opment has been found in genes related to animal
color and pattern. Selection on a number of genes
has resulted in a wide variety of colors and
patterns across breeds, as evidenced by genetic
differentiation and frequency spectrum patterns
near these genes, including MC1R (melanocortin
1 receptor), which is associated with the
switch between eumelanin (brown/black) and
pheomelanin (red/yellow) pigment production.
Although the closest wild relative to the domestic
pig, wild boar, carry substantial neutral variation
at this gene, nearly all individuals genotyped so
far express the same MC1R protein, resulting in
a coat in different shades of brown (Fang et al.
2009; Li et al. 2010). In contrast, there is reduced
neutral variation in domesticated pigs but at least
10 different MC1R proteins, associated with
a wide range of coat colors (Fang et al. 2009).
Variation at MC1R is also responsible for
independent evolution of the black coat in both
European and Asian pigs, which carry different
variants at this locus (Li et al. 2010). The selec-
tion in Chinese pigs appears to be due to the
preference for the black coat in animal
sacrifice rituals during the Neolithic period.
There is also a suggestion of selection acting on
several other color and pattern genes, including
KIT, which affects melanocyte migration from
the neural crest to the skin and is associated
with spotting, belting, and other coat patterns in
pigs, horses, and cattle. Evidence for selection
near the KIT locus has been found from allele
3001 G
differentiation patterns between breeds of sheep
(Kijas et al. 2012) and cattle (Stella et al. 2010).
Another group of genes that show signatures
of selection are related to growth, size, and
body conformation. The GDF-8 (myostatin)
gene has been associated with a variety of muscle
conformation phenotypes in cattle, sheep, and
dogs. A dramatic reduction in genetic diversity,
indicative of selection, has been identified near
this gene in cattle breeds with exaggerated mus-
cle development (double muscling) such as
the Belgian Blue and Asturiana de los Valles
(Wiener & Gutierrez-Gil 2009), and there is
strong differentiation between Texel sheep, G
a highly muscled breed, and other sheep breeds
(Kijas et al. 2012) near this gene. The region
including the growth hormone receptor gene
(GHR), associated with growth and cattle produc-
tion traits, has also been highlighted by both
breed differentiation and within-breed selection
scans of the bovine genome (e.g., Hayes et al.
2009). The regions surrounding IGF1 and
HMGA2, two genes associated with body size,
show signatures of selection in dogs (Sutter
et al. 2007; Akey et al. 2010; Boyko et al. 2010).
There is limited evidence of selection signa-
tures on genes related to fertility and reproduc-
tion. The clearest example is that of the
thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor (TSHR)
gene (Rubin et al. 2010), which is involved in
metabolic regulation and reproduction. The
region encompassing this gene was almost
completely identical over a 40-kilobase segment
across all domestic chicken lines. This gene
also showed evidence of differentiation between
sheep breeds (Kijas et al. 2012).
A final group of genes that show strong evidence
of selection-imposed changes are those associated
with skeleton- and skin-related phenotypes. One
of the strongest signals of breed differentiation in
a genomic scan of 10 dog breeds (Akey et al. 2010)
was seen near the HAS2 gene. This signal was seen
only in the Shar-Pei breed, characterized by
a distinctive skin folding phenotype not seen in
other breeds. By comparing groups of dog breeds
with distinct characteristics, genomic regions
G 3002
associated with ear shape and tail curl have also
been located, although the underlying genes have
not yet been identified (Boyko et al. 2010). Simi-
larly, a region on sheep chromosome 10 shows
a strong signal of differentiation between horned
and polled (hornless) breeds, and it has been
suggested that mutations in the RXFP2 (relaxin/
insulin-like family peptide receptor 2) gene may
be associated with loss of horns in this species
(Kijas et al. 2012).
Detecting Demographic History
Genetic data is also helping to unravel the
demographic history of domesticated breeds.
Linkage disequilibrium (LD) declines with the
genomic distance between markers; moreover,
the shape of the relationship provides information
on population history. LD patterns can be used to
infer past effective population size (the number
of individuals in an idealized population that
would have the same rate of genetic drift as the
actual population) and demographic events, as
the LD between tightly linked markers
reflects effective population size further in the
past than the LD between loosely linked markers.
The relationship between LD and genomic
distance has been exploited in a number of
studies to estimate past effective population
sizes of domesticated animal species. The cattle
HapMap study (Gibbs et al. 2009) analyzed dense
genome-wide SNP data from 19 breeds. They
found that the decline of LD with distance
between markers was generally rapid but varied
between breeds. In contrast to the pattern seen in
humans, effective population size appears to
have declined recently for all breeds, presumably
due to bottlenecks associated with domestication
and breed formation. Comparing LD-distance
relationships across breeds can be used to under-
stand the different breed histories. The NDama
(an African taurine breed, humpless cattle origi-
nating in the Middle East) had the highest LD
values of all breeds at short distances, indicating
a small ancestral population, whereas the three
indicine breeds (humped cattle originating on
the Indian subcontinent) had lower LD than the
other breeds at short distances, indicating
Genetics of Animal Domestication: Recent Advances
a relatively large ancestral population compared
to the taurine breeds. This characterization of
indicine cattle is consistent with findings of
higher nucleotide diversity in indicine than
taurine breeds (Gibbs et al. 2009).
An LD-based approach has also been used
to reconstruct the demographic history of dogs.
The publication of the first genome sequence
for the dog and the initial set of dense SNP geno-
types for dogs from various breeds allowed an
assessment of LD patterns both within and across
breeds (Lindblad-Toh et al. 2005). The decline in
LD with respect to physical genomic distance
for the overall dog population was rapid, falling
quickly to low background levels. This relation-
ship is consistent with a domestication-related
bottleneck
5,0009,000 generations ago,
based on comparisons with simulated data
(Lindblad-Toh et al. 2005; Gray et al. 2009).
In contrast, within most dog breeds, the presence
of long-range homozygous haplotypes and high
levels of LD over extended regions is consistent
with a more severe contraction in population size
3090 generations ago, at the time of breed-
creation events. However, some dog breeds
(e.g., Labrador Retrievers) do not have particu-
larly high levels of LD (Lindblad-Toh et al. 2005;
Gray et al. 2009), presumably because of their
relatively large effective population size.
Introgression
Genetic data has also shed light on past intro-
gression (hybridization) between breeds. Ani-
mal breeders often practice crossbreeding to
introduce certain desirable traits for breed
improvement. In the case of pig breeds, human-
mediated crossing has influenced the genetic
composition of European breeds (Wiener &
Wilkinson 2011). In the eighteenth and nine-
teenth centuries, Asian alleles were introduced
into certain British pig breeds to promote
traits such as fattening and earlier maturation
(White 2011). Molecular genetic studies have
since provided evidence of this introgression.
A study examining mitochondrial diversity in
pigs revealed that a number of European com-
mercial pig breeds carry Asian-like mtDNA
Genetics of Animal Domestication: Recent Advances
haplotypes (Fang & Andersson 2006). Genetic
introgression can also be non-human-mediated,
such as gene flow between wild relatives and
domestic populations. For example, Fang et al.
(2009) found that a Chinese wild boar carried an
MC1R allele common in European domestic
pigs, presumably resulting from gene flow.
Future Directions
Although identification of the genes important
in animal domestication and breed development
is still in its early stages, some common themes
have emerged. One is that there are clearly strong
signatures of selection near a number of genes
associated with coat color and pattern. There are
also indicators that suggest selection on genes
related to growth and body composition.
For example, there is clear evidence in cattle
and sheep for selection on the myostatin gene,
associated with muscle composition, and several
studies also suggest that there may have been
selection in cattle on the growth hormone recep-
tor gene, associated with growth rate and
various production traits. In dogs, there is also
evidence of strong selection on a number of
genes associated with growth and skeletal traits,
many of which are associated with breed-specific
characteristics. Understanding the selection
history of complex traits such as those related
to behavior and milk production will require
more extensive analysis. Genomic information
has also provided substantial insight into the
demographic and breeding history of domesti-
cated animal species.
Cross-References
Cattle: Domestication
Dog: Domestication
Genetic Bottlenecks in Archaeology
Genetics of Early Plant Domestication: DNA
and aDNA
Pig: Domestication
Sheep: Domestication
3003 G
References
AKEY, J. M., A. L. RUHE, D. T. AKEY, A. K. WONG, C. F.
CONNELLY, J. MADEOY, T. J. NICHOLAS & M. W. NEFF.
2010. Tracking footprints of artificial selection in the
dog genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 107:
1160-1165.
BOYKO, A. R., P. QUIGNON, L. LI, J. J. SCHOENEBECK, J. D.
DEGENHARDT, K. E. LOHMUELLER, K. Y. ZHAO, A.
BRISBIN, H. G. PARKER et al. 2010. A simple genetic
architecture underlies morphological variation in dogs.
PLoS Biology 8(8): e1000451. doi: 10.1371/journal.
pbio.1000451.
FANG, M. Y. & L. ANDERSSON. 2006. Mitochondrial diver-
sity in European and Chinese pigs is consistent with
population expansions that occurred prior to domesti- G
cation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological
Sciences 273: 1803-1810.
FANG, M. Y., G. LARSON, H. S. RIBEIRO, N. LI & L.
ANDERSSON. 2009. Contrasting mode of evolution at
a coat color locus in wild and domestic pigs. PLoS
Genetics 5(1): e1000341. doi: 10.1371/journal.
pgen.1000341.
GIBBS, R. A., J. F. TAYLOR, C. P. VAN TASSELL, W.
BARENDSE, K. A. EVERSOIE, C. A. GILL, R. D. GREEN,
D. L. HAMERNIK, S. M. KAPPES et al. 2009. Genome-
wide survey of SNP variation uncovers the genetic
structure of cattle breeds. Science 324: 528-532.
GRAY, M. M., J. M. GRANKA, C. D. BUSTAMANTE, N. B.
SUTTER, A. R. BOYKO, L. ZHU, E. A. OSTRANDER &
R. WAYNE. 2009. Linkage disequilibrium and demo-
graphic history of wild and domestic canids. Genetics
181: 1493-1505.
HAYES, B. J., A. J. CHAMBERLAIN, S. MACEACHERN, K. SAVIN,
H. MCPARTLAN, I. MACLEOD, L. SETHURAMAN &
M. E. GODDARD. 2009. A genome map of divergent
artificial selection between Bos taurus dairy cattle and
Bos taurus beef cattle. Animal Genetics 40: 176-184.
KIJAS, J. W., J. A. LENSTRA, B. HAYES, S. BOITARD, L. R. P.
NETO, M. SAN CRISTOBAL, B. SERVIN, R. MCCULLOCH,
V. WHAN et al. 2012. Genome-wide analysis of the
worlds sheep breeds reveals high levels of historic
mixture and strong recent selection. PLoS Biology 10.
LI, J., H. YANG, J. R. LI, H. P. LI, T. NING, X. R. PAN, P. SHI
& Y. P. ZHANG. 2010. Artificial selection of the
melanocortin receptor 1 gene in Chinese domestic
pigs during domestication. Heredity 105: 274-281.
LINDBLAD-TOH, K., C. M. WADE, T. S. MIKKELSEN,
E. K. KARLSSON, D. B. JAFFE, M. KAMAL, M. CLAMP,
J. L. CHANG, E. J. KULBOKAS et al. 2005. Genome
sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype struc-
ture of the domestic dog. Nature 438: 803-819.
RUBIN, C. J., M. C. ZODY, J. ERIKSSON, J. R. S. MEADOWS,
E. SHERWOOD, M. T. WEBSTER, L. JIANG, M. INGMAN,
T. SHARPE et al. 2010. Whole-genome resequencing
reveals loci under selection during chicken domestica-
tion. Nature 464: 587-U145.
G 3004
STELLA, A., P. AJMONE-MARSAN, B. LAZZARI &
P. BOETTCHER. 2010. Identification of selection signa-
tures in cattle breeds selected for dairy production.
Genetics 185: 1451-1461.
SUTTER, N. B., C. D. BUSTAMANTE, K. CHASE, M. M. GRAY,
K. Y. ZHAO, L. ZHU, B. PADHUKASAHASRAM, E. KARLINS,
S. DAVIS et al. 2007. A single IGF1 allele is a major
determinant of small size in dogs. Science 316:
112-115.
WHITE, S. 2011. From globalized pig breeds to capitalist
pigs: a study in animal cultures and evolutionary his-
tory. Environmental History 16: 94-120.
WIENER, P. & B. GUTIERREZ-GIL. 2009. Assessment of
selection mapping near the myostatin gene (GDF-8)
in cattle. Animal Genetics 40: 598-608.
WIENER, P. & S. WILKINSON. 2011. Deciphering the genetic
basis of animal domestication. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 278: 3161-3170.
Further Reading
CIESLAK, M., M. REISSMANN, M. HOFREITER & A. LUDWIG.
2011. Colours of domestication. Biological Reviews
86: 885-899.
DARWIN, C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of
natural selection, or the preservation of favoured
races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.
- 1868. The variation of animals and plants under domes-
tication, Volumes I and II. London: John Murray.
DOBNEY, K. & G. LARSON. 2006. Genetics and animal
domestication: new windows on an elusive process.
Journal of Zoology 269: 261-271.
Genetics of Early Plant
Domestication: DNA and aDNA
Robin G. Allaby
School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick,
Coventry, Warwickshire, UK
Introduction
The evolution of domesticated forms of crops
was associated with the transition from hunting-
gathering to agriculture at various centers around
the world. Genetics has long been used to study
domestication to answer questions about the
mode and length of the process. Ancient DNA
has been used to add a temporal dimension to
interpreting genetic diversity by providing evi-
dence of past expansions, some of which failed,
and direct evidence of the selection of traits
Genetics of Early Plant Domestication: DNA and aDNA
associated with domestication. A major chal-
lenge of the field is to reconcile genetic
evidence with archaeological evidence and to
redefine what exactly is meant by the term
domestication.
Definition
In the case of plants, the evolution of domestica-
tion involves the selection of a characteristic
group of traits that are collectively termed
the domestication syndrome. Typically, half
a dozen or so traits occur in any one domesticated
plant. These traits include the loss of shattering
(the ability for a plant to abscise and drop its
seeds), changes in seed size, loss of photoperiod
sensitivity, changes in plant physiology, and
architecture. A combination of genome-wide
information and direct evidence from the DNA
obtained from the archaeological record is being
used to assess the molecular mechanisms under-
lying domestication syndrome traits, the pace of
the transition and the strength of the selection
processes involved to understand this human-
plant interaction.
Key Issues/Current Debates/Future
Directions/Examples
Understanding the evolution of domestication of
plants is a subject that is interlocked with under-
standing the rise of civilization. In broad terms,
there have been two extreme viewpoints about the
origins of domesticated plants, and the debate is
ongoing. The first viewpoint is that the evolution-
ary process was rapid, artificial selection was
strong, and domestication events were infrequent
and often geographically restricted (Zohary &
Hopf 2003). Associated with this viewpoint
is that predomestication cultivation was limited
and that domesticated plants appeared as
a package originally described by Gordon Childe
as a revolution. The alternative viewpoint is that
the evolutionary process was slow, and domesti-
cated forms appeared in parallel in different loca-
tions (Weiss et al. 2006; Willcox et al. 2008).
Genetics of Early Plant Domestication: DNA and aDNA
Genetic evidence based on early techniques
initially supported a simple origin for most crops
(Brown et al. 2009). A problem was that these
genetics-based findings contrasted with emerg-
ing evidence from the archaeological record that
suggested that predomestication cultivation
occurred for substantial periods before the emer-
gence of domesticated forms and also that the
assemblage of the traits of the domestication
syndrome occurred in a staggered manner over
a considerable time period (Fuller 2007). Fur-
ther evidence directly from the archaeobotanical
record suggests that the selection pressures
involved for at least some of the domestication
syndrome traits, such as seed size and loss of
shattering, were low within the range of normal
natural selection for both wheat and rice
(Purugganan & Fuller 2011). While these initial
differences between the interpretation of genetic
evidence and emergent archaeological evidence
were reconciled through computational models
that established that the genetic data could be
interpreted within the archaeological framework
(Allaby et al. 2008), the debate about the pace of
transition continues and is dominated in partic-
ular by consideration of cereals of the East and
Near East (Abbo et al. 2011).
A similar series of developments have
occurred in the understanding of the evolution
of domestication at tropical latitudes. The types
of plants domesticated in the tropics differ
in character to those of temperate latitudes
including a large number of arboreal and herba-
ceous species with large fruits or tubers. It has
long been known that tree species such as
sweet almond were exploited well into the Pleis-
tocene by peoples of the tropics. This can perhaps
be compared to the well-known exploitation of
hazel nuts by Mesolithic peoples of temperate
Europe; however, the latter are not considered
a domesticated species. In the case of arboreal
species, the domestication syndrome is subtler
than for cereals often only being evident in the
thinning of nutshells or fruit skins in the case of
screw pines and loss of seeds in the case of
breadfruit, for instance, which raises the question
at what point a plant species can be considered
domesticated. A variety of features such as dwarf
3005 G
habit, self pollination, and a niu vai fruit
morphology have been identified in the case of
the coconut, which has now been shown to have
complex origins from genetic evidence (Bunn
et al. 2011). Despite the acceptance of a long
history of tree exploitation, little credence had
been given to the exploitation of herbaceous
species in the early Holocene, until recently.
Archaeological evidence shows the exploitation
of bananas, for instance, in the Papua New
Guinea Highlands in the early Holocene well
before what is normally considered the onset of
cultivation in that region. The genetic evidence in
this case shows an extremely complex origin of G
bananas involving the differentiation of subspe-
cies of the diploid progenitor in the islands of
Southeast Asia and western Melanesia, followed
by hybridizations repeatedly producing sterile
triploids which have the seedless syndrome
trait, such as the Cavendish banana (Perrier
et al. 2011).
As analyses have moved to the genomic level
increasingly, the specific genetic mechanisms
underlying some domestication syndrome traits
are being understood for several of the major
cereal crops (Fuller & Allaby 2009). In the case
of rice, it is apparent that different traits appear to
have originated in different geographic origins
(Shomura et al. 2008). The scale of the genetic
underpinning of domestication is also becoming
apparent, and although the number of syndrome
traits is relatively low, the number of loci
involved appears to be high. For example, in the
wheat 3070 genes have been estimated to be
involved, over 30 genes in sunflower, and 50
genes in maize (Peng et al. 2003; Wright et al.
2005; Chapman et al. 2008; Peleg et al. 2011).
Such a large number of genes involved suggest
that the evolution that is associated with domes-
tication has been ongoing and that a rethink is
required about what is meant by domestication
and the relevance of the term domestication
event. In the past domesticated plants in the
archaeobotanical record have been identified as
such on the basis of one or two traits, particularly
the loss of shattering trait, and the implicit
assumption has been that other less visible
traits are probably also present. However, the
G 3006
staggered arrival of traits suggests this is
a simplification and that a discrete event
might be better replaced with the concept of
a domestication trajectory.
The evolution of plant domestication has also
been directly studied through the use of ancient
DNA. This approach has been used to establish
the presence of particular species at specific
locations in the past, the temporal stability of
phylogeographic patterns of genes, and direct
change of DNA through time. For example, the
presence of one wheat species in Bronze Age
Greece where it no longer occurs established the
occurrence of a failed expansion (Brown et al.
1998). On the other hand, the geographical
distribution of alleles from maize compared
between ancient cobs and primitive land races
showed that there had been little change in South
America over the past millennium and that such
phylogeographic patterns can be stable to the point
of being indicative of initial expansions of the
plant (Lia et al. 2007). Furthermore, studies in
maize remains over time have shown the process
of selection of domestication syndrome traits was
staggered with some traits such as architecture
being selected early and traits affecting flour qual-
ity being selected millennia later (Jaenicke-Depres
et al. 2003). More recently, ancient DNA studies in
plants have moved to the genomic level where
extensive genome level evolution has been
observed in cotton in the past few thousand years
(Palmer et al. 2012). Such studies are leading to
a consensus common to that based on extant
genetic data that the evolutionary process of
domestication is an ongoing trajectory rather than
discrete event and that crops have and continue to
change in their local habitats and in some cases
represent local adaptation over thousands of years.
In the coming years a more complete picture of the
evolution of domesticated crops is likely to
develop as new technologies are increasingly
applied directly to genome change viewed through
the archaeological record.
A recurrent theme in the discourse about
the evolution of domestication is the level of
consciousness there was in the human agency of
selection. In one extreme view, early cultivators
were highly aware of all sports (visibly mutant
Genetics of Early Plant Domestication: DNA and aDNA
plants) that occurred in plant populations and judi-
ciously selected for desirable traits. At the other
extreme all traits arose through the unconscious
actions of the cultivators. The former appears to
lend itself to scenarios of more rapid selection,
while the latter appears less restrained to a rapid
or protracted process. The truth of the matter is
likely to differ for different traits and species.
However, understanding the mode of human
agency will ultimately require the integration of
archaeological and genetic evidence in meaning-
ful and deterministic ways, which is possibly one
of the greatest challenges that lie ahead.
Cross-References
Agricultural Practice: Transformation
Through Time
Agriculture: Definition and Overview
Archaeobotany of Agricultural Intensification
Archaeobotany of Early Agriculture:
Macrobotany
Archaeobotany of Early Agriculture:
Microbotanical Analysis
Bananas: Origins and Development
Barley: Origins and Development
Breadfruit: Origins and Development
Childe, Vere Gordon (Political and Social
Archaeology)
Childe, Vere Gordon (Theory)
Complex Hunter-Gatherers
Darwin, Charles R.
DNA Interpretation Constraints in
Archaeology
Grapes: Origins and Development
Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Variation and
Intensification
Hunter-Gatherers, Archaeology of
Kuk Swamp: Agriculture and Domestication
Maize: Origins and Development
Manioc: Origins and Development
Millets: Origins and Development
Near East (Including Anatolia): Origins and
Development of Agriculture
Northern Asia: Origins and Development of
Agriculture
Pigeon Pea: Origins and Development
Genetics of Early Plant Domestication: DNA and aDNA
Plant Domestication and Cultivation in
Archaeology
Potato: Origins and Development
Rice: Origins and Development
Sweet Potato: Origins and Development
Wheats: Origins and Development
Yams: Origins and Development
References
ABBO, S., S. LEV-YASDUN & A. GOPHER. 2011. Agricultural
origins: centers and noncenters; a Near Eastern
appraisal. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences
29: 317-328.
ALLABY, R.G., D.Q. FULLER & T.A. BROWN. 2008. The
genetic expectations of a protracted model for
the origins of domesticated crops. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences USA 105:
1398213986.
BROWN, T.A., R.G. AALLABY, R. SALLARES & G. JONES.
1998. Ancient DNA in charred wheats: taxonomic
identification of mixed and single grains. Ancient
Biomolecules 2: 185193.
BROWN, T.A., M.K. JONES, W. POWELL & R.G. ALLABY.
2009. The complex origins of domesticated crops in
the Fertile Crescent. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
24: 103109.
BUNN, B.F., L. BAUDOUIN & K.M. OLSEN. 2011. Indepen-
dent origins of cultivated coconut (Cocos nucifera L.)
in the Old World tropics. Plos One 6: e21143.
CHAPMAN, M.A., C.H. PASHLEY, J. WENZLER, J. HVALA,
S. TANG, S.J. KNAPP & J.M. BURKE. 2008. A genomic
scan for selection reveals candidates for genes
involved in the evolution of cultivated sunflower
(Helianthus annuus). The Plant Cell 20: 2931-2945.
FULLER, D.Q. 2007. Contrasting patterns in crop
domestication and domestication rates: recent
archaeobotanical insights from the Old World. Annals
of Botany 100: 903909.
FULLER, D.Q. & R.G. ALLABY. 2009. Seed dispersal and
crop domestication: shattering, germination and
seasonality in evolution under cultivation, in
L. Ostergaard (ed.) Fruit development and seed
dispersal: 238295. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
JAENICKE-DEPRES, V., E.S. BUCKLER, B.D. SMITH,
M.T.P. GILBERT, A. COOPER, J. DOEBLEY & S. PAABO.
2003. Early allelic selection in maize as revealed by
ancient DNA. Science 302: 12061208.
LIA, V.V., V.A. CONFALONIERI, N. RATTO, J.A.C.
HERNANDEZ, A.M.M. ALZOGARAY, L. POGGIO &
T.A. BROWN. 2007. Microsatellite typing of ancient
maize: insights into the history of agriculture in south-
ern South America. Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London B Biological Sciences 274: 545554.
PALMER, S.A., A.J. CLAPHAM, P. ROSE, F. FREITAS, B.D.
OWEN, D. BERESFORD-JONES, J.D. MOORE, J.L. KITCHEN
3007 G
& R.G. ALLABY. 2012. Archaeogenomic evidence of
punctuated genome evolution in Gossypium. Molecu-
lar Biology and Evolution. doi: 10.1093/molbev/
mss070
PELEG, Z., T. FAHIMA, A.B. KOROL, S. ABBO & Y. SARANGA.
(2011) Genetic analysis of wheat domestication and
evolution under domestication. Journal of Experimen-
tal Botany 62: 5051-5061.
PENG, J., Y. RONIN, T. FAHIMA, M.S. RODER, Y. LI, E. NEVO
& A. KOROL. 2003. Domestication quantitative trait
loci in Triticum dicoccoides, the progenitor of wheat.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA
100: 2489-2494.
PERRIER, X., E. DE LANGHE, M. DONOHUE, C. LENTFER,
L. VRYDAGHS, F. BAKRY, F. CARREEL, I. HIPPOLYTE,
J.-P. HORRY, C. JENNY, V. LEBOT, A.-M. RISTERUCCI,
K. TOMEKPE, H. DOUTRELEPONT, T. BALL, J. MANWARING,
G
P. DE MARET & T. DENHAM. 2011. Multidisciplinary
perspectives on banana (Musa spp.) domestication.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA 108: 11311-11318.
PURUGGANAN, M.D. & D.Q. FULLER. 2011. Archaeological
data reveal slow rates of evolution during plant domes-
tication. Evolution 65: 171183.
SHOMURA, A., K. IZAWA EBANA, T. EBITANI, H.
KANEGAE, S. KONISHI & M. YANO. 2008. Deletion in
a gene associated with grain size increased yields
during rice domestication. Nature Genetics 40:
10231028.
WEISS, E., M.E. KISLEV & A. HARTMANN. 2006. Autono-
mous cultivation before domestication. Science 312:
16081610.
WILLCOX, G., S. FORNITE & L.H. HERVEUX. 2008. Early
Holocene cultivation before domestication in northern
Syria. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17:
313325.
WRIGHT, S.I., I. VROH BI, S.G. SCHROEDER, M. YAMASAKI, J.
F. DOEBLEY, M.D. MCMULLEN & B.S. GAUT. 2005. The
effects of artifical selection on the maize genome.
Science 308: 1310-1314.
ZOHARY, D. & M. HOPF. 2003. Domestication of plants in
the Old World, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Further Reading
ALLABY, R.G. 2010. Integrating the processes in the
evolutionary system of domestication. Journal of
Experimental Botany 61: 935944.
FULLER, D.Q., R.G. ALLABY & C. STEVENS. 2010. Domes-
tication as innovation: the entanglement of techniques,
technology and chance in the domestication of cereal
crops. World Archaeology 42: 13-28.
FULLER, D.Q., G. WILLCOX & R.G. ALLABY. 2012. Early
agricultural pathways: moving outside the core area
hypothesis in Southwest Asia. Journal of Experimen-
tal Botany 63: 617-633.
PALMER, S., O. SMITH & R.G. ALLABY. 2012. The
blossoming of plant archaeogenetics. Annals of
Anatomy 194: 146-156.
G 3008
Geoarchaeology
Christopher L. Hill1 and George (Rip) Rapp2
1
Environmental Studies Program, Boise State
University, Boise, ID, USA
2
Department of Geological Sciences, University
of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, MN, USA
Introduction
Geoarchaeology unites the study of the record of
past human activity with the natural sciences. The
geoscience approach in archaeology is used in
a variety of ways, including planning and
performing fieldwork and collecting information
from the field, deciding on the most appropriate
and useful laboratory techniques, and evaluating
the long-term connections between humans and
the environment. A diverse array of archaeological
questions can be addressed by using earth science
approaches, including studies of environmental
contexts, examining patterns of human use of the
land and natural resources, predicting the preserva-
tion potential and location of archaeological sites,
documenting site and regional-scale sedimentology
and stratigraphy, identifying and describing raw
materials, evaluating taphonomic processes and
the dynamics of site formation, dating, and ecolog-
ical integration. Conceptually, geoarchaeology pro-
vides a means to examine long-term linkages
between human populations and other components
of the geosphere and biosphere.
Definition
Geoarchaeology includes the application of earth
science methods to archaeology as well as the
broader study of long-term patterns of interaction
between people and natural systems. From the
1970s to the turn of the century, there were
many discussions in the American literature
concerning the definitions of geoarchaeology
and archaeological geology.
Operationally, geoarchaeology is the applica-
tion of any of the many subdisciplines in the
Geoarchaeology
geosciences (e.g., sedimentology, geomorphol-
ogy, geophysics). It uses the methods, theories,
and knowledge base of the geosciences to solve
archaeological questions.
Based on this approach, geoarchaeology is
affiliated with environmental archaeology and
Quaternary geology as well as physical geogra-
phy. Because of this, geoarchaeological projects
employ nearly all the geoscience subdisciplines,
except those that are focused exclusively on pre-
Quaternary research. For instance, structural
geology (folds and faults) has largely a pre-
Quaternary focus, although tectonic geology,
the study of earth forces resulting in folding and
faulting, is important in understanding recent
vertical earth movements that affect sites of
human habitation, such as changes in relative
sea level at coastal archaeological sites. Tectonic
earth movements also generate earthquakes
which have had devastating effects on humans
in many parts of the world and have done so in the
past as well.
There are many examples where subdisci-
plines of the geosciences play a critical role in
archaeological studies. The study of sediments
and soils is a crucial component of archaeological
excavations. Artifacts can be found in unaltered
sediments or in deposits transformed by soil-
forming processes. Geoarchaeologists apply
standard descriptive techniques to the matrix
enclosing artifacts and features in archaeological
sites. This approach is extended to the study of
raw materials that compose artifacts. Besides the
use of a standard nomenclature to document
sediment and soil color, particle size, and
mineralogy, the physical and chemical properties
are used to infer environmental conditions
before, during, and after human use of a site.
Thus, one role of a geoarchaeologist as part of
an archaeological research project is to make
observations, take measurements, and collect
samples that will help make it possible to evalu-
ate changing physical environments at
a particular site.
The principles of stratigraphy are crucial for
interpreting the natural and human processes that
produce an archaeological site. Stratigraphic
studies provide a way to document the changes
Geoarchaeology
over time at a particular site and also a way to
connect sites on a regional or even global basis.
These types of studies are linked to the descrip-
tion of sediments and soils, but they expand the
application of these techniques both horizontally
and vertically within an archaeological site. Strat-
igraphic principles are crucial for interpretations
of patterns within a site and also between sites.
Thus, they play a crucial role in relative dating
and in landscape studies. The application of the
principles of stratigraphy in archaeology also
connects geoarchaeology with other historical
sciences such as geology and paleontology.
Geomorphology, the study of landforms and
their development over time, is used by
geoarchaeologists to evaluate the long-term
dynamics of landscape and climate change as
well as site preservation. For instance, Das and
Panjo (1999) give a geoarchaeological perspec-
tive on the late Holocene archaeological record of
a region in West Bengal, in eastern India. Their
work is an attempt to examine the evidence avail-
able for a landscape with a dynamic and con-
stantly changing river environment. Their study
was centered on habitation deposits and struc-
tures from the early Medieval Period (eighth to
twelfth centuries). The study of Quaternary land-
forms should be an important part of any archae-
ological field project. It is important to
understand the physical setting and the resources
that would have made a particular location attrac-
tive for human use. Additionally, geomorphic
features can contribute to an understanding of
the long-term, ongoing processes that have
affected an archaeological site.
Soil science, and especially the study of
ancient soils, contributes in many ways to archae-
ology. Soil formation, or pedogenesis, occurs
when a parent material like sediment or bedrock
is altered over time by climate, plants, and
animals. In the 1940s, Hans Jenning used the
acronym CLORPT to designate the soil-forming
factors of climate, organisms (plants and animals,
including humans), relief, parent material, and
time. Over time, a vertical sequence of soil hori-
zons can develop within the parent material,
based on additions, removals, transformations
caused by processes like weathering, and
3009 G
movement of materials within a profile.
Geoarchaeologists study the properties in the
soil horizons to provide information on the
conditions that led to the soil, including human
activities. The basic soil horizons include (from
top to bottom) the A horizon, primarily charac-
terized by the accumulation of higher amounts of
organics, weathering, and loss by leaching or
translocation; the B horizon associated with
weathering and enrichment by illuviation; and
the C horizon, consisting of unconsolidated par-
ent material. Soils that were formed in the past
are designated as paleosols and can be on the
surface or buried. Soils are very valuable in G
archaeology because they typically imply
a period of landscape stability or period of
nondeposition and can be used to infer ancient
environments. In some regions, buried paleosols
can be traced across landscapes. For instance, the
Brady Soil and Leonard Paleosol are associated
with a period of landscape stability associated
with human presence during the terminal Pleis-
tocene and early Holocene on the Great Plains of
North America (Holliday & Mandel 2006). Holo-
cene mound sites also contain paleosols. For
example, four buried soils were documented at
a Harappa site in the Indus Valley in Pakistan
(Schuldenrein et al. 2004). Harappa period struc-
tures dating to about 4000 BP were constructed
above a paleosol with A-B horizons. Below this
paleosol, there were other Holocene soils and
soils developed within Pleistocene river deposits.
Anthrosols, or soils resulting from human activ-
ity, can provide information on how humans used
the landscape. These are often studied using
geochemistry.
Geochemistry has been of great value in
understanding archaeological sites. This
geoarchaeological technique can be used to help
interpret the sediments and soils within sites.
Often, changes in the acidity (pH) of the site
matrix can be used to explain the preservation
or absence of certain artifacts. For instance,
bones are commonly preserved in sites with
sediments that have high pH levels (such as cal-
careous or carbonate rich deposits). One of the
most useful geochemical approaches has been
phosphate analysis. Phosphates are deposited in
G 3010
sediments and soils as the result of the decay of
organic materials. Phosphorus in soils undergoes
both fractionation and bonding to soil minerals.
Because it bonds to soil minerals, it is not easily
removed by water within the soil profile. Ana-
lyses of phosphates in archaeological sites can
provide both chronometric and land use informa-
tion. One example comes from the study of
a large Mayan ruin in Yucatan, Mexico (Huston
et al. 2009). Phosphate analysis was used to
explain different lengths of occupation, varia-
tions in land use, and reveal the byproducts of
maize processing. Thus, the geochemical analy-
sis of sediments and soils provide a means for
understanding human activity within sites but
also can be applied to the study of broader-scale
landscape dynamics.
A completely different aspect of geochemistry
in archaeology is provenance studies, which can
be used to help determine the source of raw
materials used to make artifacts. Small changes
in the abundance or types of chemicals found
within artifacts can be used to determine their
place of origin. Trace-element signatures can
indicate geological and geographical sources of
unaltered raw materials such as native copper and
host of minerals and rocks including obsidian.
Less well known are isotope methods. Lead iso-
tope studies have been used for decades with
modest success to determine the source of copper
used to make artifacts. Recently, the vexing prob-
lem of sourcing tin has been aided by break-
throughs in tin isotope methods (Haustein et al.
2010). Although tin-bronze was used in Greece
by about 2600 BCE and in central Europe 400
years later, the source of the tin has not been
determined. Chemical sourcing methods were
applied to tin from several regions. The measured
variations in isotope values made it possible to
distinguish between ores made in three different
regions. These kinds of techniques contribute to
an understanding of ancient networks used for the
trade and exchange of raw materials used to make
artifacts.
Petrography, the technique of using
a polarizing microscope to analyze the content
of 30-micron-thick sections of rock, was invented
Geoarchaeology
by geologists over 100 years ago. In recent
decades, this technique has been adopted by
geoarchaeologists to study a variety of archaeo-
logical materials, such as stone tools and
ceramics. A good example of such studies can
be seen in a paper by Fitzpatrick et al. (2003)
which demonstrated the use of petrography in
establishing cultural interaction in Palau, Micro-
nesia. This study examined pottery from both
volcanic and limestone islands in the Pacific. An
analysis of the materials in the pottery suggested
that the ceramics were locally made and then
transported to other islands. This example
shows how geoarchaeological studies of raw
materials can be used to look at patterns of
exchange and interaction.
Microstratigraphy and thin-section analysis of
sediments using micromorphology are ways of
examining the taphonomic (depositional and
postdepositional) processes that have helped in
the formation of archaeological sites and to assess
their stratigraphic integrity. Micromorphology
involves first collecting an intact block of sedi-
ment from an archaeological site. In the labora-
tory, the block is impregnated with polyester
resin and then sliced to make thin sections that
are examined using a microscope. For example,
the micromorphological analysis of sediments
collected along the contact between Middle and
Upper Paleolithic deposits at a cave in Germany
revealed a sharp erosional contact between the
two groups of deposits, thus indicating that no
mixing had occurred. Thin-section study of sed-
iments from a Paleolithic cave in France provided
evidence of burning, trampling, and hearth-
cleaning activities (Goldberg & Berna 2010).
A micromorphological study of cave deposits in
China with pottery dating to about 19,000 years
ago (the Last Glacial Maximum) demonstrated
that mixing and redeposition was negligible,
lending support to the stratigraphic integrity and
dating of the site (Wu et al. 2012).
Geophysical techniques are used by
geoarchaeologists in situations where they cannot
excavate or to study places they may not be able
to reach on the ground. The most common use of
geophysics in archaeology is in geophysical
Geoarchaeology
prospecting, often referred to as remote sensing.
These techniques have proved especially impor-
tant in broader-scale landscape studies. Parkyn
(2010) used high-resolution geophysical survey-
ing as a precursor to field studies, as a way to
guide excavation in addressing the 120-year
development of a late Victorian municipal park.
Remote-sensing techniques are used to distin-
guish anomalies in the ground which may
indicate the presence of archaeological features.
In terms of dating, archaeologists usually are
somewhat familiar with carbon 14 dating but
geoscientists have played only a minor role in
these methods. Chronometric dating methods
such as the use of carbon 14 provide
a numerical estimate for the age of an archaeo-
logical site. This is in contrast to stratigraphic
dating which (in the absence of correlation with
other dating methods) provides only an under-
standing of the relative age of an archaeological
deposit. Several dating techniques have been
developed that can be used to analyze materials
associated with archaeological sites. Besides car-
bon 14, the major dating techniques used by
geoarchaeologists are U-series and K-Ar dating.
While carbon dating has been extensively used to
date organic materials from archaeological sites
that are younger than 40,000 years, U-series tech-
niques have been commonly applied to carbon-
ates, including shells, bones, and limestones
(such as travertines). K-Ar dating is used at
archaeological sites that can be stratigraphically
linked to lava flows and tephras. The age range
for dating using U-series is on the order of several
hundred thousand years, while igneous materials
that are millions of years old can be dated using
the K-Ar technique. In recent years, newer tech-
niques such as luminescence dating have become
more reliable and are now being applied more
often to understand the chronologic context of
archaeological sites.
The concepts of paleontology are especially
important in biostratigraphic correlation and
taphonomy. These concepts have been applied in
paleoethnobotanical studies and in palynology,
and zooarchaeology. Their usefulness for
geoarchaeologists is in relative dating
3011 G
(by biostratigraphic correlation), site formation,
and providing information on environmental
change as reflected by biotic communities.
Research on environmental change connected
with the archaeological record usually studies
either the general habitat associated with human
presence at a particular locality or the specific
resources used by people (for instance, plants or
animals that are incorporated into an archaeologi-
cal site because of human activities). Palynology,
the study of fossil pollen, has played a crucial role
in documenting changes in climate and in human
land use. Changes in the types and abundances of
pollen over time generally reflect changes in veg- G
etation. The changes in vegetation may be the
result of climate change, such as changes in tem-
perature or precipitation. For example, a drought
would be reflected in a change in vegetation and
could be related to a contemporaneous change in
the archaeological record. As an alternative, the
inferred changes in vegetation may reflect human
land use, such as deforestation connected with
agriculture. Macrobotanical remains have proven
very useful for ethnobotanical studies and also are
valuable materials for carbon 14 dating. Animal
remains, including vertebrates and invertebrates,
also provide information on the ancient environ-
ments and resources available for human use.
Usually, invertebrate remains and fossils of small
mammals provide useful information on local
environments, while the fossils of larger mammals
provide regional-scale environmental information.
Biotic remains are also important in correlations
between sites; these types of comparisons have
been used to examine broader-scale environmen-
tal patterns or to help place a site within a time
framework.
Climate and long-term environmental change
are important topics in global archaeology, and
geoarchaeologists play an important role in eval-
uating the interplay between human societies and
natural systems. These studies have focused on
the ways environmental change has impacted
human biological and behavioral evolution as
well as the ways humans have affected the
environment. The techniques applied by
geoarchaeologists to study the archaeological
G 3012
record and its context are especially valuable in
documenting patterns of climate variation at
different scales of space and time. Thus,
geoarchaeological techniques are useful for
understanding the record of human response to
climate change at the scale of a single layer
within a stratigraphic sequence at a site as well
as evaluating patterns of human-environment
interaction at regional, continental, and global
scales.
Historical Background
The term geoarchaeology or its variations were
rarely used in the scientific literature until the
1970s. The term is used to describe research
that applies geoscience techniques to examine
and evaluate the archaeological record. While
the first explicitly geoarchaeological text might
be considered Sir Charles Lyells Geological Evi-
dence for the Antiquity of Man published in the
mid-nineteenth century, the history of using the
geosciences to examine archaeological questions
begins in the 1700s. Lyell likely would have
called his work archaeological geology, and
this term is still in use today, for example, in
the Archaeological Geology Division of the
Geological Society of America (GSA).
One of the first and most important uses of
geological concepts in archaeology is in stratig-
raphy. The use of stratigraphic principles to study
the archaeological record is based on ideas pro-
posed by Niels Stensen (also known as Nicolaus
Steno) in the 1660s and James Hutton in the late
1700s. John Freres 1797 report of the discovery
of stone hand axes within a stratified sedimentary
sequence in England is a good early example of
the application of stratigraphic principles to
archaeological discoveries.
While the principles of stratigraphy were cru-
cial to understanding the archaeological record,
the emergence of ecological perspectives
connected with past human-environment interac-
tions also has a long history of application to
archaeological studies. From 1799 to 1803,
Alexander von Humboldt conducted pioneering
Geoarchaeology
field research on archaeological sites in South
America and Mesoamerica. Characterized by an
empirical approach, Humboldt included descrip-
tions of the raw materials used in the archaeolog-
ical monuments and, in one instance, documented
the internal structure of the pyramid. His studies
in Venezuela linked human activities such as
deforestation and cultivation to environmental
change. The Principles of Geology published by
Lyell from 1830 to 1832 included descriptions of
the geology associated with archaeological sites
like Vesuvius, Pompeii, and Herculaneum. Like
the earlier work of von Humboldt, Lyell also
recognized the contribution of human activity to
environmental change. Lyell writes about how
deforestation since the time of Caesar during the
Iron Age had transformed the landscapes of
Europe. At the same time as Lyells Principles
was first published, Boucher de Perthes used the
principles of stratigraphy to evaluate the associa-
tion of artifacts and extinct animals in the terrace
river gravels of the Somme Valley, France.
Geoscience techniques were also being used
to study archaeological sites in North America.
Squier and Davis published Ancient Monuments
of the Mississippi Valley in 1848 using strati-
graphic methods to evaluate whether human or
geological processes had created mounds found
in the Mississippi Valley. In 1855, Lapham
published The Antiquities of Wisconsin demon-
strating the ways archaeological information
could be incorporated into studies of landscape
evolution and connected with human activities.
Laphams studies provided an example of long-
term changes in the landscape associated with the
transformation from prehistoric hunting and
gathering to agriculture and the construction of
mounds. He concluded that land covered by for-
est at the time of European settlement had been
cultivated during prehistoric times. This is a good
historical example of a study that connected the
study of present-day landforms to past human
land use.
Archaeologists and geologists in Europe dur-
ing the middle of the nineteenth century began to
develop an understanding of the ways the record
of the human past reflected the long-term patterns
Geoarchaeology
of human use of natural resources. A prominent
example of this was the realization that there
were changes in the types of raw materials used
by people to create tools over time. Geologist
Forchammer and archaeologist Worsaae
conducted studies of shell middens in Denmark
and Sweden and in 1848 collaborated with pale-
ontologist Steerup. This multidisciplinary
research became the basis for verifying the
Three-Age System (Stone, Bronze, Iron) used
in archaeology. Thus, in the mid-1800s,
geoarchaeological techniques were being applied
to both the contexts of artifacts (using strati-
graphic principles) as well as the composition of
artifacts to document sequences through time.
Another important historic application of geo-
science techniques to archaeology was connected
with the then controversial question of human
antiquity. Excavations of Brixham Cave in
England by Pengelly in 1858 provided well-
documented evidence for the presence of humans
with extinct Ice Age animals using systematic
excavation techniques. The geoarchaeological
observations undertaken by Pengelly, as well as
Falconer, Prestwich, and Lyell eventually led to
a breakthrough in our understanding of human
antiquity. There were other influential publica-
tions during the 1860s. Lubbock published Pre-
Historic Times in 1865 arguing that archaeology
formed the bridge connecting geology and history.
Geoscience techniques were also an important
part of classical archaeology during the last half
of the 1800s, especially the use of stratigraphy. In
1860, Fiorelli started stratigraphic excavations at
Pompeii, and in 1873, Conze used stratigraphic
techniques during his excavations at Samothrace.
In 1882, Dorpfeld began careful stratigraphic
excavations at Hissarlik (Troy), following the
earlier studies of Schliemann.
In America, Powell had one foot in geology
and the other in ethnology; he helped establish
the United States Geological Survey and the
Bureau of American Ethnology in the late
1800s. There were many connections between
the geosciences and archaeology during this
time. Putnam worked for the survey and was
known for careful archaeological excavations
3013 G
that employed arbitrary levels and documentation
of stratigraphy. Powell felt that the evidence for
a Paleolithic stage in North America had to be
based on geological evidence. Likewise, Holmes,
an energetic critic of the American Paleolithic,
wrote that the only reliable test for human antiq-
uity in North America rested on geology. During
the 1890s, researchers such as Haynes, Abbott,
and Salisbury believed the reliability of the geo-
logical evidence was crucial to evaluating
archaeological sites. Winchell used his 1902
presidential address to the Geological Society of
America to summarize the geological evidence
for ancient humans in the New World. G
During the early part of the 1900s, techniques
from the geosciences were used to examine
archaeological sites in the context of landscape
change. Von Post used pollen studies to docu-
ment vegetational change since the melting of
the glaciers. Relative dating techniques were
also employed. Varve dating was used by deGeer
in Sweden, Sauramo in Finland, and Antevs in
North America. Remote sensing in the form of
aerial photography was also used. Crawford
mapped over 200 archaeological sites in southern
Britain using aerial photography as part of a study
of settlement patterns and ancient landscapes.
The links between environmental and climatic
change and human activities were also of interest
after 1900. In 1905, Pumpelly, another president
of the Geological Society of America, applied
geological methods to study the archaeology of
the Anau in Turkestan.
In 1911, Gamio used a stratigraphic approach
in excavations at Azcapotzalco in Mexico City,
Mexico, and similar methods were employed in
1914 by Nelson at Pueblo San Cristobal. Begin-
ning in 1915, Alfred Kidder used more controlled
stratigraphic excavation techniques at Pecos
Pueblo. Andersson, a Swedish economic geolo-
gist, pioneered geoarchaeology in China. He
defined the Chinese Neolithic and excavated at
the famous Paleolithic cave site at Zhoukoudian
from 1921 to 1926.
By the 1920s and 1930s, Carl Sauer was devel-
oping his ideas about the landscape as a product
of space, time, and natural and human processes.
G 3014
Sauer uses the term archaeogeography to desig-
nate the study of archaeological sites in relation
to their environmental setting (Sauer & Brand
1932). From about 1924 to 1950, Kirk Bryan
was the preeminent figure combining geoscience
techniques and archaeology.
Bryans student, Herbert Wright, served as
geologist for excavations at Ksar Akil, Lebanon,
and also participated with Robert Braidwoods
multidisciplinary project in Kurdistan, northern
Iraq.
During the 1950s, geological studies were part
of many archaeological studies in the Old World
and in the New World. In Old World studies,
Judson conducted a study of the geological and
geographical setting of Abri Pataud. Sedimento-
logical studies of Abri Pataud were started by John
Miller in 1958 and additional studies were com-
pleted by Bill Farrand in 1964. Karl Butzer began
his geoarchaeological research in the Nile Valley
of Egypt during 1956 and 1958. Cornwalls 1958
Soils for the Archaeologist demonstrated the great
potential sediments and soils offered in archaeo-
logical analysis and interpretation. In New World
studies, geology played a prominent role in
Paleoindian research in western North America.
For example, Evans conducted stratigraphic stud-
ies at the Clovis type-site in New Mexico and at
Lubbock Lake, Texas. Wendorf led a team which
included Albritton in the study of the Midland site
in west Texas. C. Vance Haynes began his impor-
tant geological studies of archaeological sites in
the 1950s.
Pyddokes 1961 Stratification for the Archae-
ologist emphasized the importance of strati-
graphic context. One of the most important
contributions to geoarchaeology was Butzers
landmark Environment and Archaeology first
published in 1964. In East Africa in 1962, Hay
initiated his geological studies of Olduvai Gorge
(Hay 1976). In Greece during the 1960s, Wil-
liam McDonald included earth scientists in
a survey of Messenia, bringing in Wright (who
had previously collaborated in archaeological
projects in Lebanon and Iraq) then Rapp in
1966. Field studies conducted by Kraft,
Aschenbrenner, and Rapp from 1971 to 1975
focused on the paleogeography of the coastal
Geoarchaeology
plain of the southwestern Peloponnese. The
studies initiated by Kraft and Rapp in the
1970s turned into a long-term investigation of
the ways coastal change has affected major
archaeological sites in Greece and Turkey such
as Troy, Ephesus, Ancient Pylos, and the land-
scape of the famous battle at Thermopylae.
Historically, events and publications during the
1970s and 1980s served to firmly establish the
discipline of geoarchaeology. The enhanced visi-
bility of geological applications to archaeology led
to a short note coauthored by Rapp, Albritton, and
Bullard entitled Geoarchaeology Anyone? in
a 1974 newsletter of the Geological Society of
America (GSA). The Archaeological Geology
Division of the GSA was founded in the 1977,
providing a venue and structure for specialists in
the field. Several publications provided an under-
standing of the wide scope of geoscience tech-
niques that could be applied to archaeological
contexts and artifacts. For instance, in the late
1970s, an edited volume was published by David-
son and Shackley entitled Geoarchaeology and
Vita-Finzi published Archaeological Sites in
Their Setting (Butzer 1982). These were soon
followed in the 1980s by Butzers Archaeology
as Human Ecology which emphasized the appli-
cation of a geoarchaeological approach and
Archaeological Geology edited by Rapp and
Gifford which demonstrated the strong diversity
of techniques used to understand the human past.
The first volume of Geoarchaeology: An Interna-
tional Journal was published in 1986.
From the nineteenth century to the mid-
twentieth century, the application of geology in
archaeology was a specialty practiced by a few
geologists. Since the last third of the twentieth
century, it has become an organized discipline
with professional societies, journals, confer-
ences, and university programs. For the first 100
years or so, geoarchaeology was the province of
the geologists. But since the late twentieth cen-
tury, most geoarchaeologists have been educated
in archaeology or anthropology departments and/
or previously trained in geology, geography,
and/or soil science. At the same time, some
research traditions, especially those rooted in
continental Europe, continue to emphasize the
Geoarchaeology
collaboration between archaeologists and earth
scientists over and above the training of students
as geoarchaeologists.
Key Issues/Current Debates
Because of the wide scope of geoarchaeology, it
addresses many key questions regarding the long-
term connections between humans and the envi-
ronment. Indeed, there is a debate about how
geoarchaeology is related to other disciplines
that also study people and nature. For example,
some people see geoarchaeology and archaeolog-
ical geology as having the same goals, while
others see them as using the same concepts
but having different objectives. Although there
does not seem to be too much controversy over
the concepts and techniques, there are different
perspectives on how these should be applied.
For example, archaeological geology can be
viewed as the use of the archaeological record
to study geological questions in contrast to
geoarchaeology which would apply geoscience
techniques to answer archaeological questions.
There is also a debate regarding the relationships
between geoarchaeology and archaeometry.
One approach is to place studies of sediments,
soils, stratigraphy, and landforms within the
realm of geoarchaeology and to distinguish
it from archaeometry which would have a
focus on geochronology, geophysics, and raw
material analysis. Geoarchaeology has also
been considered as a subdiscipline (along with
zooarchaeology and archaeobotany) of environ-
mental archaeology. Overall, geoarchaeology is
a discipline that has as a primary goal the under-
standing of humans and past environmental
systems. Three keys issues that can be addressed
using geoarchaeology are (1) human response to
climate change, (2) human use of resources and
impact on the environment, and (3) natural haz-
ards and people.
Geoarchaeology is a critical source of infor-
mation for examining human biological and
behavioral responses to climate change. This
includes biological adaptations to changes in cli-
mate as well as the response of ancient societies
3015 G
to climate change. Many questions connected
with the ways humans use natural resources and
impact the environment can be examined using
geoarchaeology. Examples would include petro-
graphic or geochemical provenance studies
designed to study the flow of raw materials or
studies of how resource exploitation is linked to
erosion and sediment deposition and landscape
evolution. Geoarchaeology thus can provide
important information on the use and manage-
ment/mismanagement of resources. Another
focus of geoarchaeology is the use of records of
the past to understand and predict environmental
hazards. These include studying the patterns and G
effects of earthquakes and other geological catas-
trophes such as floods, volcanic eruptions, and
tsunamis. A broad look at the dramatic effects
of seismic events around the globe is given by
Nur (2008). This volume covers major earth-
quakes from ancient Israel to modern Japan.
A volume on archaeoseismology that details
other seismic impacts is focused on the eastern
Mediterranean, especially Greece (Stiros & Jones
1996).
International Perspectives and Future
Directions
One of the important aspects of geoarchaeology
is that it is an empirical natural science approach
that can be applied to any archaeological record,
regardless of its location on the globe. An
emphasis on process and product encourages
an international perspective. This is reflected in
the Developing International Geoarchaeology
(DIG) conferences which bring together
a diversity of international researchers to share
research and promote international studies in
geoarchaeology. The application of geosciences
techniques can be applied to any environmental
context. Any region of the world can be studied
using the geoarchaeological approach. For
example, since the last third of the twentieth
century, coastal studies in the Aegean and else-
where have aided historians and archaeologists
in discovering and understanding coastal sites.
Kraft et al. (2007) provide an excellent example
G 3016
of how core drilling and the geological analyses
of the sediment cores offer critical information
about ancient Ephesus otherwise unavailable to
archaeologists, historical geographers, and his-
torians. On the other side of the world, Jing et al.
(1995) show how sediment coring can discover
deeply buried sites that would otherwise remain
unknown, even after intensive surface survey.
The geoarchaeological community has benefited
from international cooperation and collabora-
tion for both conducting field work and labora-
tory studies. Because geoarchaeology examines
the way natural systems interact with humans,
there is great value in the exchange of ideas and
techniques that can be used to understand
how ecosystems work at various scales of time
and space.
Cross-References
Anthropogenic Sediments and Soils:
Geoarchaeology
Archaeological Chemistry: Definition
Ash: Geoarchaeology
Beach, Timothy
Butzer, Karl W.
Cornwall, Ian Wolfram
Dating Techniques in Archaeological Science
Deflation Archaeology
Disaster Response Planning: Earthquakes
Disaster Response Planning: Flood
Disaster Response Planning: Tsunamis
Environmental Reconstruction in
Archaeological Science
Gamio Martnez, Manuel
Goldberg, Paul
Haynes, Jr., C. Vance
Historical Ecology and Environmental
Archaeology
Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology
Landscape Archaeology
Lubbock, John
Macphail, Richard I.
Magnetic Susceptibility of Soils and
Sediments in Environmental Archaeology
Prospection Methods in Archaeology
Provenance Studies in Archaeology
Geoarchaeology
Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeology
Rapp, George R.
Rivers: Environmental Archaeology
Site Formation Processes
Taphonomy: Definition
Wilkinson, Tony James
Zeuner, Frederick Everard
References
BUTZER, K. 1982. Archaeology as human ecology.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
DAS, A. & S. PANJO. 1999. Cultural history of Malda and
South Dinajpur West Bengal: a geoarchaeological per-
spective. Gondwana Geological Magazine Special
Volume 4: 347-59.
FITZPATRICK, S., W. DICKINSON & G. CLARK. 2003. Ceramic
petrography and cultural interaction in Palau,
Micronesia. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:
1175-184.
GOLDBERG, P. & F. BERNA. 2010. Micromorphology and
context. Quaternary International 214: 56-62.
HAUSTEIN, M., C. GILLIS & E. PERNICKA. 2010. Tin isotopy
a new method for solving old questions. Archaeometry
52(5): 816-32.
HAY, R. 1976. Geology of the Olduvai Gorge. Berkley:
University of California Press.
HOLLIDAY, V. & R. MANDEL. 2006. Geoarchaeology of the
Plains, Southwest, and Great Lakes. Handbook of
North American Indians, Volume 3: environment,
origins, and population: 23-46. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution.
HUSTON, S., A. MAGNONI, R. TERRY, T. BEACH, B. DAHLIN &
M. SCHABEL. 2009. Phosphate fractionation and spatial
patterning in ancient ruins: a case study from Yucatan.
Catena 78: 260-69.
JING, Z., G. RAPP & T. GAO. 1995. Holocene landscape
evolution and its impact on the Neolithic and Bronze
Age sites in the Shangqiu Area, northern China.
Geoarchaeology 10: 481-513.
KRAFT, J., H. BRUCKNER, I. KAYAN & H. ENGELMANN. 2007.
The geographies of ancient Ephesus and the
Artemision in Anatolia. Geoarchaeology 22: 121-49.
NUR, A. 2008. Apocalypse: earthquakes, archaeology,
and the wrath of God. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
PARKYN, A. 2010. A survey in the park: methodological
and practical problems associated with geophysical
investigation in a late Victorian municipal park.
Archaeological Prospection 17: 161-74.
SAUER, C. & D. BRAND. 1932. Aztatlan: prehistoric
Mexican frontier on the Pacific coast. Berkley:
University of California Press.
SCHULDENREIN, J., R. WRIGHT, M. MUGHAL & M. KHAN.
2004. Landscapes, soils, and mound histories of the
Upper Indus Valley, Pakistan: new insights on the
Geoglyphs
Holocene environments near ancient Harappa. Journal
of Archaeological Science 31: 777-97.
STIROS, S. & R. JONES. (ed.) 1996. Archaeoseismology.
Athens: Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration
and The British School at Athens.
WU, X., C. ZHANG, P. GOLDBERG, D. COHEN, Y. PAN, T.
ARPIN & O. BAR-YOSEF. 2012. Early pottery at 20,000
years ago in Xianrendong Cave, China. Science 336:
1696-1700.
Further Reading
FRENCH, C. 2003. Geoarchaeology in action: studies in soil
micromorphology and landscape evolution. London:
Routledge.
GOLDBERG, P. & R. MACPHAIL. 2006. Practical and theo-
retical geoarchaeology. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
HOLLIDAY, V. 2004. Soils in archaeological research.
New York: Oxford University Press.
MANDEL, R. 2001. Geoarchaeology of the Great Plains.
Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
RAPP, G. 2009. Archaeominerology. Berlin: Springer.
RAPP, G. & J. GIFFORD. (ed.) 1985. Archaeological
geology. New Haven: Yale University Press.
RAPP, G. & C. HILL. 2006. Geoarchaeology: the earth-
science approach to archaeological interpretation.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
WATERS, M. 1997. Principles of geoarchaeology: a North
American perspective. Tucson: The University of
Arizona Press.
Geoglyphs
Daniela Valenzuela1 and Persis B. Clarkson2
1
Universidad de Tarapaca, Arica, Chile
2
Department of Anthropology, University of
Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MN, Canada
Introduction
Geoglyphs are handmade features created on the
surface of the earth. These have been made by
removing or clearing sand or stones or sometimes
adding stones. This creates contrast between the
figure and the ground, enhancing visiblity
(Fig. 1). The most famous geoglyphs are in
Nazca, Peru. Geoglyphs, nevertheless, also
occur in a range of different forms worldwide.
Despite the similarities that can be found between
regions, it is clear that geoglyphs have indepen-
dent origins and development in time and space.
3017 G
Definition
What defines a geoglyph? This question is
particularly relevant when we observe this phe-
nomenon on a global scale; a wide variety of
geoglyphs exist, although within limited
parameters. Geoglyphs are intentional human-
made renderings of naturalistic/identifiable or
abstract/unidentified forms. They frequently
include large-scale designs, i.e., either the
individual figures are large or there are composi-
tions of smaller figures that extend over a sizable
area. The term geoglyph may also apply to
culturally significant patterns or locations G
resulting from ceremony, such as dance circles.
Its design a llama, for example fulfills
a function which could be religious, aesthetic,
economic, etc. Geoglyphs can last over time as
a testament or witness. Although we can identify
its form, without additional information it is not
possible to know its functions.
The term geoglyph was first used by the
Venezuelan archaeologist Cruxent in 1949,
although it was Mostny (1964), head of the
Anthropology section and subsequently the
director of the Chilean Museo Nacional de
Historia Natural, who explicitly defined this
concept. Additional variants for the term include
pintados, earth art, earthworks, terraforms,
ground drawings, intaglios, mounds, stone
arrangements, and ring ditches.
The creation of geoglyphs is accomplished
through two techniques, additive and subtractive,
either singly or in combination Fig. 1. Making
a geoglyph does not require a great deal of labor
investment. Generally, the materials are not large
or heavy, and the activity is not labor intensive,
and thus, the task can be undertaken by the
very young through to the very old. Some
techniques require a greater degree of labor invest-
ment, such as the geoglyphs from Venezuela and
Colombia, where the figures are engraved on
rocky slopes, or the Amazonian mounds, the con-
struction of which required deforestation, and the
excavation of deep trenches to supply the suffi-
cient quantities of heaped earth for platforms.
The specific location, size, style, and situation
of geoglyphs on the ground have direct
G 3018
Geoglyphs, Fig. 1 The visibility of a linear geoglyph
created using both additive and subtractive techniques is
further enhanced by raking light that highlights differ-
ences in color and intensity between the geoglyph and
the natural surface. Nazca, Peru
implications for their visibility. Geoglyphs on
slopes are visible from a distance (Fig. 2).
Geoglyphs situated on flat or horizontal surfaces
are more difficult to see from a distance, although
they can be discernible up close, and seen
through the senses when people walk or move
over the geoglyph (Fig. 3). Visible but difficult to
discern in their totality are large geoglyphs (e.g.,
Nazca) and three-dimensional geoglyphs (e.g.,
Hopewell/Adena, Amazonia). The use or signif-
icance of some geoglyphs can be understood
from oral traditions and aboriginal knowledge.
Thus, geoglyphs are comprehended visually
(e.g., in Chile, England, Venezuela, and Colom-
bia) or experienced (e.g., Nazca) or known (e.g.,
Californian rituals).
The relationship between the suitability of the
earths surface and the visibility of geoglyphs
results in different kinds of techniques employed
Geoglyphs
by the geoglyph makers. Suitable natural surfaces
are common in arid regions of western Americas
(e.g., Nazca in Peru, northern Chile, California,
and Mexico), Argentina, Australia, Algeria,
Libya, Egypt, and Israel, and in regions of limited
vegetation due to subsurface geology (e.g., lime-
stone/chalk in England and the rocky surfaces of
Venezuela and Colombia). In such regions,
images are added to or created on the natural
surface. Forested or otherwise verdant landscapes
required clearing prior to creating geoglyphs.
These areas include the effigy mounds of the
Mississippi Basin (Hopewell and Adena cultures)
and the Amazon Basin.
The construction technique and placement
can also affect durability as well as the visibility
of geoglyphs. Images on slopes, such as the
Uffington Horse in England, are visible from
a long distance. The use of large stones to form
a large panel of numerous figures on a moderately
sloped surface at Quebrada Tiliviche in northern
Chile has withstood the effects of gravity, wind,
and rain (Fig. 4). Geoglyphs created with heaped
soft soils or on steep slopes are less likely to
withstand the effects of wind, precipitation, and/
or gravity. Visibility of additive and subtractive
geoglyphs on horizontal or sloped surfaces is
enhanced by raking light; this is particularly
evident in older geoglyphs where the color or
texture contrast between the original surface and
disturbed subsurface may fade over time.
Key Issues
Purposes
Geoglyphs belong to a class of material culture
commonly described as having religious, ritual,
or ceremonial functions, when and if no utilitar-
ian function is clearly evident (Clarkson 1998). In
fact, in virtually every region where geoglyphs
can be found, the main purpose in the construc-
tion of a geoglyph has been attributed to ceremo-
nial and ritual activities. There are, obviously,
other valid interpretations of ethnographic evi-
dence of ritual or ceremonial use. References to
shamanic activities associated with geoglyphs in
prehistoric contexts have been framed in
Geoglyphs 3019 G
Geoglyphs,
Fig. 2 Traditional llama
caravan passes below
additive/subtractive
geoglyphs inscribed high
on hillsides at Cerros
Pintados, Chile, which
are visible from both near
and far

Geoglyphs, Fig. 3 Linear

trapezoidal geoglyph.
Nazca, Peru

cognitive archaeological explanations that
employ scientific methodologies within social
science and humanities investigations (Lewis-
Williams 2010).
In the Bolivian altiplano, it is thought that
the so-called Sajama lines were originally
associated with sacred places and mountain
worship. This interpretation has been backed by
ethnographic documentation (Morrison 1978;
Reinhard 1996). The enigmatic geoglyphs of the
Mojave Desert, in the southwestern United
States, were interpreted as rites of passage in
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries through
ethnographic accounts and ceremonies (Johnson
1985). In Nazca, Peru, a variety of reasons have
been suggested: geoglyphs had astronomical
purposes, served as pilgrimage sites, as well as
to worship ancestors, mountains, water, and
G 3020
Geoglyphs,
Fig. 4 Additive geoglyph
composition of camelids
and running humans
situated on a gentle slope is
comprised of large stones.
Quebrada de Tiliviche,
Chile
fertility, among other functions. Cosmological
and astronomical functions have been proposed
for Mound 72, as well as for other related mounds
in the plains of Cahokia (Illinois, USA), a major
site of the Mississippian Culture, dated between
800 and 1350 CE. There are also rich ethnohisto-
rical sources dating to the seventeenth century or
later on Mississippian culture, including cosmo-
logical rituals and activities (Demel & Hall
1998). The geoglyphs of northern Chile are one
of the few cases that seem also to have included a
utilitarian purpose: they served as logistical
markers to indicate routes for llama caravans on
the western slope of the Andes. Similarly, the
colored stone structures found in the province of
La Rioja, Argentina, associated with water
sources and natural steps, could have been related
to trading routes of pre-Hispanic populations
(Callegari & Ravina 2000).
Some geoglyphs executed on horizontal
surfaces, particularly large images, are visually
best observed from an elevated location directly
from above (Fig. 5). Such visual conceptualiza-
tions popularly invoke an intention for deities,
supernaturals, or humans in altered states of
consciousness. San Pedro cactus (Trichocereus
pachanoi), portrayed on Nazca ceramics and
native to the Nazca and Andean regions,
Geoglyphs
contains hallucinogenic alkaloids which can
produce a sensation of flying. Ethnographic evi-
dence from southern California indicates that
walking on and/or tracing the outline of
geoglyphs was intended or practiced (Johnson
1985). Nazca figural geoglyphs were consis-
tently made with a single line that scribes the
entire figure, regardless of the complexity. The
width of the line is consistent with that of
a footpath, and thus, an individual can (de)scribe
an entire figure, beginning and ending at the
same location. The sensual and ritual effect is
analogous to walking a prescribed route, such as
the effect attributed to the thirteenth century
labyrinth in the floor of Chartres Cathedral,
where the meandering line of the labyrinth is
said to have been intended to be experienced as
a ritual of devotion and contemplation or as
a simulation of pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
Similarly, the wheel and pendant forms
reported in Arabia may have been used for the
ritual circumambulation of sacred spaces, iden-
tified in both Islamic and early Arabic contexts
(Kennedy 2011).
Distribution
Geoglyphs are known from every continent,
except Antarctica (Fig. 6).
Geoglyphs
Geoglyphs, Fig. 5 A
large geoglyph of a spider
inscribed on a horizontal
surface is difficult to
discern from a static
location on the ground; the
entire figure is visible from
the air (approximate length
45 m/150 ft)
North America
In North America, the earliest geoglyphs
described in the literature were the earthen
mounds found throughout the Mississippi River
and Ohio River basins and around the Great
Lakes. The effigy mounds are naturalistic render-
ings of identifiable fauna, often in clusters.
The complexity and precision of execution of
both effigy and geometric mounds belie large-
scale effort and abstract visual comprehension
of images that could only be viewed from above
or by walking around and over them. The makers
of these mounds are collectively referred to as
mound builders, and the mounds span broad
cultural and temporal spheres, dating as early as
approximately 3500 BCE (e.g., Watson Brake
in Louisiana) and continuing up to European
presence in the sixteenth century. The
mound builders were alternately ascribed to
Phoenicians, Egyptians, Romans, lost tribes of
Israel, etc., in line with pre-twentieth century
scholarly thinking that ignored both the long-
term presence of indigenous populations and
their successful, unique, varied, and complex
adaptations in the New World.
Subsequent explorations throughout the
Americas revealed additional examples of
geoglyphs in the arid western regions of North
and South America. These geoglyphs use the
landscape as a natural blackboard on which
3021 G
soil and stone were scraped or heaped up to
form low-profile naturalistic or abstract images,
as well as alignments of stones or boulders.
Cultural assignation of geoglyphs in the western
regions of North America is difficult to ascertain
due to a general lack of associated and dateable
sites, material culture, or ethnographic reference.
Some geoglyphs in the Great Basin and West
may date to the Paleo-Indian (at least 13,000
years ago) or Archaic (80002000 BCE, up to
the nineteenth century in some areas) periods.
Research on geoglyphs in the American
Southwest and the Northern Plains of the United
States and Canada has revealed viable hypotheses
regarding historic or protohistoric cultural
affiliation of use, age, and purposes of the
geoglyphs (Whitley 2000; Aveni 2008). The
forms of these geoglyphs are varied and reflect
a diverse cultural and chronological history.
Medicine wheels on the Northern Plains have
been correlated with astronomical or cosmologi-
cal significance (Aveni 2008), while geoglyphs in
the Southwest (California and Arizona, USA) and
adjacent regions of Sonora (Mexico) have been
ethnographically correlated with historic Pima
and Papago peoples relating to their dance
circles, community rituals, and social identifiers.
The geoglyphs in these regions, known also in the
literature as alignments, gravel effigies, and
pictographs, have proven difficult to date due
 G
3022

Geoglyphs, Fig. 6 Locations of geoglyphs discussed in the text

Geoglyphs
Geoglyphs
Geoglyphs,
Fig. 7 Subtractive
geoglyph of indeterminate
age, cultural affiliation, or
representation in the
Colorado River region
(Photo permission of
R. Dorn)
to the general lack of chronological markers
within or associated with the geoglyphs (Whitley
2000) (Fig. 7).
Researchers also extend the term geoglyph
to refer to other culturally significant patterns or
locations resulting from rituals associated with
puberty rites, healing, harvest feasts, and origin
myths, particularly in the American Southwest.
The information is derived from natives living in
and historically associated with the areas where
such geoglyphs occur (Johnson 1985). The cate-
gories that distinguish these so-called patterns
from geoglyphs are often indistinguishable to the
Western researcher. The patterns convey infor-
mation to the traditional people of the region, a
unique form of art. Comparisons have also been
drawn to the similarity of subject matter, motif,
and execution technique between geoglyphs and
petroglyphs (Davis & Winslow 1965) and sand
paintings, although there is no evidence that peo-
ple who created geoglyphs also created sand
paintings (Harner 1953; Cohen 1987). Petro-
glyphs are also known as rock art, and sand paint-
ings are elaborate images of mythological beings
created during healing ceremonies and subse-
quently destroyed as part of the cure. Among
the Navaho, the art of sand painting is deeply
3023 G
embedded with the intensive training for healers.
Thus, ethnographically documented purposes for
the artistic expressions of geoglyphs are usefully
applied as hypothetical analogies elsewhere.
South America
The coastal deserts of western South America
comprise excellent conditions for the creation of
geoglyphs minimal vegetation, minimally
dissected terrain, and soils and stone suitable for
creation. In Peru, the most famous geoglyphs are
those in the region of Nazca, but geoglyphs have
been found from the north coast to the southern
tip of this country. Apart from the Nazca region,
geoglyphs can also be found in the north coast
valleys of Santa, Jequetepeque, and Moche,
Rimac and Casma on the central coast, and in
the valleys of Majes, Sihuas, Moquegua, and
Tacna in the south coast (see Wilson 1988;
Abanto 2009). The geoglyphs in Peru have been
made by using both extractive and additive
techniques. In Nazca, most linear and biomorphic
geoglyphs are made through an extractive
technique, while the additive technique is limited
to certain biomorphs from the Andean highlands
(see the entry on Nasca and Pampa Jumana
Lines and Geoglyphs in this encyclopedia).
G 3024 Geoglyphs

Geoglyphs, Fig. 8 A
principal north to south
caravan trail cuts across the
Quebrada de los Pintados
(Chile), flanked by
geoglyphs on both sloped
and horizontal surfaces.
Geoglyphs on slopes are
visible from the ground (a)
and aerial views of both
sloped (b is an aerial view
of a) and horizontal
surfaces easier to
conceptualize. The
different styles and themes
of the geoglyphs may
indicate different cultural
and/or chronological
factors

In the north, central, and south parts of the coun-
try, geoglyphs have been created using both addi-
tive and extractive techniques, and their forms
vary from geometric to figurative.
In northern Chile, geoglyphs were first noted
by European travelers and geographers during
the eighteenth and nineteenth century. They are
found mainly in lowland valleys and are
scattered in the slopes and plains of the western
side of the Andes and the coast. They can be also
found in the Arica, Tarapaca, and Antofagasta
regions. Here, geoglyphs show significant differ-
ences in terms of technique: additive, subtrac-
tive, and mixed, displaying an array of regional
style, culture, and traditions (Briones 2006). The
majority of the motifs are zoomorphic, mainly
camelids, and there are also a variety of anthro-
pomorphs (often with camelids) and geometric
motifs. In general, geoglyphs in northern Chile
are located on slopes, but they can also be found
on horizontal surfaces, all of them normally
associated with caravan trails (Fig. 8). This has
led to geoglyphs being interpreted as markers of
the old caravan routes that connected the Andes
and the Pacific coast during pre-European times
(Nunez 1976). Although most geoglyphs cur-
rently are dated from the late pre-Hispanic
period (c. CE 9001535), it is thought geoglyphs
began to be used from the Late Formative period
(c. 500 BCE600 CE), as evidenced by funerary
manifestations directly associated with them
(Briones 2006).
Geoglyphs
Geoglyphs,
Fig. 9 Additive geoglyph
of colored stones in Piedras
de Afilar, Ischigualasto,
San Juan, Argentina (Photo
permission of Mercedes
Podesta and M. Pa Falchi)
Geoglyphs are also located in the highlands of
South America. In Chile, geoglyphs can be found
in the Zapahuira region in the Sierra de Arica
(Briones 2006). The highland Bolivian Sajama
region in the province of Oruro is home to several
hundred-plus linear geoglyphs spread across
a wide area of the Andean uplands. The Sajama
lines were documented over a century ago by
a variety of anthropologists and explorers
(Morrison 1978). Their age and purpose remain
enigmatic, although parallels have been drawn to
the appearance of Nazca line centers, ancient and
modern Andean traditions related to ritual travel,
and the Inca ceque system. Many of the Sajama
lines coincide with community boundaries, and
lines often extend between communities and
major peaks (Tierra Sajama n.d.).
In Argentina, geoglyphs with particular
technical and stylistic features have been discov-
ered in recent archaeological explorations. They
are located mainly in La Rioja province, although
isolated examples can be found in Salta, San Juan,
San Luis, and Mendoza. So far, all known
geoglyphs in Argentina were made with an addi-
tive technique by heaping rocks and dirt on hor-
izontal surfaces. Noteworthy are tall structures or
structures of tamped earth covered with black,
white, and red colored stones that were
3025 G
deliberately selected to form geometric shapes
like circles and stars; the structures range in size
from approximately 10 to 30 m (Callegari &
Ravina 2000). Some of the geoglyphs are associ-
ated with sites of the Aguada Culture
(550900 CE), although the chronology is still
uncertain (Fig. 9).
There have been recent isolated reports of
geoglyphs in areas where they were previously
unknown, such as in the high valleys of the west-
ern state of Carabobo, north-central Venezuela
(Urbani & Urbani 2001). The technique used in
this region to create geoglyphs is unique: these
occur as large circular and linear shapes (c. 35 
42 m) and are located on rocky slopes. They are
made by an engraving percussion technique
(Urbani & Urbani 2001). Given their large size
and location on the hillsides, these petroglyphs
have been termed geoglyphs.
Geoglyphs were first identified in the Amazon
region of Brazil and Bolivia in the late twentieth
century, and only recently have they been con-
ceptualized and recognized as geoglyphs. There
are two main areas of distribution: the Baure
region in the Bolivian Amazon and the Acre
region in the Brazilian Amazon (Parssinen et al.
2009; Erickson 2010). These are large structures
built by digging a deep trench and heaping the
G 3026
removed soil into desired forms. Their shapes are
largely geometric circles and ellipses; octagonal,
hexagonal, square, rectangular, U, groups of
circles, and concentric circles have also been
observed. The perfect geometric forms suggest
a symbolic significance (Parssinen et al. 2009:
10934). A variety of other functions, such as
defense, settlements, residences of the elite,
land and resource markers, animal traps, ceme-
teries, water management features, and/or cere-
monial public spaces, have also been proposed
(Erickson 2010).
Australia
Numerous examples of geoglyphs referred to as
stone arrangements have been documented in
Australia. Stone arrangement is a broad cate-
gory that includes features consistent with those
shared with geoglyphs. These earth features char-
acteristically appear in arid coastal regions of
central, western, and northern Australia. Usually
the geoglyphs take geometric, circular and linear
forms, as well as those of figurative effigies of
animals. They are made by laying stones on hor-
izontal surfaces on the ground or, in some cases,
in inter-tidal zones along the coast. The meanings
of some of these features have been discerned
through rich ethnographic and ethnohistorical
data, plus recent archaeological research. These
geoglyphs were integral to traditional Aboriginal
ceremonies, marking totemic centers or locations
associated with myth, in addition to places where
initiation ceremony and rites of passage occurred,
among others (Mathews 1896; McNiven 2003;
David et al. 2004).
Africa and Asia
In Algeria, Libya, and Egypt, geometric shapes,
such as irregular and meandering lines, created
by clearing dirt and rocks, are located on hori-
zontal desert surfaces (Gauthier 2007). In Israel,
geoglyphs have been described in the Negev
Desert, made by extractive and additive tech-
niques (Anati 1999). The distribution, forms,
meanings, functions, and timing of these
geoglyphs are unknown.
An extensive remote sensing study in Arabia
(including Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Saudi
Geoglyphs
Arabia, and Yemen) has revealed hundreds of
thousands of structures that are analogous to
geoglyphs. Referred to as works of the Old
Men by Bedouin from a number of regions in
Arabia, these forms can extend up to several
kilometers. The purposes ascribed to the variety
of forms include hunting traps, funerary sites,
ritual feasting, and possible astronomical or
directional alignments. Chronological assess-
ments via relative dating indicate these are up to
9,000 years old (Kennedy 2011).
Europe
The Uffington White Horse (Oxfordshire) is the
best reliably confirmed geoglyph in England. The
3,000-year-old Bronze Age figure was
constructed by digging a trench and filling it
with chunks of locally available white chalk.
Other chalk figures are known in England,
although their authenticity as ancient monuments
is discredited in many cases.
Chronology
Two methods have been used to date geoglyphs:
relative dating and absolute dating. Relative
dating relies on associating artifacts of known
age with the geoglyphs. It is usually difficult to
determine what the association is between the
stone features and artifacts found nearby.
Furthermore, geoglyphs were likely reused, and
therefore, the associated artifacts could relate to
the construction event or subsequent use of the
geoglyphs. For example, in northern Chile,
geoglyphs associated with caravan trails and
habitation sites between the oasis of Tamentica
and Quebrada de los Pintados were likely reused,
reinterpreted, and redrawn, over a considerable
time period. The reuse of geoglyphs is indicated
by superimposed drawings, although it is difficult
to determine the chronological interval: it could
be 1 h or a millennium. When superimposed
drawings have distinct stylistic/iconographic
features, reuse over time can be suggested.
Relative dates also can be established through
stylistic and iconographic comparisons with
dated iconography, such as that found on
ceramics, textiles, or gourds, thus providing
viable ages (Kennedy 2011). Lastly, patination
Geoglyphs
Geoglyphs, Fig. 10 Geoglyphs inscribed on the slopes of Cerro Caramucho (Chile) were irreparably damaged by
recreational vehicles sometime between 1998 and 2000. The area was signed as an archaeological site
may indicate relative ages within the same
ecological zone (Dorn 2009).
Absolute dates are provided by a variety of
different chronometric analyses, such as cation
ratio, 14C, AMS 14C, pedogenic-carbonate
inversion (PCI), varnish microlamination stratig-
raphy (VML), 36Cl, backscattered electron
microscopy (BSE), and energy dispersive X-ray
analysis (EDS), with the appropriate technique
applied in different environments and contexts
(Dalton 1999; Dorn 2009).
Future Directions
The fragile and ephemeral nature of geoglyphs
has led to an increase in recent years in national
and international efforts to conserve, preserve,
protect, and document geoglyphs. Geoglyphs
situated in undeveloped regions had been
shielded from all except natural factors (e.g.,
erosion and taphonomy). In more developed
regions, geoglyphs have disappeared in the
wake of agricultural expansion, residential and
urban construction, resource exploration and
exploitation, and through recreational activities,
particularly those involving motorized vehicles
(Fig. 10).
3027 G
Some circumstances make the protection and
conservation of geoglyphs an arduous task:
remote locations are difficult to police and
protect, and funding is limited. In the north of
Chile, a process of documentation, restoration,
and conservation of geoglyphs was carried out
during the 1970s and 1980s, supported by the
government and the University of Tarapaca.
One example of effective management is the
case of Cerros Pintados (northern Chile), where
vehicle access is controlled, and there are
designated footpaths, guards, and an entrance
fee. Similarly, in Nazca (Peru), guards are sta-
tioned at key locations, and aerial flights over the
geoglyphs are encouraged and popular. Never-
theless, illegal incidents of modern creation of
geoglyphs within archaeologically protected
zones in Peru and Chile have been documented,
usually after irreparable damage has been done.
Some of these modern creations have made their
way into the literature as examples of the ancient
corpus, in spite of documentation to the contrary.
The well-known trident geoglyph prominently
inscribed on the slope facing the Paracas Bay
in Peru has been documented as a creation of
late Colonial times but continues to be featured
in the corpus of ancient geoglyphs in the
Nazca tradition. Unfortunately, dangerous remote
G 3028
locations cannot feasibly be studied or protected
(e.g., northern Mexico is currently a domain of
drug cartels, coyotes, etc.; see Hayden 1998), and
sites situated on either side of the US-Mexico
border are difficult to coordinate under a single
research program.
The advent of new technologies, beginning
with aerial photography early in the twentieth
century, has led to discovery in regions that are
otherwise poor in natural resources or difficult to
access: the enormous repertoire of geoglyphs in
Arabia is an excellent case in point (Kennedy
2011). Subsequent refinements to remote sens-
ing, such as satellite imagery, infrared and SLR
(side looking radar) for vegetated areas, and
easy access to Google Earth, have increased the
inventory of geoglyphs. The ready access to
information for scientific research on the
geoglyphs is accompanied by increased likeli-
hood of damage as a result of recreation and
economic exploration that needs to be addressed
by local governments before it is too late.
Cross-References
Agriculture: Definition and Overview
Archaeobotany of Early Agriculture:
Macrobotany
Archaeobotany of Early Agriculture:
Microbotanical Analysis
Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks
Beans: Origins and Development
Capsicums/Chiles: Origins and Development
Chiles World Archaeological Heritage and Its
Management
Conservation and Preservation in Archaeology
in the Twenty-First Century
Cultural Landscapes: Conservation and
Preservation
Dating Methods (Absolute and Relative) in
Archaeology of Art
Landscape Archaeology
Nasca and Pampa Jumana Lines and
Geoglyphs
Paleoethnobotany
Phytolith Studies in Archaeology
Geoglyphs
Potato: Origins and Development
Quinoa: Origins and Development
Rock Art, Forms of
South American Rock Art
Squash: Origins and Development
Sweet Potato: Origins and Development
Waynuna: Agriculture and Domestication
References
ABANTO, J. 2009. Evidencias arqueologicas del Perodo
Formativo en la quebrada de Canto Grande, valle
bajo del Rmac. Boletn de Arqueologa PUCP
[Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru] 13:
159185.
ANATI, E. 1999. The rock art of the Negev Desert. Near
Eastern Archaeology 62(1): 2234.
AVENI, A.F. (ed.) 2008. Foundations of New World cul-
tural astronomy. Boulder: University Press of
Colorado.
BRIONES, L. 2006. The geoglyphs of the north Chilean
desert: an archaeological and artistic perspective.
Antiquity 80: 924.
CALLEGARI, A. & G. RAVINA. 2000. Construcciones de
piedras de colores. El empleo recurrente del negro,
rojo y blanco, in M. Podesta & M. De Hoyos (ed.)
Arte en las rocas. Arte rupestre, menhires y piedras de
colores en Argentina: 11320. Buenos Aires: Sociedad
Argentina de Antropologa, Asociacion Amigos del
Instituto Nacional de Antropologa y Pensamiento
Latinamericano.
CLARKSON, P.B. 1998. Archaeological imaginings:
contextualization of images, in D.S. Whitley (ed.)
Reader in archaeological theory: post-processual
and cognitive approaches: 11930. New York:
Routledge.
COHEN, B. 1987. Indian sandpaintings of southern Califor-
nia. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropol-
ogy 9(1): 4-34.
DALTON, R. 1999. Faked rock-dating charge dismissed.
Nature 401(6754): 629.
DAVID, B., I. J. MCNIVEN, J. CROUCH & L. BRADY. 2004.
The Argan stone arrangement complex, Badu: initial
results from Torres Strait. Australian Archaeology 58:
16.
DAVIS, E.L. & S. WINSLOW. 1965. Giant ground figures of
the prehistoric deserts. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 109(1): 821.
DEMEL, S.J. & R.L. HALL. 1998. The Mississippian town
plan and cultural landscape of Cahokia, Illinois, in
R.B. Lewis & C.B. Stout (ed.) Mississippian towns
and sacred spaces: searching for an architectural
grammar: 20024. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama
Press.
Geometric Morphometrics and Environmental Archaeology
DORN, R. 2009. The rock varnish revolution: New insights
from microlaminations and the contributions of
Tanzhou Liu. Geography Compass 3: 180423.
ERICKSON, C.L. 2010. The transformation of environment
into landscape: the historical ecology of monumental
earthwork construction in the Bolivian Amazon.
Diversity 2: 61852.
GAUTHIER, Y. 2007. Sous Zone 4: Libye - Egypte - Nord du
Soudan, in Rock art of Sahara and North Africa. The-
matic study: 10131. Paris: World Heritage
Convention, ICOMOS.
HARNER, M.J. 1953. Gravel pictographs of the lower Col-
orado. University of California Archaeological Survey
Report 20: 1-32.
HAYDEN, J.D. 1998. The Sierra Pinacate. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
JOHNSON, B. 1985. Earth figures of the lower Colorado and
Gila River Deserts: a functional analysis. Yuma:
Arizona Archaeological Society.
KENNEDY, D. 2011. The works of the old men in Arabia:
remote sensing in interior Arabia. Journal of
Archaeological Science 38: 3185203.
LEWIS-WILLIAMS, D. 2010. Conceiving god: the cognitive
origin and evolution of religion. London: Thames and
Hudson.
MATHEWS, R.H. 1896. Australian ground and tree draw-
ings. American Anthropologist 9(2): 33-49.
MCNIVEN, I. J. 2003. Saltwater people: spiritscapes, mar-
itime rituals and the archaeology of Australian indig-
enous seascapes. World Archaeology 35(3): 32949.
MORRISON, T. 1978. Pathways to the gods. The mystery of
the Andean lines. Chicago: Academy Chicago
Publishers.
MOSTNY, G. 1964. Pictografa rupestre. Noticiario
Mensual del Museo Nacional de Historia Natural
8(94).
NUNEZ, L. 1976. Geoglifos y trafico de caravanas en el
desierto chileno, in L. Nunez (ed.), Homenaje al
Dr. R.P. Gustavo Le Paige (Anales de la Universidad
del Norte (Chile) 10): 147201. Antofagasta:
Universidad del Norte.
PARSSINEN, M., D. SCHAAN & A. RANZI. 2009.
Pre-Columbian geometric earthworks in the upper
Purus: a complex society in western Amazonia. Antiq-
uity 83(322): 108495.
REINHARD, J. 1996. The Nazca Lines. A new perspective on
their origin and meaning. Lima: Editorial Los Pinos.
TIERRA SAJAMA. n.d. Available at: http://cml.upenn.
edu/tierrasajama/sajama_english/context/sajama.htm
(accessed 12 December 2011).
URBANI, B. & F. URBANI. 2001. The geoglyph of La Rueda
del Indio, Chirgua, Venezuela. Rock Art Research
18(1): 339.
WHITLEY, D. 2000. The art of the shaman: rock art of
California. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
WILSON, D. J. 1988. Desert ground drawings in the lower
Santa Valley, north coast of Peru. American Antiquity
53(4): 794804.
3029 G
Geometric Morphometrics and
Environmental Archaeology
T. Krish Seetah
Department of Anthropology, Stanford
University, Stanford, CA, USA
Introduction
History and Development of Geometric
Morphometrics
G
The study of biological shape (morphometrics)
involves the analysis of anatomical variation of
an organism or its constituent parts. Geometric
morphometrics (GMM) has taken advantage of
contemporary developments in computing tech-
nology and statistical objectivity to establish
a means of shape analysis that is mathematically
derived, allowing comparisons of shape to be
performed quantitatively. The main advantage
that GMM has over traditional morphometrics
(TMM) is that the latter inherently deals with
size, not shape. While descriptions of size varia-
tion are useful, shape can inform on a greater
range of biological processes, such as ontogeny,
and adaptation to specific ecological niches
(Zelditch et al. 2004).
Morphometric analysis is rooted in biological
research with key advances made during the last
decade. However, if one considers that both tax-
onomic classification and our understanding of
biological diversity are based on morphological
variation, it is evident that the analysis of shape
has been an underlying tenet of biological
research for centuries (Adams et al. 2004).
DArcy Thompson is credited for his pioneering
work on geometry and biology, which paved the
way to modern morphometrics, demonstrating
how simple changes in the body part proportions
of an organism could transform it into another
(Fig. 1, adapted from Thompson 1917). With the
advent of computers, the early theory of shape
analysis found practical applications that
had previously been impossible to perform.
G 3030
Geometric Morphometrics and Environmental Archaeology, Fig. 1 Adapted from Darcy Thompsons (1917)
original depiction, illustrating the transformation of Argyropelecus olfersi into Sternoptyx diaphana through a 20 shear
The field effectively underwent a revolution in
the early 1990s (Rohlf & Marcus 1993) with the
development of robust statistical models for test-
ing variations in shape and size between organ-
isms, and of sophisticated computerized tools for
the visualization of these differences.
Performing GMM Analysis:
Landmark Configuration, Digitization,
Superimposition, and Visualization
As a broad simplification, morphometric tech-
niques can be two- or three-dimensional and use
either landmarks on, or the outline/surface of, the
organism (or its morphological part/s) being
studied.
The landmark technique relies on the anatomy
of the organism to provide distinct, nameable,
loci that have clear one-to-one correspondence
from one specimen to the next (e.g., the apex of
a leaf, the meeting point of frontal and parietal
bones in the skull, the intersections of homolo-
gous veins in a fly wing). The type of correspon-
dence of landmarks, or homology, varies
depending on the specific context within
a morphometric analysis. Biological homology
can be loosely derived: for example, the hind
limb of a lion can correspond to the hind limb
of a gazelle in terms of its development and
evolutionary origin. The wing of a bat and that
of a bird, in contrast, originated independently
and differ in development but could still be ana-
lyzed in terms of correspondence in a study on
flight biomechanics. The choice of the landmarks
and the type of correspondence are, therefore,
functional to the specific hypothesis being tested.
Geometric Morphometrics and Environmental Archaeology
Numerically, Cartesian coordinates along two or
three axes univocally define each landmark.
Although morphometric techniques have
tended to favor the landmark approach with the
majority of applications in 2D, this is not always
applicable, as on occasion, landmarks are not
available, practical, or replicable. The outline
method was the first attempt to address this
issue by using the delineation around the curva-
ture of an organism or its parts (Bookstein 1997:
44-45) discretized by a series of ordered points
along its contour. Recent advances in morpho-
metric research have led to the development of
3D quantitative imaging techniques that extend
the outline approach to surfaces. In general, 3D
methods tend to be more accurate as most bio-
logical structures are not flat objects, i.e., a fly
wing, but are highly complex organs, i.e., the
skull.
Once landmark coordinates have been cap-
tured, termed digitization and employing data
from a basic digital camera to sophisticated
MicroScribe digitizers or CT scans, the first step
in the process of analysis is to remove the infor-
mation that does not alter shape, that is, transla-
tion, rotation, and scale (Fig. 2).
One method that has been particularly favored
for this function is the Procrustes superimposi-
tion. This method scales the centroid (a mathe-
matically derived midpoint, hence centroid,
between all landmarks, Fig. 3) size of each spec-
imen, makes the centroid the new common origin
of the Cartesian space, and minimizes differences
in rotation to produce shape data that can then be
statistically analyzed (Fig. 4). Importantly, while
Geometric Morphometrics and Environmental Archaeology 3031 G
Geometric
Morphometrics and
Environmental
Archaeology,
Fig. 2 Shape independent
variables: translation,
rotation and scale (example
using bear cranium)

6
a 7 b
8

9
5

3
2 1

Geometric Morphometrics and Environmental derived from the configuration used to capture data from
Archaeology, Fig. 3 Centroid and the set of distances horse upper permanent dentition (P2)
to the landmarks, used to computed size in GMM, as
G 3032 Geometric Morphometrics and Environmental Archaeology
Geometric a
Morphometrics and
10 mm
Environmental
Archaeology,
Fig. 4 Generalized
raw data
Procrustes analysis (GPA)
showing how raw data are
scaled to account for size
variation, repositioned to
remove translation
b
differences and realigned to
minimize rotation (Image
courtesy of A. Cardini) size
standardized
c translation
differences
removed
the size data are removed, they are not lost and
can be used for comparisons between groups.
Visualization follows and, in one of its most
common forms, reverts to the basic tenet
described by Thompson (1917), albeit with
a greater degree of sophistication. Visualization
of shape changes relies on a principle derived
from engineering whereby a thin sheet of metal,
on which a grid may be superimposed, is
deformed in order to illustrate the variations that
occur between the landmarks, when one shape is
warped until it overlaps with the points of
a different shape. This method of visualization,
termed the thin plate spline (TPS), has been
adopted by James Rohlf for his widely used and
arguably one of the most important software
packages for GMM, the TPS Suite (http://life.
bio.sunysb.edu/morph/). Whether using the TPS
software or other programs, the principle remains
the same: to intuitively illustrate shape variation
between specimens using a deformation grid
(Fig. 5). Other more sophisticated diagrams and
techniques include contour, surface, and volume
rendering. In tandem with visualization methods
is the obvious need to interpret and understand
shape space, distances, and directions of any
observed variation (Klingenberg & Monteiro
2005). Principal components analysis (PCA) has
d rotational
differences
minimized
proved to be a highly popular exploratory tech-
nique for this (Zelditch et al. 2004: 156), and
more recently, the R language has increasingly
been employed for the statistical analysis of
GMM datasets (Claude 2008).
Applications of GMM
In terms of relevant applications, GMM has been
widely employed within comparative zoology
and biological/physical anthropology. Further-
more, it is by no means restricted to studies of
vertebrate fauna and has been applied to arach-
nids (Crews & Hedin 2006), echinoderms (David
& Laurin 1996), crustaceans (Aguirre et al.
2006), and hemiptera (Dujardin et al. 2007).
Indeed, application of the technique is not limited
to fauna and has been applied to plants (Viscosi &
Cardini 2011). Given the ubiquity of plant,
pollen, and insect remains on archaeological
sites and their significance for studying
paleoenvironments, for the paleobotanists, paly-
nologists, and palaeoentomologists, these latter
examples will no doubt serve as increasingly
important for future research.
While the above exemplifies the diversity of
application of GMM, and despite the variety of
species and range of research themes that this
method has been employed to study, to date,
Geometric Morphometrics and Environmental Archaeology
Geometric Morphometrics and Environmental
Archaeology, Fig. 5 Deformation grid used to appraise
variation between two groups of cave bears from Croatia.
it has not been as widely applied in archaeology
as one might expect. This is especially surprising
where zooarchaeology is concerned, particularly
when one takes into account the long history of
use in zoology. This should not be taken to sug-
gest that GMM has not been employed to study
the archaeological or fossil record. In the same
way that the technique itself underwent dramatic
developments over the last two decades, it is now
undergoing a revolution with regard to applica-
tion, which will ultimately have implications for
its use in archaeology.
When the technique has been employed, it has
proved to be highly effective. Cucchi et al. (2011)
showed how trends in pig domestication could be
interpreted using morphological variation and
phenotypic divergence; research has also shown
the potential of this method for identifying
discrete populations of a species within
a spatial-temporal framework (Seetah et al.
2012). Questions of wider significance have also
been investigated: Larson et al. (2007) addressed
issues of human dispersal in Island SouthEast
Asia, using domestic animals as a proxy and
employing GMM in combination with molecular
techniques. The large-scale migration, and
3033 G
Selected tooth and landmark configuration (left) and grids
for Romualdova and Vindja (right)
ultimately the importance of horse as a source
of subsistence for humans in Western Europe,
was studied from Magdalenian sites within the
Paris Basin (Bignon et al. 2005) using GMM.
Definition
Geometric morphometrics is, in its most common
implementation in evolutionary biology and
related disciplines, the analysis of size and
shape derived numerically from landmarks (topo-
graphically corresponding points) on biological/
nonbiological organisms.
Key Issues/Future Directions/Examples
Arguably one of the main issues with regard to
using GMM is that, despite the considerable
potential for application to a variety of fields
including archaeological research, developments
made in the mathematical theory of shape were
slow to be adopted into mainstream research due
to jargon and statistical complexity. These issues
have now been addressed with notable
G 3034
developments in both textbooks (Zelditch et al.
2004; Claude 2008) and software to facilitate
statistical analysis (MorphoJ/Morphologika/
Morpheus, IMP series, PAST, etc. refer to
http://life.bio.sunysb.edu/morph/soft-compre-
hensive.html).
Despite improvements, statistically analyzing
the complex datasets that GMM produces
requires some caution and may not be without
pitfalls. The advent of advanced software with
easy-to-use interfaces, while circumventing
much of the complexity, has the negative out-
come of detaching the analyst from a clearer
understanding of the mechanics behind the anal-
ysis, an issue most detrimental for the novice.
Additionally, the more complex statistical
aspects of GMM data analysis and interpretation
can occasionally lead to a misrepresentation of
what is possible (at present) with the outcomes of
GMM analysis (see Adams et al. 2011 for
a discussion of the limitations of principle com-
ponents (PC) for cladistics analysis).
Once these, often subtle, potential issues are
clarified, and with step-by-step analytical exam-
ples available in the literature (Viscosi & Cardini
2011), there should be few barriers to the wide-
spread application of GMM in environmental
archaeology. Although there is little doubt that
GMM can be applied to a very wide range of
biological systems, in archaeology it is the study
of bone, and in particular animal bone, that will
invariably benefit the most from this method.
GMM has two main applications in this regard:
investigating phenotypic changes in populations
and understanding ecomorphology (divergence in
form as an adaptation to the environment). In the
former case, as a first step, the landmark data may
simply be compared between groups in order to
identify significant morphological variation. This
can then be used as a means of classifying
unknown individuals using cross-validated models
derived from well-known samples. In the latter,
a more complex understanding of the animals
anatomy is achieved through cross-group compar-
isons (i.e., different species of bear) in relation to
their ecology, often using modern populations to
model variation in the past. Ancient specimens are
then projected into the shape space and similarities
Geometric Morphometrics and Environmental Archaeology
with modern counterparts used to infer past behav-
ior (see Figueirido et al. 2009, using extant and
extinct bears).
One of the main strengths of GMM is its inher-
ent compatibility with complementary techniques
to explore a greater range of questions that are
pertinent to archaeological research. Though this
is very much underexploited, there is much poten-
tial in combining GMM with both molecular
methods, such as DNA, and morphological tech-
niques, such as finite element modeling (FEM).
DNA can provide evidence detailing evolutionary
history, the role of drift and selective pressures, as
well as other processes that may leave a genetic
signature. FEM uses stress modeling to interpret
load bearing and force capabilities of different
parts of an organisms body, which can be used,
for example to infer bite force and thus indirectly
inform on diet, ecology, and behavior. GMM data
not only provide quantitative phenotypic informa-
tion that can be mapped onto the genetic landscape
obtained from molecular analyses to explore the
tempo and mode of evolutionary change but also
allow the multivariate comparison of deformations
from FEM-computerized experiments and the
analysis of their covariation with predictors (envi-
ronment, genetics, etc.) in an accurate statistical
biomechanical framework. Taking this approach
a step further, by combining the evidence from
phenotypic and genetic studies with those that
detail environmental conditions in deep time, it
should be possible to position fauna into a more
appropriate archaic ecological niche.
Ultimately, GMM allows archaeologists to use
modern biological approaches to investigate deep-
time phenomena. The consensus remains that
environmental samples from archaeological con-
texts, and bone in particular, are often too
fragmented or scarce to carry out the type of
rigorous experimentation that details past ecolog-
ical systems. However, while the physical num-
bers may not compare with those available to
contemporary biologists, for the environmental
(and indeed biological) archaeologist, by using
species that occur in considerable abundance, such
as the cave bear (Europe) or dire wolf (North
America), it is possible to carry out the type of
studies that are being performed on modern faunal
Geometric Morphometrics and Environmental Archaeology
populations (Cardini et al. 2007). Fragmentary
material could still be fruitfully analyzed (Hublin
et al. 2009) and incomplete fossils reconstructed
(Gunz et al. 2009). The method could be instru-
mental in understanding the process of domestica-
tion and its outcomes (such as paedomorphism), as
well as the mechanism promoting island dwarf-
ism/gigantism and the role of allometry (the
covariation of shape and size) in creating pheno-
typic variation, and other recurrent phenomena
observed in species that underwent domestication.
GMM may well underpin a trend toward the
type of interpretive studies that bridge a gap
between contemporary biological and ecological
studies and those concerned with adaptive changes
through time as a consequence of environmental
fluctuations and agency. Given its scientific rigor,
the fact that it can be relatively inexpensive to
perform and the range of questions it can poten-
tially provide evidence to address, it would be
a great surprise if this method does not enjoy the
type of widespread application currently
witnessed for DNA and isotope analysis.
Cross-References
Archaeobotany
Bioarchaeology, Human Osteology, and
Forensic Anthropology: Definitions and
Developments
Biometry in Zooarchaeology
Historical Ecology and Environmental
Archaeology
Zooarchaeology: Methods of Collecting Age
and Sex Data
References
ADAMS, D.C., F.J. ROHLF & D.E. SLICE. 2004. Geometric
morphometrics: ten years of progress following the
revolution. Italian Journal of Zoology 71: 5-16.
ADAMS, D.C., A. CARDINI, L.R MONTEIRO, P.OHIGGINS &
F.J. ROHLF. 2011. Morphometrics and phylogenetics:
principal components of shape from cranial modules
are neither appropriate nor effective cladistic charac-
ters. Journal of Human Evolution 60: 24043.
AGUIRRE, M.L., S.I. PEREZ & Y. N. SIRCH. 2006. Morpho-
logical variability of Brachidontes Swainson
3035 G
(Bivalvia, Mytilidae) in the marine Quaternary of
Argentina (SW Atlantic). Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 239: 10025.
BIGNON, O., M. BAYLAC, J.-D. VIGNE & V. EISENMANN.
2005. Geometric morphometrics and the population
diversity of late glacial horses in western Europe
(Equus caballus arcelini): phylogeographic and
anthropological implications. Journal of Archaeologi-
cal Science 32: 375-91.
BOOKSTEIN, F. L. 1997. Morphometric tools for landmark
data. Geometry and biology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
CARDINI, A., A. JANSSON & S. ELTON. 2007. A geometric
morphometric approach to the study of
ecogeographical and clinal variation in vervet mon-
keys. Journal of Biogeography 34: 1663-78.
CLAUDE, J. 2008. Morphometrics with R. New York: G
Springer.
CREWS, S.C. & M. HEDIN. 2006. Studies of morphological and
molecular phylogenetic divergence in spiders (Araneae:
Homalonychus) from the American southwest, including
divergence along the Baja California Peninsula. Molecu-
lar Phylogenetics & Evolution 38: 470-87.
CUCCHI, T., A. HULME-BEAMAN & K. DOBNEY. 2011. Early
Neolithic pig domestication at Jiahu, Henan Province,
China: clues from molar shape analyses using geomet-
ric morphometric approaches. Journal of Archaeolog-
ical Science 38: 11-22.
DAVID, B. & B. LAURIN. 1996. Morphometrics and cladis-
tics: measuring phylogeny in the sea urchin
Echinocardium. Evolution 50: 348-59.
DUJARDIN, J.-P., C.B. BEARD & R. RYCKMAN. 2007. The
relevance of wing geometry in entomological surveil-
lance of Triatominae, vectors of Chagas disease.
Infection, Genetics and Evolution 7: 16167.
FIGUEIRIDO, B. P., J.A. PALMQVIST & J. A. PEREZ-CLAROS.
2009. Ecomorphological correlates of craniodental
variation in bears and paleobiological implications
for extinct taxa: an approach based on geometric mor-
phometrics. Journal of Zoology 277: 70-80.
GUNZ, P., P. MITTEROECKER, S. NEUBAUER, G.W. WEBER &
F. L. BOOKSTEIN. 2009. Principles for the virtual recon-
struction of hominin crania. Journal of Human
Evolution 57: 4862.
HUBLIN, J.-J., D. WESTON, P. GUNZ, M. RICHARDS,
W. ROEBROEKS, J. GLIMMERVEEN & L. ANTHONIS. 2009.
Out of the North Sea: the Zeeland Ridges Neandertal.
Journal of Human Evolution 57: 777-85.
KLINGENBERG, C.P. & L.R. MONTEIRO. 2005. Distances and
directions in multidimensional shape spaces: implica-
tions for morphometric applications. Systematic
Biology 54: 678-688.
LARSON, G., T. CUCCHI, M. FUJITA, E. MATISOO-SMITH,
J. ROBINS, A. ANDERSON, B. ROLET, M. SPRIGGS,
G. DOLMAN, T.H. KIM, E. RANDI, D. DOHERTY, R. AWE
DUE, R. BOLT, T. DJIUBIANTONO, B. GRIFFIN, M. INTOH,
E. KEANE, P. KIRCH, K.-T., LI, M. MORWOOD, L.M.
PEDRINA, P.J. PIPER, R.J. RABETT, P. SHOOTER,
G. VAN DEN BERGH, E. WEST, S. WICKLER, J. YUAN,
G 3036
A. COOPER & K. DOBNEY. 2007. Phylogeny and ancient
DNA of Sus provides new insights into Neolithic
expansion in Island Southeast Asia and Oceania. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:
48349.
ROHLF, F. J. & L. F. MARCUS. 1993. A revolution in mor-
phometrics. TREE 8: 129-32.
SEETAH, T.K., A. CARDINI, & P. MIRACLE. 2012. Can
morphospace shed light on cave bear spatial-temporal
variation? Population dynamics of Ursus spelaeus
from Romualdova pecina and Vindija, (Croatia). Jour-
nal of Archeaological Science 39: 500-10.
THOMPSON, D. 1917. On growth and form. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
VISCOSI, V. & A. CARDINI. 2011. Leaf morphology, taxon-
omy and geometric morphometrics: a simplified pro-
tocol for beginners. PLoS ONE 6: e25630.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025630.
ZELDITCH, M., D. SWIDERSKI, H. D. SHEETS & W. L. FINK.
2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists:
a primer. San Diego: Academic Press.
Further Reading
BOOKSTEIN, F. L. 1997. Morphometric tools for landmark
data. Geometry and biology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
CLAUDE, J. 2008. Morphometrics with R. New York:
Springer.
THOMPSON, D. 1994. On growth and form. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
ZELDITCH, M. D., SWIDERSKI, H. D. SHEETS & W. L. FINK.
2004. Geometric morphometrics for biologists:
a primer. San Diego: Academic Press.
Gero, Joan
Pamela Geller
Department of Anthropology, University of
Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
Basic Biographical Information
Joan Gero is one of the leaders in the sociopolitics
of archaeology, feminist archaeology, and
Andean archaeology. She was born on 26 May
1944 in New York City and grew up in the citys
suburbs. The countercultural movement served as
historic backdrop for her undergraduate years at
the University of Pennsylvania. Social activism
and the seeds of feminist thinking were planted at
this time. Gero graduated in 1968 with a B.A. in
Gero, Joan
English Literature. In 1970, she received a M.Ed.
from Boston College and then worked for
Teacher Corps, a domestic program that educated
the socioeconomically disadvantaged. Enamored
with the Corpss commitment to equality, the
experience offered an important anthropological
lesson about cultural differences in the classroom
and community. After two years of teaching,
Gero revisited the role of student. During
a summer exchange program at Oxford, she
enrolled in an archaeology course that involved
excavation of an Iron Age site in Wiltshire.
Gero returned to the USA in 1973. She attended
classes in archaeology at Harvard and excavated at
Chan Chan, Peru, under Michael Moseleys aegis.
This fieldwork served as a springboard for her
ongoing investigations of Andean prehistory. In
1974, Gero commenced graduate studies at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Several
personal experiences during this time shaped her
theoretical approach to archaeology. Sexism, as
Gero soon discovered, was the status quo.
Doctoral research in 1977 was initially hindered
by a supervisor who questioned the appropriate-
ness of a woman living in the project house, and
many colleagues found research about ancient
women implausible. Despite these obstacles,
Gero completed her dissertation, which examined
material cultures active social roles. In 1983,
she was granted a Ph.D. in Anthropology.
Gero accepted a position in the University of
South Carolinas Department of Anthropology
where she taught from 1983 to 1997. She was hired
as Assistant Professor at American University in
1998 and retired as Professor Emerita in December
2007 but remains active in archaeology. Gero has
also held several visiting appointments at
Englands University of Cambridge, Swedens Uni-
versity of Umea and Uppsala, and Argentinas
Universidad Nacional de Catamarca and
Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de
Buenos Aires.
Gero has been a Research Associate at
the Smithsonian Institutions Department of
Anthropology since 1996. She has also received
grants from the National Endowment for the
Humanities, National Science Foundation,
Fulbright, Wenner-Gren Foundation, and Heinz
Gero, Joan
Foundation. In 2007, Gero was awarded
the Squeaky Wheel by the American Anthropo-
logical Associations Committee on the Status of
Women in Anthropology.
Major Accomplishments
Gero has long participated in the radical transfor-
mation of archaeology. To this end, her investi-
gations of the past have incorporated feminist
perspectives and addressed contemporary poli-
tics at global and local scales. Her earliest writ-
ings reveal the crystallization of perduring
research interests. Notably, the publication of
The Socio-Politics of Archaeology (Gero et al.
1983) called for sociological analysis of the
field and its epistemological production. For
her, critical consideration of North American
archaeology ran parallel to, not in the wake of,
paradigmatic shifts in British postprocessual
archaeology. Geros (1983) own chapter identi-
fied the gendered segregated nature of research;
men predominated in the field, while women
labored largely at museum studies and
lab analysis. She continued to hone these argu-
ments about inequities and expectations in
the influential article Socio-Politics and the
Woman-at-Home Ideology (Gero 1985). These
writings were inspired by Geros early experi-
ences conducting fieldwork in Peru. In making
the personal (and political) the professional, her
feminist approach has exposed and challenged
the disciplines pervasive androcentrism, as
well as questioned normative ways of thinking
about the past.
One of Geros major contributions is the
fomentation of feminist archaeology. In this
regard, she is best known for Engendering
Archaeology (1991), which she co-edited with
Margaret Conkey. The now-canonical volume,
which began as a 1988 conference titled
Women and Production in Prehistory,
destabilized assumptions about mens societal
contributions, legitimated gender as an issue
for investigation, and effected more holistic
understanding of ancient societies. In her chapter,
Gero (1991) identified the implicit sexism in
3037 G
Paleoindian archaeologists studies of tool
production. Building on her knowledge of lithics,
Gero deconstructed Man the Toolmaker and
the undue emphasis this notion places on
supposedly male-only activities (i.e., hunting,
butchering). She then argued for women as man-
ufacturers of stone tools. Affirmation of womens
roles and abilities, she concluded, laid important
groundwork for more nuanced reconstructions of
gender systems and social transformations. With
genders analytical validation, Geros feminist
concerns have expanded. She has examined the
complex gendered arrangements of ancient
households in Argentina, arguing that social G
relations often defy easy dichotomization as hier-
archical or complementary (Gero & Scattolin
2002). Engagement with feminist perspectives
has also provided a basis for the querying of
taken-for-granted evidence. In her study of
Recuay pots from Peru, for instance, Gero
(2004) deliberates about the sociopolitical signif-
icance of their graphic sexual couplings.
Geros engendering of and subsequent contri-
butions to feminist archaeology underscore her
concern not just for the theoretical and topical but
also for disciplinary politics and remediation of
asymmetrical power relations. Her archaeologi-
cal praxis promotes social justice. Dedicated
involvement in the World Archaeological
Congress (WAC) represents one means to an equi-
table end. The organization subverts traditional
archaeology born of colonialism, and it gives
practitioners who have been historically
marginalized due to nationality, ethnicity, and
economic disadvantage an opportunity to shape
practice and theory. Gero has worn many hats in
WAC. She was elected the North American rep-
resentative from 1999 until 2008 and has served on
the Standing Committee on Ethics since 2007. In
June 2003, Gero acted as Academic Secretary for
WAC-5 in Washington, DC, a congress of partic-
ular importance given its attendance and interna-
tional visibility. From 2003 to 2010, Gero was
Head Series Editor for the One World Archaeol-
ogy book series. Geros own contribution to the
series, coauthored with Dolores Root, argued that
National Geographics portrayal of archaeology
endorsed a nationalist ideology of American
G 3038
expansionism and capitalism (1990). In sum, Gero
has worked throughout the duration of her career
to realize an archaeology that is fully self-aware,
less exploitative, and more collaborative.
Cross-References
Andes: Prehistoric Period
Conkey, Margaret Wright
Gender, Feminist, and Queer Archaeologies:
USA Perspective
Post-Processual Archaeology
References
GERO, J. M. 1983. Gender bias in archaeology: a cross-
cultural perspective, in J. M. Gero, D. M. Lacy & M. L.
Blakey (ed.) The socio-politics of archaeology: 51-57.
Amherst: Department of Anthropology, University of
Massachusetts.
- 1985. Socio-politics and the woman-at-home ideology.
American Antiquity 50(2): 342-50.
- 1991. Genderlithics: womens roles in stone tool pro-
duction, in J. M. Gero & M. W. Conkey (ed.) Engen-
dering archaeology: women and prehistory: 163-93.
Oxford: Blackwell.
- 2004. Sex pots of ancient Peru, in T. Oestigaard, N.
Anfinset & T. Saetersdal (ed.) Combining the past
and the present: archaeological perspectives on
society (BAR International series 1210): 3-22. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
GERO, J. M. & M. W. CONKEY. (ed.) 1991. Engendering
archaeology: women and prehistory. Oxford: Blackwell.
GERO, J. M., D. M. LACEY & M. L. BLAKEY. (ed.) 1983. The
socio-politics of archaeology (Research Reports 23).
Amherst: Department of Anthropology, University of
Massachusetts.
GERO, J. M. & D. ROOT. 1990. Public presentations and
private concerns: archaeology in the pages of National
Geographic, in P. Gathercole & D. Lowenthal (ed.)
The politics of the past: 19-37. New York: Routledge.
GERO, J. M. & M. C. SCATTOLIN. 2002. Beyond
complementarity and hierarchy: new definitions for
archaeological gender relations, in S. Nelson &
M. Rosen-Ayalon (ed.) In pursuit of gender:
worldwide archaeological perspectives: 155-71. Wal-
nut Creek (CA): Altamira Press.
Further Reading
CONKEY, M. W. & J. M. GERO. 1997. Programme to prac-
tice: gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual
Review of Anthropology 26: 411-37.
Gerstenblith, Patty
GERO, J. M. 1993. The social world of prehistoric facts:
gender and power in Paleoindian research, in H. du
Cros & L. Smith (ed.) Women in archaeology. A fem-
inist critique (Occasional Papers in Prehistory series
23): 31-40. Canberra: Department of Prehistory,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian
National University.
- 1996. Archaeological practice and gendered encounters
with field data, in R. Wright (ed.) Gender and archae-
ology: 251-80. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylva-
nia Press.
- 2007. Honoring ambiguity/problematizing certitude. Jour-
nal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 311-27.
Gerstenblith, Patty
Patty Gerstenblith
DePaul University College of Law, Chicago,
IL, USA
Basic Biographical Information
Dr. Gerstenblith earned her A.B. from Bryn
Mawr College, her J.D. from Northwestern
University, and her Ph.D. from Harvard. As well
as law, she studied anthropology and art history.
She is a Distinguished Research Professor at
DePaul University, where she also acts as Direc-
tor of the Center for Art, Museum, and Cultural
Heritage Law.
Major Accomplishments
Gerstenblith is the Chair of the Presidents
Cultural Property Advisory Committee of the
US Department of State (2011present). She
also currently serves as a Director of the US
Committee of the Blue Shield and is Cochair of
the American Bar Associations Art and Cultural
Heritage Law Committee. Prior to these appoint-
ments, Dr. Gerstenblith was Editor in Chief of
the International Journal of Cultural Property,
a position she held from 1995 to 2002. She is
the author of Art, Cultural Heritage, and the
Law (2012).
Getty Foundation
Cross-References
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and
Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and
Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property
(1970)
UNESCO (1970) and UNIDROIT
(1995) Conventions
References
GERSTENBLITH, P. 2012. Art, cultural heritage and the law.
Durham (NC): Carolina Academic Press.
Further Reading
BRODIE, N., J. DOOLE & C. RENFREW. (ed.) 2001. Trade in
illicit antiquities. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
BRODIE, N., M. KERSEL, C. LUKE & K. TUBB. (ed.) 2006.
Archaeology, cultural heritage, and the antiquities
trade. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
CARMAN, J. 2005. Against cultural property.
Archaeology, heritage and ownership. London:
Duckworth.
GERSTENBLITH, P. 2008. Legal aspects of controlling the
international market in looted antiquities: the para-
digm of Iraq, in G. Emberling & K. Hanson (ed.)
Catastrophe! The looting and destruction of Iraqs
past: 81-7. Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
- 2009a. Schultz and Barakat: universal recognition of
national ownership of antiquities. Art, Antiquity, and
Law 14: 21-48.
- 2009b. Increasing effectiveness of the legal regime
for the protection of the international
archaeological heritage, in J.A. Nafziger & A.M.
Nicgorski (ed.) Cultural heritage issues: the legacy
of conquest, colonization, and commerce: 305-22. Lei-
den: Brill.
- 2010a. 2009 cultural heritage legal summary. Journal of
Field Archaeology 35: 237-43.
- 2010b. The obligations contained in international
treaties of armed forces to protect cultural heritage in
times of armed conflict, in L. Rush (ed.) Archaeology,
cultural property, and the military: 4-14. Woodbridge,
UK: The Boydell Press.
- 2011. The antiquities market: 2010 cultural heritage
legal summary. Journal of Field Archaeology 36:
257-64.
RENFREW, C. 2000. Loot, legitimacy and ownership.
London: Duckworth.
WAXMAN, S. 2008. Loot. The battle over the stolen
treasures of the ancient world. New York: Times
Books.
3039 G
Getty Foundation
Andrew Thomas Wilkinson
Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Basic Information
The Getty Foundation (http://www.getty.edu/
foundation/index.html) functions as a philan-
thropic arm of the J. Paul Getty Trust. Originally
based in Santa Monica, the foundation is now
administered from the Getty Center in Los G
Angeles, USA. The Getty Grant Program was
announced on the 11th of October 1984 and
assumed its current title in 2005 reflecting the
changing needs for funding support (About the
J. Paul Getty Trust n.d). The initial motivation
was to provide a source of funding for the visual
arts and in particular . . .works of exceptional
merit (Administrative History n.d.). From 1985
the early grant categories comprised library and
archival projects at independent centers for
advanced research in the history of art, scholarly
cataloging of art museum collections, publica-
tions, conservation, museum programs to inter-
pret permanent collections, education in the
arts, and national and international service
organizations (Administrative History n.d.). The
postdoctoral fellowship program which was
previously administered externally commenced
at the Getty Museum in 1986.
From 2005, key priorities were established to
assist . . .individuals and institutions committed
to advancing the greater understanding and
preservation of the visual arts in Los Angeles and
throughout the world (About the Getty Founda-
tion n.d.). These areas are supported by the Getty
Foundation in conjunction with collaborative pro-
grams offered by the Getty Research Institute, the
Getty Conservation Institute, and the J. Paul Getty
Museum. The foundation currently focusses on
four strategic areas based upon:
Access to museums and archival collections
Art history as a global discipline
G 3040
Advancing conservation practice
Leadership and professional development
By the year 1990, 530 grants had been distrib-
uted to 18 countries, amounting to funding of US
$20 million (Muchnic 1990). Between 2002 and
2011, nearly 100 grants, totaling US$11 million,
were awarded to the Pacific Standard Time pro-
ject alone, which began as an archiving project
for postwar art in Los Angeles. In August 2012
US$1.95 million was granted to the Getty Lead-
ership Institute, which relocated to Claremont
Graduate University in 2010, as a 3-year commit-
ment to ensuring the leading-edge development
of museum professionals. The Getty Trust pro-
duces numerous publications with many works
resulting from research funded through the Getty
Foundation.
Applications for funding are competitive and
must meet stringent selection criteria. Residential
Grants and Fellowships for the Getty Research
Institute and the Getty Conservation Institute, as
well as Graduate and Undergraduate Internships
are accepted online.
Major Impact
Since inception, the Getty Foundation has
awarded significant grants to projects around
the world. In 2012, 28 grants totaling more than
US$1.3 million were given in the Access to Col-
lections category. For the 2011 to 2012 period,
seven grants ranging between US$48,000 and US
$310,000 were allocated to five countries to
enable international exchange among scholars in
art history. A further seven grants, totaling
approximately US$1.9 million, were also
awarded in Conservation for the same period.
To encourage professional development, under-
graduates were included among 115 internships
awarded in 2012. In the same year the foundation
administered 83 residential grants (J. Paul Getty
Trust 2012).
Examples of the range of projects the Getty
Foundation has supported include:
2005 National Trust for Historic Preservation,
Washington, DC. For an assessment of dam-
age to historic structures in the Gulf Coast
Getty Foundation
region affected by Hurricane Katrina. US
$100,000
2008 New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Foun-
dation, Inc., Louisiana. For a conservation
survey of the foundations archives. US
$25,000
2008 West African Museums Program,
Senegal. For training in the preservation of
historical photographs. US$200,000
2008 International Council of African
Museums, Kenya. Assist in the organization
restructure to better serve the African museum
community. US$175,000
2010 Conservation of the Ghent Altarpiece
and Vasaris The Last Supper. 630,000
20112012 University of Sydney, Australia.
For a series of planning meetings to assess
the status of the history of modern and
contemporary art in Southeast Asia. AU
$94,000
20112012 The British School at Rome, Italy.
For a workshop on protective shelters for
archaeological sites. 78,000
20112012 Association Internationale des
Critiques dArt, Paris, France. For participants
from developing countries to attend the
2012 Congress in Zurich, Switzerland. US
$43,600
Cross-References
Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks
Art Studies: Normative Approaches
Conservation in Museums
References
Administrative History. n.d. Available at: http://archives2.
getty.edu:8082/xtf/view?docIdead/IA20017/IA20017.
xml;chunk.idref4;branddefault (accessed 11
February 2013).
About the J. Paul Getty Trust. n.d. Available at: http://
www.getty.edu/about/trust.html (accessed 11 Febru-
ary 2013).
About the Getty Foundation. n.d. Available at: http://
www.getty.edu/foundation/about/ (accessed 11 Febru-
ary 2013).
Glacial Advances in Asia, Europe, and North America
J. PAUL GETTY TRUST. 2012. 2012 Annual report. Los
Angeles: J. Paul Getty Trust.
MUCHNIC, S. 1990. Director wants a wider reach for Getty
grants. Los Angeles Times, 5 March 1990.
Further Reading
THE GETTY FOUNDATION OFFICIAL WEBSITE. n.d. Available at:
http://www.getty.edu/foundation/.
THE GETTY LEADERSHIP OFFICIAL WEBSITE. n.d. Available at:
http://www.cgu.edu/gli.
Glacial Advances in Asia, Europe,
and North America
Sureyya Kose
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences,
Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW,
Australia
Introduction
Glacial-interglacial cycles (when glaciations
advance to their maximum and retreat to their
minimum) have occurred throughout much of the
Earths climatic history (EPICA 2004). Presently,
in the Holocene epoch, the Earth is experiencing
an interglacial period of a glacial-interglacial cycle
that began approximately 100,000124,000 years
ago within the Pleistocene epoch (Berger 2002).
Glacial advances have not only covered vast
expanses of Asia, Europe, and North America
but the globe as early as 2.42.0 billion years
ago within the Proterozoic eon, when the first
global glaciation is said to have occurred (Strand
2012: 70). The most extensive glacial advance to
have dominated the global landscape occurred
between 800,000 and 600,000 years ago, with
glaciers advancing to mid-latitudes (Strand
2012: 70). Giving this period the term
snow ball earth, researchers, through studies
of oxygen-isotopes gathered from deep-sea
ocean sediments and ice cores, have determined
further glaciations at roughly 100,000-, 41,000-,
23,000-, and 19,000-year intervals (Berger 1992:
572; Berger 2002; Strand 2012: 70). The most
recent glacial advance occurred approximately
18,00024,000 years ago and reached its peak
21,000 years ago (Mix et al. 2001). Termed the
3041 G
Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) this event saw,
once again, the advent of large expanses of Asia,
Europe, and North America covered in a number
of ice sheets (Mix et al. 2001).
Definition
Glacial advances or glaciations occur when layers
of snow accumulate in an area where the local
climate is cold enough to sustain the newly depos-
ited snow during the summer. Each winter, as
younger snow is deposited, the layers of older
snow compact further. The pressure of overlying G
layers eventually increase and the hexagonal
points of snowflakes partially melt and bond
together. After some time, the layers of snow
turn into an increasingly solid material (approxi-
mately 25 % air) called firn (Marshak 2009:
472-3). With additional layers of snow causing
more pressure, melting, and recrystallizing, the
firn becomes a solid of interlocking ice crystals
containing less than 20 % air trapped in bubbles
(Marshak 2009: 472-3). These solid masses of ice
are called ice sheets on sea or glaciers on land, can
last year round and can take from 10 to 100 years
to many thousands of years to develop (Marshak
2009: 473). The two main types of glaciers are
mountain glaciers and continental glaciers.
Continental glaciers accumulate much the same
way as mountainous glaciers but rather than flow
from higher latitudes to lower latitudes with the
force of gravity, continental glaciers flow outward
as the precipitation of snow increases. Glacial
thickness can be several kilometers to a few hun-
dred meters in depth and can span continents.
During the Last Glacial Maximum, a number
of continental ice sheets (Fig. 1.) covered large
areas of the northern hemisphere (Clark &
Mix 2002: 2). The Laurentide and Innuitian ice
sheets accumulated in and covered all of Canada
east of the Rocky Mountains. These ice
sheets advanced into North America with the
greatest extent reaching southern Illinois
(Marshak 2009: 491). The Cordilleran ice sheet
covered the southern third of Alaska, including
the Alaskan peninsula. In North America, moun-
tain glaciers developed in the Rocky Mountains,
G 3042
Glacial Advances in Asia,
Europe, and North
America, Fig. 1 The
50
CLIMAP maximum model.
Ice sheets are identified by
letters: (C) Cordilleran, L 150
Laurentide, I Innuitian, G
Greenland, B British, S
Scandinavian, Ba Barents
Sea, and K Kara Sea (Clark
& Mix 2002: 2)
30
L
0
12
90
Sierra Nevada, and the Cascade mountains
(Marshak 2009: 491). In Europe, Ireland was
entirely covered and Britain near covered by the
British ice sheet bar its southernmost extent
(CLIMAP 1981; Marshak 2009: 491). The Scan-
dinavian ice sheet covered all of Scandinavia and
northern Russia and reached the Swiss Alps.
Northern Asia from northeastern Russia and
Siberia to the higher latitudes of Tibet were cov-
ered by the Kara Sea and Barents Sea ice sheets
(CLIMAP 1981; Clark & Mix 2002).
For the phenomenon of a global glaciation to
occur, such as with the LGM, a drop in global
climate had to occur. Factors that enable global
cooling and glaciations have been attributed to
the Astronomical or Milankovitch theory
(CLIMAP; EPILOG; Berger 1992). As the
Earth travels on its elliptical orbit around the
sun, it experiences certain variations in its
eccentricity, obliquity, and precession thought
to arise by the orbital forcing of planetary bodies
within the solar system. These in turn affect cli-
mate variations or cycles on the planet (Rial
2004: 1). Although challenged in recent debates,
the Milankovitch theory has maintained its
validity through modern research techniques
and a rigorous assessment of previous findings
(Rial 2004; Strand 2012).
Glacial Advances in Asia, Europe, and North America
150
120
180
50
90
I
K
Ba
G
30
60 30 0 30
Key Issues/Current Debates/Future
Directions/Examples
In the 1970s, the CLIMAP (Climate: Long range
Investigation, Mapping, and Prediction)
research project began a global collaboration to
map the global extent of ice sheets and ascertain
a definitive chronology for the LGM (CLIMAP
1981). In recent debates, their initial finding for
the peak of the LGM at 18,000 BP has been in
dispute. In 2001, the EPILOG (Environmental
Processes of the ice age: Lands, Oceans,
Glaciers) research project undertook a similar
study and, with the aid of modern modeling
techniques, found the peak of the LGM closer
to 21,000 BP (Mix et al 2001). A further debate
involves the extent of the Kara Sea ice sheet in
northwestern Russia (Clark & Mix 2002). The
CLIMAP (1981) findings and geomorphic
evidence indicates that a large ice sheet did
cover this area (Grosswald & Hughes 2002).
Clark and Mix (2002) and Mangerud et al.
(2002), however, argue that a detailed look at
the chronological evidence suggests that the
Kara ice sheet existed before the LGM at its
onset and that the Kara ice sheets extent was
limited to the western region of the Novaya
Zemlya.
Glacial Landscapes: Environmental Archaeology
Cross-References
Geoarchaeology
Glacial Landscapes: Environmental
Archaeology
References
BERGER, A. 1992. Astronomical theory of paleoclimates
and the last glacial-interglacial cycle. Quaternary Sci-
ence Reviews 11: 571-81.
BERGER, W.H. 2002. Milankovitch theory supported.
University of California San Diego. Available
at: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/
climatechange2/03_1.shtml (accessed 6 December
2012).
CLARK, P.U. & A.C. MIX. 2002. Ice sheets and sea level of
the Last Glacial Maximum. Quaternary Science
Reviews 21: 1-7.
CLIMAP. 1981. Seasonal reconstruction of the Earths
surface at the Last Glacial Maximum, in Map series
(Technical Report MC 36). Boulder: Geological Soci-
ety of America.
EPICA COMMUNITY MEMBERS. 2004. Eight glacial cycles
from an Antarctic ice core. Nature 429: 62328.
GROSSWALD, M.G. & T.J. HUGHES. 2002. The Russian
component of an Arctic ice sheet during the Late
Glacial Maximum. Quaternary Science Reviews 21:
13.
MANGERUD, J., V. ASTAKHOV & J.I SVENDSEN. 2002. The
extent of the Barents-Kara ice sheet during the Last
Glacial Maximum. Quaternary Science Reviews 21:
111-9.
MARSHAK, S. 2009. Essentials of geology, 3rd edn.
London: W.W Norton & Company.
MIX, A.C., E. BARD & R. SCHNEIDER. 2001. Environmental
processes of the ice age: land, ocean, glaciers
(EPILOG). Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 62757.
RIAL, J.A 2004. Earths orbital eccentricity and the rhythm
of the Pleistocene ice ages: the concealed pacemaker.
Global and Planetary Change 41: 8193.
STRAND, K. 2012. Global and continental scale glacia-
tions on the Precambrian earth. Marine and Petroleum
Geology 33: 69-79.
Further Reading
BARNOLA, J. M., D. RAYNAUD, Y.S KAROTKEVICH & C.
LORIUS. 1987. Vostok ice core provides 160,000
year record of atmospheric CO2. Nature 39 (6138):
408-14.
GROSSMAN, E.L. 1987. Stable isotopes in modern Benthic
foraminifera: a study of vital effect. Journal of
Foraminiferal Research 17: 148-61.
3043 G
Glacial Landscapes: Environmental
Archaeology
Luis Alberto Borrero
CONICET-IMHICIHU, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Introduction
Glacial landscapes are distributed all over the
planet, and they are present even in tropical
regions. Hominins were necessarily involved with
these landscapes, sometimes avoiding them, but G
many times developing means to adapt to them.
The history of the advances and retreats of the ice
during the Pleistocene shows that many of the areas
where hominins lived after their initial radiation
from Africa were characterized by glacial and
periglacial conditions. Indeed, most of the process
of hominin dispersal took place under very cold
conditions. In most mountain areas, valley or
cirque glaciers covered parts of regions that were
eventually colonized by hominins. In many places,
especially in the high latitudes of the northern
hemisphere, periglacial environments were present
even at sea level inhibiting or at least affecting the
feasibility or continuity of human occupation in
many places (Hoomard 2011).
Historical Background
The very first systematic accounts of the
prehistory of humankind in Europe were orga-
nized by using a scheme of four Alpine glacia-
tions, which now is known to be much more
complicated, with a variable number of ice
advances punctuating the Pleistocene in different
parts of the world (Bradley 1999). These ice
advances affected the distribution of hominin
populations mainly in Europe and Asia,
restricting their distribution to the southern por-
tions of those continental masses during
millenia. By the end of the Pleistocene, Homo
sapiens were present at most of the continents
G 3044
but were rare or absent in the extreme north
(Straus 1996). During the Last Glacial Maximum
(LGM) around 2420 ka BP, many portions
of the Northern Hemisphere were glaciated,
a time during which many European human
populations contracted to environmental refugia
like the Iberian and Italian peninsulas. However,
at a global scale the human response to cold
glacial conditions was varied, ranging from dis-
persal to concentration (Gamble & Soffer 1988).
The last significant ice advance of the Pleisto-
cene was the Younger Dryas, a cold period char-
acterized by its very fast inception that occurred
in a matter of a few decades. It is dated around
1110 ka BP 12,90011,600 cal BP and it is
known that it produced no important effects on
populations living in central Europe (Jochim
2012) or North America (Meltzer 2009). How-
ever, this is a time during which the northern
Netherlands, Scandinavia, and most of North
America were not inhabited. In North America,
human occupations were practically restricted to
Alaska, Yukon, or the Southern Plains. On the
other hand, it is not clear what was the impor-
tance of the Younger Dryas in southern South
America or in Australia and New Zealand. How-
ever, late Pleistocene cold spells in synch with the
Antarctic Cold Reversal were identified in the
region of the Strait of Magellan, Southern Patago-
nia (McCulloch et al. 2005). As a result it must be
inferred that the process of human colonization of
southern South America took place under very
cold conditions (Borrero 2012).
The colonization of Northern Europe or
Northern Siberia required the availability of
shelter, insulating clothing, and relatively
sophisticated stone tool and bone technologies. It
took hominins millions of years to be able to
colonize these north cold periglacial habitats, and
it was only with the advent of Homo sapiens that
those regions were effectively reachable. In spite
of claims for Neandertals occupations at
Byzovaya, near the Ural Mountains at 65
N (Slimak et al. 2011), it must be kept in mind
that this attribution was solely based on character-
istics of the stone tools. This evidence is not strong
enough to move 1,000 km north the known limit in
the distribution of Neandertals.
Glacial Landscapes: Environmental Archaeology
Specifically in Northeast Siberia, the hominin
range apparently never reached above 55 N dur-
ing the early Upper Paleolithic, and it was not
until c. 25,00020,000 BP that they inhabited the
extreme continental north (Goebel 2004: 195).
This panorama, of course, implicates that the
human entry to America took place under very
cold conditions and relatively late in the Pleisto-
cene. Even when most of the Beringian habitats
were not glaciated, the conditions were difficult
for humans. Palynological evaluations suggested
that at that time Beringia was a barren landscape
(Colinvaux 1986). However, the faunal vertebrate
richness of Beringia that characterizes the so-
called Mammoth Steppe surely facilitated the
peopling process by providing an adequate subsis-
tence base (Guthrie 1982). The subsequent history
of human expansion toward the south through an
ice-free corridor presents a classic example of
interaction with periglacial environments. It is
clear that if this corridor was the main access to
the Americas, then hunter-gatherers have to wait
until significant biotic resources were available to
live and circulate in order to reach the North
American plains (Meltzer 2009). Alternative
coastal routes were proposed to explain the
human expansion to the south, but the northern
coastal habitats potentially used by the first colo-
nizers were also in part glacial or periglacial. More
recent theories suggest an Atlantic crossing with
an origin in the European Solutrean (Stanford &
Bradley 2011). This scenario also involves
periglacial environments.
Key Issues/Current Debates
The evidence related with the human colonization
of mountain environments is particularly relevant.
The Tibetan plateau was covered by ice c. 50,000
years ago, after which retreat of the ice facilitated
the expansion of animal resources into the plateau.
It is postulated that c. 30,000 years ago, humans
entered the plateau, but the evidence is not
abundant. At site Xiao Qaidam, 3,100 masl, there
are simple core and flake quartzite tools probably
dating to c. 22,00018,000 BP. At site Chusang,
at 4,200 masl, hand and footprints impressed on
Glacial Landscapes: Environmental Archaeology
travertine are dated by OSL approximately
21,70020,600 BP (Aldenderfer & Zhang 2004:
16). Several sites with core and flake tools are
typologically assigned to Paleolithic times.
Brantingham et al. (2003) proposed that the
plateau was populated from the north, with people
getting into eastern Qinghai lakes, at 3,0004,000
masl, before the advent of the LGM. It is
maintained that at that time, humans acquired the
physiological adaptations required to live in the
high country. Finally, displacement to the high
plateau may have occurred at the onset of LGM
conditions, c. 23,000-22,000 B.P. (Aldenderfer &
Zhang 2004: 21). Basically, the timing of the
colonization necessarily was in synch with the
retreat of the ice.
In the Central Andes, there is evidence of early
human populations occupying mountain
environments slightly before 10,000 BP
(Aldenderfer 1997), while at Agua de la Cueva,
Mendoza, Argentina, mountain environments
begin to be used around 11,000 years ago (Garca
2003). In both cases, hunter-gatherer adaptations
focused on the exploitation of wild camelids were
defined. For these and other high altitude sites,
the default interpretation is that human occupa-
tions are seasonal. However, interpretations of
year-round occupations also exist, for example,
at Pachamachay Cave, Peru, at c. 4,300 masl
(Rick 1980). This cave was occupied since the
end of the Pleistocene by wild camelid hunters,
and Rick suggested that the conditions were ade-
quate for sedentary occupations. Alternative
models can be offered for the evidence of
Pachamachay, but it is clear that some of the
high altitude environments of the Puna of
the South Central Andes witnessed the early
Holocene process of domestication of camelids
(Yacobaccio 2007), a process that at some point
was inequivocally related with year-round
occupations.
Glacial and periglacial landscapes can be very
prohibitive for humans, requiring complex sets of
adaptations (Binford 1978). One example is the
Palaeo-eskimos that were living in the relatively
warm climate of the Arctic mid-Holocene,
a region whose climate at some point began to
change toward very cold conditions. One result
3045 G
was that entire sectors of that area were
abandoned. The availability of both terrestrial
and sea mammals was basic to select regions of
human survival, which was possible even when it
changed dramatically to the point of
unpredictability, especially in Arctic Canada
(Hoomard 2011). Hunter-gatherers living in the
central Arctic were able to adapt to this
conditions, probably constituting the best
example of a human population living under
glacial conditions. Of course, they were
continuously exposed to starvation and other
risks, especially during the Little Ice Age
(McGhee 1997). Except for the mountain habi- G
tats, the importance for humans of periglacial
environments in the Southern Hemisphere is
less notable. Ultima Esperanza, Chile, is one of
the few places where early colonizers were
regularly living relatively close to the ice near
a proglacial lake c. 10,500 years BP (Martin et al.
2011). Moreover, in other Southern Hemisphere
places like Australia, there were very few areas
affected by glaciers, and it is possible that the
distribution of ice played no role in the process
of exploration and colonization.
As already mentioned, mountains offered
some of the more characteristic human-inhabited
periglacial landscapes. For example, the lands
around the Andes or the Himalayas present
large high altitude periglacial habitats that were
inhabited by humans with difficulty. Humans are
not adapted to live in high altitude and required
behavioral, cultural, and physiological adapta-
tions to those habitats in order to survive
(Aldenderfer 1997: 1925). For that reason, the
process of human colonization of these and other
mountain environments started near the end of
the Pleistocene and only after the effective
colonization of lowlands nearby took place.
Future Directions
One problem in understanding the archaeology of
periglacial landforms is that glacial erosion and
other dynamic processes associated with
deglaciation probably erased any indications of
previous human occupation. This is especially
G 3046
important since many proglacial lakes and other
areas marginal to glaciers probably functioned as
magnets for earlier colonizers, and the catastrophic
draining of lakes completely destroyed any sites
located nearby. For this reason, formational and
taphonomic studies will be crucial in appreciating
the magnitude of these problems and in trying to
reconstruct the history of human use of those
environments.
Finally, the literature discussing the tactics
and strategies used by humans living under
periglacial conditions emphasize the availability
of fire technologies and all kinds of shelter
adaptations (Jochim 1981). Even more important
is the existence of a full suite of secondary
adaptations, like the intensive use of the different
products offered by hunted animals, the use of
stone boiling, or the use of bones for fuel.
Examples of humans inhabiting periglacial
habitats using these and many other tactics are
well described in the literature (Jochim 1981;
Soffer 1985; Meltzer 2009) and constitute the
best proof of human adaptability. Bioanthro-
pological studies should play a more important
role in discussing these adaptations in the past,
since it was only by conquering periglacial
environments that Homo sapiens was able to
successfully colonize the earth.
Cross-References
Fossil Records of Early Modern Humans
Frozen Conditions: Preservation and
Excavation
Glacial Advances in Asia, Europe, and North
America
References
ALDENDERFER, M. 1997. Montane foragers: Asana and the
south-central Andean archaic. Iowa City: University
of Iowa Press.
ALDENDERFER, M. & Y. ZHANG. 2004. The prehistory of
the Tibetan Plateau to the seventh century A.D.:
perspectives and research from China and the
West since 1950. Journal of World Prehistory 18(1):
155.
Glacial Landscapes: Environmental Archaeology
BINFORD, L.R. 1978. Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology.
New York: Academic Press.
BORRERO, L.A. 2012. The human colonization of the High
Andes and southern South America during the cold
pulse of the late Pleistocene, in M. Eren (ed.)
Hunter-gatherer behavior. Human response during
the Younger Dryas: 57-78. Walnut Creek: Left Coast
Press.
BRADLEY, R. 1999. Paleoclimatology: reconstructing
climate of the Quaternary. San Diego:
Harcourt/Academic Press.
BRANTINGHAM, P.J., H.Z. MA, J.W. OLSEN, X. GAO, D.B.
MADSEN & D.E. RHODE. 2003. Speculation on the
timing and nature of late Pleistocene huntergatherer
colonization of the Tibetan Plateau. China Science
Bulletin 48:15106.
COLINVAUX, P. 1986. Plain thinking on Bering land bridge
vegetation and mammoth population. Quarterly
Review of Archaeology 7: 8-9.
GAMBLE, C. & O. SOFFER. 1988. Introduction, Pleistocene
polyphony: the diversity of human adaptations at the
Last Glacial Maximum, in O. Soffer & C. Gamble (ed.)
The world at 18,000 B.P., Volume 1: 1-23. London:
Unwin Hyman.
GARCIA, A. 2003. Exploitation territory at Agua de la
Cueva (Southern Area) Site (11,0009000 RCYBP),
in L. Miotti, M. Salemme & N. Flegenheimer (ed.)
Where the south winds blow: ancient evidence of Paleo
South Americans: 8386. College Station: Center for
the Study of the First Americans, Texas A&M.
GOEBEL, T. 2004. The early upper Paleolithic of Siberia, in
J. Brantingham, S.L. Kuhn & K.W. Kerry (ed.)
The early Upper Paleolithic beyond western Europe:
162-195. Berkeley: University of California Press.
GUTHRIE, D. 1982. Mammals of the Mammoth Steppe as
paleoenvironmental indicators, in D.M. Hopkins, J.V.
Matthews, C.E. Schweger & S.B. Young (ed.)
Paleoecology of Beringia: 307-29. New York:
Academic Press.
HOOMARD, C. 2011. Lexploitation du morse au cours du
Dorsetien dans lArctique canadien: apports de letude
du site de Tayara (KbFk-7, Nunavik, Canada), in
D. Vialou (ed.) Peuplements et prehistoire en Ame
riques: 166-79. Paris: Editions du Comite des travaux
historiques et scientifiques.
JOCHIM, M. 1981. Strategies for survival: cultural behavior
in an ecological context. New York: Academic Press.
- 2012. Coping with the Younger Dryas in the heart of
Europe, in M.I. Eren (ed.) Hunter-gatherer behavior.
Human response during the Younger Dryas: 165-78.
Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
MARTIN, F.M., M. SAN ROMAN & F. MORELLO. 2011.
Reevaluacion tafonomica de la interaccion entre
cazadores recolectores y fauna extinta a fines del
Pleistoceno en Ultima Esperanza, Chile: modelos de
insercion y poblamiento. Bosques, montanas
y cazadores, in L.A. Borrero & K.B. Borrazzo (ed.)
Investigaciones arqueologicas en Patagonia
Meridional. Buenos Aires: CONICET-IMHICIHU.
Glass: Conservation and Preservation
MCCULLOCH R.D., C.J. FOGWILL, D.E. SUGDEN, M.J.
BENTLEY & P.W. KUBIK. 2005. Chronology of the last
glaciation in central Strait of Magellan and Bahia
Inutil, southernmost South America. Geografiska
Annaler A 87: 289-312.
MCGHEE, R. 1997. Ancient people of the Arctic.
Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
MELTZER, D.J., 2009. First peoples in a new world. Colo-
nizing Ice Age America. Berkeley: University of Cal-
ifornia Press.
RICK, J. 1980. Prehistoric hunters of the highlands.
New York: Academic Press.
SLIMAK, L, J.I. SVENDSEN, J. MANGERUD, H. PLISSON, H.P.
HEGGEN, A.BRUGERE & P.Y. PAVLOV. 2011. Late
Mousterian persistence near the Arctic Circle. Science
332: 841-5.
STRAUS, L. 1996. The world at the end of the last Ice Age,
in L. Straus, B. Eriksen, J. Erlandson & D. Yesner (ed.)
Humans at the end of the Ice Age: the archaeology of
the Pleistocene Holocene transition: 39. New York:
Plenum Press.
SOFFER, O. 1985. The Upper Paleolithic of the Central
Russian Plain. New York: Academic Press.
STANFORD, D.J. & B. BRADLEY. 2011. Across Atlantic ice.
The origin of Americas Clovis culture. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
YACOBACCIO, H. D. 2007. Andean camelid herding in
the South Andes: ethnoarchaeological models for
archaeozoological research. Anthropozoologica
42 (2): 143-54.
Glass: Conservation and
Preservation
Suzanne Davis and Claudia Chemello
The Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Introduction
Glass artifacts that are successfully recovered
and preserved have the potential to contribute
to the archaeological record in many ways.
However, conservation and preservation of
archaeological glass can be challenging. Some
glasses are inherently less stable than others, and
some burial environments more deleterious.
Surface weathering on archaeological glass is
common, and it is rare for glass to survive burial
unbroken.
3047 G
A successful preservation plan for glass incor-
porates both active and preventive conservation
and begins before excavation. Because glass is
fragile, careful handling, both at the time of exca-
vation and subsequently, is important for its pres-
ervation. Once a glass artifact has been
excavated, the level of deterioration, physical
damage, and the stability of the glass itself must
be evaluated, and steps to improve the artifacts
condition should be taken if necessary. Wet or
damp glass that may have absorbed soluble salts
must be treated to remove the salts and slowly
dried. Reconstruction and/or consolidation are
sometimes necessary for the study, interpretation, G
publication, and preservation of archaeological
glass, but conservation treatment should be as
minimal as possible. Conservation treatment can
have unintended long-term consequences, even
when the most current recommendations are
followed, and should only be undertaken by
a conservator experienced in the treatment of
archaeological glass. Finally, good storage con-
ditions are required to ensure long-term preser-
vation of glass and are best planned before
excavation begins.
Definition
Conservation and preservation for archaeological
glass may refer to both active and preventive
conservation measures. The goal of active con-
servation treatment is to stop or slow the rate of
deterioration in glass. Cleaning, reconstruction,
and restoration, also considered active conserva-
tion, may also be involved if these steps are
desired for interpretation or exhibition of glass
objects. Preventive conservation refers to mea-
sures which do not intervene chemically or phys-
ically to alter the condition of an artifact, but
which act to promote long-term preservation.
Careful handling and climate-controlled storage
at low relative humidity, for example, are
two preventive conservation measures for glass.
Preventive conservation is often the most cost-
effective means of ensuring long-term preserva-
tion for archaeological objects.
G 3048
Key Issues/Current Debates/Future
Directions/Examples
Basic knowledge of the properties of glass is nec-
essary to understand how it deteriorates in archae-
ological contexts and to plan adequately for its
conservation. An in-depth explanation of the
chemical composition and physical structure of
glass is outside the scope of this entry, but these
topics are covered in detail in monographs on glass
conservation as well as in many other sources
(Davison 2003; Koob 2006). In short, glass is
composed of silica, an alkali like soda or potash,
and a stabilizer like lime. In wet or damp burial
environments, water leaches the alkali from the
surface of the glass, leaving behind an unstable
layer of silica. This layer will reflect and transmit
light differently from the original glass.
Depending on the level of deterioration, the glass
surface may appear iridescent or opalescent but
still relatively intact, or it may appear as if it has
a thick, flaky weathering crust, a result of accumu-
lated layers of thin, unstable silica.
Other factors which affect the preservation of
archaeological glass are the pH and temperature
of the burial environment. The preservation of
archaeological glass is dependent not only on
the burial conditions dry environments promote
preservation while damp environments acceler-
ate deterioration but also on the composition of
the glass. Glasses made with an organic alkali
like potash are inherently less stable. Preserva-
tion of archaeological glass not only varies
widely from site to site but can also vary across
a site, and even on the same vessel.
Deteriorated archaeological glass can be very
fragile, and even well-preserved glass is easily
subject to breakage. Careful handling is impor-
tant at the time of excavation to ensure successful
recovery. Like other fragile materials, deterio-
rated glass artifacts can be block-lifted and
micro-excavated. Block lifting can assist not
only with preserving fragile glass but also with
the retention and orientation of the fragments
and, therefore, the subsequent reconstruction of
complex broken vessels. As with most archaeo-
logical materials, rapid changes in the ambient
environment should be avoided. Wet glass should
Glass: Conservation and Preservation
be dried slowly, for example. For the same rea-
son, damp glass should not be tightly sealed in
plastic bags or condensation may accumulate on
the surface.
The recovery and conservation of glass from
very wet or underwater environments, whether
marine or freshwater, can be especially challeng-
ing. Glass from such environments can be severely
compromised structurally, with a consistency like
gelatin, and may be permeated with soluble salts.
In these cases, a conservator with experience in the
treatment of glass from wet environments should
be consulted. A few books and multiple articles
provide information on conservation of glass from
such environments and can be consulted for fur-
ther information (Pearson 1987; Singley 1988;
Hamilton 1996; Anastassiades & Ellis 2008;
Mardikian & Girard 2010).
The condition of glass artifacts should be thor-
oughly documented after excavation, both in
writing and with photography. Professional con-
servators should be familiar with this type of
documentation, and archaeologists should expect
the conservator to provide a written report sum-
marizing the condition of the artifact(s) and any
conservation treatment undertaken. Books on
glass conservation can provide more information
for those unfamiliar with documenting and
describing the condition of archaeological glass
(Davison 2003; Koob 2006).
Conservation treatment of deteriorated
archaeological glass can be complex. In general,
it is a good idea to remove soil and other surface
accretions which might attract and hold moisture
against the surface. Glass that is not weathered
can be gently brushed or even rinsed with water.
But if, as is the case with most archaeological
glass, the surface is fragile, cleaning can be
a dangerous operation and is best left to an expe-
rienced conservator. The outer, fragile, weath-
ered layers of deteriorated glass should never be
removed during cleaning; they represent the orig-
inal surface of the glass. Surface details and dec-
oration may be lost if these layers are removed,
and the glass revealed beneath them is likely to be
dull, pitted, and unattractive.
If the weathered surface of an archaeological
glass object is flaky, consolidation of the outer
Glass: Conservation and Preservation
layers of glass may be necessary. The decision to
consolidate should not be undertaken lightly;
consolidation of archaeological glass is rarely
reversible, and the materials used can have
long-term effects on the stability and appearance
of the object. If the artifact can be stored safely
and extensive handling is not required, consoli-
dation of the surface should be avoided. Consol-
idation should only be carried out by an
experienced conservator. Conservation science
is a field which advances rapidly, and the most
recent literature should be consulted before
a consolidant and application method are chosen.
Often, reconstruction is required before frag-
mentary glass artifacts can be studied,
photographed, or drawn for publication. Epoxy
resins have been used extensively as adhesives
for glass, but they are not recommended for
archaeological glass; the epoxies commonly
used in glass conservation are too strong for
archaeological glass. Their use can create joins
which are stronger than the surrounding glass,
producing unintentional but problematic strains
in joined artifacts (Koob 2006: 48). Softer sol-
vent-based acrylic resins are a better choice, and
the use of such resins has been documented and
discussed extensively in conservation literature
(Koob 1986, 2000, 2006; Horie 2000). The
same considerations are important when creating
infills for missing areas on archaeological glass
vessels. Commonly cited drawbacks to using
acrylic resins as adhesives and fill materials are
that they must be prepared for use and that they
create visible joins in glass objects. There is some
truth to both observations, but most archaeologi-
cal conservators find that acrylic resins are
straightforward to prepare and apply, even in
field conditions. Invisible joins, desirable in
some museum settings, are rarely a concern for
deteriorated archaeological glass. A desire to
match the refractive index of the glass and
a desire to produce joins without small bubbles
from solvent evaporation are two reasons that
museum conservators might choose an epoxy
adhesive over an acrylic resin for joining or
infilling non-archaeological glass. However,
epoxies do not provide a good refractive index
match for most archaeological glass. The small
3049 G
bubbles which result from solvent evaporation in
acrylic resin adhesives, if visible at all, are a small
price to pay for an adhesive that will not cause
further damage to the glass (Koob 2006: 4850).
The previous paragraphs have discussed
recovery and active conservation treatment for
archaeological glass, but preventive conservation
following excavation is the most important long-
term preservation factor for glass artifacts.
A good ambient storage environment is crucial
because unstable glass that is exposed to high
relative humidity can deteriorate quickly. In gen-
eral, lower relative humidity is best for storage
of glass. Storage at 45 % relative humidity, G
+/ 5 %, is recommended for stable glass, and
40 % is suggested for unstable glass (Koob 2006:
141). Archaeological glass in storage should be
checked regularly for signs of deterioration,
which might appear as clouding of the surface,
flaking or cracking, or moisture on the surface of
the glass.
Glass, although durable, is also easily broken
and chipped. It should always be handled and
packed carefully. Glass that has adhesive joins
and/or fills should be handled with special care,
especially if the adhesive is old. Use common
sense when packing glass for storage. Glass objects
should be well supported, should not be stacked on
top of one another, and should not move when
drawers or cabinets are opened. Very fragile
objects may require individual boxes or rigid con-
tainers, but air should be able to circulate around
objects and they should not be tightly sealed inside
containers, as this can create a microclimate which
may accelerate deterioration of unstable glass.
Acid-free storage materials are best (i.e., not
wood or acidic papers like newsprint). A good,
soft packing material is unbuffered acid-free tissue
paper. Place the heaviest part of any object towards
the bottom of the container and provide adequate
padding. Inert foam, like Ethafoam, can be used
when sturdier support is required.
When packing glass for transport, follow the
same general principles. Air circulation is less
important for temporary situations like transpor-
tation. For transport, glass can be completely
wrapped in acid-free tissue and even surrounded
by bubble wrap. The bottom and sides of the
G 3050
container should be well padded with several
inches of foam, and all space between objects
should be padded with a material that will not
shift when the container is moved. Styrofoam
pellets or other types of packing peanuts are not
recommended because they may shift during
transport and thus fail to provide adequate sup-
port (Koob 2006: 14150).
In conclusion, the conservation and care of
archaeological glass is not always straightfor-
ward. Glass is subject to damage and deterioration
from many sources, and each artifact, collection,
and site will present unique challenges. Collabo-
rative planning that involves both archaeologists
and conservators will yield the best results when
designing conservation treatment and long-term
preservation plans for archaeological glass.
Cross-References
Anaerobic Conditions (Bogs, Waterlogged,
Subaquatic): Preservation and Conservation
Ceramics: Conservation and Preservation
Conservation and Preservation in Archaeology
in the Twenty-First Century
Conservation, Restoration, and Preservation in
Classical Archaeology
Documentation of Treatment and Intervention
in Archaeological Conservation and
Preservation
Dry/Desert Conditions: Preservation and
Conservation
Field Stabilization of Movable Heritage
Frozen Conditions: Preservation and
Excavation
Mosaics: Conservation and Preservation
Underwater Sites in Archaeological
Conservation and Preservation
References
ANASTASSIADES, A. & L. ELLIS. 2008. The conservation of
glass ingots from the Bronze Age Uluburun shipwreck.
Studies in Conservation 53: 225-37.
DAVISON, S. 2003. Conservation and restoration of glass,
2nd edn. Oxford and Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
HAMILTON, D. L. 1996. Basic methods of conserving
underwater archaeological material culture.
Glassie III, Henry H.
Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Defense Leg-
acy Resource Management Program.
HORIE, C.V. 2000. Materials for conservation: organic
consolidants, adhesives, and coatings. London:
Butterworth-Heinemann.
KOOB, S. P. 1986. The use of Paraloid B-72 as an adhesive:
its application for archaeological ceramics and other
materials. Studies in Conservation 31(1): 7-14.
- 2000. New techniques for the repair and restoration of
ancient glass, in A. Roy & P. Smith (ed.) Tradition and
innovation: advances in conservation: 92-5. London:
The international Institute for Conservation of Historic
and Artistic Works.
- 2006. Conservation and care of glass objects. London:
Archetype.
MARDIKIAN, P. & P. GIRARD. 2010. 18 tons of Roman glass
under the sea: a complex conservation puzzle, in H.
Roemich (ed.) Glass & ceramics conservation 2010,
proceedings of the Interim Meeting of the ICOM-CC
Glass & Ceramics Working Group, October 3-6, 2010,
Corning, NY, U.S.A.: 110-18. Corning (NY): The
Corning Museum of Glass.
PEARSON, C. 1987. Conservation of marine archaeological
objects. London: Butterworth-Heinemann.
SINGLEY, K. 1988. The conservation of archaeological
artifacts from freshwater environments. South Haven
(MI): Lake Michigan Maritime Museum.
Further Reading
CRONYN, J.M. 1990. The elements of archaeological
conservation. London: Routledge.
PYE, E. 2001. Caring for the past: issues in conservation
for archaeology and museums. London: James and
James.
SEASE, C. 1987. A conservation manual for the field
archaeologist. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology,
University of California.
WATKINSON, D. & V. NEAL. 1998. First aid for finds.
London: RESCUE The British Archaeological
Trust and the United Kingdom Institute for
Conservation Archaeology Section.
Glassie III, Henry H.
Charles C. Kolb
Division of Preservation and Access, National
Endowment for the Humanities, Washington,
DC, USA
Basic Biographical Information
Internationally known folklore scholar Henry
H. Glassie III, born March 24, 1941, received
Glassie III, Henry H.
his B.A. in English and Anthropology from
Tulane University (1964), an M.A. in Folk Cul-
ture from the Cooperstown Graduate Program of
the State University of New York at Oneonta
(1965), and a doctorate in Folklore from the Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania (1969). During the period
of his doctoral work, he was the State Folklorist
of Pennsylvania and Director of the Ethnic Cul-
ture Survey (19671969) for the Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission. He taught
at Indiana Universitys Folklore Institute
(19701976) before returning to Penn as Chair-
man of the Department of Folklore and Folklife
(19761988) and coming back to Indiana as Col-
lege Professor of Folklore (19882009). Glassie
also served as Codirector of Turkish Studies and
held adjunct appointments in Central Eurasian
Studies, Near Eastern Languages and Cultures,
and American Studies, and is now Emeritus Pro-
fessor, Department of Folklore and Ethnomusi-
cology and Emeritus Adjunct Professor,
Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cul-
tures. He also helped establish three museums in
the United States and Ireland, including Conner
Prairie, an outdoor living history museum in
Fishers, Indiana. He is married to Pravina Shukla,
a folklorist who specializes in clothing and adorn-
ment; they have four sons and four grandchildren.
Major Accomplishments
Glassie was a John Guggenheim Memorial Foun-
dation Fellow (1972) and an Invited Fellow at
the National Humanities Institute (19751976).
In addition, he was a Fellow of the American
Folklore Society (1976) and served as its president
(1988-1990); he was also president of the Vernac-
ular Architecture Forum (19831985) and Senior
Research Associate at the Museum of Interna-
tional Folk Art (19861993 and 19932000). Dur-
ing the 1990s, Glassie was honored as a Folklore
Fellow of the Finnish Academy, and received an
Award for Superior Service by the Turkish Min-
istry of Culture and the Award for Outstanding
Achievement in the Arts by the Assembly of
Turkish American Associations, as well as a Cer-
tificate of Honour from the Ministry of Cultural
3051 G
Affairs of Bangladesh. In 2003, the Vernacular
Architecture Forum honored him by naming its
outstanding achievement accolade the Henry
Glassie Award. With expertise in folk art, folklife,
vernacular architecture, and material culture,
Glassie has written 23 books and 102 articles on
folklore and material culture from Ireland, Tur-
key, Bangladesh, and the United States (especially
rural Virginia) (1999a, 1999b, 2000a). Most books
are illustrated with Glassies own photographs and
drawings; he also designed many of the Indiana
University Presss volumes. His initial research
resulted in major books on vernacular architecture
(1969, 1975), followed by five books about Irish G
culture. In 1982 he began studies on the living arts
of modern Turkey which resulted in a major trav-
eling exhibition and book (1993), with additional
research in South Asia (1997, 2000b), and a biog-
raphy of a Nigerian artist (2010). Recognized as a
master teacher at Indiana, he has received the
Teaching Excellence Award from Indiana Univer-
sity. In 2000 he was named by President Clinton to
serve on the National Council on the Humanities.
His book, Vernacular Architecture (2000a), was
the winner of the 2001 Cummings Award for
the best book on North American architecture.
Glassie is presently working on a monograph on
Japanese figurative ceramics.
Cross-References
Ethnoarchaeology: Building Frames of
Reference for Research
Ethnoarchaeology: Learning from Potters in
Gilund
Islamic Archaeology and Art History
References
GLASSIE, H.H. 1969. Pattern in the material folk culture of
the eastern United States. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
- 1975. Folk housing in middle Virginia: a structural
analysis of historic artifacts. Knoxville: University of
Tennessee Press.
- 1993. Turkish traditional art today. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
- 1997. Art and life in Bangladesh. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
G 3052
- 1999a. Material culture. Bloomington: Indiana Univer-
sity Press.
- 1999b. The potters art. Bloomington: Indiana Univer-
sity Press.
- 2000a. Vernacular architecture. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
- 2000b. Contemporary traditional art of Bangladesh.
Dhaka: Bangladesh National Museum.
- 2010. Prince Twins Seven-Seven: his art, his life in
Nigeria, his exile in America. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Further Reading
GLASSIE, H.H. 1982a. Passing the time in Ballymenone:
culture and history of an Ulster community. Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
- 1982b. Irish folk history: texts from the north. Philadel-
phia: University of Pennsylvania Press; reprinted
1908.
- 1985. Irish folktales. New York: Pantheon.
- 1989. The spirit of folk art: the Girard collection at the
Museum of International Folk Art. New York:
Abrams.
- 2006. The stars of Ballymenone. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
GLASSIE, H.H. & F. MAHMUD. (ed.) 2007. Living traditions.
Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
GLASSIE, H.H. & T. TAKAHARA. In press. Lions of clay: the
tradition of figurative ceramics in contemporary
Japan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Curriculum vitae: http://www.indiana.edu/~nelc/people/
documents/Glassie%20-%20CV.pdf.
Global Archaeology
Pedro Paulo A. Funari1 and Aline Carvalho2
1
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas,
Sao Paulo, Brazil
2
Laboratorio de Arqueologia Publica (LAP),
Nucleo de Estudos e Pesquisas Ambientais
(Nepam), University of Campinas, Campinas,
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Introduction
The history of science cannot be dissociated from
its multiple contexts (Patterson 2001), whether
they be in the physical or the spiritual domain.
To tackle the topic of the rise of global archaeol-
ogy, we choose to reflect on three great ruptures
in the experiential context of the history of
Global Archaeology
western humanity and consequently of the
human sciences.
The first of these is linked to the very concept
of culture. If before the end of World War it were
possible to imagine a homogenous culture, pure
or superior, after the experiences of the totalitar-
ian states (Arendt 2004: 3-15), the danger of
thinking about culture in the singular became
evident. The effect of the tragedies caused by
Nazi-fascism, added to the later experiences of
the different civil rights movements, was to intro-
duce pluralist aspects into culture, including the
humanistic and therefore the global. In this new
context, the Declaration of Human Rights, among
other things, gathered strength and was adopted
by the United Nations Organization on December
10, 1948. Apart from the many criticisms that can
be made, this Declaration did consolidate the idea
of the universality of basic human rights.
The second rupture, closely related to the for-
mer, is centered on the human conception of the
environment in which we live. The premise arose
that all our actions have global consequences,
based on experiences with nuclear weapons and
the uncontrolled use of agro-toxins, both of
which saw the rise of epidemics and disease.
With the ecological movement was born the pre-
mise that it is imperative to think globally and act
locally.
Finally, the third rupture was linked to the end
of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
By the mid-1980s, capitalism was accepted as the
choice for life; it seemed to have been victorious,
and in turn it became plausible to consider
a history of mankind from the ideological bias
of capitalism.
Clearly one could have chosen other ruptures
to contextualize the birth of global archaeology,
but we consider that these three lines will help us
to understand the globalization process and the
expansion of thinking about humanity. The influ-
ence of this thinking about human beings in
a global context can be seen in various fields of
knowledge, one of which is archaeology. It is
quite common to find in the discussion agendas
of this discipline, such as in the World Archaeo-
logical Congress (WAC), proposed topics related
to the re-humanization of archaeology and
Global Archaeology
global archaeology. Our aim is to understand
some of the ideas that support these proposals.
Definition
Archaeology as a discipline started in the nine-
teenth century in the wake of the main thrusts of
globalization, such as the spreading of capitalism
worldwide and the imperial moves by colonial
powers. The main intellectual ambitions of the
discipline were also global, such as understand-
ing the spread of material culture over large areas
and later in the century the evolution of human
ancestors (Boast 2009). In the twentieth century,
this trend grew even larger, as witnesses the
ambitious project of a global archaeological
understanding of the whole human past as pro-
posed by Vere Gordon Childe (1951). However,
archaeology as a global interpretive move was
very much centered on a core of western scholars
and institutions, so that even the most daring
global perspectives, such as Childes, took
a patronizing approach, leaving peoples and civ-
ilizations of the past as predecessors to the
enlightened western world. So, culture history
(Webster 2008: 34) and a global discipline did
not escape the traps of being part of the array of
western domination of the world.
The situation changed dramatically though in
the later part of the twentieth century due to
several reasons, not least the emergence of
a plethora of social agents: women established
themselves in the workplace and public sphere;
former colonized peoples fought for their libera-
tion; ethnic, religious, and other minorities strug-
gled to have their rights recognized; and sexual
liberation also led to new social mores in both
western and non-western countries. Archaeology
would not remain for a long time isolated from all
those social changes, for, as David Clarke pro-
posed as early as 1973, it lost the innocence
(Clarke 1973). The Paradise Lost echoing
both Genesis, chapter 3, and Miltons opus mag-
num was this land of joy but no awareness about
the limits of knowledge itself. Processualism was
a first response (Watson 2008: 2), soon to be
criticized from several quarters (Johnson 2009).
3053 G
The emergence of social actors women, blacks,
and former colonized peoples and beyond led to
a challenge to the old global approach and fos-
tered a new, less imbalanced global archaeology.
The World Archaeological Congress (Ucko
1987: 10), established in 1986, has proven
a turning point in this new direction, for two
different but related reasons (Funari 2006).
In epistemological terms, diversity, pluralism,
and conflict in interpretation were increasingly
recognized as key concepts to interpret the
archaeological record, considering how impor-
tant those same tenets are for contemporary life.
This is directly related to a global approach to G
knowledge, considering that different people, in
different historical and cultural contexts, offer
a diverse array of understandings of the world
and of material culture, as a consequence. The
African origin of all human beings is seen prob-
ably from diverse perspectives in Africa and in
other continents, and the role of chinaware is
perceived also probably differently in China and
in other parts of the world, to mention just two
subjects clearly related to global issues. Archae-
ology shifted from a potentially limited, western
narrative of the past to a chaotic, but pluralist,
study of past material culture, from a variety of
conflicting standpoints. This is indeed a huge epis-
temological shift from a normative, uniform, and
totalizing narrative to a diversity of different inter-
pretations. As Nick Shepherd (2005: 26-30) put it,
this was a move from one world archaeology to one
world and many archaeologies.
In social terms, all those concepts were related
to the inclusion of a variety of social actors in the
scholarly field of archaeology, in a global scale.
Archaeologists from non-western countries were
often sidelined or ignored and considered as part
of the uncivilized scholarly world. This changed
gradually and WAC was a major turning point. The
new scholarly association for the first time ever
was run by a worldwide body of scholars and
included also native representatives, traditionally
subjects, not actors in the scholarly world. Western
scholars were for the first time in a minority and
global gained a new meaning, really implying the
participation of archaeologists from all over the
world. Then, breaking with hierarchical tenets,
G 3054
WAC put together senior scholars and young
students, and also natives and other social actors,
so that a major hierarchical principle of western
scholarship was put down (Smith 2005: 20).
This is also a new global approach, taking global
to mean comprehensive. So that epistemology and
social aspects are interwoven in inextricable ways.
A global approach has also been related to
capitalism, as pointed out by Michael Shanks
(2008: 142): Some have discerned a latest cul-
tural phase, belonging with postmodernity and
termed globalism. It refers to the expansion, espe-
cially after the fall of the eastern bloc in 1989 and
after, and with the opening up of communist
China to market forces, of the capitalist market
across the globe. It is indeed impossible to set
apart capitalism and globalization, so much so
that historical archaeologist Charles E. Orser
(1996) equated modernity, globalization, and
capitalism and established the starting point as
early as 1415. It is also clear that globalization
did not end local specificities and, to the contrary,
contributed to a plethora of global and local inter-
actions, encouraging local identities and stand-
points, as stressed by Wallace (2008: 12-18):
The internets ties to globalism are clear-cut. Yet
the goals of the Internet highways profiteers to
promote a world culture (Bill Gates) conversely
contribute to the desire by many people do find
their own personal or groups identity within this
global world. In fact, globalization is just
a continuing process, which started much earlier
and archaeology is particularly apt to deal with the
subject (Kristiansen 2009: 36). Global archaeology
in this sense is a catch word for archaeology in
contemporary context, and it is no longer possible
to think specificities without references to overall
processes (and vice-versa).
Key Issues/Current Debates
Towards Global Thinking: Transformations of
the Concept of Culture
Through the twentieth century, it is easy to find
historical events that serve as models for under-
standing the conceptualization of past, present,
and future (La Capra 2001). Undoubtedly, among
these examples, we can highlight the experiences
of two world wars and their accompanying
Global Archaeology
genocides, the civil rights movements, and fem-
inism, which have all generated a new reflection
on culture, memory and politics, and other topics
related to constructing a present that is more
democratic and diverse.
Specifically in the case of culture studies,
which appear in the Humanitarian Sciences of
Archaeology, Anthropology, and History,
among others, the aforementioned events had
a wide impact in the 1950s. According to the
cultural theorist Stuart Hall (1980), three publi-
cations were fundamental to the interior revolu-
tion of this investigative field: firstly, The Uses of
Literacy: Aspects of Working Class Life,
published in 1957 by British author Richard
Hoggart; secondly, Culture and Society,
published in 1958 by the Welshman Raymond
Williams; and finally, The Making of the English
Working Class, published in 1963, by E. P.
Thompson.
Despite marked epistemological differences
between the works of Hoggart,Williams,and
Thompson,which nonetheless came from each
of them reading Karl Marx, the three intellectuals
brought drastic changes to the way culture was
treated. According to Hall, the change was linked
to new ways of conceiving society, given that
until this time culture had been viewed as the
anniversary calendar of social display, that is to
say, as demonstrations barely to be considered
a product of economic status; after the publica-
tion of these three works, culture came to be
viewed as the pillar of society. So culture became
the primary concern of the humanities and was no
longer seen as superfluous to economic and polit-
ical topics.
According to Hall, these intellectuals tried to
draw their readers attention to the idea that the
concept of culture includes matters directly
related to the so-called great historical changes
(Hall 2009: 127). However, it was Raymond
Williams from among the cited authors who
chose to open dialogue with archaeology, thus
moving towards building a global perspective.
From among Williams many definitions of
culture, two caught the attention of Stuart Hall.
The first related culture to the sum of possible
descriptions by which societies bestow meaning
Global Archaeology
on the world and reflect on their common expe-
riences (Hall 2009: 126). Thus intellectual his-
tory was not only concerned with those few
western traditions classified as worthy of
record, such as the great artists of the Renais-
sance, the great monuments and construction
works of Antiquity, or the writers of holy illumi-
nated texts. On the contrary, it dealt with the idea
of a democratized culture that encompasses
any human beings descriptions of the world.
While this first definition developed the con-
cept of culture as an idea, the second definition
would take in the anthropological universe. On
this occasion, Williams emphasized culture as
related to social practices and characterized cul-
ture as a global way of life (Hall 2009: 126).
According to Hall, by integrating diverse life-
styles, this definition became one of the central
axes of humanities.
From this viewpoint, the theory of culture
became defined as the study of the relationships
between typical elements of a global lifestyle. So
culture would be neither a practice nor the
descriptive sum of a societys popular customs.
On the contrary, it would overflow the confines of
social practices to become the sum of the interre-
lations that exist between them.
The writings of Raymond Williams were of
added importance to the birth of new fields of
action in the archaeological field. In the British
case in particular, according to archaeologist Paul
Courtney (2007: 38), landscape studies and the
later foundations of industrial archaeology were
profoundly influenced by Williams text, Culture
and Society. In understanding the relationships
between human groups, having the starting
point as an analysis of the cultural material was
one contribution that would have made archaeol-
ogy a new point of reference.
This new field, built from discussions of
Hoggart, Williams, and Thompson, would be
institutionalized in the 1970s as the Linguistic
Turn Movement. The Linguistic Turn, whose
roots lie, in part, within anthropology, immedi-
ately influenced the definition of culture as well
as its supposed global character.
In 1973, the US anthropologist Clifford Geertz
published The Interpretation of Cultures:
3055 G
Selected Essays. Profoundly disturbed by the
so-called conceptual bog around culture
which, according to the author, ended up creating
an indefinition of the term Geertz applied him-
self to building his own redefinition of culture and
of all the areas involved in cultural studies. For
Geertz, culture would always be something
essentially semiotic. In his own words: Believ-
ing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal
suspended in webs of significance he himself
has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and
the analysis of it to be not an experimental sci-
ence in search of law but an interpretative one in
search of meaning (Geertz 1973: 5). From this G
point of view, all science dedicated to cultural
analysis would be, therefore, interpretive science.
Supported by his interpretation of the thick
description of English philosopher Gilbert Ryle,
Geertz championed the practice of ethnography
as a field that deciphers codes, and chooses and
reads semantic structures, attributing to them
specific meanings. This means that cultural inter-
pretation would become an incomplete and
subjective operation, since it is characterized
by the understanding of human behavior as
a symbolic action. For the readers and
followers of Geertzs proposals, his description
of the actions, possibilities, and limitations of
ethnography act as a window through which
human sciences can be understood as a whole,
across the fields of anthropology and archaeology
and including historiography.
Beyond this concept of culture, which is
related to the beginning of contextual archaeol-
ogy (Hodder 1982), we are also interested in
understanding the limits Geertz imposes on the
work of cultural reading. According to the
anthropologist, there are three characteristics of
ethnographic description: it would always be
interpretative, it would interpret the flow of social
discourse, and it would aim to save the said
through speech in forms that are able to be inves-
tigated. Finally, he adds one more: the reading is
microscopic. This is where we meet the problem
of thinking on a global scale.
According to this theoretical model, culture is
understood contextually; in this way, it can only be
read on a singular and small scale: the local
G 3056
dimension. For Geertz, the only global element of
the semiotic model for the interpretation of culture
is that which allows us access to the conceptual
world with which our subjects overlap, in such
a way that, with this wider scope of meaning, we
would be able to communicate (1973: 35). In this
way, the global nature of thought would respond
better to our desire to establish general rules of
human behavior than would the possibility of
understanding its local specificities. Not because
the global should be left aside; on the other hand,
for this author, whatever generalization we man-
age to establish should come from the finesse of its
particularities and not from the scale of its abstrac-
tions. Thus, the local scale is shaped as a crucial
piece of any attempt to think in global terms.
Geertzs proposals, which were explored and
amplified through the studies of anthropologists
from the School of Chicago in the 1970s, had
a significant impact on anthropology and archae-
ology, upsetting the existing trend among behav-
iorists, linguistic formalists, and the like. The
proposal of the symbolic interpretation of cul-
tures on a local scale, cultures which nonetheless
showed global interconnections, would gather
strength within the humanities area.
In the particular case of archaeology, one can-
not deny the contribution to the forms of analysis
on a global scale of North American anthropolo-
gist James Deetz and his work In Small Things
Forgotten: The Archeology of Early American
Life, dated 1977. For this author, archaeology
has a duty to approach anthropology with the
aim of comprehending the diffusion of European
culture around the world, commencing in the
fifteenth century, and from this perspective
understanding the impact and interactions
between those cultures that were expanding and
the native cultures they affected. Understanding
of the so-called global transformations was
modeled on an analysis of the small actions (and
objects!) of daily life, many of which were related
to food and housing in the North American colo-
nies. In this way, the global scale was built up
from the analysis of highly specific contexts.
For Deetz, who dialogued with anthropolo-
gists Edward Burnett Tylor, Franz Boas, Alfred
L. Kroeber, Leslie White, and Claude Levi-
Global Archaeology
Strauss, the concept of culture should be the
central paradigm for the conception of archaeol-
ogy itself. Supported by the studies of Walter
Taylor (1948: 50-64), culture was defined in this
context as mental constructs that cannot be
observed directly, but rather come to light in
different ways, such as ritual practices, social
structures, and even the physical world. Global
scale thinking became part of archaeology, in the
beginning from discussions of the term culture
and consequently from debates about how each
researcher perceives the world they are studying.
Speculations in the theoretical area were closely
tied to archaeological practice.
Global Thinking: The Ecological Movement
on a Global Scale
Change to the concept of culture, as well as the
consequent value given to the global scale, was
intertwined with the gradual understanding of the
environmental crisis in the second half of the
1950s (Palacio 2002: 13). Concomitant with an
increased value given to a new model of life
based on consumption, a practice stimulated by
the world of the Cold War was the beginning of
doubts about the same model. During the decade
of the 1950s, pollution of European rivers, for
example, the River Thames, reached alarming
levels, while air contamination produced
a proliferation of severe respiratory problems in
the population. Even the seemingly unquestion-
able models of food production were put in
check by the book Silent Spring (1962) by Rachel
Carson.
In this book, the author denounces the chem-
ical products used to improve agricultural pro-
duction. From the 1950s, then, people were
casting doubt on the belief that technology and
science were the saviors of humanity. The per-
ception that something had gone awry, something
inherent in the development models being
practiced in the West, would bring about the
correction and redefinition of the concept of
environment and in the same way expand its
field of action to a global scale.
If the concept of the environment had previ-
ously been relegated to the darkest corners of
scientific theory, by the 1960s, it became the
Global Archaeology
banner of social movements, besides movements
for the defense of civil rights and feminism. From
then on, the definitions of what is environment
have multiplied. In 1969, for example, the British
researcher James E. Lovelock, with the North
American biologist Lynn Margulis, launched
the Theory of Gaia, which imagines the planet
Earth as an enormous living entity capable of
self-regulation. The Theory of Gaia, which won
sympathizers from members of mystic move-
ments, environmentalists, and some researchers,
facilitated the popularization of the concept of
environment as composed of not only natural
resources but also of human beings. Within this
conception, man forms part of a planetary whole
that is able to self-regulate and respond to the
aggressions it suffers. The Earth, in this context,
can be defined as the interaction between living
and nonliving beings.
In his search for a holistic theory of environ-
ment, the geographer Yi-Fu Tuan defined envi-
ronment, in this same decade, as the set of
conditions under which any person or thing
lives or develops. The environment would be,
therefore, the sum total of the influences that
modify the development of life or character
(Tuan 1974).
In a more pragmatic way, the environment
could also be understood from the viewpoint of
natural resources, a trend that materialized in the
report The Limits to Growth, produced by the
Club of Rome and published in 1972. In this
report, the sustainability of the planet was ana-
lyzed, in terms of the demand for raw materials
and natural resources, as well as eventual wastes.
In this text, it was affirmed that the planet Earth
could not support population growth, owing to
the pressure that this would produce on the natu-
ral and energy resources and the increase in pol-
lution, when taking into account technological
advances.
From the 1960s, therefore, the definitions of
environment have become different from the
concepts of landscape. According to Brazilian
researcher Tereza Emidio, the landscape became
an integral part of a wider universe, denominated
environment: this landscape could be conceived
then as a universe in miniature which, when
3057 G
articulated with other small universes, would con-
stitute the environment (Emidio 2006: 13-4).
In this way, the global scale is converted into
an imperative, above all for the biological sci-
ences, which should come around to conceiving
human actions as phenomena that cause an
impact on the globe, this being conceived as
a whole (Kingsland 1985).
Global Capitalism and a New Historical
Archaeology
The archaeology of modernity and global capi-
talism has been particularly focused on
a comprehensive approach, but it took a time for G
this universal stand to develop. Historical archae-
ology started in the United States as the narrow
study of the Anglo-American material culture,
excluding African-Americans, Natives, Latinos,
Jewish, Irish, Italian, and other components of the
American past. Critical understandings started in
the 1970s and 1980s, mostly from a Marxist
background, with groundbreaking studies by
Orser, Leone, and MacGuire (Hicks & Baudry
2006: 27-30). There has been since then
a growing emphasis on global features of moder-
nity, taking capitalism as a force organizing a set
of social relations, as put by Leone in 1999.
Orser stressed that there is no global trend with-
out local features, so that global and local are
interwoven and enmeshed in profound ways.
From the late 1980s, from a global perspec-
tive, several archaeologists questioned the uni-
versal role of capitalism and proposed instead
a variety of specificities in different continents,
countries, and regions (Funari et al. 1999). Diver-
sity and identities in the plural have also featured
a plethora of studies, from Shanks and Tilley
(1988: 5-10), and Voss (2008: 18-20), but also
peripheral outlooks (Funari et al. 2005).
Global archaeology did not lose its strength, but
recognized the relevance of concrete situations in
different historical and social contexts.
Future Directions
Archaeology has moved from a most conservative
and even reactionary endeavor to become a force
G 3058
for change in the contemporary world. It is a no
mean feat in itself. Within a few two or three
generations, the discipline moved from defending
the status quo, hierarchical relations, and social
imbalances to contributing to challenging all
those features and to promoting diversity, freedom,
and the empowerment of people in general. There
is future for archaeology out of a global perspec-
tive and the actual practice in concrete situations
(Jones 2009: 109). Archaeologists are now largely
from non-western countries, thousands of them
from China, India, Japan, and other Asian coun-
tries, a large number from the Middle East, Africa,
Latin America, Central Asia, and beyond. The
USA, Canada, and Western Europe continue to
be crucial do the discipline, but archaeologists
working there are now in a minority and will
increasingly be so. However, most archaeological
intellectual scholarship is still from former colonial
powers and this is to remain so for quite some time.
A global archaeology is an archaeology accepting
and including all those mixed features.
Cross-References
Capitalism in Archaeological Theory
Capitalism: Historical Archaeology
Culture in Archaeology
Historical Archaeology
References
ARENDT, H. 2004. The origins of totalitarianism.
New York: Schocken.
BOAST, R. 2009. The formative century, 1860-1960, in B.
Cunliffe, C. Gosden & R. Joyce (ed.) The Oxford
handbook of archaeology: 47-70. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
CHILDE, V.G. 1951. Man makes himself. New York: Mentor.
CLARKE, D. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence.
Antiquity 47(185): 6-18.
COURTNEY, P. 2007. Historians and archaeologists: an
English perspective. Historical Archaeology 41(2):
35-45.
EMIDIO, T. 2006. Meio ambiente e paisagem. Sao Paulo:
Editora Senac.
FUNARI, P.P.A. 2006. The World Archaeological Congress
from a critical and personal perspective. Archaeol-
ogies 2(1): 73-79.
Global Archaeology
FUNARI, P.P.A., M. HALL & S. JONES.1999. Historical
archaeology, back from the edge. London: Routledge.
FUNARI, P.P.A., A. ZARANKIN & E. STOVEL. 2005. Global
archaeological theory. New York: Springer.
GEERTZ, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures.
New York: Basic.
HALL, S. 1980. Cultural studies: two paradigms. Media,
Culture and Society 2: 5772.
- 2009. Da diaspora. Belo Horizonte: Editora da UFMG.
HICKS, D. & M.C. BEAUDRY. (ed.) 2006. The Cambridge
companion to historical archaeology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
HODDER, I. 1982. Symbols in action. Ethnoarchaeological
studies of material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
JOHNSON, M. 2009. The theoretical scene, 1960-2000, in B.
Cunliffe, C. Gosden & R.A. Joyce (ed.) The Oxford
handbook of archaeology: 71-88. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
JONES, A. 2009. Into the future, in B. Cunliffe, C. Gosden &
R.A. Joyce (ed.) The Oxford handbook of archaeology:
89-114. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
KINGSLAND, S. 1985. Modeling nature. Chicago: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
KRISTIANSEN, K. 2009. The discipline of archaeology, in B.
Cunliffe, C. Gosden & R.A. Joyce (ed.) The Oxford
handbook of archaeology: 3-46. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
ORSER, C.E. 1996. A historical archaeology of the modern
world. New York: Plenum Press.
PALACIO, G. 2002. Notas sobre lanocion ambiental: un
nuevo matiz en el analisis historico?, in G. Palacio &
A. Ulloa (ed.) Repensando la naturaleza: 190-213.
Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.
SHANKS, M. 2008. Post-processual archaeology and after,
in R.A. Bentley, H.D.G. Maschner & C. Chippindale
(ed.) Handbook of archaeological theories: 133-44.
Lanham: AltaMira.
SHANKS, M. & C. TILLEY. 1988. Social theory and archae-
ology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
SHEPERD, N. 2005. From one world of archaeology to one
world, many archaeologies. Archaeologies 1(1): 16.
SMITH, C. 2005. The World Archaeological Congress:
extending the vision. Archaeologies 1(1): 126-38.
TAYLOR, W.W. 1948. A study of archeology. American
Anthropologist 50(69).
UCKO, P. 1987. Academic freedom and apartheid: the
story of the World Archaeological Congress. London:
Duckworth.
VOSS, B. 2008. Between the household and the world-
system: social collectivity and community agency in
Overseas Chinese archaeology. Historical Archaeol-
ogy 42(3): 37-52.
WALLACE, G. 2008. Archaeology and society, in R.A.
Bentley, H.D.G. Maschner & C. Chippindale (ed.)
Handbook of archaeological theories: 395-407.
Lanham: AltaMira.
WATSON, P. J. 2008. Processualism and after, in R.A. Bent-
ley, H.D.G. Maschner & C. Chippindale (ed.)
Global Heritage Fund (GHF)
Handbook of archaeological theories: 29-37. Lanham:
AltaMira.
WEBSTER, G.S. 2008. Culture history: a culture-historical
approach, in R.A. Bentley, H.D.G. Maschner & C.
Chippindale (ed.) Handbook of archaeological theo-
ries: 11-28. Lanham: AltaMira.
Further Reading
CARSON, R. 1962. Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin:
Mariner Books.
DEETZ, J. 1977. In small things forgotten: the archaeology
of early American life. New York: Doubleday.
HOGGAR, R. 1957. The uses of literacy: aspects of working
class life. London: Chatto and Windus.
LACAPRA, D. 2001. Writing history, writing trauma. Bal-
timore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
PATTERSON, T. 2001. A social history of anthropology in
the United States. Oxford: Berg.
THOMPSON, E.P. 1963. The making of the English working
class. London: Penguin.
TUAN, Y.F. 1974. Topophilia: a study of environmental
perception, attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliffs
(NJ): Prentice-Hall.
WILLIAMS, R. 1958. Culture and society. London: Chatto
and Windus.
Global Heritage Fund (GHF)
Jeff Adams
University of Minnesota, Palo Alto, CA, USA
Basic Information
Global Heritage Fund (GHF) is a private, non-
profit organization dedicated to the preservation
of endangered archaeological and architectural
heritage sites in developing countries and
regions. It is distinguishable from other interna-
tional heritage preservation nongovernmental
organizations by its exclusive developing country
focus and its signature methodology integrating
conservation and economic development.
Headquartered in Palo Alto, California, GHF
was founded in 2002 by entrepreneur Jeff Morgan.
Morgan oversaw day-to-day operations as Execu-
tive Director, serving under a Board of Trustees
responsible for determining overall strategy and
direction until 2013, when Dr. Vince Michael took
3059 G
over the post. A Senior Advisory Board comprised
of a multidisciplinary team of noted archaeologists
and architectural conservators provides guidance in
matters of conservation.
Funding for GHF operations comes from
corporate and private donations and project-
specific matching allocations from governmental
and nongovernmental organizations. According to
GHF, they had invested $25 million and garnered
$20 million in project co-funding as of 2011 (Jeff
Morgan, pers. comm. 2011).
GHF seeks to advance the goals of site
conservation, community development, and pres-
ervation advocacy through a program of field G
projects, fellowships, the Global Heritage Net-
work (GHN) initiative, and various workshops,
events, and publications.
Major Impact
Over its first decade of operations, GHF staged 19
major conservation projects in 12 countries.
Project sites are selected on the basis of their
estimated significance, threat level, regional
economic need, and potential for long-term sus-
tainability via community involvement. GHF has
historically focused on World Heritage Tentative
List and other major sites informally deemed to
possess Outstanding Universal Value. Of
particular interest are those for which preexisting
preservation leadership and grassroots support has
been in evidence. The GHN threat-monitoring ini-
tiative, described below, informs the identification
of potential GHF project locations through
a program of expert site assessments.
A hallmark of GHF field projects is their over-
arching focus on long-term community develop-
ment through heritage tourism, for which the
conservation of physical fabric is intended to
serve as catalyst. What GHF describes as an
integrated community-based conservation and
development framework is built around
a trademarked Preservation by Design method-
ology comprised of four elements: planning and
protection, conservation science, community
development, and partnerships.
G 3060
Planning and protection refers to preparatory
research and investigation, the development of
conservation and master management plans hav-
ing defined goals, responsibilities, milestones,
and provisions for monitoring. Conservation sci-
ence refers to tailored research and direction by
leading international architectural conservators
in consultation with local experts. Community
development includes local-level promotion,
training, and capacity building for conservation,
site management, heritage tourism, and craft
production. Finally, GHF views partnerships
with in-country governmental, academic, and
special interest groups for conservation, funding,
and executive management to be tactically and
strategically critical.
Current and completed GHF projects include
work at sites in East, South, and Southeast Asia;
the Middle East; North Africa; South America;
Central America; and Eastern Europe. These
have entailed the conservation of historic struc-
tures, at places like Izborsk (Russia) and Pingyao
(China); archaeological ruins, such as those of
Hampi (India) and Banteay Chhmar (Cambodia);
and in situ archaeological remains at locations
including Chavin (Peru) and Catalhoyuk
(Turkey). In ongoing efforts at the rapidly devel-
oping World Heritage Site of Pingyao, China,
GHF is working with regional governmental and
academic institutions to stem the deterioration
and loss of traditional Qing Dynasty courtyard
houses and promote locally based heritage
tourism through a program of survey, planning,
conservation, training, and the promotion of local
craft production. At the heavily looted ancient
Khmer complex of Banteay Chhmar, GHF has
assembled an array of domestic and international
partner organizations to develop a site Master
Plan, stabilize and conserve key structures, facil-
itate the preparation of a World Heritage List
nomination, and train local residents in conserva-
tion and tourism. At the Neolithic settlement of
Catalhoyuk, GHF has acted in concert with
a range of sponsors and collaborators to enact
improvements including a shelter, walkways,
and signage; conserve murals; train locals in
Global Heritage Fund (GHF)
conservation and tourism; and assist the Turkish
Ministry of Culture in the revision of a site man-
agement plan and establishment of a regional
Heritage Park.
In 2011, GHF launched Global Heritage
Network (GHN), an Internet-based preservation
collaboration, advocacy, and threat-monitoring
platform. Intended to facilitate international
information exchange among working profes-
sionals and students, GHN consists of
a threatened site database, a member community,
and a documentation library. GHN Sites is
a Google Earth-supported dynamic repository of
satellite imagery, spatial data, photos, videos,
news items, technical reports, GHF-sponsored
site assessments, and other resources relating to
the preservation of select developing country
sites. The GHN Community is an online social
network featuring preservation news and
user-created discussion groups. The GHN
Library consists of preservation literature such
as management plans, studies, reports, articles,
and bibliographies pertaining to heritage conser-
vation, tourism, economics, and related themes.
In addition to its active member community,
GHN is supported through the voluntary efforts
of qualified Site Coordinators and Site Monitors.
Other GHF activities include an annual Pres-
ervation Fellowship program supporting interna-
tional students and scholars in the preservation of
developing country sites, workshops and public
fora on conservation-related topics, and the
production of occasional research reports, white
papers, a blog, and a biannual newsletter.
To its advocates, GHFs brand of venture
philanthropy is a model of grassroots preserva-
tion engagement bridging developed and devel-
oping countries. The direct effects of GHFs work
include the physical conservation, protection, and
improvement of a significant number of sites
and the enhancement of local-level knowledge
and skills regarding conservation and tourism.
By bringing together networks of partner organi-
zations, they have promoted intra- and interna-
tional cooperation and raised the visibility of best
practices heritage management and planning.
Goat: Domestication
Global Heritage Network provides unprece-
dented public access to information on develop-
ing country heritage site management and hosts
a sizable community of active participants.
Among the indirect impacts of GHFs efforts
must be counted as yet unquantified economic
effects of heritage tourism for households and
communities, enriched future personal and pro-
fessional opportunities for trainees and fellows,
increased public awareness of the special vulner-
ability of developing country heritage, and
strengthened appreciation among peer organiza-
tions of the importance of financial savvy for
NGO efficacy and long-term site sustainability.
By advertising their Preservation by Design
methodology, GHF arguably helps to raise the
bar of international heritage management
practice, accentuating the need for holistic plan-
ning, community commitment, and clear
accountability.
Cross-References
Catalhoyuk Archaeological Site
Digital Archaeological Data: Ensuring Access,
Use, and Preservation
Global Archaeology
Heritage and Public Policy
Heritage Sites: Economic Incentives, Impacts,
and Commercialization
Local Communities and Archaeology:
A Caribbean Perspective
Local Populations and Global Heritage
Morgan, Jeff
Preservation Paradigm in Heritage
Management
Sustainability and Cultural Heritage
Tourism, Archaeology, and Ethics: A Case
Study in the Rupununi Region of Guyana
Further Reading
GLOBAL HERITAGE FUND. n.d. Available at: http://globalher-
itagefund.org/and http://ghn.globalheritagefund.org/
(accessed 3 September 2013).
3061 G
Goat: Domestication
Francois Pompanon
Laboratoire dEcologie Alpine, Universite
Grenoble, Grenoble, France
Basic Species Information
The domestic goat Capra hircus (Linnaeus 1758)
(Mammalia, Artiodactyla, Bovidae, Caprinae) is
a small ruminant herbivore that browses on shrubs
and weeds. Females reach puberty between 6 and G
12 months and after a mean gestation time of 150
days give birth to a single or twins. On average, the
withers height is 60 cm and the weight 60 kg for
a female, but these characteristics strongly vary
according to the breed (e.g., for females from
27 kg for an African Pygmy to more than 100 kg
for a Boer). Both sexes have a beard and horns in
most breeds, and many breeds bear wattles. The
800 million goats distributed all over the world are
mainly present in Asia and in the Near East (70 %
of the worldwide population) and are found in
almost all kinds of environments. There are more
than 640 breeds, including about 560 traditional
breeds/populations adapted to local conditions
(Fig. 1) and industrial breeds. The worldwide
goat population show a high level of genetic diver-
sity distributed independently of the breeds
(Naderi et al. 2007).
Timing and Tracking Domestication
Archaeological (Harris 1961) and genetic
(Manceau et al. 1999; Pidancier et al. 2006) data
revealed that the goats wild ancestor is the
bezoar, Capra aegagrus (Fig. 2). Bezoars are
distributed in mountains of the Middle East,
from southwestern Turkey to central Afghanistan
and southern Pakistan (Fig. 3), mainly in
relatively arid habitats such as mixtures of rock
outcrops and shrubby thickets or conifer forests
(Fig. 2). Goats were among the first farm animals
G 3062 Goat: Domestication

Goat: Domestication,
Fig. 1 Traditional goat
population locally adapted
to a semiarid mountainous
environment (Atlas
Mountains, Morocco)
(Photo credit:
F. Pompanon)

Goat: Domestication,
Fig. 2 Male bezoars
(Capra aegagrus) on
a rocky slope in a protected
area (Lashkar Dar Malayer,
Iran) (Photo credit:
H.R. Rezaei)

domesticated and rapidly had an important role in
the economies of human societies. This is due to
several characteristics inherited from its wild
ancestor, including flexible feeding habits and
the ability to live and breed under coarse condi-
tions (Clutton-Brock 1999) and to be transported
over long distances. Goats provide meat, milk, and
dung (for fuel) but also hair and skin for clothing,
or sinew (for glue or strings) and bones used for
making tools and weapons. Since the beginning of
domestication, the control of livestock by people
released environmental pressures such as those
exerted by sexual selection or predation on horn
morphology or coat color. Simultaneously, new
selective pressures appeared since farmers instinc-
tively or deliberately favored some characteristics.
A general trend differentiating domestics from
wilds is changes in skeletal conformation (i.e.,
mainly a reduction in body size), but traditional
breeding led to a diversity of locally adapted
Goat: Domestication
Goat: Domestication, Fig. 3 Simplified scenario of
initial goat domestication from the bezoar in the Middle
East. The light brown area represents the geographic range
of the bezoar (Capra aegagrus) that may not have
changed since the beginning of domestication. The yellow
and green areas represent the approximate areas where
herd management took place and where true domestic
phenotypes. The intensity of artificial selection
strongly increased with the emergence of the
breed concept 200 years ago, resulting in the stan-
dardization of morphology (e.g., size, coat color)
and performance within well-defined industrial
breeds.
The bezoar was among the wild ungulates
hunted by hunter-gatherers from the Neolithic in
Western Asia. Several tactics of animal use, more
or less successful, may have been developed to
ensure the transition from hunting to domestica-
tion. The control and protection of wild flocks
kept in a favored place may have existed besides
and/or before the taming and rearing of animals
that led to the isolation of true domestic herds
(Clutton-Brock 1999). Such archaeological pre-
diction of herd management is coherent with the
genetic signature of a past demographic expan-
sion of the bezoars from Central Zagros (Fig. 3),
which occurred before the isolation of domestic
herds (i.e., time of expansion of Iranian goat
populations, Naderi et al. 2008).
3063 G
herds were isolated, respectively. The stars give an exam-
ple of localities with bezoars sharing the same genotype
(for a mitochondrial DNA gene) supporting past trans-
locations by man (Naderi et al. 2008). In red: archaeolog-
ical sites giving evidence for local pre-Neolithic goat
domestication (see text)
This is also consistent with young male-biased
culling patterns without body size reduction
found in this region (Ganj Dareh, Iran) about
10,000 Before Present (BP), although it has
sometimes been interpreted as true domestication
(Zeder & Hesse 2000). However, the first domes-
tic herds may not have appeared from controlled
populations from Central Zagros, but in
a region ranging from Eastern Anatolia to North-
ern Zagros where the wild populations are
genetically closer to the domestics and where
there is archaeological evidence for local
goat domestication c. 10,500 BP (Neval Cori,
Turkey). However, the managed bezoars from
Central Zagros would have contributed to
a small part of the domestic gene pool captured
in Northern Zagros/Eastern Anatolia through an
early translocation of controlled animals
(Fig. 3, Naderi et al. 2008).
Human-mediated long-distance transfers dur-
ing the phase of herd management or at the early
stages of true domestication are archaeologically
G 3064
attested by the presence of wild or feralized goats
outside the geographical range of the species
(e.g., in Cyprus during the eleventh millennium,
Vigne et al. 2011). Such feralized populations are
still living in several Mediterranean islands.
Animal translocations are consistent with the
weak phylogeographic structure of the bezoar
over its whole range (Fig. 3), which is very
unusual in wild ungulates. The high level of
genomic diversity currently observed in goats,
similar to that of bezoars, cannot be explained
by the domestication of less than 1,3001,900
ancestral lineages (Naderi et al. 2008).
Thus, the domestication of goats has been
a long-term process which initial phase lasted at
least several hundred years, over a large area
(Western Anatolia/Northern Zagros), involving
several hundred to several thousand individuals.
Independently, an earlier phase of wild herd man-
agement in the Central Zagros did not contribute
to the modern goat gene pool except by the trans-
fer of wilds and/or early domestics by people to
the area where domestication took place (Fig. 3).
After isolation of the first domestic herds, goats
diffused from the domestication area to reach
Western Europe (c. 7,600 BP in southern France),
Eastern Asia (not well documented, probably c.
3,000 BP in China), and Africa (c. 7,400 BP in the
Maghreb and later than 4,000 BP in more south-
ern parts). The current mix of genotypes in bezoar
populations from the domestication area suggest
that the weak genetic structure of modern goats at
the worldwide level results more from the initial
capture of genotypes from already mixed wild
populations than from further transportations of
domestics for commercial trade (Naderi et al.
2008). The introgression of wild genomes into
the domestic gene pool through hybridization
may have also taken place, but its importance
and timing are still unknown.
Cross-References
Animal Domestication and Pastoralism: Socio-
Environmental Contexts
Cyprus, Archaeology of
Genetic Bottlenecks in Archaeology
Goat: Domestication
Near East (Including Anatolia): Geographic
Description and General Chronology of the
Paleolithic and Neolithic
References
CLUTTONBROCK, J. 1999. A natural history of domesti-
cated mammals. Cambridge: The Natural History
Museum, Cambridge University Press.
HARRIS, D.R. 1961. The distribution and ancestry of the
domestic goat. Journal of the Linnean Society of
London 173: 79-91.
MANCEAU, V., L. DESPRES. J. BOUVET & P. TABERLET. 1999.
Systematics of the genus Capra inferred from mito-
chondrial DNA sequence data. Molecular Phyloge-
netics and Evolution 13: 504-10.
NADERI, S., H.R. REZAEI, P. TABERLET, S. ZUNDEL, S.A.
RAFAT, H.R. NAGASH, M.A.A. ELBARODY, O. ERTUGRUL,
F. POMPANON & ECONOGENE CONSORTIUM. 2007. Large
scale mitochondrial DNA analysis of the domestic goat
reveals six haplogroups with high diversity. PLoS ONE
2: e1012. doi:1010.1371/journal.pone.0001012.
NADERI, S., H.R. REZAEI, F. POMPANON, M.G. BLUM,
R. NEGRINI, H. NAGHASH, O. Balkz, M. MASHKOUR,
O. GAGGIOTTI, P. AJMONEMARSAN, A. KENCE,
J.D. VIGNE & P. TABERLET. 2008. The goat
domestication process inferred from largescale mito-
chondrial DNA analysis of wild and domestic individ-
uals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America 105: 17659-64.
PIDANCIER, N., S. JORDAN, G. LUIKART & P. TABERLET. 2006.
Evolutionary history of the genus Capra (Mammalia,
Artiodactyla): discordance between mitochondrial
DNA and Ychromosome phylogenies. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 40: 739-49.
VIGNE, J.-D., I. CARRERE, F. BRIOIS & J. GUILAINE. 2011.
The early process of mammal domestication in the
Near East new evidence from the pre-Neolithic and
pre-pottery Neolithic in Cyprus. Current Anthropol-
ogy 52: S255-S271.
ZEDER, M.A. & B. HESSE. 2000. The initial domestication
of goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains
10,000 years ago. Science 287: 2254-7.
Further Reading
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED
NATIONS (FAO). 2007. The state of the worlds animal
genetic resources for food and agriculture. Rome:
Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture.
VIGNE, J.D., J. PETERS & D. HELMER. 2005. The first steps
of animal domestication. New archaeological
approaches. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
WEINBERG, P., T. JDEIDI, M. MASSETI, I. NADER, K. DE SMET &
F. CUZIN. (2008.) Capra aegagrus, in IUCN 2011.
IUCN red list of threatened species (Version 2011.2.).
Available at: www.iucnredlist.org.
Gobekli Tepe: Agriculture and Domestication 3065 G
Gobekli Tepe: Agriculture and
Domestication

Joris Peters1, Klaus Schmidt2, Oliver Dietrich2

and Nadja Pollath1
1
Institute of Palaeoanatomy, Domestication
Research and the History of Veterinary
Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilian University,
Munich, Germany
2
Orient-Abteilung, Deutsches Archaologisches
Institut, Berlin, Germany

G
Introduction

The Site
The Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPN) tell of Gobekli
Tepe (GT) lies 15 km NE of the modern city of
Sanlurfa in SE Anatolia. It is located at the
highest point of the Germus range overlooking
the Harran plain. Ongoing excavations since
1995 revealed a unique monumental architecture
rich in symbolism (Schmidt 2011, 2012).
Key Issues
Traces of domestic structures have not been
found yet. At least two occupation phases can
be distinguished. The monumental architecture
(Fig. 1) with huge T-shaped pillars arranged in
circle-like enclosures around two even taller cen-
tral pillars (>5 m) corresponds to Layer III and
dates to the PPNA (Dietrich & Schmidt 2010).
The pillars are interconnected by walls and stone
benches. Layer II represents a later occupation
phase dating to the Early and Middle PPNB.
Its architecture consists of small rectangular
buildings, usually with two pillars (<2 m) placed
in their center.
The pillars of Layer III are richly decorated
with figurations of animals as diverse as insects,
spiders, scorpions, snakes, birds, and mammals
(Peters & Schmidt 2004; Fig. 2). These enclo-
sures also produced limestone sculptures of
human beings and animals. A geophysical survey
revealed the presence of many more large
Gobekli Tepe: Agriculture and Domestication,
Fig. 1 Gobekli Tepe overview of the main excavation
area with the characteristic round enclosures. In the fore-
ground Enclosure D, the one best preserved (# DAI,
Photo N. Becker)
enclosures all over the mound. Obviously, these
were backfilled rapidly and intentionally after
some time of use, ritually buried as it seems.
It is assumed that the T-shaped pillars repre-
sent supra-natural beings (Schmidt 2011).
In addition, depictions of human arms and
hands together with garments, such as decorated
belts or loincloths made of a fox pelt, indicate
their anthropomorphic nature (Fig. 3). As such,
the complex belief system visualized by the find-
ings at GT illustrates considerable sociocultural
complexity in foraging communities inhabiting
PPNA Upper Mesopotamia.
Subsistence
The carving of the monoliths and the building
of the enclosures necessitated considerable
man power and a well-organized community.
Moreover, cult practices including feasting likely
G 3066
Gobekli Tepe: Agriculture and Domestication,
Fig. 2 Pillar 43 in Enclosure D is covered entirely by
depictions, mostly of animals (# GEO & DAI, Photo
B. Steinhilber)
attracted large groups, implying that food
procurement had to be organized. If the numerous
grinders, mortars, and pestles found in the
backfill suggest large-scale plant processing
at GT, other evidence for this activity is poor.
Storage facilities have not been found so far and
remains of edible plants are rare. Up to now, only
wild taxa including cereals such as einkorn,
wheat/rye, and barley could be identified
(Neef 2003). At this stage of research, however,
activities pointing at cereal cultivation can
neither be evidenced nor excluded.
Besides plant collecting, hunting was
essential. The faunal assemblage illustrates that
throughout site occupation, people predomi-
nantly hunted Persian gazelle. Wild cattle, asiatic
wild ass, wild boar, wild sheep, deer, hare, fox,
and a variety of bird species contributed to the
diet as well. Faunal composition in Layer III
indicates that besides gazelle (58 %), wild cattle
Gobekli Tepe: Agriculture and Domestication
Gobekli Tepe: Agriculture and Domestication,
Fig. 3 Pillar 31, one of the central pillars of Enclosure
D, illustrates the anthropomorphic character of the pillars.
It shows arms and hands as well as elements of clothing
a stola, a belt, and a loincloth made of a fox pelt (# DAI,
Photo N. Becker)
(18 %) were a major supplier of meat too con-
sidering the species liveweight. However, its
economic importance declined markedly during
later occupation when medium-sized ungulates
(gazelle, wild sheep) provided most of the meat.
Gobekli Tepe and the Neolithic Revolution
Architecture and art at GT are indicative of
a complex belief system and a hierarchically
structured universe. Of particular interest is the
anthropomorphic nature of the T-shaped pillars
and the fact that insects, spiders, and vertebrates
have been depicted on them. This could signify
that the supra-natural beings exerted power over
these animals and therefore in the figurative
sense over the world of the living. The GT
findings might therefore suggest that within the
hierarchy of the PPN belief system,
Gobekli Tepe: Agriculture and Domestication
anthropomorphic beings and hence humans
considered themselves superior to other living
creatures. If this interpretation is correct, then
the symbolism displayed at PPNA GT could
indeed evidence a mind-set that was conducive
for achieving cultural control over animals. It has
been argued that the Neolithic revolution could
not have taken place without this mental devel-
opment (Cauvin 1997).
A sedentary way of life and long-term
acquaintance with wild forms were essential
prior to domesticating ungulates. At a certain
point in time domestication moreover necessi-
tated the spatial isolation of individuals from
free-ranging herds and their raising and breeding
in an anthropogenic environment. However, evi-
dence for human interference with the life cycle
of ungulates during the initial stages of the
domestication process, when hunting activities
still provided the bulk of the meat (and hence of
the osseous remains in the assemblage), is prob-
lematic based on the available zooarchaeological
methods. Thus, whether domesticates were kept
at GT is difficult to ascertain, but it is not impos-
sible that this was the case during the later occu-
pation stage (Layer II).
Particularly noteworthy is the evidence for
feasting at GT (Dietrich et al. 2012). In combina-
tion with the wide geographic distribution of
elements of its iconography in Upper Mesopota-
mia, this implies that groups of hunter-gatherers
originating from different parts of Anatolia
and northern Syria assembled here. On these
occasions, hunters from different communities
had the possibility to share their knowledge and
experience relative to the exploitation of eco-
nomically important species, e.g., gazelle, wild
cattle, wild sheep, and wild boar. This way, more
efficient hunting techniques as well as innovative
methods for monitoring mobility in wild ungu-
lates within the site catchment could have spread
quite quickly. The same is true for aspects
concerning the practicability, workload, and
economic benefits of keeping and breeding ani-
mals within the boundaries of a settlement. Not
only would this kind of dissemination scenario be
consistent with the available zooarchaeological
and genetic evidence indicating multiple and
3067 G
broadly contemporaneous domestication events
throughout the (northern) Fertile Crescent, it
would also help understanding why PPN ungu-
late domestication was not restricted to a single
taxon or to animals confined to a particular
ecogeographic setting (Peters et al. in press).
Interestingly, the fact that in SE and
E Anatolia livestock husbandry was already prac-
ticed a few centuries before reaching the early
Holocene climatic optimum c. 8000 BCE (Peters
et al. 1999) suggests that ungulate domestication
occurred when climatic conditions were still
improving and with it the carrying capacity of
the landscape. Thus, rather than taking place G
under acute resource stress, we cannot exclude
that meat procurement was still quite secure
when efforts to appropriate animals started.
Around c. 8200 cal BCE, GT was abandoned.
It is perhaps telling that this coincided with
a major economic change in Upper Mesopota-
mia, namely, the replacement of gazelle hunting
by small livestock husbandry as the main subsis-
tence activity to procure meat (Peters et al. in
press). Because cult centers with large catchment
areas like GT may have served over the centuries
as places of exchange between communities of
foragers inhabiting the northern Fertile Crescent,
it is not unlikely that these gatherings played
a catalytic role in the propagation of innovative
techniques relative to food acquisition and ungu-
late domestication as well, causing the long-term
demise of the foraging lifestyle lying at the very
origin of these unique megalithic ritual places.
Cross-References
Agriculture: Definition and Overview
Plant Domestication and Cultivation in
Archaeology
References
CAUVIN, J. 1997. Naissance des divinites. Naissance de
lagriculture (Nouvelle edition). Paris: C.N.R.S.
DIETRICH, O. & K. SCHMIDT. 2010. A radiocarbon date from
the wall plaster of Enclosure D of Gobekli Tepe.
Neo-Lithics 2: 82-3.
G 3068
DIETRICH, O., M. HEUN, J. NOTROFF, K. SCHMIDT &
M. ZARNKOW. 2012. The role of cult and feasting in
the emergence of Neolithic communities. New evi-
dence from Gobekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey.
Antiquity 86(3): 674-95.
NEEF, R. 2003. Overlooking the steppe-forest:
a preliminary report on the botanical remains from
early Neolithic Gobekli Tepe. Neo-Lithics 2: 13-16.
PETERS, J. & K. SCHMIDT. 2004. Animals in the symbolic
world of pre-pottery Neolithic Gobekli Tepe, south-
eastern Turkey: a preliminary assessment.
Anthropozoologica 39(1): 179-218.
PETERS, J., D. HELMER, A. VON DEN DRIESCH & M. SANA
SEGUI. 1999. Early animal husbandry in the northern
Levant. Paleorient 25(2): 27-48.
PETERS, J., H. BUITENHUIS, G. GRUPE, K. SCHMIDT &
N. POLLATH. in press. The long and winding road.
Ungulate exploitation and domestication in early
Neolithic Anatolia (10,000-7,000 BC), in S.
Colledge, J. Conolly, K. Dobney, K. Manning &
S. Shennan (ed.) The origins and spread of domestic
animals in Southwest Asia and Europe. Walnut Creek
(CA): Left Coast Press.
SCHMIDT, K. 2011. Gobekli Tepe: a Neolithic site in
southeastern Anatolia, in S. R. Steadman &
G. McMahon (ed.) Oxford handbook of ancient
Anatolia. 10,000-323 B.C.E.: 918-33. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
- 2012. Gobekli Tepe. A Stone Age sanctuary in south-
eastern Anatolia. Berlin: ex Oriente.
Goggin, John M.
Veronica Velasquez S. H.
Department of Archaeology, University of
Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Basic Biographical Information
John Mann Goggin (19161963) was a great
mind that led a life of expedition and discovery,
had vast interests and eccentric hobbies, and was
a devotee of natural history. Moreover, he was
an anthropologist and archaeologist committed
to the history of humanity (Sturtevant 1964:
386-9).
Goggin was born in Chicago and undertook
his graduate degree at Yale University. His expe-
riences growing up in Miami with the Seminole
Indians and his excursions to New Mexico and to
Chihuahua with the Tarahumara, along with his
Goggin, John M.
passion for the great outdoors and collecting nat-
ural specimens and artifacts, influenced the way
in which he understood the relationship between
humankind and the natural environment. This
made him increasingly aware of the problems
involved in sampling and the similarities and
variations within artifacts. These ideas were
translated into the methodological tool known
as cultural traditions, following the work of
Rouse in Connecticut and that by Willey in Peru
(Goggin 1964: 110). Moreover, this was applied
in the St. Johns region, where he identified
a Spanish-Indian tradition that resulted from the
impact of Hispanic culture on Indian one
(Goggin 1998: 71-2).
Major Accomplishments
Goggins main interest was the interaction
between colonists and indigenous groups in the
New World. His fascination for the pottery of
former Spanish colonies made him aware of the
necessity to create a complete typology of
majolica pottery from the sixteenth to the eigh-
teenth centuries. This drew him into studying
materials from Mexico, Colombia, and the
Caribbean, which culminated in the posthumous
publication of Spanish Majolica in the New
World (1968). This is a foundational study that
set the basis for typological analysis of majolica
in the Spanish Empire and the Indies. Along
this one, The Spanish Olive Jar (1960) is
a comprehensive typological work that empha-
sizes the relevance of studying these artifacts
from the former Spanish colonies. Unfortu-
nately, his untimely death in 1963 left much of
his research in note and manuscript form
(Goggin n.d.) (Fig. 1).
His legacy of scholarship and theoretical
developments continue inspiring students and
scholars alike to follow his steps in the archaeol-
ogy of the former Spanish Empire, and shaped the
interests of scholars and students allocated in the
Department of Archaeology in the University of
Florida.
His work on pottery from the Indies was trans-
lated into one of the most complete databases
Goggin, John M.
Goggin, John M., Fig. 1 Majolica samples originally classified by Goggin
intended for pottery identification by the Florida
Museum of Natural History (http://www.flmnh.
ufl.edu/histarch/gallery_types/). His emphasis on
the value of combining surface collection, strati-
graphic tests, typology and the use of historical
sources, and examination of works of art and
artifacts in museums to study historical periods
is widely used today (Rouse 1964: 372). His
seminal studies of majolica, glass beads, and
Spanish olive jars are still relevant reference
works, although subsequent researchers have
refined our understanding of these artifacts
(Weisman 2002).
His personality and bequest were unique and
his written works reveal his passion and profound
respect for archaeological and ethnographic
cultures.
Cross-References
Caribbean Historical Archaeology
Deagan, Kathleen A.
3069 G
Hispanic South America: Historical
Archaeology
Mexico: Historical Archaeology
North America (USA): Historical Archaeology
Willey, Gordon Randolph
References
GOGGIN, J.M. 1960. The Spanish olive jar. An introductory
study. New Haven: Yale University.
- 1964. Indian and Spanish: selected writings. Edited by
C.H. Fairbanks, I. Rouse & W.C. Sturtevant. Coral
Gables: University of Miami Press
- 1968. Spanish majolica in the New World. New Haven:
Yale University.
- 1998. Space and time perspective in Northern St. Johns
archaeology, Florida. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida.
John Mann Goggin (1916-1963). n.d. The Goggin notecard
collection. Indexed boxes on file. Gainesville: P.K.
Yonge Library of Florida History.
ROUSE, I. 1964. John Mann Goggin, 1916-1963. American
Antiquity 29: 369-75.
STURTEVANT, W.C. 1964. John Mann Goggin, 1916-1963.
American Anthropologist 66: 385-94.
G 3070
Further Reading
GOGGIN, J.M. 1960. Underwater archaeology: its nature
and limitations. American Antiquity 25: 348-54.
WEISMAN, B.R. 2002. Pioneer in space and time: John
Mann Goggin and the development of Florida archae-
ology. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Gold Museum (Museo del Oro)
Sonia Archila
Departament of Anthropology, Universidad de
los Andes, Bogota, Colombia
Basic Information
Museo del Oro (Gold Museum)
Parque Santander, Carrera 5, Calle 16
Bogota, Colombia
http://www.banrepcultural.org/museo-del-oro
The Bogota Gold Museum was created in
1939 and houses archaeological objects of gold,
pottery, bone, shell, stone, and textiles.
The extraordinary quality of its collection of
pre-Hispanic goldwork, the largest in existence,
makes it unique in the world. It was established
by the Central Bank of Colombia, to which the
museum belongs, to save metallurgical pieces
from being destroyed or removed to museums
and private collections in other parts of the
world, especially Europe and North America.
From its foundation, the museum has valued the
unique and artistic nature of the objects and their
importance to Colombians as representations
of a common past. The Gold Museum is by
nature a national museum, the most important
Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology in
the country, being, from its creation, the leading
institution in museology, museography, and con-
servation. Research programs in archaeology,
archaeometallurgy, and education, the latter
focusing on public primary schools, have been
of particular importance.
The majority of objects forming the Gold
Museums collection have not come from
systematic archaeological excavations, but rather
Gold Museum (Museo del Oro)
from treasure hunters, or guaqueros, grave
robbers, and so come from the looting of
pre-Hispanic indigenous tombs and places of
offerings. The lack of an archaeological context
for the museums objects makes study of the
social significance of the cultural material diffi-
cult, especially of the goldwork. The information
that is presented to the public, therefore, comes
from various other sources, such as ethnography,
ethnology, and ethnohistory, which are used
to explain the objects and suggest possible mean-
ings for them and their uses. Other aspects can
be studied from the objects themselves and have
been widely investigated, such as the technology
and iconographic styles of diverse groups of
metal objects (e.g., Plazas & Falchetti 1986;
Falchetti 1995; Lleras-Perez 1999; Uribe 2005,
2007; Saenz Samper 2010).
The museum has four exhibition galleries and
one interactive gallery, the Exploratorium. The first
gallery is dedicated to Metal Technology. The sec-
ond gallery exhibits objects produced by the differ-
ent pre-Hispanic societies that existed in the
territory now known as Colombia. Here, archaeo-
logical information is used to contextualize the
objects of metal and other materials, emphasizing
their relationship with the political and religious
organization of those societies. The third gallery
deals with the cosmology and symbolism of the
metal objects and exhibits objects that have been
interpreted as genuine examples of shamanic art by
various authors (e.g., Reichel-Dolmatoff 1988).
The gallery of Offerings is a closed precinct,
which, through exhibiting hundreds of diverse
types of objects with lights and sound, evokes the
Tribute Ceremony, in which many pre-Hispanic
societies would use metal objects. The
Exploratorium is a gallery where visitors interact
across distinct Anthropological and Archaeologi-
cal themes, facilitating reflection on the importance
of archaeological heritage and cultural diversity.
Major Impact
History
In 1939, the Colombian government requested
that the Central Bank buy pre-Hispanic gold
Gold Museum (Museo del Oro)
objects in order to preserve them. Subsequently
the Central Bank acquired archaeological pieces
from private collections. In 1968, a building spe-
cially designed for the museum was opened
(Londono Velez 1989). During the 1970s and
1980s, the collections were expanded and objects
of pottery, shell, bone, and textile acquired. The
museum considered it essential to draw on
anthropology and archaeology in order to enable
its exhibitions to present a more full understand-
ing of many aspects of pre-Hispanic societies.
Towards the 1980s, the theoretical basis of
archaeology in Colombia changed from being
a purely traditional one that emphasized the char-
acterization of archaeological zones, chronologi-
cal sequences, and artifact classification to
a processual theoretical framework that empha-
sized, among others, studies of settlements and
relations between humans and the environment.
At the museum, this change was reflected in the
content of the permanent exhibition; the guide-
books used information obtained from the
museums own archaeological research (e.g.,
Plazas & Falchetti 1986), and from other institu-
tions, and at the same time adopted an approach
that utilized the insights of anthropology to incor-
porate ethnographic information and suggest uses
and functions for the objects (e.g., Pineda
Camacho 1986; Reichel Dolmatoff 1988).
Today
The museum was completely renovated in 2008.
The museums new exhibition constitutes
a modern museographic design and includes an
interactive gallery (see above) and audio visual
aids specially designed for different audiences.
The current museum guides separate the techno-
logical information about metallurgy, derived
from the more than 30 years of investigation by
the museum, from that of a more archaeological
nature, which draws on current information from
other researchers. Three of the new museum gal-
leries are dedicated to the interpretation of mean-
ings and symbols of the metal objects. Making
use of ethnographic analogy, and working from
the fact that various indigenous societies cur-
rently living in Colombia have ancestral links
with the pre-Hispanic period, anthropological
3071 G
information about the cosmology, symbolism,
and religious beliefs of indigenous American
societies, particularly from Colombia, is used to
interpret and suggest the meanings of archaeo-
logical objects.
The importance that the museum has given the
countrys indigenous societies contributes to val-
uing and respecting the present-day indigenous
peoples as part of a multicultural nation. The
museum constitutes a unique space that attracts
a large and diverse audience and is moreover a
highly regarded institution. The Gold Museums
excellent and invaluable work of informing and
educating has made it a distinguished institution G
in Colombia and an obligatory reference for any
statements about Colombian identity.
Cross-References
Conservation in Museums
Heritage Museums and the Public
Modern Material Culture Studies
Museums and Memory Experiences
South American Rock Art
References
FALCHETTI, A.M. 1995. El oro del Gran Zenu. Metalurgia
prehispanica en las llanuras del Caribe colombiano.
Bogota: Banco de la Republica.
LLERAS PEREZ, R. 1999. Prehispanic metallurgy and votive
offerings in the eastern Cordillera, Colombia (British
Archaeological Reports International series 778).
Oxford: Archaeopress.
LONDONO VELEZ, S. 1989. Museo del Oro 50 anos. Bogota:
Banco de la Republica.
PLAZAS, C. & A.M. FALCHETTI. 1986. Patrones culturales
en la orfebrera prehispanica de Colombia, in
C. Plazas & A.M. Falchetti (ed.) Metalurgia de
America Precolombina, 45 International Congress
of Americanistas: 201-246. Bogota: Coleccion
Bibliografica Banco de la Republica.
PINEDA CAMACHO, R. 1986. Etnografa del mambeadero:
espacio de la coca. Texto y Contexto 9: 113-127.
REICHEL DOLMATOFF, G. 1988. Orfebrera y chamanismo.
Un estudio iconografico del Museo del Oro. Bogota:
Banco de la Republica.
SAENZ SAMPER, J. 2010. Engraved in metal: goldworking
technologies at the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta,
Colombia. From Nahuange to Tairona. AD 100-AD
G 3072
1600. Unpublished MSc dissertation, University Col-
lege London, Institute of Archaeology.
URIBE, M. A. 2005. Mujeres, calabazos, brillo y tumbaga.
Smbolos de vida y transformacion en la orfebreria
Quimbaya Temprana. Boletn de Antropologa 19
(36): 61-93.
- 2007. From chemical analyses to meaning: a study of
materials and choices in Muisca metalwork from pre-
hispanic Colombia. Unpublished MA dissertation,
University College London.
Further Reading
ARCHILA, S. 1996. La orfebrera de Malagana. Bogota:
Museo del Oro, Banco de la Republica.
BOTERO, C. I. 2005. Los conceptos y las miradas a la
metalurgia prehispanica de Colombia, las exhibiciones
permanentes del Museo del Oro 1940-1968. Journal
de la Societe des Americanistes.
BRAY, W. 1978. The gold of El Dorado. Exhibition cata-
logue. London: The Royal Academic of Arts.
LLERAS PEREZ, R. (ed.) 2007. Metalurgia en la America
Antigua. Teora, arqueologa y simbologa de los middens and the geoarchaeology of the
metales prehispanicos. Bogota: Fundacion de
Investigaciones Arqueologicas Nacionales and Centro
de Estudios Mexicanos y Centeroamericanos.
PLAZAS, C. 2007. Vuelo nocturno. El murcielago prehispa-
nico y su comparacion con el murcielago tairona.
Bogota: Fundacion de Investigaciones Arqueologicas
Nacionales e Instituto frances de Estudios Andinos.
Goldberg, Paul
Richard I. Macphail
Institute of Archaeology, University College
London, London, UK
Basic Biographical Information
Paul Goldberg is a geologist by training and
obtained his B.A. in Geology from the University
of Colorado (1965), Boulder. For his postgraduate
studies he moved to the University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, where he studied under William R.
Farrand, one of the pioneers of Geoarchaeology;
he earned M.S. (1968) and Ph.D. (1973) in Geol-
ogy. His doctoral dissertation was a sedimento-
logical study of the Palaeolithic deposits in
Tabun, Mt. Carmel, Israel.
In 1973, he moved to the Institute of Archae-
ology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, to
Goldberg, Paul
undertake a Lady Davis Fellowship. He remained
there until 1991, reaching the level of Associate
Professor. During this time he continued his
research on prehistoric cave sediments, such as
at Kebara Cave (Goldberg et al. 2007), but also
began to investigate the relationship between
Quaternary landscapes and environments associ-
ated with archaeological sites in the Negev and
Sinai Deserts (Goldberg 1984). Concomitantly,
he began to develop the technique of micromor-
phology and its application to geoarchaeological
problems (Goldberg 1980; Courty et al. 1989).
From 1991to 1995 he became a Research Sci-
entist at the Texas Archaeological Research Labo-
ratory (TARL), The University of Texas at Austin,
where he carried out geoarchaeological research,
examining the micromorphology of burnt rock
Paleoindian-Prehistoric site of Wilson-Leonard.
In 1995, he moved to the Department of Archaeol-
ogy, Boston University, as Associate and, cur-
rently, Full Professor and is involved in teaching
courses in geoarchaeology, micromorphology, and
site formation processes, emphasizing the impor-
tance of documenting artifacts and their microstra-
tigraphic context (Goldberg & Berna 2010).
Around 2000 he and colleagues from Israel,
China, and the USA employed micromorphology
and Fourier transform infrared spectrometry
(FTIR) to demonstrate the lack of ashes and fire-
places at the Homo erectus site of Zhoukoudian in
China (Goldberg et al. 2001).
Major Accomplishments
Goldbergs research interests focus on the
application and development of micromorpho-
logical techniques to Pleistocene caves in France
(Goldberg et al. 2012), Israel, Germany, and
South Africa and the use of micromorphology in
interpreting anthropogenic deposits ranging from
Pleistocene sites in the Old World to sixteenth-
century Spanish settlements in Jamaica. He is
currently investigating the geoarchaeology,
microstratigraphy, and site formation processes
at Lower and Middle Palaeolithic cave deposits
at La Ferrassie (France) and Wonderwerk Cave
Golmsten, Vera V.
(South Africa) and understanding the contextual
framework of Upper Palaeolithic and Neolithic
deposits in China. Much of this work and the
geoarchaeological approach is documented in
the 2006 publication with R.I. Macphail (Gold-
berg & Macphail 2006). He has collaborated
on a number of projects with colleagues at the
Institut fur Naturwissenschaftliche Archaologie,
Universitat Tubingen (N. Conard, C.E. Miller
and others), and is currently a member of the
Institute.
He has received a number of awards for his
work in geoarchaeology and micromorphology,
including the Rip Rapp Award (Archaeological
Geology Division, Geological Society of
America, 2002), the Roald Fryxell Award
(Society for American Archaeology, 2008), and
the Pomerantz Award (Archaeological Institute of
America, 2010).
Cross-References
Archaeological Soil Micromorphology
References
COURTY, M.A., P. GOLDBERG & R.I. MACPHAIL. 1989. Soils
and micromorphology in archaeology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
GOLDBERG, P. 1980. Micromorphology in archaeology and
prehistory. Paleorient 6: 159-64.
- 1984. Late Quaternary history of Kadesh Barnea North-
eastern Sinai. Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie N.F. 28
(2): 193-217.
GOLDBERG, P. & F. BERNA. 2010. Micromorphology and
context. Quaternary International 214(1-2): 56-62.
GOLDBERG, P. & R.I. MACPHAIL. 2006. Practical and theo-
retical geoarchaeology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
GOLDBERG, P., S. WEINER, O. BAR-YOSEF, Q. XU & J. LIU.
2001. Site formation processes at Zhoukoudian, China.
Journal of Human Evolution 41: 483-530.
GOLDBERG, P., H. LAVILLE, L. MEIGNEN & O. BAR- YOSEF.
2007. Stratigraphy and geoarchaeological history of
Kebara Cave, Mount Carmel, in O. Bar-Yosef &
L. Meignen (ed.) Kebara Cave, Volume 2: 49-89.
Cambridge (MA): Peabody Museum.
GOLDBERG, P., H. DIBBLE, F. BERNA, D. SANDGATHE, S. J. P.
MCPHERRON & A. TURQ. 2012. New evidence on Nean-
derthal use of fire: examples from Roc de Marsal and
Pech de lAze IV. Quaternary International 247: 325-40.
3073 G
Golmsten, Vera V.
Dmitry A. Stashenkov
Samara Regional Historical Museum,
Samara, Russia
Basic Biographical Information
Vera Vladimirovna Golmsten (18801942) was an
archaeologist and a doctor of historical sciences.
She was born in St. Petersburg into the family of
a military doctor, Vladimir V. Golmsten. She G
graduated from the Gymnasium for Females at
the Ministry of Public Education at the Interces-
sion community of nurses in St. Petersburg in 1898
and took an additional eighth pedagogical class in
1899. In 1910 she graduated from the Moscow
Institute of Archaeology. She was a student of
famous the Russian archaeologist V.A. Gorodtsov.
After graduating from the Institute in 1910,
Golmsten spent a few months living in Ufa
province. In 1911 she carried out excavations of
the Chortovo (Devil) fortified site near Ufa.
After defending her dissertation in 19091912,
she conducted archaeological excavations in Slavic
and prehistoric sites in the Pskov region and the
Urals. Her life was connected with the Historical
Museum in Moscow from 1911 to 1919. In 1912
she became a corresponding member of the
Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society.
From 1919 to 1929, Golmsten worked in
Samara as a professor of Samara University. She
was a teacher of higher ethnological and archaeo-
logical courses and scientific secretary of the Soci-
ety of Archaeology, History, Ethnography and
Natural History. From 1922 to 1929, she was the
director of the regional museum.
Since 1929, after her departure to Leningrad,
Golmsten worked at the State Hermitage and the
State Academy of the History of Material Culture
(IHMC). In 1935 she received a doctorate in
history. At the end of 1930, her field studies
were conducted on the Lower Don.
Vera Golmsten died of hunger on March 8,
1942, during the Leningrad blockade in the Sec-
ond World War.
G 3074
Major Accomplishments
Under Golmstens leadership, continuous
archaeological surveys were conducted in
Samara province on 1200 archaeological sites.
Excavations were conducted on monuments of
all eras, including the Paleolithic in Postnikov
ravine, Bronze Age burial mounds near the sta-
tions Bezymyanka and Red Kryazhok, an early
Iron Age burial ground in Berezovka, and
the fortified site era Volga Bulgaria in s. Valy
Muromsky town. There are more than 100
collections by Golmsten in the Samara Regional
Museum named after Alabin.
Cross-References
Gorodtsov, Vasily A.
Further Reading
GOLMSTEN, V.V. 1925. Materials on archaeology of
Samara region. Pottery of ancient settlement sites of
the Samara Bend. Bulletin of the Society of Archaeol-
ogy, History, Ethnography and Natural History 3.
(in Russian).
- 1940. The emergence of pastoralism in Eastern Europe.
Problems of the origin, evolution and the formation of
breed animals. Moscow-Leningrad (in Russian).
KUZMINYKH, S.V., I.E. SAFONOV & D.A. STASHENKOV. 2007.
Vera Vladimirovna Golmsten: materials for the
biography. Samara.
Golson, Jack
Gary T. Jackson
Department of Archaeology, Flinders University,
Adelaide, SA, Australia
Basic Biographical Information
Jack Golson was born in 1926 and raised in
Rochdale in northern England (Fig. 1). As
a child of the Great Depression, growing up dur-
ing World War II, he was attracted to join the
Young Communist League in his late high school
Golson, Jack
Golson, Jack, Fig. 1 Jack and Clare Golson receiving
the World Archaeological Congress Lifetime Achieve-
ment Award at the annual meeting of the Australian
Archaeological Association, Adelaide, 2009
years and to join the student branch of the Com-
munist Party at university. In 1943 he won
a scholarship to study history at Cambridge
University but was called up for national service
at the end of his first year, 19431944. For his
national service, he was conscripted to work in
the coal mines as one of the Bevin Boys named
after the Minister of Labour, Ernest Bevin
(Stewart 1998). These experiences helped to
form Jack Golsons strong sense of social justice.
He resumed his history studies at Cambridge in
October 1948 and almost immediately discovered
archaeology in the lectures on European medieval
history, which brought the contribution of archae-
ology to an understanding of the non-literate
invaders who had overthrown the Roman Empire
and laid the foundations of the European Middle
Ages. Golson switched his major from history to
archaeology, becoming a student of Grahame
Clark. He graduated with B.A. (Hons) in 1950
(M.A. in 1952) and began doctoral research in
1951, under the joint supervision of the archaeol-
ogist Clark and the historian Maurice Postan, com-
bining history and archaeology in the study of
medieval settlement in an English county.
Golson, Jack
The doctorate was never finished because in
1953 he was persuaded to apply for a Lectureship
in Prehistory in the recently established Depart-
ment of Anthropology at the then Auckland Uni-
versity College, New Zealand. The argument was
that a few years experience of this type would
justify his appointment back in England in the
minority field of medieval archaeology. In fact,
he had decided before the end of 1954, the first
year of his appointment, that he would prefer to
stay where he was.
Nevertheless, in 1961, he left the University of
Auckland to take up the first position in archae-
ology at the Australian National University,
a Fellowship in Prehistory in the Department
of Anthropology and Sociology in the Research
School of Pacific Studies, being certain that the
ANU offered greater opportunity for a profes-
sional career in the archaeology of the region.
Indeed, by 1969, the archaeological component
of the Department of Anthropology was strong
enough to form an independent department, with
Golson as the foundation Professor of Prehistory.
He retired in 1991 and continues as Emeritus
Professor at the Australian National University.
The Jack Golson Lecture is held biennially at
the Australian National University to honor his
work as a founding figure in developing modern
archaeology in several nations and as an impor-
tant researcher in the evolution of horticultural
economies in the Pacific.
Major Accomplishments
Jack Golson is an individual of remarkable
talents. His research, teaching, and professional
service have had a profound impact on archaeol-
ogy globally. In his early career based in New
Zealand, he led in some of the first productive
collaborations between Indigenous peoples and
archaeologists.
In New Zealand, he saw his role as introducing
the archaeological practice of stratigraphic exca-
vation and scientific collaboration that he had
learned in his student years. In 1954 he was
instrumental in the establishment of the New
Zealand Archaeological Association, which
3075 G
became the vehicle for these aims and for his
own education in a proper relationship of his
discipline with the Indigenous Polynesian popu-
lation, whose history he, as an archaeologist in
New Zealand, was addressing (Golson 2004).
In 1957 he was invited to undertake archaeo-
logical research in Tonga and Western Samoa for
the Tri-Institutional Pacific Program the Bishop
Museum (in Honolulu), the University of Hawaii,
and Yale University which was part of the post-
WWII story of the growth of serious archaeolog-
ical involvement in the South Pacific field.
This entailed his own entry not only into the
Pacific field but also into the wider one of island G
and mainland Southeast Asia and the Pacific,
which was looked after by the recently
(1953) established Far Eastern Prehistory Asso-
ciation (FEPA), whose American branch had
launched the first issue of the journal Asian Per-
spectives on its behalf in 1957. In 1971 FEPA
held one of its 4-yearly congresses in Canberra, in
what is seen as a landmark meeting, in the course
of which it was decided to change its colonial era
name to one more appropriate to current political
reality the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association
(IPPA) (Golson 1998), in which Australian
archaeologists have and continue to play an
important role. These developments came at
a time when the archaeological profession that
had expanded so rapidly in the 1960s worked
together to form the Australian Archaeological
Association. In this it was helped by the fact that,
from its establishment by the Commonwealth
government in the early 1960s, the Australian
Institute of Aboriginal Studies gave archaeology
recognition as a separate discipline.
The brief that Golson had been given for the
post to which he had been appointed in 1961 was
to develop a program for archaeological research
in Australia and the nearer islands of the south-
west Pacific, with particular reference to the then
dependent territory of Papua and New Guinea.
Golson was joined in this task by John Mulvaney,
who was recruited in 1965 to take over the direc-
tion of Australian research, leaving the Pacific,
including New Guinea, to Golson. Meanwhile, to
help their planning, they organized seminars to
which they recruited the talent of ANU and
G 3076
CSIRO staff active in field research in tropical
Australia and Papua New Guinea on climates,
landscapes and land systems, soils, geology,
botany, ethnobotany, and wildlife. Out of these
came, not only, an edited book on Aboriginal
Man and Environment in Australia (Mulvaney
& Golson 1971), which now ranks as
a landmark publication, but also information to
help planning archaeological survey in little
known Papua New Guinea.
His work of site survey and excavation for the
Tri-Institutional Pacific Program was done in
1957 on the Tongan island of Tongatapu and the
Western Samoan one of Upolu. From the mid-
1960s Golson was a pioneer and major player in
the development of archaeological studies of
Papua New Guinea (Denham & Ballard 2003).
In March 1992 his contribution to academic
research in the region was recognized when the
University of Papua New Guinea awarded him an
honorary doctorate.
In 1966, at an early stage of his work in PNG,
Golson discovered the potential of the Wahgi
Valley swamps of the central highlands to reveal
agricultural history through collaboration of
archaeologists with geomorphologists and
palaeoecologists. Investigations of the 1970s at
Kuk Swamp, followed up by Tim Denham in the
1990s, produced evidence for the antiquity (at
least 7,000 years ago) and independence of the
origins in the region of an agriculture based on
yams, taros, and bananas that was characteristic
of the South Pacific as a whole in later times.
In 2008 Kuk was given World Heritage status
by UNESCO.
This was the sort of contribution to national
identity that Golson and colleagues inside and
outside PNG were confident that archaeology
could make to a country that was moving towards
independence (Golson 1970) and achieved it in
1975.
Jack Golson was one of a small group of
scholars who initiated study of the interrelation-
ships between environment, ecology, and people
in the Australasian region. Seminal publications
in this area include Sunda and Sahul: Prehistoric
Studies in Southeast Asia, Melanesia and Austra-
lia (Allen et al. 1977) and Aboriginal Man and
Golson, Jack
Environment in Australia (Mulvaney & Golson
1971). Today, the study of people and their
environments is a thriving area of research in
Australian and Pacific archaeology.
Along with John Mulvaney, Rhys Jones, Betty
Meehan, and others, Golson played a key role in
the professionalization of archaeology as
a discipline in Australia, a process that started in
the 1960s and included establishment of the
Australian Archaeological Association. Golson
was a prime mover in many other initiatives that
were critical to the development of archaeology
in Australia, including establishment of
a radiocarbon-dating facility at the Australian
National University in 1965.
Jack Golson was President of the World
Archaeological Congress (WAC) from 1990 to
1994. He and his wife Clare were present at the
1986 conference in Southampton out of which it
grew. He was elected to the Steering Committee
that drafted the original WAC statutes and codes
of ethics for approval at the second WAC confer-
ence in Venezuela in 1990. In 2009, Jack and
Clare Golsons personal and professional contri-
butions to the World Archaeological Congress
were recognized in them being awarded its Inau-
gural Lifetime Achievement Award.
Jack Golsons contributions to Pacific archae-
ology were honored by his departmental col-
leagues following his retirement in 1991 in the
edited volume A Community of Culture: the Peo-
ple and Prehistory of the Pacific, published in
1993.
Cross-References
Agricultural Practices: A Case Study from
Papua New Guinea
Australian Archaeological Association
Inc. (AAA)
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS): Its Role in
Australian Archaeology
Jones, Rhys Maengwyn
Meehan, Betty
Mulvaney, John
World Archaeological Congress (WAC)
Gomes, Mario Varela 3077 G
References

ALLEN, J., J. GOLSON & R. JONES. (ed.) 1977 Sunda and

Sahul: prehistoric studies in Southeast Asia, Melane-
sia and Australia. London: Academic Press.
DENHAM, T. & C. BALLARD. 2003. Jack Golson and the
investigation of prehistoric agriculture in Highland
New Guinea: recent work and future prospects.
Archaeology in Oceania 38(3): 129-34.
GOLSON, J. 1970. Foundations for New Guinea nationhood.
Search: the Journal of the Australian and
New Zealand Association for the Advancement of
Science 1(5): 192-97.
- 1998. From FEPA to IPPA: the remaking of an institu-
tion, in P. Bellwood (ed.) Indo-Pacific prehistory: the
Melaka Papers, Volume 1 (Pre-Congress Issue): 3-12.
Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association G
17: 1-12.
- 2004. NZAA: the circumstances of its conception, birth
and early upbringing, in M. Campbell (ed.) Digging
into history: 50 years of the New Zealand Archaeolog-
ical Association: 27-37. Dunedin: New Zealand
Archaeological Association.
MULVANEY, D.J. & J. GOLSON. (ed.) 1971. Aboriginal man
and environment in Australia. Canberra: ANU Press. Gomes, Mario Varela, Fig. 1 Mario V. Gomes in 2012

past civilizations wherever he travelled, not

Further Reading
SPRIGGS, M., D.E. YEN, W. AMBROSE, R. JONES, A.THORNE
& A. ANDREWS. (ed.) 1993. A community of culture: the
peoples and prehistory of the Pacific (Occasional
Papers in Prehistory 21). Canberra: Department of
Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The
Australian National University.
STEWART, P. 2008. Australian National University, Emer-
itus Faculty Oral History, Emeritus Professor Jack
Golson. Interview conducted 17 Sep 2008, at Emeritus
Faculty. Available at: www.anu.edu.au/emeritus/ohp/
interviews/jack_golson.htm/.
Gomes, Mario Varela
Tania Manuel Casimiro
Instituto de Arqueologia e Paleociencias da
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Departamento de
Historia Faculdade de Ciencias Sociais e
Humanas, Lisbon, Portugal
Basic Biographical Information
Mario Varela Gomes is a Portuguese archaeolo-
gist who was born in Lisbon in 1949. He
developed an interest in archaeology while
still a young boy searching for the evidence of
only in Lisbon where he grew up but also in
Ericeira where his family had a summer house
where he passed many months each year. The
adventurous interests of his youth developed
into a professional occupation. He graduated in
architecture from the Lisbon Fine Arts University
and studied history and archaeology at the
Faculdade de Letras in Lisbon and also at other
institutions in Spain, Italy, England, and Sweden.
He has a Ph.D. in archaeology based on his
research into pre- and protohistoric rock art sites
in Vale do Tejo, Portugal (Fig. 1).
Mario Varela Gomes was the director of the
Silves Archaeology Museum and of the
Montemor-o-Novos Museum. From 1992 to
1995 he was a teacher at the Masters in Urban
Centres Architectural Rehabilitation in the Fine
Arts University. In 199497 he was one of the
responsible people for the first studies from Foz
Coa leading to the sites classification as world
heritage, a scientific advisor for the Chauvet cave
(France), and an expert in the European Commis-
sion for the 2000 Cultural Program. Today, he is
a professor in Prehistory and Cognitive Archaeol-
ogy with the Faculty of Humanities and Social
Sciences at the New University of Lisbon.
G 3078
Major Accomplishments
Mario Varela Gomes archaeological activities
have been extensive. He is responsible for the
study, classification, and publication of two
major rock art groups in Portugal, Foz Coa, and
Vale do Tejo, as well as major discoveries in
other archaeological periods. He has undertaken
tracings and studied rock art engravings in many
regions, including Stonehenge, Zuschen, Vale do
Tejo, the Arronches shelters, Escoural cave, Vale
do Coa and Monte de Goios in northern Portugal.
In addition, he has studied other rock and
megalithic art, southwest Portuguese Bronze
Age stelae, and Iron Age epigraphic stelae.
Gomes has supervised dozens of archaeologi-
cal excavations in sites from all prehistoric and
historic periods, including the Xarez, Portela de
Mogos, and Almendres stone circles; Perdigoes,
Algarve, Padrao, Amantes, and Caramujeira
menhirs; the megalithic graves from Pedra
Escorregadia, Bulhoa, and Anta Grande da
Comenda da Igreja; the Bronze Age necropolis
from Vilamoura, Alfarrobeira, and Vale da
Telha; and also the protohistoric settlements of
Escoural and Pontes de Marchil, the Rocha
Branca Phoenician-Punic factory, and the Iron
Age Garvao sanctuary. Islamic archaeology is
another of his major research activities, under-
taken through excavations in the Silves cistern-
well, castle, and urban areas and also the rural
castle (husun) from Castelo Belinho where
a stupendous Neolithic village was found, and
in the Arrifana Ribat. All of his students at the
New University of Lisbon remember Gomes as
an enthusiastic and accessible teacher who took
them on field assignments or worked with them in
the lab, teaching and publishing together.
Gomes has published more than 250 books
and papers dedicated to archaeology, art history,
ethnology, and architecture, in Portugal and in
other countries. With A. Coelho F. da Silva, he
is the coauthor of the students handbook
Portuguese Protohistory (1998) and the founder
of the scientific journal Xelb, published by Silves.
In his 40-year career Gomes was a presence in
the major archaeology and history associations of
Portugal. As vice-president of the Portuguese
Gomes, Mario Varela
Archaeologist Association, the oldest archaeo-
logical institution in Portugal, founded in 1853,
Gomes was responsible for many of the associa-
tions activities over the last decade and for quite
some time he was the youngest member of the
Portuguese History Academy.
Despite his lifelong dedication to archaeology,
Gomes is also known as an architect responsible
for the concept and construction of many
Portuguese museums such as the Silves, Salir,
Albufeira, and Loule. In 2003 he received the
Portuguese History Academy award for archae-
ology and the Portuguese Archaeologist Associ-
ations silver medal. Although a recognized
expert outside Portugal with published works in
Spain, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom,
Gomes still finds time to be a major
enthusiast and advocate of local history,
supporting and writing to local journals and
newsletters in the defense of archaeological
heritage.
Cross-References
Coa Valley Rock Art Sites
Europe: Prehistoric Rock Art
European Upper Paleolithic Rock Art:
Sacredness, Sanctity, and Symbolism
Iberian Mediterranean Basin: Rock Art
Rock Art Recording Methods: From
Traditional to Digital
Valcamonica Rock Art
Further Reading
GOMES, M.V. 1994. A necropole de Alfarrobeira
(S. Bartolomeu de Messines) e a Idade do Bronze no
concelho de Silves (Xelb 2). Silves: Museu Municipal
de Arqueologia.
- 2002. De monsaraz e o seu termo ao cromeleque do
Xarez. Lisboa: Fundacao Convento da Orada.
- 2007a. Nes a lextreme Sud-Ouest de lEurope: les
menhirs de lAlgarve et lavenement de lideologie
megalithique, in Les expressions intellectuelles et
spirituelles des peuples sans ecriture: 147-57. Paris:
UISPP/CISENP.
- 2007b. Os perodos iniciais da arte do Vale do Tejo
(Paleoltico e Epipaleoltico). Cuadernos de Arte
Rupestre 4: 81-116.
Gonnersdorf (Magdalenian): Geography and Culture
- 2008. Castelo Belinho (Algarve, Portugal) and the first
Southwest Iberian villages, in Early Neolithic in the
Iberian Peninsula (UISPP Congress 18, British
Archaeological Reports International series 1857):
71-78. Oxford: Archaeopress.
- 2010a. Time and signs: southern Portuguese Megalithic
art diachrony, in Monumental questions: prehistoric
megaliths, mounds and enclosures (U.I.S.P.P.
Congress 7, British Archaeological Reports Interna-
tional series 2122): 17-24. Oxford: Archeopress.
- 2010b. Castelo Belinho (Algarve): a ritualizacao
funeraria em meados do V milenio A.C., in Os ultimos
cacadores-recolectores e as primeiras comunidades
produtoras do sul da Pennsula Iberica e do norte de
Marrocos (Promontoria Monografica 15): 69-79. Faro:
Universidade do Algarve.
- 2010c. Early Neolithic funerary practices in Castelo
Belinhos village (western Algarve, Portugal), in
Funerary practices in the Iberian Peninsula from the
Mesolithic to the Chalcolithic (British Archaeological
Reports International series 2417): 113-23. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
- 2011. Representacoes de armas na arte rupestre do Vale do
Tejo Importancia socio-economica, cronologica
e cognitiva, in From the origins: the prehistory of the
Inner Tagus region (British Archaeological Reports Inter-
national series 2219): 177-98. Oxford: Archeopress.
- 2012. Silo Islamico de Albufeira (Rua Henrique
Calado). Lisboa: Instituto de Arqueologia
e Paleociencias, Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
GOMES, M.V. T.M. CASIMIRO & J. GONCALVES. 2012.
Espolio do naufragio da Ponta do Leme Velho (Ilha
do Sal, Cabo Verde). Contributo para a arqueologia
da expansao. Lisboa: Instituto de Arqueologia
e Paleociencias da Universidade Nova de Lisboa.
GOMES, R.V. & M.V. GOMES. 2007. Ribat da Arrifana.
Cultura material e espiritualidade. Aljezur:
Assoc. de Defesa do Patrimonio Historico
e Arqueologico de Aljezur, Municpio de Aljezur.
Gonnersdorf (Magdalenian):
Geography and Culture
Martin Street
Monrepos Archaeological Research Centre,
Museum for the Evolution of Hominin Behaviour
Schloss Monrepos, Neuwied, Germany
Introduction
Gonnersdorf is one of two major Magdalenian
settlements in the Central Rhineland of Germany
3079 G
(the other being Andernach-Martinsberg). The
site was largely saved from destruction by burial
under ash deposits of the late-glacial Laacher See
volcanic eruption. Analysis of a broad range of
well-preserved finds and features provides
detailed insights into many aspects of Magdale-
nian life, such as technology and subsistence
economy, use of the on-site living space,
medium- and long-range mobility patterns, the
use of personal ornament, and forms of artistic
expression.
Definition G
The Magdalenian locality Gonnersdorf (Central
Rhineland, Germany) is characterized by the
preservation of complex settlement features
exceptional for an open-air site of this age. Due
to burial beneath volcanic deposits, the site offers
a rare opportunity to investigate a broad range of
settlement information preserved largely in situ
over an area of several hundred square meters
and, by comparison with other sites, integrate
this within a synthetic model for Magdalenian
settlement processes and land use.
Key Issues
Location and Research History
The Gonnersdorf Magdalenian site was discov-
ered in 1968 at the western end of a step formed
by the Rhine Middle Terrace, on higher land
secure from flooding by the river which
flows at the foot of the terrace to the north. Just
west of the site the Rhine reenters the narrow
channel of the narrow Rhine Gorge, leaving
the open Neuwied Basin. The site is sheltered
to the west and the north by higher land, and
the long known Paleolithic site Andernach-
Martinsberg lies in view only 2 km distant
south of the Rhine.
Between 1968 and 1976, Gerhard Bosinski
excavated a total of 687 m2 at Gonnersdorf,
uncovering five distinct find concentrations
(Konzentration K) K IK IV and SW charac-
terized by differing combinations of placements
G 3080
of large stone slabs, groups of pits, various lithic
and faunal materials, and areas stained by ocher
(Bosinski 1979).
Chronology and Environment
The chronological position of Gonnersdorf is
now quite well understood (Stevens et al. 2009),
with the main Magdalenian occupation falling
toward the end of the cold and arid Greenland
Stadial 2a (
13,800 BCE in calibrated years,
with radiocarbon dates between 13,270 BP and
12,990 BP). This contradicts the initial interpre-
tation of the site (Brunnacker 1978) as dating to
the end of an interstadial (Blling) phase but is
consistent with the wider range of environmental/
ecological information available today.
The species of the Gonnersdorf hunted
mammal fauna are those typical of the open,
continental to arctic mammoth steppe, and for
Magdalenian subsistence activities (Poplin
1976; Brunnacker 1978). Small rodent remains
associated with the archaeological horizons
include numerous lemmings (Dicrostonyx) and
voles (Microtus gregalis) typical of arctic/
continental conditions. By contrast, four abso-
lute dates for remains of woolly rhino and mam-
moth are older than those for the hunted
ungulates by
600/1,600 radiocarbon years
and potentially represent collected subfossil
material. Both species were however still part
of the fauna and known to the Magdalenian
hunters as demonstrated by their engraved
depictions. The few specimens of postcranial
bone of two species more characteristic of
wooded conditions, red deer and elk, showed
a spatially limited distribution in area SW,
away from the main site structures
(Buschkamper 1993; Street & Turner 2012)
and are certainly (in the case of a directly dated
elk bone) or probably several hundred years
younger than the main faunal assemblage.
Settlement Features
The artificially dug pits in the Gonnersdorf struc-
tures K IK III have been variously interpreted as
posthole settings, hearths, or cooking pits, and
these three structures, also characterized by
central zones of dense paving, are interpreted as
Gonnersdorf (Magdalenian): Geography and Culture
stable and quasi permanent dwellings used for
long-term residence (Joris et al. 2012).
The largest, centrally located concentration
(K II) can be subdivided into two subunits,
a larger central area (K IIa) and a smaller area
(K IIb) to the immediate northwest, each located
around a distinct group of pits (Sensburg 2007).
K IIb has now been interpreted as an open-air
activity area possibly involving the use of
cooking pits (Sensburg & Moseler 2008).
K IV (at the northern edge of the excavated
area) and SW (adjacent to and west of K I) have
no pits and were interpreted as the remains of
possibly transportable dwelling structures used
only for shorter stays (Buschkamper 1993;
Terberger 1997). GIS-supported analyses of
lithic find densities and systematic refitting stud-
ies provide details of the inner organization of
K IV and its relationship to several external areas
which probably had several different functions
(Sensburg & Moseler 2008).
Taken together, the investment of time and
effort represented by the great quantity and diver-
sity of accumulated material suggests that at least
some of the Gonnersdorf structures were in use
over an extended period of time. Many of the
rocks used as constructional material show com-
plex patterns of modification, such as splitting
and notching of the edges of blocks and slabs,
and this possibly represents ad hoc modification
of these elements to accommodate now perished
objects such as wooden stakes or supports, per-
haps during multiple episodes involving reuse of
the same elements. The features and material as
they were uncovered represent only the final,
abandoned stage of a complex development,
which probably took place during repeated occu-
pations, conceivably extending over several
years.
Gonnersdorf provides no evidence for a
super-stratification of living floors which might
enable the recognition of distinct occupation
horizons, but other methods have been used to
try and establish some degree of temporal
differentiation. Long-distance refits of slate
slabs and quartzite blocks between K IV and
other concentrations produced a complex model
of the relationships between these structures
Gonnersdorf (Magdalenian): Geography and Culture
(Terberger 1997). In K III certain lithic raw mate-
rials occur in some pits, whereas others are never
found in pits, suggesting that the dwelling was
occupied on at least two and perhaps three occa-
sions during which the several pits were variously
open or already closed by infilling.
In view of this complexity, Gonnersdorf has
been interpreted as the remains of a group of
dwelling structures occupied intermittently over
an extended period of time; several of them pos-
sibly occupied contemporaneously, in effect
forming a temporary village. Differential spatial
patterning of lithic raw materials (Franken & Veil
1983) brought the suggestion that this village was
occupied by distinct groups of Magdalenian peo-
ple with various geographical origins who possi-
bly visited Gonnersdorf with perhaps only partly
overlapping phases of occupation, conforming to
a model of an aggregation camp.
Gonnersdorf provided some evidence for the
use of fire. Burnt lithic artifacts are present in
very small numbers and almost no bones show
traces of burning. Small quantities of charcoal
were identified and plotted during excavation.
Well-defined evident structures recognizable
as hearths are rare. The clearest evidence comes
from K IV, where complexes of fire-cracked and
reddened quartz and other rocks at the center of
the dwelling structure and outside this are
interlinked by refitting. The presence of an inter-
nal hearth at the center of the large K I structure is
suggested by a pit containing charcoal and burnt
quartz. The use of fire at Gonnersdorf is also
shown by quantities of thermally reddened slate
and quartzite slabs and cobbles and fire-cracked
quartz pebbles interpreted as cooking stones
(Brunnacker 1978). Their location provides an
indication of areas in which fires may have
burned, but the absence of clear hearth structures
suggests that thermally altered rocks were moved
after contact with fire, perhaps being used repeat-
edly in different parts of the occupation area.
Such multiple use of hearth construction mate-
rials during different occupations or phases of
activity would remove or blur traces of earlier
activities.
The non-cryptocrystalline rocks brought to the
site did not only serve as constructional material,
3081 G
and many of them were transformed into various
forms of artifacts. Fragments of geodes and con-
glomerate with naturally concave surfaces and
slate slabs with artificially hollowed depressions
are believed to have served as lamps fueled with
animal fat, and it can be discussed whether light
and heat within the dwellings were provided by
these and not by open fires (see above). Some of
these objects probably served as mortars for
grinding red hematite, a material found at the
site, sometimes in the form of clearly abraded or
facetted pieces.
Different types of pebbles obtained from river
gravels were used as hammer stones for stone G
working or for the secondary retouch of lithic
artifacts in manufacturing tools. Larger cobbles
probably served for processing other inorganic or
organic materials, by crushing, pounding, or
grinding. More than 400 small perforated slate
disks and their fragments were found. Many of
them are engraved with geometric patterns,
although it is sometimes clear that disks were
manufactured from fragments of slate that had
been engraved previously. These finds are not
necessarily or principally symbolic items but
may have had a practical function, perhaps as
aids in fastening together hides which are pre-
sumed to have covered the dwelling structures.
Lithic Artifacts and Group Mobility
The Gonnersdorf site produced a total of almost
82,000 lithic artifacts (Floss 1994). The majority
comprises exogenous flint (>50,000 artifacts)
with regional to local materials (forms of limnic
quartzite (
15,000) and lydite (
12,000) making
up the balance). Smaller groups of material
include chalcedony (
3,000) and indurated
oolite (
2,000), while a small number of artifacts
are made of probably exotic semiprecious stones
such as rock crystal, opal, or jasper.
The flint was derived from various sources.
Good quality Cretaceous flint (Western European
Flint) was obtained from primary chalk forma-
tions in the region of the Belgium-Dutch-German
border, some 120130 km to the northwest and in
derived form from river terraces in the western
part of the Lower Rhineland. This material char-
acterizes K II in particular and is associated with
G 3082
a small quantity of probably Mesozoic quartzite,
probably imported from the same region.
A second variety of Cretaceous flint (Baltic
Flint) was obtained from moraines left by the
antepenultimate glaciation, the nearest of which
are immediately north of the River Ruhr, some
100 km north of the Central Rhineland.
The chalcedony and indurated oolite
(Kieseloolith), which are quite important in struc-
tures at the north of the Gonnersdorf site (K III,
K IV), were very probably obtained from the
Mainz Basin and lower Main valley some
80100 km to the southeast.
The exogenous lithic raw materials are gener-
ally accepted as proxies for the mobility of Paleo-
lithic groups or individuals, and the sources of the
flint suggest possible contacts from the Central
Rhineland to the Magdalenian of the Rhine-
Meuse loess region (and possibly further west to
the Netherlands or Belgium) on the one hand and
to the eastern Lower Rhineland and perhaps
further to the north and east on the other. The
materials obtained from southern sources could
indicate contact to southern German Magdale-
nian groups.
Fine-grained Tertiary limnic quartzite occurs
in the region at numerous localities (outcrops,
block fields) and was probably available within
a range of some 30 km, perhaps being targeted by
middle-range expeditions during the occupations
of the Gonnersdorf site or collected during the
initial journeys to the sites.
Intensive use of the local raw material lydite,
obtainable in the Rhine gravels, might reflect
a late phase of site occupation prior to leaving
the region, when expeditions to obtain raw mate-
rial were not an option. Alternatively, it might
simply represent ad hoc collecting of a poor qual-
ity rock type during periods of low mobility. This
material is predominantly found in structure K I.
The varied origin of the Gonnersdorf lithic
raw materials has contributed to an interpretation
of the site as a meeting point of distinct Magda-
lenian groups from different regions. It is possi-
ble that these groups met at Gonnersdorf, which
would then have the character of an aggregation
camp or base camp. Alternatively, a single larger
group occupying the Central Rhineland may have
Gonnersdorf (Magdalenian): Geography and Culture
dispersed into different regions at certain times of
the year and brought back specific materials from
these regions.
Subsistence
At Gonnersdorf the most important food species
in all investigated structural concentrations is the
horse. In the largest assemblage, from K II, some
2,100 postcranial specimens and 850 cranial and
tooth fragments must come from at least 28 ani-
mals. K I produced more than 1,500 horse
remains, representing at least 12 individuals,
while at least 7 individuals of horse are
represented in K III by c. 300 specimens. At
least five horses are represented by 150 speci-
mens in the SW structure, whereas at the north
of the site, 159 identified specimens in spatial
association with the K IV structure demonstrate
only two horses. The total number of horses
represented at the site is thus 54, if the figures
established for the different concentrations are
added together.
Other large and small mammal species,
together with some birds (raven, ptarmigan,
swan, goose, snowy owl, and seagull) and very
few fish remains (trout, burbot, and a cyprinid),
play a far less significant role in the diet; indeed
not all of the identified species represent a food
resource. Specimens of a rhinoceros maxilla and
mammoth bone and ivory are shown by radiocar-
bon dating to be subfossil remains collected pos-
sibly as a curio or for use as raw material (ivory)
or a constructional element (mammoth femur).
Much of the material identified as reindeer is in
the form of antler tools or their waste, in some
cases demonstrably collected shed antlers. Teeth
and foot bones of wolf might represent pelts
rather than animals hunted locally while bird
remains, in particular wing and foot bones, may
derive from ornamental feathers and claws.
A large bovine, chamois, and saga antelope are
represented by at most one or two animals and
cannot always definitively be demonstrated to
represent animals hunted for food.
Many other faunal remains clearly do repre-
sent the animals hunted during human residence
at Gonnersdorf. A number of cut-marked and
fractured bones reveal standardized stages of
Gonnersdorf (Magdalenian): Geography and Culture
butchering. Skinning, disarticulation, and
filleting of meat can be identified, along with
intensive bone fracturing for obtaining marrow
and grease.
The composition of the faunal assemblages of
the various structures shows clear differences.
Arctic fox is the most common species in
K I (c. 2,500 specimens from at least 30 animals),
probably as a result of winter trapping for furs,
followed by horse and varying hare. By contrast
horse dominates the assemblage of K II and less
than 200 remains of arctic fox were present. Hare
overtakes arctic fox in importance with more than
400 specimens. Several other species present
here (large bovine, rhinoceros, chamois) are not
represented in K I. It was noted above that their
role in the diet is sometimes unclear. Some 280
bones and teeth of reindeer from K I represent at
least three hunted animals, whereas of the c. 170
pieces of antler, some were demonstrably
brought to the site as shed specimens. Reindeer
is represented in K II by some 350 specimens of
bone, tooth, and antler, but no more than one
individual can be demonstrated here.
The presence in K III of bones of the large
bovine, rhinoceros tooth fragments, and chamois
teeth suggest that it was somehow linked to the
adjacent K II. Apart from horse, described above,
K III also produced 71 finds identified as arctic
fox (no more than one individual), c. 100 speci-
mens of varying hare, and over 200 specimens of
reindeer from at least two animals.
Faunal remains are comparatively poorly
represented in the northern area of K IV and at
the southwestern part of the site (SW). The
smaller species fox and hare are absent or exceed-
ingly rare, and reindeer is absent from K IV and
represented by less than 20 finds in the SW area,
where it might be argued that some or all of this is
waste discarded from adjacent K I and K II.
Organic Artifacts and Objects of Adornment
The numerous artifacts of bone, antler, and ivory
found at Gonnersdorf are typical for the later
Magdalenian. They include eyed needles of
bone and the cores from which they were
manufactured, mainly horse metapodial bones.
Spalls and projectile points, batons perces, and
3083 G
baguettes demi-rondes were made of reindeer ant-
ler, and waste debitage shows the manufacture of
such items at the site. K I, K II, and K III produced
a small number of mammoth ivory artifacts, such
as projectile points or a perforated disk, and
debitage mainly in the form of small fragments.
Various types of material modified to objects
of personal adornment were found. Red deer is
mainly represented at the site by teeth or tooth
fragments modified as personal adornments,
among them a group of six perforated canine
teeth in K I and fragments of incisor teeth mod-
ified by removal of the roots in K II. These prob-
ably have nothing to do with subsistence and may G
have been imported over a large distance. This is
certainly the case for perforated marine mollusk
shells (Homalopoma sanguineum, Dentalium),
which are ultimately derived from southwestern
Europe and provide evidence of contact between
the Mediterranean or the southern French Atlan-
tic coast and the Central Rhineland. Whether
their transport over a distance of some
8001,000 km reflects the mobility of individual
persons or human groups is unknown.
Reindeer incisors were cut or sawn as articu-
lated series from the mandible, and the presence of
the removed roots shows that in some cases, these
were certainly manufactured at the site. This also
applies to the canine, incisor, and premolar teeth of
arctic fox which were removed from the jaws and
perforated for suspension. Some specimens of col-
lected fossilized wood are equivalent to jet in their
density and appearance and were used for the
production of beads. That this took place on site
is demonstrated by half-finished specimens.
A small pit in K I contained several jet beads
associated with perforated teeth.
Art
Among the most interesting finds from
Gonnersdorf are numerous slabs of slate
engraved with figurative art, including depictions
of women (Bosinski & Fischer 1974; Bosinski
et al. 2001) and many species of animals
(Bosinski & Fischer 1980; Bosinski 2008),
together with abstract symbols.
The highly schematic human female depic-
tions are shown with pronounced buttocks and
G 3084
sometimes with breasts, but without head and
feet, and are often arranged as pairs or in groups
to form scenes interpreted as dancing. The
abstract style is typical of the period and is also
known from neighboring regions. Female figu-
rines in the same style are normally carved of
ivory, but specimens made of antler or stone are
also present at Gonnersdorf.
The most commonly depicted animal species
represented are horse and mammoth (Bosinski &
Fischer 1974), with representations of woolly
rhinoceros, large bovines (bison and aurochs),
red deer, reindeer, saga-antelope, wolf, bear,
lion, and seal present in far lower numbers.
There are few engravings of birds and rare exam-
ples of fish, reptiles, and amphibians. The realis-
tic engravings clearly prove that these species
were well known to the artists, but they may
have encountered or observed some of them in
other regions and not in the Central Rhineland.
Very rarely the engraved figures appear to be
grouped together to form a narrative or symbolic
scene.
The Gonnersdorf art mirrors the wealth of
artistic expression from Magdalenian caves in
Western Europe and suggests the complex social
activities which occurred at the site.
Season and Duration of Occupation
Seasonality information from the analysis of the
faunal remains suggests that Gonnersdorf was
occupied over an extended period of the year.
The season of horse hunting was established by
analysis of milk teeth to establish the age of the
foals at death. For K I, K II, and K III, the season
of death and hence human presence at
Gonnersdorf extended from December/January
until the beginning of the summer. An apparent
cutoff here was perhaps when horses (and possi-
bly reindeer) left the lowland Neuwied Basin for
upland foaling and calving grounds, which
may suggest a possible abandonment of the
Gonnersdorf site during summer.
Other evidences such as tooth eruption
patterns of reindeer and wolf, the presence of
an otolith of a burbot (Lota lota), horse fetal
bone at various stages of development, argu-
ments for winter trapping of fox and possibly
Gonnersdorf (Magdalenian): Geography and Culture
hare, and the probable seasonal presence of
migratory birds provide support for a scenario
of occupation over a longer period of time and
through different seasons of the year. Altogether
it suggests that coexistence by the inhabitants
of K I, K II, and K III may have extended over
a large part of the year.
The season of occupation for K IV and SW
remains unknown due to both their generally
limited faunal evidence and absence of relevant
information on the age at death of the horses.
Future Directions
Gonnersdorf must be seen as only one location in
an extensively oriented land-use occupation strat-
egy of highly mobile Magdalenian groups. That
these mobile groups were also in a position to
occupy specific localities intensively is shown by
the vast amount of material accumulated at
favored locations in the landscape such as
Gonnersdorf. The observed intensity of settle-
ment is probably a palimpsest of several occupa-
tions extending over several weeks to several
months, representing repeated visits separated
by periods of desertion.
The winter half of the year with the shortest
hours of daylight and coldest temperatures is the
time of year when the temporary sedentism
reconstructed for Gonnersdorf would be the
most appropriate survival strategy. It is possible
that northern Magdalenian groups generally
spent this time of the year in sheltered locations,
such as the Rhine valley. While we have no
certain information on the frequency of Magda-
lenian peoples absence from the Central Rhine-
land, the available seasonal data strongly
suggests that the season of their absence would
have been the summer, while exogenous lithic
materials and other materials give some indica-
tion of the distant regions visited at this time.
Finally, any analysis of complex Magdalenian
sites must recognize their adaptability and vari-
ability. The sometimes very different structures
at Gonnersdorf do not all represent the same
range or intensity of activities, and it is quite
probable that the function of a specific
Gonzalez, Alberto Rex
concentration changed dynamically through time
according to several factors.
The apparently younger occupation of
Gonnersdorf SW, with an associated fauna of
elk and red deer, probably took place under
quite different environmental factors than the
main settlement phases of K IK IV. The far
more ephemeral evidence for human presence
in SW possibly foreshadows the settlement pat-
terns of the Federmessergruppen that will
emerge during the younger wooded Allerd
interstadial.
Cross-References
Andernach-Martinsberg (Magdalenian):
Geography and Culture
References
BOSINSKI, G. 1979. Die Ausgrabungen in Gonnersdorf
19681976 und die Siedlungsbefunde der Grabung
1968 (Der Magdalenien-Fundplatz Gonnersdorf 3).
Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
- 2008. Tierdarstellungen von Gonnersdorf. Nachtrage zu
Mammut und Pferd sowie die ubrigen
Tierdarstellungen (Monographien des Romisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Band 72/Der
Magdalenien-Fundplatz Gonnersdorf 9). Mainz:
Verlag des Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.
BOSINSKI, G., F. DERRICO & P. SCHILLER. 2001. Die
gravierten Frauendarstellungen von Gonnersdorf
(Der Magdalenien-Fundplatz Gonnersdorf 8). Stutt-
gart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
BOSINSKI, G. & G. FISCHER. 1974. Die Menschendar-
stellungen von Gonnersdorf der Ausgrabung 1968
(Der Magdalenien-Fundplatz Gonnersdorf 1). Wiesba-
den: Franz Steiner Verlag.
- 1980. Mammut- und Pferdedarstellungen von
Gonnersdorf (Der Magdalenien-Fundplatz
Gonnersdorf 5). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
BRUNNACKER, K. (ed.) 1978. Geowissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen in Gonnersdorf (Der Magdalenien-
Fundplatz Gonnersdorf 4). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner
Verlag.
BUSCHKAMPER, T. 1993. Die Befunde im Sudwestteil der
Gonnersdorfer Grabungsflache. Unpublished MA dis-
sertation, Cologne University.
FLOSS, H. 1994. Rohmaterialversorgung im Palaolithikum
des Mittelrheingebietes (Monographien des Romisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 21). Mainz;
Bonn: Dr. R. Habelt.
3085 G
FRANKEN, E. & S. VEIL. 1983. Die Steinartefakte von
Gonnersdorf (Der Magdalenien-Fundplatz
Gonnersdorf 7). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
JORIS, O., M. STREET & E. TURNER. 2012. Spatial analysis at
the Magdalenian site of Gonnersdorf (central Rhine-
land, Germany). An introduction, in S. Gaudzinski-
Windheuser, O. Joris, M. Sensburg, M. Street &
E. Turner (ed.) Site-internal organization of hunter-
gatherer societies: case studies from the European
Palaeolithic and Mesolithic (RGZM Tagungen 12):
5380. Mainz: Verlag des Romisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums.
POPLIN, F. 1976. Les grands vertebres de Gonnersdorf.
Fouilles 1968 (Der Magdalenien-Fundplatz
Gonnersdorf 2). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
SENSBURG, M. 2007. Die raumliche Organisation der
Konzentration IIa von Gonnersdorf (Monographien G
des Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz
69). Mainz: Verlag des Romisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums.
SENSBURG, M. & F. MOSELER. 2008. Die Konzentrationen
IIb und IV des Magdalenien-Fundplatzes Gonnersdorf
(Mittelrhein) (Monographien des Romisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums 73). Mainz: Verlag
des Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.
STEVENS, R.E., T.C. OCONNELL, R.E.M. HEDGES &
M. STREET. 2009. Radiocarbon and stable isotope
investigations at the central Rhineland sites of
Gonnersdorf and Andernach-Martinsberg, Germany.
Journal of Human Evolution 57: 13148.
STREET, M. & E. TURNER. 2012. The faunal remains from
Gonnersdorf (Monographien des Romisch-
Germanischen Zentralmuseums). Mainz: Verlag des
Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.
TERBERGER, T. 1997. Die Siedlungsbefunde des Magdalenien-
Fundplatzes Gonnersdorf. Konzentrationen III und IV
(Der Magdalenien-Fundplatz Gonnersdorf 6). Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag.
Gonzalez, Alberto Rex
Javier Nastri
CONICET Universidad Maimonides/
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires,
Argentina
Basic Biographical Information
Alberto Rex Gonzalez (19182012) was
a charismatic figure with the most profound influ-
ence on Argentine archaeology through the twen-
tieth century. Born in the Pergamino locality of
G 3086
Buenos Aires, his introduction to archaeology
came through an early reading of the work of
Argentine naturalist Florentino Ameghino.
This drove him from a young age to carry out
excavations at different sites around the country.
After gaining his medical qualifications at the
University of Cordoba, he took archaeology
courses at Columbia University. In 1948, he
began to work at the La Plata Museum
(Argentina), and in 1953, he started to lecture at
the University of Rosario. Three years later, he
settled in Cordoba, where he was the Director of
the universitys Institute of Anthropology. In
1962, he returned to La Plata, now an established
figure of Argentine archaeology, as a researcher
at CONICET (the Argentine National Council for
Scientific and Technical Research). In spite of all
this, in 1976, he was fired from his academic
position at the university, in the context of the
terrorist military dictatorship which razed the
country. Once democracy returned in 1983, he
took up the role of lecturer at the University of
Buenos Aires, where he was the Director of the
Ethnographic Museum. Through his long career,
he carried out numerous excavations, formed
a considerable group of disciples, and published
around 150 scientific and dissemination works.
After retirement, he spent his last years organiz-
ing his archives in the city of La Plata.
Major Accomplishments
From the University of La Plata, at the end of the
1940s, he started a tenacious campaign to revive
the practice of field work and promote a deeper
temporal conception of the native occupation of
Argentine territory. After obtaining the countrys
first radiocarbon dating, of the deepest deposits of
the cave of Inti Huasi (San Luis Province), he
could reliably determine a minimum antiquity of
8,000 BP for the occupation of present Argentine
territory, which constituted a true milestone in the
history of archaeological investigations in
Argentina.
Due to his initiatives, the first Argentine
radiocarbon dating laboratory was set up, installed
in the University of La Plata (Latyr). He also
Gonzalez, Alberto Rex
fostered the creation of CONICET, the Argentine
National Council for Scientific and Technical
Research; this is the countrys principal research
institution which gathers a large proportion of
Argentinas professional archaeologists.
His reformulation of the prehistory of
northwestern Argentina, in the 1950s and 1960s,
was based on analysis of the mortuary contexts of
the Muniz Barreto Collection held at the Museum
of La Plata, which boasts an itemized record of its
documents. Calling on his detailed stylistic
knowledge of the materials, and carrying out
further excavations and radiocarbon dating, he
proposed a master sequence of cultural develop-
ment of the agricultural ceramicist stage of
Hualfn Valley, which he extrapolated to the
whole region denominated valliserrana (moun-
tain valley), greatly stimulating archaeological
investigation.
His summary work, in collaboration with
Perez Gollan Indigenous Argentina. Eve of
Conquest (1972) became a fundamental
reference work about the prehistory of the
Argentine territory.
With his 1974 book, Art, Structure, Archaeol-
ogy (2007), he ventured into the terrain of the
symbolic interpretation of aboriginal art,
a subject that monopolized his interest during
the latter years of his investigative career.
In this work, influenced by the structuralism of
Levi-Strauss, he recognized the diverse mecha-
nisms of physical and visual expression of
Andean dualism in the cultural material of the
agricultural ceramic societies of northeastern
Argentine:
1. Mixed features, feline-human, (Fig. 1)
2. Multiple hybrid features
3. Mixed feline-human, posterior view
4. Dual realistic images in the same piece
5. Duality of binary opposition as expression
of other concepts
6. Duality in the same image (anatropical
figures)
7. Duality by split representation (Fig. 2)
8. Duality by opposition of antipodean figures
His masterpiece is Pre-Columbian Art of
Argentina (1977) in which he described and
analyzed the plastic expressions of all the native
Gonzalez, Alberto Rex
Gonzalez, Alberto Rex, Fig. 1 Ceramic piece from
Aguada culture, taken by Gonzales as an example of the
mixture of feline and human features (Taken from
Gonzalez 2007: Figure 4.1)
Gonzalez, Alberto Rex, Fig. 2 Exampe of two-sided
representation in a Santa Maria piece, Museo de La Plata
(Gonzalez 2007: Figure 2.3)
3087 G
Gonzalez, Alberto Rex, Fig. 3 Metallic plates from Ro
Lpez (Bolivia), from the corpus studied by Gonzalez in
his work Las placas metalicas de los Andes del Sur (Taken
from Tomado de Gonzalez 1992: plate 3)
cultures of Argentina, developing in particular
the agricultural ceramicist stage in the northwest
of the country with the greatest detail realized at
that point.
In 1992, he published The Metallic Plates of
the Southern Andes, an exhaustive compilation
about the class of objects most manufactured in
the South Andes area in pre-Columbian times.
With profuse iconography, the metallic plates
(Fig. 3) constitute, even still, a giant archaeolog-
ical question mark, it being very rare to recover
G 3088
examples in context. In this work, Gonzalez
provided a first chronology based on elements
of stylistic judgment and unfolded an original
hermeneutic approach supported by historical
and ethnographic sources.
At nearly 80 years old, at the end of the 1990s,
he returned to field work on the archaeological
site La Choya, in the Province of Catamarca,
revealing a new ceremonial center of the La
Aguada culture. It is to the latter that he dedicated
his last great work: La Aguada Culture, Archae-
ology and Designs (1998). Here, he provided the
most complete image of cultural context that he
himself would have defined in the 1960s, and
which would have constituted, from Max Uhles
synthesis in 1910, a fundamental watershed in the
agro-ceramic cultural sequence of northeastern
Argentina.
Cross-References
Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks
Art Studies: Normative Approaches
Structural Archaeology
Style: Its Role in the Archaeology of Art
References
GONZALEZ, A.R. 1977. Arte precolombino de la Argentina.
Introduccion a su historia cultural. Buenos Aires:
Filmediciones Valero.
- 1992. Las placas metalicas de los Andes del Sur.
Contribucion al estudio de las religiones
precolombinas. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
- 1998. Cultura La Aguada. Arqueologa y disenos.
Buenos Aires: Filmediciones Valero.
- 2007 [1974]. Arte, estructura y arqueologa. 2da.
edicion. Buenos Aires: La marca editora.
GONZALEZ, A.R. & A. PEREZ. 1972. Argentina indgena.
Vsperas de la conquista. Buenos Aires: Paidos.
Further Reading
BONNIN, M. & G. SOPRANO. 2011. Antropologos
y antropologa entre las universidades nacionales de
La Plata, Litoral y Cordoba. Circulacion de personas,
saberes y practicas antropologicas en torno del
liderazgo academico de Alberto Rex Gonzalez
(1949-1976). Relaciones de la Sociedad Argentina de
Antropologa 36: 37-60.
Google Earth Afghan Surveys
BIANCIOTTI, A. 2005. Alberto Rex Gonzalez: la imagen y el
espejo. Arqueologa Suramericana 1(2): 155-184.
PEREZ GOLLAN, J.A. 1995. Cuando las piedras florecen.
Artinf 91: 10-15.
Google Earth Afghan Surveys
David C. Thomas
Archaeology Program, La Trobe University,
Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Introduction and Definition
The development of virtual globes, such as
Google Earth and NASAs World Wind, repre-
sents the most important development in aerial
archaeology for 35 years (Irwin Scollar, cited in
Scollar & Palmer 2008: 15). Virtual globes
provide a user-friendly means of accessing
geo-referenced (i.e., accurately located) satellite
images of the world there are no Google Earth
or World Wind images per se, merely satellite
images and aerial photographs available through
these digital portals. Virtual globes are much
more dynamic and interactive than more tradi-
tional, static photographic and cartographic
representations of Earth, enabling viewers to
move around, and zoom in and out, to determine
what they want to investigate (Parcak 2009a: 3,
48). The costs involved are also low compared to
purchasing commercially available satellite
images and acquiring the geographical informa-
tion systems (GIS) software and skills necessary
to utilize these images standard versions of
Google Earth and World Wind are freely
available to anyone with a high-speed internet
connection, while the annual license for Google
Earth Pro, which has some useful additional fea-
tures but does not offer higher resolution or dif-
ferent images, currently costs $400.
World Wind consists of the Blue Marble,
a true-color image of the entire Earth. When
you zoom in closer, the virtual globe trans-
forms into a seamless mosaic of Landsat 7
images, collected from 1999 to 2003. These
images have been draped over a digital terrain
Google Earth Afghan Surveys
Google Earth Afghan Surveys, Fig. 1 Satellite images
of Afghanistan, available through Google Earth prior to
the 2009 upgrade to SPOT imagery; high-resolution strips
model (DTM) derived from Shuttle Radar
Topography Mission (SRTM) data to generate
a relatively accurate three-dimensional model of
the Earths surface. World Wind also includes
images with other color bands such as the infrared
spectrum, which can be useful in identifying
archaeological features (Parcak 2009a: 61),
although the 15 m per pixel resolution of the
Landsat images limits the value of World Wind
to archaeologists interested in small sites
and features.
Unlike World Wind, Google Earth consists
of thousands of geo-referenced high- and
mid-resolution satellite images and aerial photo-
graphs, displayed on a flat-surfaced sphere rather
than one which is topographically accurate. The
highest-resolution images range from 0.1 to 1.0 m
per pixel and thus are much clearer and more
detailed than those available through World
3089 G
are highlighted in green and ASAGE study areas outlined
in yellow
Wind. The different image sources and resolu-
tions, however, currently result in an unnatural,
mosaic-like appearance in some regions such as
the northern Indian subcontinent and much of
China and Southeast Asia.
The patchy nature of the high-resolution
satellite coverage available through Google
Earth presents one of the major constraints to its
use by archaeologists. While densely populated
areas, particularly in Western countries, tend to
have higher resolution coverage, due to user
demand and the commercial synergies inherent
in such projects, the coverage of sparsely
populated, less developed countries such as
Afghanistan is poorer. Only 7 % of Afghanistan
was covered by the relatively narrow strips of
high-resolution images prior to an upgrade to
2.5 m spatial resolution SPOT imagery in June
2009 (Fig. 1). These high-resolution images,
G 3090
however, still amounted to a total area of
47,000 km2 and formed the basis for detailed
studies of known archaeological sites and
under-explored areas by the Archaeological
Sites of Afghanistan in Google Earth (ASAGE)
project (Thomas et al. 2008; see below).
Unfortunately, although the upgrade to SPOT
imagery, which was not announced in advance,
resulted in a general improvement in the cover-
age of the country, many of the highest-resolution
image strips are no longer available. This lack of
transparency in the policies and timetabling of
imagery upgrades is a major deficiency in
Google Earths program of updating satellite
image coverage.
Despite its variable image resolutions, Google
Earth has largely superseded World Wind due to
the higher resolution of many of the images it
uses. It has become an integral part of news
broadcasts, television dramas, academic presen-
tations, and virtual travel over 600 million
copies of Google Earth software have been
downloaded since its launch in 2005. Users can
visit specific places by searching Google Earths
database or simply explore whichever part of the
globe interests them, unrestricted by national
boundaries, topography, and no-fly zones.
The coordinates of sites can be uploaded from
a spreadsheet using Google Earth Pro to create
placemarks. Placemarks can in turn be archaeology studies of these regions remain
enriched with images, video clips, links to other
internet resources, and additional information
via .kmz files posted on on-line bulletin boards
such as History Illustrated (Ur 2006: 37). The
extra measuring tools available in Google Earth
Pro enable archaeologists to calculate the area of
sites and their components, while existing maps
and plans can be laid over the satellite images
available through Google Earth to verify and
improve site descriptions and integrate additional
information such as geological data in the
interpretative process (Fig. 2). Sketch plans of
standing structures can also easily be generated
over saved images using drawing software
packages such as Adobe Illustrator.
The thousands of postings on the History Illus-
trated bulletin board highlight the popularity of
Google Earth Afghan Surveys
the medium among armchair archaeologists
and the plethora of unusual features which excite
human curiosity (Fig. 3). The opportunities
generated by this democratization of satellite
imagery, to use Stefan Geens term, were soon
recognized by several archaeologists, who saw
the potential to increase the spatial area that can
be studied and to engage with, and even enlist the
help of, the general public (Beck 2006; Ur 2006;
inter alia). Archaeologists, however, have largely
failed to maximize the potential of Google Earth,
primarily because most use Google Earth as
a precursor to conducting fieldwork, rather
than as a source of data for desk-based studies
in its own right.
This oversight is starting to be addressed,
as several recent innovative studies have
demonstrated the value of Google Earth to
archaeologists wishing to investigate regions
which are difficult or impossible to reach for
political, security, or logistical reasons. Archae-
ologists are in particular using Google Earth to
revisit semiarid parts of North Africa, the Near
East, and Central Asia, regions which were the
foci of many of the pioneers of aerial archaeology
such as Theodor Wiegand, Ft Lt Maitland, Father
Poidebard, and Sir Aurel Stein (Kennedy &
Bewley 2004: 51-2). The environmental
conditions which facilitated previous aerial
essentially the same relatively low levels of
natural vegetation and cloud cover, and the
inhospitable terrain, result in optimum site
preservation and visibility. The primary reason
that these new studies using Google Earth are
proving so productive is that much more of the
landscape can now be studied systematically
(Contreras & Brodie 2010: 101).
Reconnaissance of southern Libya as part of
the Desert Migrations Project, for example, has
revealed numerous lost cities built by the
Garamantian civilization c. CE 1500 (Sterry &
Mattingly forthcoming). Visible structures
include the mud-brick remains of fortified farms
and village complexes, along with traces of cairn
cemeteries, associated field systems, wells, and
sophisticated irrigation systems. Over the border
Google Earth Afghan Surveys 3091 G

Google Earth Afghan Surveys, Fig. 2 US Geological Survey map of northern Afghanistan laid over ASAGE study
area 10 in Google Earth

Google Earth Afghan

Surveys, Fig. 3 An
enigmatic saucer-shaped
site (SA2_569) in the
Rgistan desert,
Afghanistan possibly
a burial in a banked
enclosure
G 3092
in Egypt, Sarah Parcak has used images available
through Google Earth to gain virtual access to
industrial compounds in the Markha Plain. This
has enabled Parcak to identify a string of circular
fortresses to the south of Tell Ras Budran, which
are out of view of the main fortress but within
fire-/smoke-signalling distance. These sites
would probably have remained undiscovered
and thus prone to unwitting destruction without
the images available through Google Earth,
because fieldwork is impossible in these
restricted areas (Parcak 2009b: 363).
Further east in the Levant and Arabian Penin-
sula, David Kennedys team has revealed much
older and more extensive archaeological remains
(Kennedy & Bishop 2011). The surviving desert
kites (hunting traps), funerary/religious sites, and
seasonal camps, many of which are virtually
impossible to recognize at ground level without
the benefit of an aerial perspective, indicate
a prehistoric cultural continuum stretching across
thousands of kilometers. The identification of
nearly 2,000 sites in the 1,240 km2 pilot study
area illustrates both the potential of the technique
and the rich pre-Islamic archaeological heritage
of the region which has largely been ignored in
the past previous survey work has recorded just
c. 1,800 sites throughout the whole of Saudi Ara-
bia (Kennedy & Bishop 2011: 1292).
Elsewhere, the contemporary relevance of this
form of archaeological research and the value of
Google Earths Historical Imagery View tool are
evident in the documentation of the looting of
archaeological sites in Jordan (Contreras & Brodie
2010) and Adrian Myers study of Camp Delta
(Guantanamo Bay, Cuba). The Historical Imagery
View tool enables users to study successive
images of the same place. By overlaying these
images in a geographical information system and
mapping changes in the site over time, Myers has
been able to demonstrate both the rapid expansion
and increasingly permanent nature of the prison
facilities. As a result, Myers has been able to
juxtapose the expansion of the USAs top security
goal with official policy announcements relating
to the site (Myers 2010: 464).
Few countries illustrate the vital importance of
Google Earth to archaeologists better than
Google Earth Afghan Surveys
Afghanistan, where the volatile security situation
and unexploded ordnance render fieldwork
impractical in many areas. Although the country
was systematically photographed from the air dur-
ing the 1960s, as part of a photogrammetric map-
ping initiative, these valuable archival images
have since been lost. Satellite images, therefore,
represent the major, largely untapped source of
data for archaeological sites in the country and
form the basis of two research projects: Cameron
Petrie (2007) has used Google Earth to explore the
archaeological sites positioned along ancient trade
routes between Afghanistan and Pakistan, while
the ASAGE project has sought to document
a spatially and diachronically broader range of
sites across the country.
Key Issues/Current Debates
Only 10 % of the sites listed in the archaeological
gazetteer of Afghanistan (Ball 1982) have even
rudimentary plans, so at the most basic level, Goo-
gle Earth is being used to generate detailed sketch
plans of numerous unplanned sites (Fig. 4;
Thomas et al. 2008). Google Earth also provides
valuable data on the relatively few sites which
have been planned, such as the early Islamic
(twelfth- to thirteenth-century CE) capital of
Bust/Lashkar-i Bazar. A French team led by
Daniel Schlumberger conducted pioneering exca-
vations and surveys at this sprawling site from
1949 to 1952. Despite their best efforts under
difficult working conditions and with few
resources, the art historian Terry Allen estimates
that nearly 100 Ghaznawid/Ghurid buildings,
some standing two storeys high, survive at Bust,
most of which have never been documented. The
external walls of many of these structures, which
are not marked on the French expeditions plans of
the site, are clearly identifiable in Google Earth,
while additional details can be collated for several
of the other structures which were merely outlined
(Thomas & Zipfel 2008). The archived satellite
images also create benchmarks against which the
impact of threats to archaeological sites, such as
the encroachment of agriculture and urbanism, can
be monitored over time.
Google Earth Afghan Surveys
Google Earth Afghan
Surveys, Fig. 4 Sketch
plan of the hitherto
unplanned Ghaznawid site
of Qala-i Hauz, derived
from the imagery available
through Google Earth
In addition to providing valuable data on
known sites in Afghanistan, Google Earth also
provides a means of investigating unsurveyed
areas. Given the limited opportunities for
ground truthing (i.e., checking results by site
visits), this form of remote archaeological
exploration benefits from the process of
visiting and verifying known sites mentioned
above by exploring the known sites,
researchers eyes can become attuned to how
archaeological features appear in Google Earth.
This virtual experience, as well as years of
fieldwork experience in the region, and
a detailed appreciation of both landforms and
archaeological site formation processes, is essen-
tial if previously undocumented sites are to be
identified (and natural or modern features are not
to be mistaken for archaeological sites).
A systematic approach to the study of images
available through Google Earth, which by its very
nature is highly time-consuming, wearying, and
often tedious, is essential when they are being
used for reconnaissance purposes. ASAGE
researchers zoomed in to the 100200 m archaeological sites and modern sites and
scale, beyond which even high-resolution
satellite images start to pixelate, and spent dozens
of hours methodically scrolling up and
down selected high-resolution study
areas, placemarking ambiguous features
3093 G
(Thomas et al. 2008). The most experienced
field archaeologist on the project was assigned
the task of cataloguing all the placemarked sites,
in an effort to standardize site recognition and
descriptions. This review process resulted in
three quarters of the placemarks being dismissed
as natural or too uncertain to document. Once
catalogued, the images and data for the remaining
placemarked sites were cross-checked by another
archaeologist with first-hand knowledge of
the region, so as to minimize errors, reduce
subjectivity, and maximize standardization.
A degree of subjectivity is inherent in
the process of cataloguing a placemark as an
archaeological site, particularly when it is not
possible to ground truth the site and when the
sites date and contemporaneity with other sites
are difficult to determine. Subjectivity can be
reduced by defining site types explicitly at the
start of the project. Chronological parameters
can be set by adopting the rolling 50-year date
used by numerous heritage agencies around
the world as the arbitrary division between
comparing the satellite images in Google Earth
with declassified CORONA images from
the 1960s and 1970s. These images provide an
effective terminus ante quem (date before which
the sites must have formed) for most of the larger
G 3094 Google Earth Afghan Surveys

Google Earth Afghan Surveys, Table 1 Details of the ten ASAGE study areas in Afghanistan
Study Area
area (km2) Placemarks Sites Site density Location Date of image
SA1 312.5 163 55 0.18 N5 south central desert around Qala-i Hauz 6/12/2004
SA2 273.5 579 118 0.43 N1 primarily N of Arghandab 6/12/2004
SA3 240.5 599 171 0.71 N2 south of Arghandab 6/12/2004
SA4 267.5 382 91 0.34 N3 north central desert 6/12/2004
SA5 273.0 107 16 0.06 N4 central desert 6/12/2004
SA6 225.0 123 20 0.09 Ghur province, north of Hari Rud 25/07/2004
SA7 263.7 41 17 0.06 Ghur province, south of Hari Rud 25/07/2004
SA8 265.5 143 24 0.09 Ghur province, south of Hari Rud 25/07/2004
SA9 299.0 285 81 0.27 Afghan/Turkmen border 20/09/2006
SA10 260.0 257 86 0.33 Afghan/Turkmen border 30/08/2002
Total 2,680.2 2,679.0 679.0 0.25

sites visible in both images and thus increase
confidence that many of the other smaller sites
identified in Google Earth are also premodern.
This relatively recent cutoff point differs from
that adopted by Warwick Ball, who argues that if
post-Tmurid (c. CE 1526) remains were
included in his gazetteer virtually every modern
town and even many villages would qualify as
a site (Ball 1982 I: 14). While Balls reasoning
is understandable given the practicalities of
producing a gazetteer which already has over
2,000 sites in it, the relatively recent cultural
heritage of Afghanistan is just as worthy of
recognition, preservation, and protection as its
older sites, as is the case elsewhere in the world.
The ten ASAGE study areas were selected in
different environmental zones close to major
early Islamic urban centers to investigate the
use of different marginal landscapes by
nomads and to test whether the methodology
ASAGE has devised is applicable across the
Afghan landscape and beyond. Only one of
the ten study areas yielded more than 0.5 sites
per km2 (Table 1). Despite this apparently low
success rate, 679 definite or probable archaeolog-
ical sites were identified over an area of
2,680 km2. These include isolated nomad camp-
sites and corrals, fortified dwellings and tepes
(occupation mounds, probably dating back
several millennia), deserted villages, dams and
reservoirs, and karz (underground water
channels; Fig. 5). Prior to the study, only three
archaeological sites were listed in the study areas.
The wealth of sites found in the Arghandab
river valley and Rgistan desert contrasts with the
much smaller numbers identified in the three
study areas in the mountains of Ghur province
(SA6-8) and the two on the steppe in the north of
Harat province (SA9-10). The most obvious
explanation is the differing intensities of use in
the different environmental zones. Other factors,
however, may have contributed to the reduced
site numbers in these areas summer campsites
in the mountains are likely to be more dispersed
and ephemeral than winter ones, while the harsh
winters, which are accompanied by heavy snow
falls and violent spring floods, may also have
impacted on site preservation and visibility in
the mountains of Ghur.
The value of adopting a systematic approach to
studying archaeological landscapes in Google
Earth, therefore, extends beyond the numbers of
sites identified. It permits an assessment of the
significance of the distribution of sites in quantita-
tive terms, relative to the types of sites found,
different landforms covered, topographic features,
and varying levels of preservation and visibility.
The conclusions derived from such analyses have
obvious implications for cultural heritage manage-
ment and archaeological impact assessments.
Google Earth Afghan Surveys
Google Earth Afghan
Surveys,
Fig. 5 SA2_101: tepe with
towers guarding the
entrance in the west; note
the overlapping karz spoil
heaps running to the north
and south of the tepe
Future Directions and Examples
The large number of sites in Afghanistan
(and elsewhere) identified using Google Earth
should not come as a surprise, despite the dearth
of sites previously recorded in the study areas.
Survey work in the 1960s and 1970s in the nearby
deserts of Sstan, the anecdotal reports from a few academics alone. Much can be achieved
travelers in the region and fieldwork in other
semiarid regions of the Near East and Central
Asia have demonstrated that deserts have been
utilized by nomads for millennia, and that their
sites survive, despite often being ephemeral and
difficult to date. The blanks on distribution maps
are frequently due to a lack of investigation
arising from Western preconceptions about
uninhabitable semiarid regions rather than
a lack of archaeological sites.
The primary value of the ASAGE research is
as a basis for future fieldwork. The newly discov-
ered sites need to be ground truthed, both to
establish the veracity of their identification and
to collect datable ceramics from the surface. The
detailed sketch plans can be used by the relevant
authorities and other archaeologists to develop
site management plans, particularly where
farmers are encroaching upon sites. The latest
3G mobile phone and iPad/tablet technology
3095 G
even raise the possibility of developing tourist
itineraries and context-rich on-line resources at
sites such as Ghazni, which has been nominated
as Cultural City of the Islamic Civilization for
2013.
The archaeological potential of Google Earth
is so vast that it cannot be exploited fully by
by engaging with the sizable armchair archaeol-
ogist community and enlisting their assistance in
exploring study areas and identifying sites.
Engagement, however, is a two-way process and
requires considerable commitment of time
(in training, cross-checking, and providing
feedback) and a willingness to communicate
and share knowledge on the part of academics.
Similarly, while much of Afghanistan remains
a no-go zone for Westerners, it is imperative to
share data with the National Afghan Institute
of Archaeology and other relevant Afghan
authorities, foreign archaeologists, NGOs and
individuals, and sections of the military who are
interested in discovering and protecting cultural
heritage. The ease with which Google Earth data
can be generated, exported, and exchanged
provides a further example of how central this
versatile medium will be to archaeological
research for the foreseeable future.
G 3096 Goose: Domestication

Cross-References Further Reading

GOOGLE EARTH. n.d. Available at: http://www.google.com/
earth/index.html (accessed 22 November 2011).
Aerial Archaeology
GOOGLE EARTH BULLETIN BOARDS. n.d. Available at: http://
bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/index.php (accessed 28
December 2011).
WORLD WIND. n.d. Available at: http://worldwind.arc.
References nasa.gov/index.html (accessed 22 November 2011).

BALL, W. 1982. Archaeological gazetteer of Afghanistan.

Paris: Editions Recherche sur les civilisations.
BECK, A. 2006. Google Earth and World Wind: remote
sensing for the masses? Antiquity 80, Available at: Goose: Domestication
http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/beck308/ (accessed 24
November 2011).
Kristiina Mannermaa
CONTRERAS, D.A. & N. BRODIE. 2010. Quantifying destruc-
tion: an evaluation of the utility of publicly-available Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and
satellite imagery for investigating looting of Art Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki,
archaeological sites in Jordan. Journal of Field Finland
Archaeology 35(1): 98-111.
KENNEDY, D. & R. BEWLEY. 2004. Ancient Jordan from the
air. London: Council for British Research in the
Levant. Basic Species Information
KENNEDY, D. & M.C. BISHOP. 2011. Google Earth and the
archaeology of Saudi Arabia. A case study from
Domestic geese descend from two wild species,
the Jeddah area. Journal of Archaeological Science
38(6): 1284-93. the Greylag, Anser anser (Linnaeus, 1758), and
MYERS, A. 2010. Camp Delta, Google Earth and the ethics the Swan Goose, Anser cygnoides (Linnaeus,
of remote sensing in archaeology. World Archaeology 1758) (Shi et al. 2006). The natural breeding
42(3): 455-67.
range of the Swan Goose, the ancestor of the
PARCAK, S.H. 2009a. Satellite remote sensing for
archaeology. London: Routledge. Chinese Goose, is in Mongolia, North China,
- 2009b. The skeptical remote senser: Google Earth and and southeastern Russia, and wintering areas are
Egyptian archaeology, in S. Ikram & A. Dodson (ed.) mainly in China. The breeding area of the Grey-
Beyond the horizon: studies in Egyptian art,
lag, the wild form of the domestic goose in
archaeology and history in honour of Barry J. Kemp:
361-381. Cairo: The American Research Center Europe (European goose), covers northern and
in Egypt. central Europe and Asia; wintering areas are in
PETRIE, C.A. 2007. Remote sensing in inaccessible southern Europe and northern Africa. Two sub-
lands: plains and preservation along old routes
species of the Greylag are known, A. a. anser
between Pakistan and Afghanistan. ArchAtlas
February 2010, Edition 4. Available at http://www. (western form) and A. a. rubrirostris (eastern
archatlas.org/workshop/Petrie07.php (accessed 29 form). Both A.a. rubrirostris and the European
December 2011). domestic goose have pink beaks while A.a. anser
SCOLLAR, I. & R. PALMER. 2008. Using Goggle Earth
imagery. AARGnews 37 (September): 15-21.
has an orange beak. The pink beak indicates that
STERRY, M., & D.J. MATTINGLY. Forthcoming. DMPXIII: the European domestic goose descends from the
Reconnaissance survey of archaeological sites in the eastern form.
Murzuq Area. Libyan Studies 42. The two domesticated forms of geese, the
THOMAS, D.C., F.J. KIDD, S. NIKOLOVSKI & C. ZIPFEL. 2008.
European and the Chinese, are closely related.
The archaeological sites of Afghanistan in Google
Earth. AARGnews 37 (September): 22-30. Both are widely spread in the world today, and
THOMAS, D.C. & C. ZIPFEL. 2008. A new look at Bust: they can have fertile offspring. Also wild forms,
Google Earth and archaeological sites in the Greylag and the Swan Goose, can interbreed
Afghanistan. Poster presented at the 6th World
(Gray 1958). The Chinese goose grows larger than
Archaeological Congress, Dublin.
UR, J. 2006. Google earth and archaeology. The SAA the European, and has a longer neck; the male
Archaeological Record 6(3): 35-8. has a pronounced knob at the base of the beak.
Goose: Domestication
Both Chinese and European geese have white and
gray breeds.
The Egyptian goose Alopochen aegyptius was
kept by ancient Egyptians a long time before the
Greylags, but this species never became fully
domesticated. One early use of domesticated
geese has been for sacrifices (e.g., in Mesopota-
mia, Middle East, and classical Greece). Geese
were probably sacred in Pre-Roman Britain
(Zeuner 1963). Domestic geese were associated
with religious symbolism in Roman times in
Britain and Italy (Albarella 2005), and geese
bones are regularly found in Iron Ages burials
in northern and central Europe. Over time, geese
have provided meat, liver, and eggs. Wild or
domestic goose was identified, for example, in
Tutankhamuns tomb (c. 1330 BCE) among the
remains of the funerary meal (Houlihan 1986).
Romans and probably ancient Egyptians overfed
geese in order to improve the flavor of the liver
and meat. Perhaps, the most important material
advantage of geese was the fine quality of
feathers and down. Quill pens were used in medi-
eval and historical times. Geese were respected
house guards at least from Roman time onward.
It is currently not possible to date or locate
when and where geese were kept for the first time,
though in China, the goose was domesticated by

1000 BCE and most likely earlier. The first
introduction of the Chinese goose to Europe was
in the eighteenth century.
Domestic geese are depicted on the walls of
burial chambers in ancient Egypt c. 1400 BCE.
Domestic geese appeared in ancient Greece by
700 BCE. Homer mentions white geese in the
Odyssey c. 800700 BCE, apparently meaning
the domestic bird. Zeuner (1963) proposed that
the domestication must have happened first in the
breeding areas, where young birds were taken
from nests and raised though the breeding distri-
bution of the Greylag does not cover Egypt.
The Greylag may have been domesticated in
many places at different times. Crossbreeding of
domestic and wild forms has most likely hap-
pened often. For example, in Scotland and
Fennoscandia, it had been common to take
young wild geese from the nests and raise these
3097 G
(Sirelius 1919). Geese probably belonging to the
domestic form have been identified in samples
dating from the Bronze Age (c. 1700500 BCE)
in southern Sweden and eastern Germany, and
Pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age (c. 400 BCE
CE 400) in Southern Sweden (Ericson & Tyrberg
2004), probably indicating a local domestication.
Based on size, domesticated geese were kept in
Iron Age and Viking Age Denmark (c. CE
5001000) and in Roman and Saxon Britain
(c. CE 01000). However, according to archaeo-
logical materials, domestic geese became abun-
dant only during medieval times in most of Europe
(Reichstein & Pieper 1986; Yalden & Albarella G
2009). A sudden increase in the amount of goose
bones and bones of young individuals in archaeo-
logical data can be interpreted as indirect evidence
of the presence of the domesticated form.
Molecular studies of recent and archaeologi-
cal specimens show a close genetic relationship
between the different species of genus Anser
(Barnes & Dobney 2000; Ruokonen et al. 2000;
Shi et al. 2006). Separation between the domestic
and wild Anser-geese, or the eastern and western
form of the Greylag, by ancient mitochondrial
DNA has not yet been successful. Identification
of plumage color by analysis of ancient DNA
from bone might in the future give good results
in tracking the early domestication of geese.
All species in genus Anser are very similar in
skeletal morphology, which makes species iden-
tification of archaeological bones difficult. Vague
morphological differences occur in the cranium
and sternum. In sternum, the keel is deeper in the
domestic compared to the wild form (Yalden &
Albarella 2009). However, these elements are
rarely preserved in archaeological samples.
The earliest domestic geese were of similar
size to their wild ancestors, making the bones of
the earliest domestic geese indistinguishable
from wild geese. Only few changes have occurred
in the appearance of the European goose during
domestication. As a consequence of selection,
their size became larger and heavier, which led
to a restricted ability to fly. Leg bones (probably
not the tibiotarsus) of domesticated geese are
stouter than those of wild forms because they
G 3098
carry the increased weight, and the wing bones
are shorter and broader (Reichstein & Pieper
1986; Boessneck & Von den Driesch 1979).
The plumage color changed from gray to het-
erogeneous and finally to white in some domestic
breeds. In about CE 27, Pliny the Elder writes
about the value of down and meat from white
geese, evidently pointing to the domestic form.
The Romans knew several breeds of geese such
as the small white German and the large white
(Albarella 2005).
Cross-References
Animal Domestication and Pastoralism:
Socio-Environmental Contexts
Domestication: Definition and Overview
Genetics of Animal Domestication: Recent
Advances
References
ALBARELLA, U. 2005. Alternate fortunes? The role of
domestic ducks and geese from Roman to medieval
times in Britain, in G. Grupe & J. Peters. (ed.)
Feathers, grit and symbolism. Proceedings of the 5th
Meeting of the ICAZ Bird Working Group in Munich
(Documenta Archaeobiologiae 3): 249-58. Rahden:
International Council for Archaeozoology.
BARNES, I. & K. DOBNEY. 2000. DNA-based identification of
goose species from two archaeological sites in Lincoln-
shire. Journal of Archaeological Science 27: 91-100.
BOESSNECK, J. & VON DEN DRIESCH, A. 1979. Eketorp.
Befestigung und Siedlung auf Oland/Schweden. Die
Fauna. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
ERICSON, P.G.E. & T. TYRBERG. 2004. The early history of
Swedish avifauna. A review of the fossil record and
early written sources. Stockholm: Kungliga Vitterhets
Historie och Antikvitets Akademien.
GRAY, A.P. 1958. Bird hybrids. A check-list with bibliog-
raphy. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural
Bureaux.
HOULIHAN, P.F. 1986. The birds of ancient Egypt.
Warminster: Aris & Phillips.
REICHSTEIN, H. & H. PIEPER. 1986. Untersuchungen an
Skelettresten von Vogeln aus Haithabu (Ausgrabungen
1966-1969). Neumunster: Karl Wachholtz.
RUOKONEN, M., L. KVIST & J. LUMME. 2000. Close related-
ness between mitochondrial DNA from seven Anser
goose species. Journal of Evolutionary Biology
13: 532-40.
Gorodtsov, Vasily A.
SHI, X.-W., J.W. WANG, F.-T. XENG & X.-P. QIU. 2006.
Mitochondrial DNA cleavage patterns distinguish
independent origin of Chinese domestic geese
and Western domestic geese. Biochemical Genetics
44 (5-6): 237-45.
SIRELIUS, U.T. 1919. Suomen kansanomaista kulttuuria:
esineellisen kansatieteen tuloksia I. Helsinki: Otava.
(Translation in Swedish 1932 Stockholm: Finlands
folkliga kultur I.).
ZEUNER, F.E. 1963. A history of domesticated animals.
London: Hutchinson & Co.
YALDEN, D.W. & U. ALBARELLA. 2009. The history of
British birds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gorodtsov, Vasily A.
Pavel F. Kuznetsov
Povolzhies State Social-Humanitarian
Academy, Samara, Russia
Basic Biographical Information
Vasily Alekseevich Gorodtsov (18601945)
(Fig. 1) was an outstanding Russian archaeolo-
gist. He began the scientific work in the archival
committee of Ryazan and Yaroslavl
(18891899). During this period, Gorodtsov
explored Neolithic settlements on the Oka River
downs (the right feeder of the Volga River). In
1901, he was given a mission from the Moscow
archaeological committee to lead excavations in
the South of Russia. Over a period of six months,
he excavated 107 barrows in the river Donets
Basin (Kharkov Region). During this time,
scientific excavation and describing the method-
ology of burial complexities was invented for the
first time.
From 1903 to 1929, Gorodtsov worked in the
Historical Museum of Moscow. In 1905, his
excavation report on the barrows was published.
Four groups of burials were identified according
to their stratigraphic horizons, all of them
belonging to the second Bronze Age. There
were three consequent Bronze Age cultures:
pit-house, catacomb, and log house.
Gorodtsov, Vasily A.
Gorodtsov, Vasily A., Fig. 1 Vasily Alekseevich
Gorodtsov
Gorodtsovs division into periods took its right-
ful place in the history of European science in
line with such systems as Montelius, Reineke,
and Furumark.
Gorodstov had an active teaching profession
also. From 19071914, he taught archaeology at
the Moscow Archeological Institute and from
1915 to 1918, he taught at Shanyavsky National
University. After 1918, he became a professor at
Moscow State University. Sometime later, he
became a professor at the Chernyshevsky
Literature Philosophy and History University.
Gorodstov was also a member of the Material
Culture Institute of the ASUSSR. Many talented
students followed him, the most famous of which
is N. Y. Merpirt.
Major Accomplishments
V.A. Gorodtsov was the first person in 20 years
to explore pit-houses of paleontological humans
in the East European territory (Timonov settle-
ment, 1928). He classified Fatianovskaya,
Panfilovskaya forest-steppe archaeological cul-
tures. He researched sites of Scythian-plowmen
and also artifacts of the Gorodetskaya and
Diakovskaya cultures. Gorodtsov was the first
3099 G
archaeologist to organize large excavations in
the Old Ryazan. He is the author of more than
two hundred scientific works.
Gorodtsovs scientific works determined the
direction of Russian archaeology for many
years. This was characterized by the holistic and
systematic approach of archaeological material
classification. Gorodtsovs scientific work typo-
logical methods in archaeology was republished
in the USA. V.A. Gorodtsov developed the
historical approach to archaeology, which was
initiated by his predecessor, Count A.S. Uvarov,
and which is now typical of the Russian science.
He invented a model concerning the establish- G
ment and the expansion of industrial farms in
the Middle East, Balkans, and Central and East
Europe. His publications prefigured Gordon
Childes diffusion theory in many respects.
Gorodtsovs research regarding Eurasian cultures
still plays a significant role in contemporary
archaeology.
Cross-References
Childe, Vere Gordon (Political and Social
Archaeology)
Childe, Vere Gordon (Theory)
Russia: Management of Archaeological
Heritage
Further Reading
GORODTSOV, V.A. 1901. Archaeological researches result
in Izumsky County Kharkov Region. Works of the XII
archaeological conference. oscow.
- 1908. Primogenital archaeology. oscow.
- 1910. Common archaeology. oscow.
- 1914. The Bronze Age cultures in the Middle Russia
period (The Russian historical museum report.
oscow, 1915). Moscow.
- 1923. Archaeology, Volume 1: the Stone Age. oscow:
Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstro.
- 1925. Archaeological classification. oscow.
- 1927. The typological method in archaeology. Ryazan.
- 1935. Timonov Paleolithic settlement. oscow;
Leningrad.
G 3100 Gould, Richard A.

Gould, Richard A.

David L. Conlin
National Park Service Submerged Resources
Center, Lakewood, CO, USA

Basic Biographical Information

Richard Allen Gould was born in 1939, in

Newton, Massachusetts, as an only child. His
father served in the Pacific during WWII on the
aircraft carrier USS Yorktown (CV-10) and, after
the war, spent a career in higher education as
President of Antioch College, Chancellor of the
University of California at Santa Barbara, and,
ultimately, Chancellor of the State University of
New York (SUNY). During the war, his first-
generation Finnish mother worked at a shipyard
in Massachusetts, and Gould grew up in
a bilingual household (Fig. 1).
Gould graduated with a B.A. (cum laude) in
anthropology from Harvard University in 1961
Gould, Richard A., Fig. 1 Richard Gould measuring the
and followed with a Ph.D. in anthropology from
propeller of the Bird Key Shipwreck, Dry Tortugas
the University of California at Berkeley in 1965. National Park c. 1991 (Courtesy of US National
Goulds initial interest in archaeology was Park Service)
sparked by a meeting with the former Chair
of the University of Chicago Department of
Anthropology, Fay Cooper-Cole, who had retired Saint George Site. Goulds thesis advisor,
to California and was a family friend. Through John Rowe, was a prominent Peruvian scholar,
Cooper-Cole, Gould was introduced to one of and though he did not become an Inca specialist,
Coles former graduate students, Jessie Jennings, Gould was drawn to Rowe by his expertise in
who was leading the southern section of the Glen ceramic analysis and culture history which he
Canyon Project a vast public archaeology has applied to other areas throughout his
undertaking that was to catalogue and excavate professional life.
key sites along the Colorado River that would be Subsequent to his graduate work in California,
submerged by the construction of Glen Canyon Gould and his wife Elizabeth (Betsy) did ground-
Dam. Gould worked under the exacting tutelage breaking work in ethnoarchaeology with the
of Jennings during field seasons in 19611962 Aboriginal people of the Western Australian
and came to appreciate the value of science and Desert. Drawing on past experiences, the Goulds
intellectual rigor as applied to archaeological proposed the concept of a Western Desert
work. Culture a discernible amalgamation of the
While at Berkeley, Gould wrote a Ph.D. ideas of cultural continuity drawn from John
thesis on Northern California Tolowa Rowe coupled to the culture area theories of
ethnoarchaeology. The work addressed ques- Jessie Jennings.
tions of cultural continuity and change that After work in Western Australia, Gould
were tested via excavations at the Point looked to his mothers homeland of Finland
Gould, Richard A.
where he studied the historical processes of farm
abandonment and the material residues that were
left behind as Finish families reacted to varying
degrees of socioeconomic stress after the Russo-
Finnish War and WWII.
In 1977 while on sabbatical to Cambridge
University to work on his book Living Archaeology,
Gould met maritime archaeologist Keith
Muckelroy. Muckelroy sparked a long-term interest
in the subject of underwater archaeology in Gould,
and in 1981 he chaired a School of American
Research Seminar dedicated to the subject. From
this seminar came the highly regarded book Ship-
wreck Anthropology, one of the first volumes to
advocate for an explicitly anthropological approach
to underwater archaeology. The seminar began
a long, productive professional relationship
between Gould and National Park Service
underwater archaeologists Daniel Lenihan, Larry
Murphy, Matthew Russell, and David Conlin.
Following the seminar, Gould expanded his
research interests to include underwater work in
Dry Tortugas, Florida, and Bermuda.
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
Gould realized that the techniques of archaeology
could provide insights into mass-casualty events
and bring closure to the families of those who
died. Goulds World Trade Center work was
followed, in 2003, by a much larger examination
of a tragic fire at The Station nightclub in
Warwick Rhode Island this work tied in with
his commitment to a knowable past and an
empirical approach in line with the standards of
modern crime-scene forensics.
Gould retired from his position in the
Department of Anthropology at Brown
University in 2009 and currently lives in
Honolulu, Hawaii, with his sweetheart and wife
of 50 years Betsy Gould (nee Barber).
Major Accomplishments
After completing his Ph.D. in Anthropology at
Berkeley, Gould embarked on a diverse exami-
nation of different subjects, all tied together by
the common thread of human cultural and behav-
ioral adaptations to stress, risk, conflict, and
3101 G
uncertainty (http://philosopedia.org/index.php/
Richard_A._Gould). Goulds career blossomed
during the transition in American archaeology
from cultural-historical particularism to the
scientific/ecological focus of the New Archaeol-
ogy in the late 1960s and 1970s, and he remained
heavily involved in the field during the period
of paradigmatic confrontation between
Post-Processual and Processual archaeology in
the late 1980s and 1990s.
Goulds definition of culture shades closely
to a bio-cultural mechanism of adaptation that
combines elements of both biological and
nonbiological aspects of human experience as G
opposed to an ideational notion of culture defined
as a negotiated system of symbols. As such this
sometimes put him at odds with archaeologists of
the Post-Processual movement as it moved into
maturity in the 1990s.
Goulds writings are fundamentally scientific
and carry a theme of a real past that is knowable
in some of its facets via the careful application of
science and the scientific method. Goulds
approach has been to apply standards of evidence
akin to courtroom testimony (i.e., empiricism,
logical connection, minimal assumptions, and
rigorously argued linkages between the observed
material and inferred behavioral causes) to the
results of his research. His mass-casualty work
came as a result of his emphasis on science and
the notion that in some instances there is a single
answer that adheres most closely to the facts and
is at least provisionally true. Gould privileges
statements about the past that carry with them
minimal assumptions, yet he has also been able
to ague from particular instances such as the
shipwrecks of the Spanish Armada and the
salvage of WWII aircraft during the Battle of
Britain towards more generalized statements of
human behavior as related to risk, stress, and
conflict that have broad applicability over
time and space.
Gould argues that the past is knowable with
varying degrees of certainty and also notes that
a large amount of human behavior, even in some
surprising instances, can be linked to adaptive
responses to the environment. In this he defines
environment as encompassing both the
G 3102
physical environment and also the larger
socioeconomic forces that shaped human deci-
sions in the past. He is a strong proponent of
a stepwise approach to the study of cultural adap-
tation that encompasses multiple feedback loops
combining a systemic relationship of both the
ideational and biological aspects of human expe-
rience. In this Gould advocates for the use of both
emic (i.e., internal, socially constructed cate-
gories of thought and meaning such as local reli-
gion) and etic (i.e., external categories of
thought and meaning such as the application of
the Western scientific method).
Cross-References
Adaptation in Archaeology
Archaeology and the Emergence of Fields:
Maritime
Australian Deserts: Extreme Environments in
Archaeology
Ethnoarchaeology
Underwater Archaeology
Further Reading
GOULD, R.A. 1966. Archaeology of the Point St. George
Site and Tolowa prehistory (Publications in Anthro-
pology 4). University of California.
- 1968. Living archaeology: the Ngatatjara of Western
Australia. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology
24(2): 101-22.
- 1969. Yiwara: foragers of the Australian Desert. New
York: Charles Scribners Sons; London and Sydney:
William Collins, Ltd.
- (ed.) 1973. Mans many ways: a natural history reader
in anthropology. New York: Harper and Row.
(Rev edn. published in 1977).
- 1977. Puntutjarpa Rockshelter and the Australian
Desert culture, part 1 (Anthropological Papers of the
American Museum of Natural History 54).
- 1978. Tolowa, in R.F. Heizer (ed.) Handbook of North
American Indians, Volume 8: 128-36. Washington
(DC): Smithsonian Institution.
- (ed.) 1978. Explorations in ethnoarchaeology. Albu-
querque: University of New Mexico Press.
- 1980. Living archaeology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
- (ed.) 1983. Shipwreck anthropology. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Graffiti Archaeology
- (ed.) 1984. Toward an ethnoarchaeology of modern
America (Research Papers in Anthropology 4).
Providence: Brown University.
- 1985. The empiricist strikes back: reply to Binford.
American Antiquity 50(3): 638- 44.
- 1988. Life among the ruins: the ethnoarchaeology of
abandonment in a Finnish farming community, in
T. Ingold (ed.) The social implications of Agrarian
change in northern and eastern Finland: 99-120.
Helsinki: Suomen Antropologinen.
- 1990. Recovering the past. Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico Press.
- 2000. Archaeology and the social history of ships.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
- 2004. Disaster archaeology at the West Warwick, RI,
nightclub fire scene. The SAA Archaeological Record
3: 1-7.
- 2007. Disaster archaeology. Salt Lake City: University
of Utah Press.
GOULD, R.A. & M.B. SCHIFFER. (ed.) 1981: Modern
material culture: the archaeology of us. New York:
Academic Press.
Graffiti Archaeology
Jordan Ralph
Department of Archaeology, Flinders University,
Adelaide, SA, Australia
Introduction
Graffiti is an important source of material
evidence through which archaeologists can learn
about cultural identities and ideas. The tradition
of graffiti goes back to ancient Greece and Rome,
if not earlier (Baird & Taylor 2010). One of the
renowned characteristics of Pompeii and
Herculaneum is the wealth of political slogans
and bawdy statements that are inscribed on the
walls of buildings, both inside and outside
(Benefiel 2010; UNESCO 2013). In contempo-
rary societies, graffiti is widely perceived as
undesirable and labeled as vandalism and
often connected with feelings of adrenaline
(ODoherty 2012).
Archaeologists investigate the nexus of tech-
nique, form, and content of this visual culture to
extract uncensored, uninstitutionalized informa-
tion about attitudes toward social, political,
Graffiti Archaeology
religious, and ideological issues. Graffiti is
a continuation of the landscape-marking and
mark-making communication practices that
have been used by humans for at least 40,000
years. While rock art receives much academic
interest owing to its ability to reveal a myriad of
information about past societies, economies,
material culture, and ideologies (McDonald
2012), the same can be said of classical,
medieval, and historical colonial, military, and
convict graffiti. Though this entry focuses on
contemporary graffiti, the issues discussed
are relevant to classical, medieval, and historical
graffiti.
Definition
Graffiti, the plural of graffito, comes from the
Italian word graffiare, meaning to scratch and
is used to refer to human-made markings in the
public domain. The term is widely used to
describe markings that are unauthorized or illegal
and can include expressions in both two- and
three-dimensions. Certainly, graffiti is generally
conceived as illegal behavior (e.g., Fig. 1);
however, not all types of graffiti are illegal.
Graffiti becomes illegal and/or vandalism when
the author does not have a legal right to be making
their mark on the surface they are marking.
Graffiti Archaeology,
Fig. 1 Sign describing
graffiti as vandalism, New
York, USA, 2011
3103 G
Graffiti can be defined as a form of visual
communication and intended human-made
marking that occurs publicly on any fixed
surface in natural and built landscapes. Put
simply, graffiti is communication through
landscape-marking, and is inclusive of a wide
range of forms, such as regulated traffic signs,
public murals, advertising, and street art. This
definition maintains a degree of fluidity and flex-
ibility and is consistent with archaeological
approaches to rock art style as a means of com-
munication (Wobst 1977; McDonald 2012).
From this viewpoint, graffiti encompasses all
public visual communication, regardless of G
authorship, form, material, technique, message,
legality, and social and cultural acceptances.
Key Issues and Current Debates
One key issue under current debate concerns
what actually constitutes graffiti. Daniell
(2011: 455) explains that graffiti comprised
essentially handwriting or hand-drawn
designs until the late 1960s and early 1970s,
when tagging became popular and urban graf-
fiti became larger and more colourful and
included designs, writing and pictures; this
change came about due to the availability of
new techniques and implements, such as aerosol
G 3104
spray cans. Macdonald (2001: 2-3) argued that
the contemporary practice of graffiti is far from
mindless or senseless and that there is always
a purpose behind [its] production. Frederick
(2009: 212) agreed, stating that graffiti is a
mode of expression and communication which
comprises a vast array of media, technique, sub-
ject matter, form and meanings and that
a common feature of most graffiti is that
comprises text and/or images that [are] made
in shared spaces where it is viewed publicly, be
that a privately owned building, public trans-
port, or an alleyway (Frederick 2009: 212).
David and Wilson (2002: 43) say that graffiti:
. . . has a more pointed definition, referring to
unsolicited inscriptions in public spaces. As
a form of inscription usually practiced outside the
censoring arm of the power elite, graffiti confronts
and contradicts the ordered and ordering space of
institutionalised life. Thus by definition, graffiti is
imbued with a polluting and vandalistic quality
irrespective of its decorative potential. It threatens
the status quo not just because of the words or
images written, but by the fact that its execution
in public spaces lies outside the control of existing
social forces.
Daniell (2011) argues that our understanding
of contemporary graffiti should be informed by
contemporary issues, such as legality, regulation,
control, and resistance; however, using a similar
approach toward non-contemporary graffiti is
problematic because those markings were created
under different legal, political, and social circum-
stances (Daniell 2011: 458, 462).
Several archaeological studies of graffiti
have been undertaken across the globe and the
following paragraphs are examples of some of the
recent graffiti archaeology projects that have
been undertaken around the world. In the United
Kingdom, Graves-Brown and Schofield (2011)
studied graffiti found on the interior walls of an
apartment at 6, Denmark Street, London. This
location was once occupied by members of the
punk band, Sex Pistols, and the study mainly
focused on caricatures of band members drawn
by Sex Pistols lead singer, John Lydon. Graves-
Brown and Schofield (2011: 1398) questioned
whether heritage conservation of this location
might betray the spirit of punk and rock music
Graffiti Archaeology
more generally, and were criticized in main-
stream media for suggesting this site should
attract the same level of significance and
attention as a site from the distant past. One
of the major messages to come out of Graves-
Brown and Schofields (2011) article, and one
that was missed in the media, is the issue of
cultural heritage management, preservation, and
conservation in light of intersecting and even
counteracting cultural needs:
In case readers are wondering whether this paper is
written tongue in cheek or with tongue sticking
out it is worth recalling that modern archaeol-
ogy includes recent periods in its remit, and uses
recent materiality to help understand more ancient
times as well as a critique on modernity itself.
Oliver and Neal (2010: 15) focused on tree
carvings throughout their study of contemporary
graffiti in the UK, and argue that archaeologists
and others have begun to turn their attention away
from symbols of authority and towards the daubed,
painted and scratched writings of the disadvan-
taged, the excluded or the subversive in society
because these are the stories that are not likely to
be discovered in other media. Such an approach
allows people to understand the ways in which
visitors and inhabitants actively use the space
and landscapes available to them, and helps people
to acknowledge that these places are not ageless,
static or just plain dull (Oliver & Neal 2010: 20).
In continental Europe, Merrill and Hack
(2013) investigated Soviet graffiti at a former
military base in Germany. Merrill and Hack
(2013: 101) argued that it is archaeologically
important for graffiti and other forms of what
is traditionally considered vandalism to contrib-
ute to the cultural significance and interpretation
of heritage sites. This study includes an
argument similar to that of Oliver and Neal
(2010) that graffiti can highlight and reveal infor-
mation about people, places, and events that
would otherwise remain unknown or lost. It is
suggested that the Soviet graffiti adds to, rather
than reduces, the cultural significance of the
heritage site, and can be used as a system of
interpretation (Merrill & Hack 2013).
South African archaeologist Sven Ouzman
(2010: 1) examined the implications of
Graffiti Archaeology
approaching historic and contemporary graffiti as
a multi-sensorial artifact comprising blends of
crime, art, corporate co-option, and historic wit-
ness to understand post-Apartheid South Africa.
Our understanding of what constitutes rock art
and what constitutes graffiti is questioned by
Ouzman (2010: 17) upon his discussion about
attitudes toward inscriptions made by soldiers
from the Boer War, because, he argues, some
people do not like these inscriptions being
referred to as rock art, despite having striking
similarities; Ouzman (2010: 18) asks:is this
because rock art is perceived to reside
unthreateningly in the past and graffiti is an
easy to ignore pollutant?
In Australia, Frederick (2009) considered the
link between ancient Aboriginal Australian rock
art and contemporary urban graffiti in Perth.
Frederick (2009: 210) used an archaeological
approach to contemporary graffiti to identify the
significance of contemporary graffiti as an arti-
fact. This study (2009: 229) has implications that
may lead to a more informed approach to rock art
research, in particular, the suppositions that rock
art researchers make about the images depicted in
rock art. For example, images and slogans
depicted in contemporary graffiti can be
sanctioned by some from the community, while
at the same time be unsanctioned by others.
Interpretations of contemporary graffiti data are
marred by our separation from insight into the
graffiti writers intention and motivation; this is
equally so for rock art data. Frederick (2009: 231)
argues that there is no single conclusion that can
be drawn from contemporary graffiti data, and
rock art researchers should not be aiming for
a conclusive interpretation of rock art data.
Ralph (2012) conducted research into
contemporary Indigenous graffiti in the Jawoyn
Aboriginal communities in the Northern
Territory, Australia. He developed a theoretical
model to underpin a more nuanced under-
standing of contemporary landscape-markings,
drawing upon actor-network theory, in which
a disparate family of material-semiotic tools,
sensibilities and methods for analysis that treat
everything in the social and natural worlds as
a continuously generated effect of the webs of
3105 G
relations within which they are located
(Law 2007: 2). Accordingly, communication
through landscape-marking is interpreted as
existing in a web of interdependent relationships
which are embedded in empirical, materially
grounded practices (Callon 2006). Actors in this
web include governments, communities, and
individuals who communicate their own
experiences and agendas through the action of
landscape-marking. As Couldry (2004: 1) points
out, both human and nonhuman entities within
these webs acquire power through the number,
extensiveness and stability of the connections
routed through them. In Aboriginal communi- G
ties in Northern Australia, Ralph (2012) found
that graffiti serves the intra-group purpose of
communication between community members,
rather than the intergroup purpose of propagating
political and social commentary (e.g., Fig. 2). He
argued that the graffiti was more closely aligned
to the ongoing cultural tradition of rock art
production and landscape-marking, than to the
contemporary graffiti expressions often found in
urban settings (e.g., Fig. 3).
Each of the above studies has three common
themes. Firstly, the authors acknowledge that
graffiti in contemporary societies is often seen
as vandalism, and they each attempt to redress
that point of view, for example, Oliver and Neal
(2010) and Merrill and Hack (2013) who claim
that graffiti archaeology has the potential to
uncover information about people whose stories
may not be found elsewhere. The archaeology of
graffiti, while by no means a new area of archae-
ological inquiry, is growing at a rapid rate. Prior
to the early twenty-first century, very little
archaeological research was conducted on con-
temporary, or even historical, graffiti. During the
early twenty-first century, graffiti archaeology
has become a considerably sized stream of the
archaeological discipline, which involves
a number of researchers from across the globe,
particularly in the United Kingdom, continental
Europe, Africa, and Australia. In saying this, and
coupled with contemporary viewpoints toward
graffiti, the second common theme of the above
studies is that graffiti archaeologists tend to argue
for the legitimacy of their work; for example,
G 3106 Graffiti Archaeology

Graffiti Archaeology,
Fig. 2 High-density
minuscule graffiti on a road
sign, community meeting
area, Barunga region,
Northern Territory,
Australia, 2012. The
location, size, and density
of graffiti demonstrate that
this is a form of intra-group
communication

Graffiti Archaeology,
Fig. 3 Tag graffiti,
inscribed over public
mural, Venice Beach,
California, USA, 2011

Graves-Brown and Schofield (2011) and Oliver
and Neal (2010). Finally, many archaeologies of
graffiti attempt to situate the contemporary
practice of graffiti as part of an ancient,
continuing visual culture that consists of vital
social meaning and information, rather than
a clandestine, unsavory, and meaningless act,
for example (Frederick 2009; Ouzman 2010;
Graves-Brown & Schofield 2011; Ralph 2012).
In 2013, the state of graffiti archaeology
intimates that this stream of archaeology will
continue to grow in both scholarship and
interest. This is due, in part, to the capacity for
up-and-coming archaeologists to explore
new ground in these relatively under-examined
contemporary, historical, medieval, and ancient
material practices, but more so because the
purpose of archaeology and archaeological
Grapes: Origins and Development
research is to learn about past human behavior.
As with other archaeological materials, graffiti
allows archaeologists to understand the cultural
identities and behaviors of humans in the past.
Cross-References
Landscape Archaeology
Pompeii
Style: Its Role in the Archaeology of Art
Urban Heritage
References
BAIRD, J.A. & C. TAYLOR. (ed.) 2010. Ancient graffiti in
context. London: Routledge.
BENEFIEL, R. 2010. Dialogues of graffiti in the House of
the Four Styles at Pompeii (Casa Dei Quattro Stili,
I. 8.17, 11), in J.A. Baird & C. Taylor (ed.) Ancient
graffiti in context: 20-48. London: Routledge.
CALLON, M. 2006. What does it mean to say that
economics is performative?, in D. MacKenzie,
F. Muniesa & L. Siu (ed.) Do economists make
markets? On the performativity of economics: 1-58.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
COULDRY, N. 2004. Actor network theory and media: do
they connect and on what terms?, in A. Hepp et al. (ed.)
Connectivity, networks and flows: 93-108. New York:
Hampton Press.
DANIELL, C. 2011. Graffiti, calliglyphs and markers in the
UK. Archaeologies 7(2): 454-76.
DAVID, B. & M. WILSON. 2002. Spaces of resistance:
graffiti and Indigenous place markings in the early
European contact period of northern Australia, in
B. David & M. Wilson (ed.) Inscribed landscapes:
marking and making place: 42-60. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
FREDERICK, U.K. 2009. Revolution is the new black:
graffiti/art and mark-making practices. Archaeologies
5(2): 210-227.
GRAVES-BROWN, P. & J. SCHOFIELD. 2011. The filth and the
fury: 6 Denmark Street (London) and the Sex Pistols.
Antiquity 85(330): 1385-1401.
LAW, J. 2007. Actor network theory and material
semiotics. Available at: http://www.heterogeneities.
net/publications/Law2007ANTandMaterialSemiotics.
pdf (accessed 16 March 2012).
MACDONALD, N. 2001. The graffiti subculture: youth,
masculinity and identity in London and New York.
New York: Palgrave.
MCDONALD, J.J. 2012. Pictures of women: the social con-
text of Australian rock art production, in J.J.
McDonald & P.M. Veth (ed.) A companion to rock
3107 G
art (Blackwell Companions to Anthropology series):
214-36. Oxford, Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
MERRIL, S.O.C. & H. HACK. 2013. Exploring hidden nar-
ratives: conscript graffiti at the former military base
Kummersdorf. Journal of Social Archaeology
13(1): 101-21.
OLIVER, J. & T. NEAL. 2010. Elbow grease and time to
spare: the place of tree carving, in J. Oliver & T. Neal
(ed.) Wild signs: graffiti in archaeology and history:
15-22. Oxford: Archaeopress.
ODOHERTY, S. 2012. Under siege? Exploring the hidden
world of Irish graffiti artists. Socheolas. Limerick
Student Journal of Sociology 4(2): 104-21.
OUZMAN, S. 2010. Graffiti as art(e)fact: a contemporary
archaeology. Paper presented at University of Johan-
nesburg Sociology, Anthropology & Development
Seminar, Johannesburg, 10 March, 2010. G
RALPH, J. 2012. Convenient canvasses: an archaeology of
social identity and contemporary graffiti in Jawoyn
country, Northern Territory, Australia. Unpublished
Honours dissertation, Department of Archaeology,
Flinders University, Adelaide.
UNESCO. 2013. Archaeological areas of Pompei,
Herculaneum and Torre Annunziata. Available at: http://
whc.unesco.org/en/list/829 (accessed 2 June 2013).
WOBST, H.M. 1977. Stylistic behaviour and information
exchange, in C.E. Cleland (ed.) Papers for the
director: research papers in honour of James
B. Griffin: 317-42. Michigan: University of Michigan.
Grapes: Origins and Development
Charlene Murphy
Institute of Archaeology, University College
London, London, UK
Basic Species Information
It is difficult to discern the true wild ancestor of
cultivated grape (Vitis vinifera L.) because
the Mediterranean Basin has a wide variety of
wild forms. These include escapees and
seed-propagated weedy types growing in natural
habitat, occurring mainly in disturbed surround-
ings and cultivated clones of the grapevine
(Zohary & Hopf 2001: 152). Recent genetic
studies have proven that cultivated grapevines
growing in different regions have genetic diver-
sity and heterozygosity which can only have
been established through an influx of genes
from nearby wild V. sylvestris populations
G 3108
Grapes: Origins and
Development, Fig. 1 (a)
Carbonized Vitis vinifera
(grape) pip and (b)
mineralized Vitis vinifera
(grape) pip (both dorsal
view) from Insula VI.I,
Pompeii, Italy (Photo by
author)
Grapes: Origins and Development, Fig. 2 (a) and (b) Carbonized Vitis vinifera (grape) pips and (c) mineralized
Vitis vinifera (grape) pip (all ventral views) from Insula VI.I, Pompeii, Italy (Photo by author)
(Imazio et al. 2006: 1009). Vitis sylvestris
C. C. Gmelin is now considered to be the
wild race of the cultivated grape and is indige-
nous to southern Europe, the Near East, and
the southern Caspian belt (Zohary & Hopf
2001: 152).
Vitis vinifera (L.) (grape) is the sole Mediter-
ranean representative of the genus Vitis (Zohary
& Hopf 2001: 155). The plants are monosexual
with the female flowers only ripening into grapes.
Vitis vinifera is hermaphroditic and occasionally,
with the escape of cultivated vines into the
wild, reverts back to Vitis sylvestris (wild
variety) in all characteristics except for being
a hermaphrodite, and the seeds of these escapees
remain much closer to those of the cultivated
form. In terms of elevation, the plant can
establish itself at a height of 400 m above sea
level and is rarely found as high as 800 m. The
cultivated Vitis vinifera has a more restricted
distribution than its wild variety (Renfrew 1973:
125; Olmo 1995).
Grapes: Origins and Development
Timing and Tracking Domestication
Using genetic studies, Imazio et al. (2006: 1003)
have claimed to have found a unique domestica-
tion center for all the European cultivars of Vitis
vinifera located in the Caucasian and Middle East
regions, which was present around 6,0007,000
years ago and is supported by historical sources.
Molecular genetics has shown the existence of
varietal exchange and propagation throughout
Europe (Imazio et al. 2006: 1010). However, the
process of domestication of the grapevine is still
largely unknown.
Within the palynological record, Vitis is noted
in several locations in northern Greece with
an increasing presence, albeit patchy, both
spatially and temporally, since the beginning of
the Holocene. Around 3500 BP (1550 BCE)
onwards, there is a rise in the pollen record that
is believed to reflect human manipulation and
cultivation of the grapevine (Bottema 1982
cited in Valamoti et al. 2007: 56). Recent
Grapes: Origins and Development
archaeobotanical analysis has confirmed this
complex interaction and spread of the grapevine
through Europe and the Mediterranean region
by humans with carbonized seeds of both Vitis
sylvestris (Vitis vinifera ssp. sylvestris) and
V. vinifera recovered from prehistoric sites
throughout Europe (Renfrew 1973: 125; Zohary
& Hopf 2001: 156; Terral et al. 2010: 443).
The earliest archaeological evidence of the
domesticated grape comes from Egypt and
Syria during the fourth millennium BCE. In
Palestine seeds of grapes date from 3000 BCE
to Bronze Age sites in Jericho (Jashemski 2002:
174). Based upon archaeobotanical and historical
information, it is known that domesticated
grapevines appeared during the first half of the
third millennium BCE in Minor Asia, Southern
Greece, Crete, and Cyprus. At the start of the
second millennium BCE, they have been
Grapes: Origins and Development, Fig. 3 SEM of
carbonized Vitis vinifera (grape) pip from Insula VI.I,
Pompeii, Italy (SEM by author)
Grapes: Origins and
Development, Fig. 4 (a)
Carbonized half fragment
of Vitis vinifera (grape) pip
and (b) carbonized grape
pip embedded in mesocarp
from Insula VI.I, Pompeii,
Italy (scale in centimeters)
(Photos by author)
3109 G
recovered from the Southern Balkans, and during
the second half of the second millennium BCE,
they first appeared in southern Italy. Subse-
quently, during the second part of the first
millennium BCE, the distribution extended to
Northern Italy, Southern France, Spain, and Por-
tugal (Riviera-Nunez & Walker 1989 in Imazio
et al. 2006: 1004).
The fresh fruits of grapes are rich in sugar,
containing 1525 % sugar content. Practically,
grapes can be easily stored as dried raisins in
winter storerooms, and the juice can be fermented
and made into wine. Viticulture is considered
a risky agricultural enterprise compared with G
other non-staple crops that are suited to the
Mediterranean climate. Fermented grapes were
the commonest source of alcohol in the ancient
world and probably the cheapest intoxicant
available, as well as an extremely important
trade item around the Mediterranean Basin
(Brothwell & Brothwell 1998: 147; Zohary &
Hopf 2001: 151).
The secure identification of cultivated
versus wild grapes has proven problematic and
has been a topic of heated debate among
archaeobotanists for the last half century.
Stummer (1911) initially pointed out that pips
from Vitis sylvestris were small, short, and
broad, whereas pips of cultivated grapes had lon-
ger stalks and were narrower in relation to their
length (Renfrew 1973: 127-9; Runnels & Hansen
1986; Smith & Jones 1990: 317). Traditionally,
the established distinction between archaeo-
logical specimens of wild (Vitis vinifera ssp.
sylvestris) and domesticated (Vitis vinifera ssp.
G 3110
Grapes: Origins and Development, Fig. 5 SEM of
carbonized Vitis vinifera (grape) petiole from Insula VI.
I, Pompeii, Italy (SEM by author)
vinifera) grapes has been based on the
overall dimensions and other morphological
characteristics of the grape pips. Due to the fact
that there is considerable overlap between the
cultivated and wild types, pip shape cannot be
regarded as a safe diagnostic trait for
distinguishing between wild and cultivated Vitis
remains in archaeological excavations (Zohary
& Hops 2001: 153). A number of studies on both
cultivated and wild charred grape remains have
demonstrated that the moisture content in the
plant and fruit and the oxygen level present
during the time of charring could potentially
influence the final dimensions and morphology
of the charred grape seeds and ultimately affect
their preservation and survival in the
archaeobotanical record (Margaritis & Jones
2006: 791-2) (Figs. 15).
Cross-References
Agriculture: Definition and Overview
Archaeobotany of Early Agriculture:
Macrobotany
Date Palm: Origins and Development
Domestication Syndrome in Plants
Domestication: Definition and Overview
Figs: Origins and Development
Genetics of Early Plant Domestication: DNA
and aDNA
Grapes: Origins and Development
Olives: Origins and Development
Plant Domestication and Cultivation in
Archaeology
Plant Processing Technologies in
Archaeology
References
BROTHWELL, D. & P. BROTHWELL. 1998. Food in antiquity:
a survey of the diet of early peoples. Baltimore (MD);
London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
IMAZIO, S., M. LABRA, A. S. GRASSI & O. FAILLA. 2006.
Chloroplast microsatellites to investigate the origin of
grapevine. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 53:
1003-11.
JASHEMSKI, W. F., 2002. The Vesuvian sites before A.D 79:
the archaeological, literary, and epigraphical evidence,
in W. F. Jashemski, & F. G. Meyer (ed.), The natural
history of Pompeii: chap. 2, 6-28. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
JASHEMSKI, W. F., F. G. MEYER & M. RICCIARDI. 2002.
Plants: evidence from wall paintings, mosaics, sculp-
ture, plant remains, graffiti, inscriptions, and ancient
authors, catalogue of plants, in The natural history of
Pompeii: 80-180. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
MARGARITIS, E. & M. JONES. 2006. Beyond cereals: crop
processing and Vitis vinifera L. ethnography, experi-
ment and charred grape remains from Hellenistic
Greece. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(6):
784-805.
OLMO, H. P. 1995. The origin and domestication of the
Vinifera grape, in P. E. Mc Govern, S. J. Fleming &
S. H. Katz (ed.) The origins and ancient history of
wine: 31-43. New York: Gordon and Bread.
RENFREW, J. M., 1973. Palaeoethnobotany: the prehistory
food plants of the Near East and Europe. London:
Methuen.
RUNNELS, C. N. & J. HANSEN. 1986. The olive in the
prehistoric Aegean: the evidence for domestication in
the early Bronze Age. Oxford Journal of Archaeolog-
ical Science 5: 299-308.
SMITH, H. & G. JONES. 1990. Experiments on the effects of
charring on cultivated grape seeds. Journal of Archae-
ological Science 17(3): 317-27.
STUMMER, A. 1911. Zur Urgeschichte der Rebe und des
Weinbaues. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen
Gesellschaft in Wien 41: 283-96.
TERRAL, J.-F., E. TABARD, L. BOUBY, S. IVORRA, T. PASTOR,
I. FIGUEIRAL, S. PICQ, J.-B. CHEVANCE, C. JUNG, L.
FABRE, C. TARDY, M. COMPAN, R. BACILIERI, T.
LACOMBE & P. THIS. 2010. Evolution and history of
grapevine (Vitis vinifera) under domestication: new
morphometric perspectives to understand seed domes-
tication syndrome and reveal origins of ancient
European cultivars. Annals of Botany 105(3): 443-55.
Greater Syria: Islamic Archaeology
VALAMOTI, S. M., M. MANGAFA, C. KOUKOULI-
CHRYSANTHAKI & D. MALAMIDOU. 2007. Grape-pressing
from northern Greece: the earliest wine in the Aegean?
Antiquity 81: 54-61.
ZOHARY, D. & M. HOPF. 2001. Domestication of plants in
the Old World: the origin and spread of cultivated
plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley,
3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Further Reading
BORGONGINO, M. 1999. Suburban agriculture, in A.
Ciarallo & E. De Carolis (ed.) Pompeii: life in
a Roman town: 89-91. Milan: Electa.
CIARALLO, A., 2000. Gardens of Pompeii. Rome: LErma
di Bretschneider.
Greater Syria: Islamic Archaeology
Marcus Milwright
Department of History in Art, University
of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Introduction
Greater Syria (also Bilad al-Sham, meaning liter-
ally the country of Syria) is one of the most
extensively excavated regions of the Middle East.
The wealth of excavations is complemented by
numerous field surveys as well as published
studies of the material culture, architecture, and
environmental data gathered during these
projects. Most phases of Islamic history are well
represented from the seventh to the early
twentieth century, as are the centuries preceding
the Islamic conquest (the period known as Late
Antiquity). Archaeological projects have targeted
every type of settlement from cities and towns to
villages and transient forms of occupation. There
have also been excavations of built structures as
diverse as industrial installations, water catch-
ment systems, religious monuments, domestic
architecture, palaces, and fortifications. While
the geographical coverage of this archaeological
work is somewhat uneven, the volume of
published studies allows for the formation of
sophisticated research questions concerning the
political, socioeconomic, and cultural life of
Greater Syria in the Islamic period.
3111 G
Definition
The term Greater Syria refers to a large area
encompassing the modern states of Syria, Leba-
non, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestine Authority.
In addition, the historical boundaries of Greater
Syria take in the southeastern part of Anatolia
(Turkey). Damascus, also sometimes known in
Arabic as al-Sham, was the principal city from
the seventh century onward and usually func-
tioned as the administrative capital of Greater
Syria. Other major urban centers of Greater
Syria during the Islamic period are Aleppo,
Jerusalem, Homs, Hama, and Beirut. Places G
such as Ramla, Akko (Acre), Karak, and
Raqqa rose to political and economic promi-
nence for more limited phases before the mod-
ern period.
The backbone of the premodern economy
was the agricultural sector, and many parts of
Greater Syria were densely occupied with vil-
lages (as they still are today). The heavily pop-
ulated areas are mainly located in the fertile
lands of the western side of Greater Syria and
along the Euphrates river. Estimates of the pop-
ulation of rural areas also need to take into
account the pastoralist groups (bedouin) who
have coexisted with sedentary farmers for
millennia. Bedouin and their flocks move in an
annual cycle between semiarid steppe lands and
areas of permanent agricultural cultivation.
Prior to the widespread employment of modern
irrigation techniques and chemical fertilizers,
agriculture was largely determined by the cli-
matic and geological factors. Most other parts of
the region possess semiarid or arid climates,
with an annual precipitation of about 300 mm
being the minimum required to sustain dry farm-
ing techniques (principally for growing wheat
and barley). The Dead Sea and Jordan valley
and parts of the Syrian littoral experience
a subtropical climate that allows for the cultiva-
tion of a wide variety of fruits as well as valuable
crops such as sugar cane, dates, rice, and indigo.
There is debate concerning the occurrence of
periodic fluctuations in annual temperature and
rainfall in the Late Antique and Islamic periods
(Rubin 1989). Allowing for the possibility of
G 3112
cooler and wetter phases, it remains the case that
adequate rainfall in the winter period (typically
October to March) dictated whether crops would
succeed. Periods of severe drought are recorded
in written sources, though the archaeological
evidence suggests that rural communities were
usually able to recover from these and other
types of short-term catastrophe (Johns 1995).
Cisterns and other simple forms of water catch-
ment are commonly employed in rural areas,
often for sustaining flocks or sheep. Sophisti-
cated systems of dams and canalization are rel-
atively rare in Greater Syria, and some of those
utilized during the Islamic period were actually
constructed in earlier centuries.
The economy of Islamic Greater Syria was
also reliant upon manufacturing and trade. The
region was famed in Medieval Europe as
a source for the finest crafts. The most lucrative
crafts particularly high-quality textiles, glass,
decorated glazed ceramics, inlaid woodwork,
and inlaid metalwork tended to be located
within or on the peripheries of urban centers.
Less expensive objects were produced in towns
and villages all over Greater Syria. Pastoralists
also made items for sale including woolen rugs,
leather, and food items such as dried yoghurt.
The region contains some of the necessary
resources for these activities, including plant
and animal products, deposits of high-quality
clay and sand, and limited reserves of copper
and iron ore. Other raw materials had to be
imported from neighboring areas. For instance,
Greater Syria contains few forests, and wood
needed for building, manufacturing, and as fuel
for industrial activities might sometimes be
brought from more densely wooded areas such
as the Taurus mountains in southern Anatolia.
Throughout the Islamic period Greater Syria
benefited from a vibrant mercantile sector. The
location of the region must in part account for
this: Greater Syria connects to both the Mediter-
ranean and Red Seas (the latter principally
through the port of Ayla in southern Jordan),
and land routes lead north to Anatolia, east to
Iraq, south to the Arabian Peninsula, and south-
west via the Sinai to Egypt.
Greater Syria: Islamic Archaeology
Historical Background
Greater Syria was one of the first regions to be
incorporated into the nascent Islamic state in the
years following the death of the Prophet Muham-
mad in 632. Muhammad sent troops north in 629,
but they were defeated near Muta by a force led
by a Ghassanid phylarch of the Byzantine empire.
The decisive engagements in the conquest of
Greater Syria were at Ajnadayn in 634 and at
Yarmouk in 636; as a result of these victories,
the Arabs were able to occupy the administrative
capital of Damascus (634) and the symbolically
significant city of Jerusalem (probably 637). In
638 the region of Jazira (i.e., between the Euphra-
tes and Tigris rivers) was conquered. The Arab
armies continued to fight against the Byzantines
in northern Syria during the caliphate of Uthman
(r. 644656). In the early Islamic period, Greater
Syria was subdivided into administrative
regions (jund, pl. ajnad) comprising Dimashq
(Damascus), Hims, Urdunn (Jordan), Filastin
(Palestine), and Qinnasrin.
Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, the founder of the
Umayyad dynasty (661750), served as governor
of Syria under Uthman and used the resources of
the region in his struggle with caliph Ali
(r. 656661). When Muawiya assumed the
caliphate (661680), it was a natural move for
him to transfer the capital of the empire to
Damascus. Papyri excavated at Nessana in the
Negev provides evidence for the operation of
a bilingual (Greek and Arabic) bureaucracy dur-
ing the reign of Muawiya (Hoyland 2006). With
the exception of Marwan II (r. 744750) who
favored Harran in southern Anatolia, the
Umayyad caliphs all employed Damascus as
their seat of government. Due to the patronage
of al-Walid I (r. 705715), the city was equipped
with a magnificent Congregational Mosque occu-
pying the ancient temenos. The caliphal palace
was located immediately south of the mosque.
Damascus is also important as the mint for gold
(dinars) and silver (dirhams) coins, other provin-
cial mints in Greater Syria only being permitted
to strike copper (fals, pl. fulus) (Walmsley 2007:
59-64). Jerusalem too was the subject of
Greater Syria: Islamic Archaeology
extensive Umayyad patronage, particularly under
Abd al-Malik (r. 685705) and al-Walid I. The
remodelling of the Temple Mount (Haram
al-Sharif) included the rebuilding of the Aqsa
Mosque and the construction of the Dome of the
Rock, the Dome of the Chain, and a complex of
palatial/administrative structures to the south and
southwest of the enclosure walls (Creswell 1989:
18-42, 73-82, 94-6; Prag 2008: 101-241).
The Umayyads were toppled in 749750 and
the caliphate passed to a new dynasty, the
Abbasids (7491258). The eastward focus of the
Abbasids led them, under the caliphate of
al-Mansur (r. 754775), to establish a new capi-
tal, Baghdad, on the banks of the Tigris in Iraq
(constructed between 762 and 766). This crucial
shift in the center of power into the heartlands of
the former Sassanian Empire (c. 224651) was to
have far-reaching consequences for the develop-
ment of Islamic culture; for Greater Syria the
effect was rather negative with the removal of
the caliph and his court diminishing the political
importance of Damascus and reducing economic
activity throughout the region. The south of
Greater Syria was also hit by a massive earthquake
in 749, and evidence for the destruction of urban
architecture is abundant in the archaeological
record. It is important not to overemphasize the
extent of the decline after c. 750, however;
Abbasid caliphs continued to build new struc-
tures most notably the cistern at Ramla (dated
789) and renovate others, such as the Aqsa
Mosque and Dome of the Rock. The Umayyad
buildings south of the Temple Mount evidently
remained in use through the early Abbasid period
(Prag 2008: 157-8, 195-207). Even more impor-
tant is the foundation of a new city, al-Rafiqa (the
companion), about 600 m to the west of the town
of Raqqa (known as Kallinikos prior to the Islamic
conquest). This urban development also com-
prised a series of palaces and related structures to
the north, and between 796 and 808 it served as the
capital of the caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 786809)
(Daiber & Becker 2004).
The authority of the Abbasid caliphs eroded in
the latter part of the ninth century. This process
led to the establishment of semiautonomous or
3113 G
fully independent dynasties in various parts of the
Islamic world. The political map of Greater Syria
in the tenth and eleventh centuries is complex
with a combination of major empires most
importantly the Fatimids (9091171) and the
Great Saljuqs (10341057) and local dynas-
ties controlling the region. The First Crusade
(10961099) created an entirely new dynamic
with the establishment of a series of Frankish
states in Greater Syria and southern Anatolia.
These comprised the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the
County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch,
and the County of Edessa. The Franks brought
with them a militant Christianity and a fierce G
determination to capture and hold territory in
the Holy Land. Analysis of surveys and exca-
vations in Israel has also brought forward intrigu-
ing information about the Frankish (European)
occupation of the countryside of the Kingdom
of Jerusalem (Ellenblum 1998: 213-87).
The capture of Edessa in 1144 by Zangi, the
atabak of Mosul (r. 11271146), marks a turning
point in the political life of Islamic Greater Syria.
This is the beginning of the Muslim counter-
Crusade or Holy War (jihad) which was prose-
cuted with varying degrees of commitment by his
son, Nur al-Din (r. 11461174), and the sultans of
the Ayyubid (11711250 in Egypt and
11741260 in Syria) and Mamluk dynasties
(12501517). Features of this period are
a greater centralization of power, increased mil-
itary expenditure, and a closer relationship
between Egypt and Syria (with Cairo usually as
the most important center of power). Nur al-Din
unified most of Syria, while Salah al-Din
(Saladin, r. 11711193) brought together Egypt
and Greater Syria into one empire. This unity was
broken during the Ayyubid confederacy that
followed his death, but the Mamluk sultans, par-
ticularly Baybars (r. 12601277) and al-Nasir
Muhammad (r. 12941295, 12991309,
13101341), sought to create an empire that
would dominate the Levant. Salah al-Din scored
a decisive victory over the forces of the Crusader
states at Hattin in 1187 and went on to liberate
Jerusalem from the Franks. The Mamluks ended
the Crusader occupation of mainland Syria with
G 3114
the capture of Akko in 1291. Even more impor-
tant was the Mamluk defeat over the Mongol
army at Ayn Jalut in Palestine in 1260. This
battle halted the westward expansion of the Mon-
gols through the Islamic world and established
the Mamluks as defenders of Sunni Islam. While
Mongol military activity doubtlessly brought
short-term suffering for the inhabitants of Greater
Syria, it is only among the urban communities
along the Euphrates that the damage was more
lasting; for instance, the pottery and glass indus-
tries of Raqqa and Balis cease around this time,
and the towns themselves are abandoned.
In contrast to the instability of the later
Ayyubid period, the Mamluk period from
Baybars to the death of al-Nasir Muhammad in
1341 was one of considerable prosperity for
Greater Syria. There was extensive investment
in military architecture and in the transport and
communications infrastructure of the region. The
relative security offered by the Mamluk sultanate
facilitated trade, industrial activity, and invest-
ment in agriculture, especially valuable crops
such as sugar cane (see below). Surveys
conducted in Jordan and Israel provide plausible
evidence that settlement numbers reached a peak
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. While
locally produced handmade pottery predominates
(Johns 1998), this phase is also characterized by
the presence of glass and high-quality ceramics in
many villages. A similar picture can be drawn
from excavations in urban sites and ports in
Greater Syria; in addition to Syrian luxury
items, one sometimes also encounters exotic
imports from Italy, Spain, or China.
The arrival of the Black Death in Syria in 1348
certainly had a huge impact upon the urban and
rural communities of the region. Depopulation
combined with a failure to invest in new technol-
ogy affected the economic health of Greater
Syria. Damascus also suffered during the
occupation by Timur Lenk (Tamerlane,
r. 13701405), probably losing many of its
skilled artisans at this time. Evidence of destruc-
tion by Timur is also apparent in the excavations
of the citadel in Hama, though the ceramic record
indicates that the site was partially reoccupied in
the late Mamluk and early Ottoman periods
Greater Syria: Islamic Archaeology
(Milwright 2000: 192). Judging from anecdotal
evidence in contemporary written sources, the
Mamluk authorities of fifteenth- and early
sixteenth-century Greater Syria struggled to
maintain security.
The Ottomans controlled Greater Syria
between 1516 and 1918. Greater Syria was not
one of the most profitable areas of the Ottoman
Empire, and there is evidence for gradual decline
in many aspects of the economy, particularly
between the later seventeenth and the early nine-
teenth century. Ottoman authority in southern
Greater Syria was also challenged in the first
half of the nineteenth century by the expansionist
policies of Muhammad Ali (d. 1849), ruler of
Egypt. One area of significant Ottoman state
investment from the sixteenth to the eighteenth
century was in the route of the annual hajj
through Greater Syria and northwestern Arabia.
The major investment by the state was in the
erection of a line of forts each garrisoned with
troops and the construction of related features
such as cisterns and bridges (Petersen in
MacDonald et al. 2001: 685-91).
The Ottoman authorities demonstrated their
continued commitment to the patronage of the
hajj with the construction of the Hijaz railway
from Istanbul to Medina (19001908). The mili-
tary value of the Hijaz railway was recognized by
all sides during World War I, and the southern
section of this vital route was the subject of
repeated attacks during the Arab Revolt
(19161918). Following the expulsion of the
Ottoman army in 1918, Greater Syria was placed
under mandate by the League of Nations, with
Britain controlling the southern part (Palestine
and Transjordan) and France the northern part
(Syria and Lebanon). The modern nation states
of Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon emerged
after the end of World War II.
Key Issues/Current Debates
A particularly fertile area of study is the period of
transition from Byzantine rule to Islam. Broadly,
the issues revolve around the degree to which the
material record of the first phase of Islamic rule
Greater Syria: Islamic Archaeology
(from the conquests of the 630s to the mid-eighth
century) manifests continuity with earlier centu-
ries. If there were radical changes during this
period, what were they and how did they affect
the future development of Islamic culture in
Greater Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East?
These questions call for a comparative evaluation
of Late Antique and early Islamic Greater Syria
that takes into account the material culture of
both urban and rural areas. Starting with the
towns and cities, there has been considerable
debate concerning the timing and nature of the
evolution from the Classical city (Greek: polis)
to the archetypal Islamic city (Arabic: madina).
Consistent features of this evolution are the
encroachment upon public spaces such as the
forum and the wide colonnaded street as well as
the disappearance of key institutions such as the-
aters, temples, and nymphaea (Kennedy 1985). In
addition, most Late Antique/early Islamic towns
occupy a smaller area than their Classical
predecessors (indicating a reduction in the
population), and previously extramural activities,
most importantly industries such as ceramic
manufacture, start to be located within urban
areas. In some cases pottery workshops were set
up within abandoned theaters in the Late Antique
and early Islamic periods.
It is now well understood that these processes
predate the arrival of Islam and that in the early
seventh century only remnants of Classical urban
planning remained within most towns and cities
of Greater Syria. The Christianization of the
region from the fourth century eradicated the
pagan temples and theaters (this was mirrored
by a massive expansion in church building with
single towns such as Jarash/Gerasa in Jordan
boasting over 20 places of worship). Private
building can also be detected in the colonnaded
streets and other public areas, particularly from
the sixth century onward. It has been persuasively
argued that these adaptations reflect both
a reduction in the power of local officials to
control the public spaces and the expansion of
mercantile activity within urban areas. The
replacement of wheeled transport with pack ani-
mals (particularly camels) also made the wide,
straight urban streets rather irrelevant.
3115 G
Recent archaeological research has provided
a nuanced picture of these changes in the urban
fabric of Greater Syria during the transition from
Byzantine to early Islamic rule (Magness 2003:
193-214; Walmsley 2007: 71-112; Avni 2011).
Change was far from uniform across the region;
for instance, there is evidence for the mainte-
nance of colonnaded streets and other aspects of
Classical urban planning in some towns in Pales-
tine and Jordan through the sixth and early
seventh centuries. Furthermore, the arrival of
Islam did not result in a wholesale abandonment
of these principles. The early eighth-century set-
tlement of Anjar is striking for its orthogonally G
arranged streets and orderly arrangement of
space, and it seems likely that Ramla and other
new Muslim cities (misr pl. amsar) of this time
adopted similar principles. Within existing towns
one encounters numerous examples of interven-
tions by caliphs and other members of the Umay-
yad elite, ranging from new markets to mosques
and administrative structures. Good examples of
Umayyad architectural patronage have been
identified at Beth Shean/Baysan (Scythopolis),
Arsuf, Palmyra, and Jarash. The mosque at Jarash
is notable for the way in which it is integrated into
the street plan, despite its orientation being dif-
ferent from that of the main street (Walmsley
2007: 84-7). Archaeology is increasingly demon-
strating that trade and industry continued to
thrive in Greater Syria after the fall of the
Umayyad caliphate; even in towns affected by
the 749 earthquake, one encounters evidence for
relatively ambitious phases of rebuilding.
While scholars in the early twentieth century
had posited a reduction in the rural population in
Greater Syria during the sixth and seventh centu-
ries and virtual abandonment of some regions
(most famously the Dead Cities of northern
Syria), this picture is now subject to considerable
revision. Reevaluation of occupation phases evi-
dences continuous settlement into the eighth or
ninth centuries. In the case of the Negev, this
picture of rural prosperity under early Islamic
rule is confirmed both by settlement patterns
and the archive of papyri recovered from the
town of Nessana (Magness 2003: 130-94).
Umayyad patrons also invested in the countryside
G 3116
through the creation of country estates (qasr, pl.
qusur), particularly in the more marginal lands of
Jordan and Syria. While the qusur (sometimes
known rather misleadingly as desert castles)
clearly had a role as sites of private entertainment
for the Umayyad elite, more recent investigations
have focused upon their placement along the
major arteries of trade and communication and
the promotion of agriculture in the surrounding
areas. Links to the architectural patronage of the
Ghassanid dynasty in the fifth and sixth centuries
are suggested in the locations chosen for many of
the Umayyad qusur. Dams, canalization, and
extensive retaining walls have been found around
several of the qusur; existing hydraulic structures
were obviously brought into use, but some of
what remains can probably be attributed to
Umayyad patrons (Genequand 2006).
The most significant phase of activity in the
Euphrates region dates from the last quarter of the
eighth into the ninth century. The largest urban
project was the walled city of Rafiqa (from 771).
The construction techniques (principally mud
brick and baked brick), the use of carved stucco
decoration, and the plans of the fortifications,
palatial complexes, and mosques all suggest
comparisons with the Iraqi cities of Baghdad
(from 762) and Samarra (from 836) (Daiber &
Becker 2004: 59-134). The presence of under-
ground canals (qanat) in the vicinity of Raqqa-
Rafiqa is a further indication of the eastward
orientation of this Abbasid enterprise in Syria.
Surveys of the irrigation systems of the Middle
Euphrates and the Balikh and Khabur Rivers have
demonstrated an upsurge in canal construction in
this phase; presumably the expansion of irrigated
agriculture was a response to the demands created
by the huge urban populations of Raqqa-Rafiqa
and Baghdad (Berthier 2001).
Considerable attention has been paid to the
industrial sectors of the region, particularly the
establishment of pottery- and glass-making facil-
ities to the north and northeast of the existing
settlement of Raqqa (Heidemann 2006). Analysis
of the broken glass and glass waste indicates that
artisans adapted their techniques (particularly the
replacement of Egyptian natron with ashes made
from locally abundant plants as the major fluxing
Greater Syria: Islamic Archaeology
agent), probably in response to difficulties in
obtaining imported materials (Henderson 1999).
Pottery production in the late eighth and early
ninth century was more conservative, with pot-
ters concentrating upon the manufacture of utili-
tarian unglazed vessels and other items such as
drainage pipes and roof tiles. Glazed ceramics
were produced in very limited numbers in the
early Abbasid phase, with luxury pottery (such
as blue and white and luster-painted wares) being
imported from Basra and other production
centers in Iraq (Miglus 1999; Mason 2004: 92-4).
Raqqa was just one of the production centers
for luster-painted and underglaze-painted
stonepaste (fritware) wares in Greater Syria
between the late eleventh and the fifteenth cen-
tury. Excavations have identified evidence of
production at sites including Damascus, Aleppo,
Balis, Qalat Jabar, and Raqqa, while others such
as the Tell Minis (located near Maarrat al-
Numan) group have less secure provenance.
The understanding of the evolution of these cen-
ters of production has been further refined
through petrographic analysis of thin sections of
ceramic bodies and other forms of scientific anal-
ysis of glazes. It is now possible to establish
a reasonably secure chronology with Tell
Minis forming the transition between the tech-
niques and styles of Fatimid period Cairo and the
products of Syrian centers such as Raqqa (Mason
2004: 91-120).
Jordan and Israel have been the subject of
extensive survey work, and these data allow
researchers to plot the spatial variations and tem-
poral fluctuations in rural settlement patterns. In
many areas the ceramic record indicates an
upsurge in sedentary occupation in the twelfth
to fourteenth centuries (i.e., associated with the
Crusader, Ayyubid, and early Mamluk periods).
According to this evidence, settlement levels
reduce during the latter part of the fourteenth
century, and a process of decline continues
unabated in areas such as Jordan until the end of
the nineteenth century. One aspect of this process
is perhaps a move from sedentary to pastoralist
modes of occupation. While the relative prosper-
ity of the twelfth- to fourteenth-century phase
remains secure, the extent and nature of the later
Greater Syria: Islamic Archaeology
decline has been questioned. Much of the
ceramic evidence in regions such as Jordan com-
prises handmade pottery, which has proven very
difficult to date with accuracy. Furthermore,
Ottoman cadastral records (daftars) of the
sixteenth century suggest continued productivity
and sedentary occupation in rural areas (Johns
1995; Walker 2004).
The production of sugar and molasses was one
of the most economically significant activities in
Greater Syria between the twelfth and the fif-
teenth century, and numerous processing sites
have been identified in the Jordan valley, around
the banks of the Dead Sea, and in the region of
Akko. The processing of sugar was expensive
requiring the construction and maintenance of the
installations themselves, the manufacture of cop-
per boiling vats and ceramic vessels (molasses
jars and conical sugar pots), and the provision of
labor, fuel, and water. Most of the sugar mills of
Greater Syria probably ceased to operate during
the fifteenth century largely because they were
unable to compete with cheaper sugar imported
from Cyprus. Wadi Faynan, located south of the
Dead Sea on the eastern side of the Wadi Araba,
has provided evidence for the revival of copper
smelting in the thirteenth century (Kind et al.
2005).
The Ottoman period in Greater Syria has
often been characterized as one of economic
and cultural decline. This picture can now be
revised in many respects; while it is true that
the traditional crafts found it difficult to compete
against industrially manufactured products from
Europe (particularly after the late eighteenth
century), the archaeological record suggests
considerable economic activity with the inhabi-
tants of Greater Syria consuming a wide range of
locally made and imported goods. Notably suc-
cessful in the confrontation with foreign imports
were the ceramic producers of Gaza and
Rashaya al-Fukhkhar. Examples of the gray-
bodied (reduction-fired) Gaza wares are
encountered on numerous sites in the south of
Greater Syria. Pottery can also be used to track
the emergence and spread of popular pastimes of
the Ottoman period, tobacco smoking and drink-
ing of coffee (and, from the nineteenth century
3117 G
onward, tea). The former is evident principally
in the ceramic pipe bowls of the traditional chi-
bouk pipe; the ubiquity of these artifacts is
allowing for the formation of increasingly accu-
rate typologies. A vital component of coffee
drinking was the small glazed ceramic cup. Syr-
ian manufacturers satisfied some of the demand
for these decorative items, but it is also clear that
they were also imported from Turkey, Europe,
and Southeast Asia (Milwright 2000; Walker
2009). The issues of diet and disease in the
Ottoman period have been investigated in paleo-
pathological studies (e.g., Smith & Horwitz
2009). G
International Perspectives
The study of the material culture of Greater Syria
requires a constant awareness of the integration
of the region into international networks of mer-
cantile exchange and cultural interaction. Exca-
vations of major ports such as Ayla on the Red
Sea and Beirut and Akko on the Mediterranean
provide excellent evidence of changing patterns
of long-distance trade. Chinese ceramics first
make their appearance on sites of the early
Abbasid period, such as Raqqa-Rafiqa, and by
the thirteenth century enjoy a relatively wide-
spread distribution across Greater Syria. The
Ayyubid and Mamluk periods are particularly
notable for the diversity of the imported
ceramics, particularly on urban sites. These
imports include slip-incised (sgraffito) wares
from Italy, Cyprus, and the Aegean region, tin-
glazed maiolica from Italy, luster wares from
Spain, blue and white porcelain and celadon
(green ware) from Southeast Asia, and glazed
stonepaste from Iran. During the Ottoman period
one also encounters imported glazed pottery from
Turkey (particularly from Iznik, Kutahya, and
Canakkale) and a range of decorated porcelains
from China, Japan, Korea, Germany, France, and
Britain.
There is evidence of international contact in
many other aspects of the material culture of
Greater Syria between the seventh and the
twentieth century. In architecture there are
G 3118
numerous examples of building plans, decorative
styles, or modes of construction entering from
other regions. For instance, minarets in locations
such as Raqqa, Balis, and Qalat Jabar draw
upon Persian prototypes. Greater Syria formed
part of larger polities during the Ayyubid,
Mamluk, and Ottoman periods, and this facili-
tated further cross-pollination of architectural
forms and decorative features. The presence of
these forms of artistic exchange in architecture
also opens the possibility of identifying similar
phenomena in many aspects of the archaeological
record from portable arts to urban planning and
agricultural practices.
Future Directions
It seems likely that the archaeological study of
Greater Syria in the Islamic period will continue
to build upon many of the themes outlined in the
previous sections. The ability of archaeology to
appreciate long-term processes also means that
continued excavation will refine our knowledge
of such questions as the evolution of urban spaces
through the Islamic period and the fluctuations in
rural settlement and modes of cultivation in dif-
ferent regions of Greater Syria. The Ottoman
period is particularly rich in primary textual
sources, and this can facilitate future collabora-
tive projects between historians and archaeolo-
gists. The potential of integrating textual
sources chronicles, geographical and topo-
graphical writing, charitable bequests
(waqfiyyas), travellers accounts, mercantile or
consular archives, cadastral records, and so
on with archaeological data has been demon-
strated in numerous case studies. Archaeological
projects now tend to emphasize collaboration
between a wide range of specialists, and the
recent contributions by archaeobotanists,
zooarchaeologists, physical anthropologists, and
environmental archaeologists illustrate the ways
in which we can ask new questions of the physi-
cal remains of past cultures in Greater Syria.
Lastly, there is much scope for comparative per-
spectives in future study. Periods of transition in
Greater Syria could fruitfully be compared with
Greater Syria: Islamic Archaeology
equivalent phases in other regions of the Medi-
terranean (cf. Hodges & Whitehouse 1983) and
elsewhere. The impact of the Crusades upon the
Middle East invites comparison with Crusades in
other regions as well as with later phases of
colonial occupation. The Ottoman period offers
rich potential for comparative research, with
recent research in areas such as Greece and the
Balkans providing an opportunity to evaluate the
divergent experiences of being a province within
a larger Muslim empire.
Cross-References
Arabian Peninsula: Islamic Archaeology
Clay Pipes in Historical Archaeology
Decapolis, Archaeology of
Dura-Europos, Archaeology of
Historical Archaeology
Islamic and Crusader Archaeologies
Islamic and Maritime Archaeologies
Iraq: Archaeological Heritage
Jerusalem (Hellenistic, Roman, and Late
Antique), Archaeology of
Military Activity in Islamic Archaeology
Palmyra, Archaeology of
Petra, Archaeology of
Polis
Religion in Islamic Archaeology
Rural Life in Islamic Archaeology
Syrian Archaeological Heritage Management:
Dead Cities and Living Communities
References
AVNI, G. 2011. From polis to madina revisited urban
change in Byzantine and early Islamic Syria. Journal
of the Royal Asiatic Society 21(3): 301-29.
BERTHIER, S. (ed.) 2001. Peuplement rural et ame
nagements hydroagricole dans la moyenne vallee de
lEuphrat, fin VIIIe-XIX siecle: Region de Deir ez Zor-
Abu Kemal, Syrie: Mission Mesopotamie syrienne,
archeologie islamique, 1986-1989. Damascus: Institut
Francais detudes arabes de Damas.
CRESWELL, K. 1989. A short account of early Muslim
architecture. Aldershot: Scolar Press.
DAIBER, V. & A. BECKER. 2004. Raqqa III: Baudenkmaler
und Palaste I. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
Greece: Cultural Heritage Management
ELLENBLUM, R. 1998. Frankish rural settlement in the
Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge and
New York: Cambridge University Press.
GENEQUAND, D. 2006. Some thoughts on Qasr al-Hayr al-
Gharbi, its dams, its monastery, and the Ghassanids.
Levant 38: 63-83.
HEIDEMANN, S. 2006. The history of the industrial and
commercial area of Abbasid Al-Raqqa, called Al-
Raqqa al-Muhtariqa. Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies 69(1): 33-52.
HENDERSON, J. 1999. Archaeological investigations of an
Islamic industrial complex at Raqqa, Syria.
Damaszener Mitteilungen 11: 243-65.
HODGES, R. & D. WHITEHOUSE. 1983. Mohammed, Charle-
magne and the origins of Europe: archaeology and the
Pirenne thesis. London: Duckworth.
HOYLAND, R. 2006. New documentary texts and the early
Islamic state. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 69(3): 395-416.
JOHNS, J. 1995. The Longue Duree: state and
settlement strategies in southern Transjordan across
the Islamic centuries, in E. Rogan & T. Tell (ed.)
Village, steppe and state. The social origins of modern
Jordan: 1-31. London and New York: British
Academic Press.
- 1998. The rise of Middle Islamic hand-made geometri-
cally-painted ware in Greater Syria (11th-13th centu-
ries A.D.), in R.-P. Gayraud (ed.) Colloque
international darcheologie islamique, IFAO, Le
Caire, 3-7 fevrier 1993 (Textes arabes et etudes
islamiques 36): 65-93. Cairo: Institut Francais
dArcheologie Orientale du Caire.
KENNEDY, H. 1985. From polis to madina: urban change in
late antique and early Islamic Syria. Past and Present
106: 3-27.
KIND, H.-D., K. GILLES, A. HAUPTMANN & G. WEISGERBER.
2005. Coins from Wadi Faynan, Jordan. Levant 37:
169-95.
MACDONALD, B., R. ADAMS & P. BIENKOWSKI. (ed.) 2001.
The archaeology of Jordan. Sheffield: Sheffield
University Press.
MAGNESS, J. 2003. The archaeology of early
Islamic settlement in Palestine. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns.
MASON, R.B. 2004. Shine like the sun: lustre-painted and
associated pottery from the medieval Middle East.
Costa Mesa: Mazda.
MIGLUS, P. (ed.) 1999. Die fruhislamische Keramik von
Tall Aswad (Ar-Raqqa I). Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.
MILWRIGHT, M. 2000. Pottery of Greater Syria in the Otto-
man period: a review of the published archaeological
evidence. Levant 32: 189-208.
PRAG, K. 2008. Excavations by K. M. Kenyon in Jerusa-
lem, 1961-1967, Volume 5: discoveries in Hellenistic
to Ottoman Jerusalem (Levant Supplementary
series 7). Oxford: Oxbow Books.
RUBIN, R. 1989. The debate over climatic changes in the
Negev, fourth-seventh centuries CE. Palestine Explo-
ration Quarterly 121: 71-8.
3119 G
SMITH, P. & L. HORWITZ. 2009. A synthetic approach to the
study of diet, health and disease in an Ottoman period
population from Palestine. Al-Rafidan 30: 78-106.
WALKER, B. 2004. Mamluk investment in Transjordan:
a boom and bust economy. Mamluk Studies Review
8(2): 119-47.
- (ed.) 2009. Reflections of Empire: archaeological and
ethnographic studies of pottery in the Ottoman Levant
(Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Research). Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.
WALMSLEY, A. 2007. Early Islamic Syria, an archaeolog-
ical assessment. London: Duckworth.
Further Reading
BURNS, R. 1999. Monuments of Syria: a historical guide.
rev edn. London: I.B. Tauris.
G
KENNEDY, H. (ed.) 2006. Muslim military architecture in
Greater Syria. From the coming of Islam to the
Ottoman period (History of Warfare 35). Leiden and
Boston: E.J. Brill.
MILWRIGHT, M. 2010. An introduction to Islamic archae-
ology (Edinburgh New Islamic Surveys). Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Greece: Cultural Heritage
Management
Elena Korka
Antique Shops and Private Archaeological
Collections, Greek Ministry of Culture and
Tourism, Athens, Greece
Introduction
Greece is a country with very rich cultural
heritage. From the prehistoric ages down to
present, Greek civilization has created
monuments and artworks, which are outstanding
landmarks and exceptional points of reference in
human history. Greek art and architecture have
inspired and highly influenced the Western
world throughout the ages. The protection
and preservation of this heritage has always
been a priority for the Greek state since its
independence in 1830. The legal framework
for cultural issues offers guidelines for the
management of antiquities and cultural heritage
in general.
G 3120
Definition
The most recent legal framework, established in
2002 (www.yppo.gr), protects monuments or
cultural goods dating from prehistoric times until
1830. Certain categories, however, from more
recent periods are also included, if they are impor-
tant or have a specific significance. The manage-
ment of Greek tangible and intangible heritage is
administered and controlled by the state.
Efforts to protect remains of the past actually
began before 1830 (Pantos 2000: 15-16), during
the war for independence, by the revolutionary
Greek government. The first legal measures for
the protection of antiquities in the modern Greek
state were taken as early as 1833, and a year
later, the first official law was published.
The sensitivity and importance given to antiqui-
ties is apparent.
Since then, the legal framework has broadened
its scope and is considered as one of the strictest
and most extensive in the world. The constitution
since 1975 gives more power to the state, while it
weakens private property for the benefit of the
protection of antiquities and their environment.
According to the law, all movable finds and
monuments are owned by the state and all
activities relating to them are controlled by the
Archaeological Service.
Inside the state boundaries protection covers
antiquities on land or sea including marine zones,
in which Greece has the right of jurisdiction
according to international law. Greece seeks the
protection of its antiquities outside its borders
as well, in correspondence to the regulations of
international cultural law, irrespective of the time
when they were removed.
Examples
For the better control of customs and the import
of antiquities, Greece has signed bilateral
agreements, protocols, and memoranda with
countries such as Cyprus, France, Switzerland,
China, Turkey, Peru, and the USA.
Greece gives great importance to the repatria-
tion of its cultural property and has
Greece: Cultural Heritage Management
internationally been very active in this field
(Mputplu et al. 2008). Repatriation of
many cultural goods has been achieved in the
last years. In several cases, a compromise solu-
tion was found, and in others, goods were
returned on voluntary basis. Greece and Italy
have launched major campaigns for the restitu-
tion of cultural property and have even organized
common exhibitions of returned antiquities under
the title Nostoi with impressive objects repatri-
ated from the J. Paul Getty Museum, the Shelby
White collection, and others.
Since 1982 the Greek Ministry of Culture has
officially requested the return of the Parthenon
Marbles from the British Museum in London
(Korka 2003, 2006). The request has been
discussed at various international fora and
organizations (Meyer 1977; Shaw 1979; Prunty
1984; Greenfield 1989; Walden 1996: 49-66;
Renfrew 2000). This issue has world
significance, because the Parthenon is considered
the symbol of Western civilization and forms the
logo of UNESCO. Today 22 International
Committees all over the world exist for the
support of the reunification of the Parthenon
Marbles in Athens. Greece undertook the
construction of the New Acropolis Museum,
which was inaugurated in 2009 next to the
Acropolis in order to house all the Parthenon
Marbles. Three museums (Heidelberg University
Collections, Palermo Salinas Museum, and
the Vatican) have supported this campaign
by returning either permanently or on loan
fragments of the Parthenon, which existed in
their collections. The issue is pending on the
agenda and is discussed by UNESCO at every
meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for
promoting the return of cultural property to its
countries of origin or its restitution in case of
illicit appropriation (Hitchens 2008).
Key Issues
Because the Ministry of Culture places
great emphasis on the fight against illegal exca-
vations and the illicit traffic of antiquities, it
passed a law in 2008 founding a new service
Greece: Cultural Heritage Management
(http://www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws), the
Directorate for the Documentation and the Pro-
tection of Cultural Goods. This recent and inno-
vative framework offers more flexible means and
better possibilities for more immediate results.
The targeted individual is also given motives to
surrender antiquities and collaborate.
Greece has ratified almost all international cul-
tural conventions and is signatory to most relevant
instruments. Specifically, Greece has ratified
the following conventions (udrZ-StratZ  sites on the European Label catalogue. The law
1999: 1-92, 209-46, 391-422, 503-26):
Hague Convention on the Protection of Cul-
tural Goods in the Event of Armed Conflict
(1954) and its two protocols 1954 and 1999
(Clement 1995: 133-50)
UNESCO Convention on the Means of
Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import,
Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural
Property (Paris 1970) (Askerud & Clement
1997)
UNESCO Convention on the Protection of
World Cultural and Natural Heritage
(Paris 1972)
European Convention on the Protection of
Archaeological Heritage Revised (Valetta
1992)
Convention on the Protection of Architectural
Heritage (Granada 1985)
UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally
Exported Cultural Objects (Rome 1995)
(Siehr 1998: 617-689)
Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible
Cultural Heritage (Paris 2003)
These conventions along with the application of
international charters and recommendations are
implemented by the Greek public administration
and have enriched the existing legal framework
giving it an international perspective and
dimension.
Furthermore, Greece has entered the European
Union and has therefore incorporated EU directives
in its legislation. The EEC Regulation 3911/92
concerning the export of cultural property is
implemented in regard to customs issues, as it
harmonizes export controls over cultural property
outside the borders of the EU by establishing the
procedure of granting an export certificate for these
3121 G
goods. Most important is the application of
Directive 93/7/EEC of the Council on March 15,
1993, concerning the return of cultural goods
unlawfully removed from the territory of
a member state, the annex of which was modified
by Directive 96/100/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council on February 17, 1997
(GrammatikkZ- Alexu 2002: 274-99).
Greece has inscribed 17 monuments and sites
on the World Heritage list of UNESCO and four
provides for the examination of every issue
concerning World Heritage monuments by the
highest council in the Ministry (Korka 2004). G
Among the activities undertaken abroad are
archaeological missions and excavations in coun-
tries, where antiquities of Greek interest have
been found.
Control of the import, export, and transfer of
cultural goods is strict in Greece and falls under
the responsibility of the Ephorate of Antique
Shops and Private Archaeological Collections,
which was founded in 1963. In previous years,
permits to form private collections were granted
to possessors of antiquities of considerable
number and scientific significance. Basic precon-
ditions for acquiring a collectors permit were
knowledge of the subject and the economic
means to purchase important antiquities.
A central idea, around which the creation of the
collection evolved, was necessitated, as well as
the unity of the collection. Collectors are obliged
by law to declare their new acquisitions. Many of
the earlier collectors have donated all or part of
their collection to the state, and major public
or semipublic museums were created.
Today provisions for the creation of
a collection are very strict, as well as for its
transfer or commercial disposition. The state
always has first priority in acquiring objects
from a collector or simple possessor of
antiquities.
Furthermore, the legislation stipulates that
antiquities in the possession of any citizen,
acquired through inheritance, purchase, or
gift, must be declared to the above- mentioned
ephorate. Propriety of antiquities belongs only to
the state. The individual can only hold possession
G 3122
of them. The objects are inventoried and
photographed, their provenance is checked, and
a permit of legal possession is issued. This way
a very important data base is accumulated with
important antiquities, which benefit scholarship
considerably. On the other hand, the individual is
sensitized concerning the protection of cultural
heritage. There is also strict control of the use of
metal detectors.
The Archaeological Service includes two
general directorates, one for antiquities and
cultural heritage in general, including
conservation and folklore, and a second for res-
toration of monuments of all periods, photogram-
metry, conservation of museums, and technical
infrastructure in general. There are individual
directorates and departments, as well, which
coordinate regional services. These are the
ephorates and institutes for antiquities on the
one hand side and for modern monuments on
the other. The Archaeological Service also
includes a series of special regional services:
for antique shops and private archaeological
collections, caves, underwater antiquities, and
individual museums.
In addition, there are councils either regional
or central, which examine issues of importance,
before which the citizens can present their
requests and support their cases. Furthermore,
there are special committees for the monitoring
of the restoration of specific monuments or
task forces, which are appointed for a specific
project.
The Archaeological Receipts Fund for Sites
and Expropriations, which is supervised by
the ministry, is in charge of publishing archaeo-
logical guide books, special editions, and
annual periodicals and producing exact replicas
of antiquities. The revenues from this fund support
the work of the regional archaeological services.
The central services form the executive body,
which plans, directs, approves, and monitors the
work of the ephorates and other services and
secures their funding. A large part of the work of
the ephorates includes the control of modern works
carried out in the environs (built or natural) of
Greece: Cultural Heritage Management
monuments. Monitoring takes place in every type
of activity that could directly or even indirectly
affect the archaeological sites, monuments, and
places of historical interest. Most often, there is
a demarcation of a broader area of protection,
buffer zones, and specific land use. Excavations,
conservation, restoration, rehabilitation of monu-
ments, and their protection through shelters and
other means, educational programs, and cultural
events are controlled by the Archaeological Ser-
vice, which examines the feasibility and extent of
the intervention, quality of the work, scientific
documentation and reversibility of the interven-
tions, and guaranty of proper publication. The
sensitization of the broader public is also impor-
tant, and there is a lot of effort put in combining the
needs of modern society with the benefits of
a monument or site. There is always communica-
tion between the Archaeological Service and the
competent authorities and social actors, especially
concerning expropriations or compensation of the
individual for the deprivation of use of immovable
property for archaeological reasons. Expropriation
takes place in recent years only when a group of
monuments needs to be promoted and there is no
other alternative for their preservation and
enhancement or in case an extraordinary site is
revealed. In the case of major public works, there
is allocation of important funds for salvage exca-
vations, conservation, preservation, storage, land-
scape design and promotion, and finally
publication of the finds.
There are 17 foreign archaeological schools
functioning in Greece, which carry out excava-
tions and survey projects, either in collaboration
with the Greek Service or on their own.
They receive their permits under specific
preconditions. They offer know-how; advanced
technology; funds for expropriation of the land,
on which they excavate; periodicals with annual
publications and specialized libraries; as well as
other benefits (Korka 2007).
Greek university professors and other
researchers also conduct excavations under the
supervision of the service, which must control
that all Greek and foreign excavators abide
Greece: Cultural Heritage Management
by the law and keep proper inventories in their
storerooms along with digital photographs.
Surveys and other nondestructive methods are
encouraged, while excavation is conducted only
when proven necessary.
Current Debates
In recent years, the ministry has focused
on reorganizing and upgrading its museums.
Most museums were site museums or in any
case were continuously supplied with new
material from the ongoing systematic or rescue
excavations. A new tendency prevailed, however,
and many museums became independent from
the local ephorate. The most advanced
framework today is that of the New Acropolis
Museum, which has an independent governing
board appointed by the Minister of Culture
(www.newacropolismuseum.gr). Management of
museums has become more user-friendly to the
public, and info-kiosks; educational programs;
visitor facilities, especially for handicapped
people; audio systems; and electronic entry
machines are now available.
Many periodic exhibitions take place along with
cultural events and educational programs, which
bring the public closer to antiquities. Funding, in
general, comes from the state and is boosted a lot
with European development programs. There is
a new law also encouraging sponsors.
Future Directions
Greece participates in the UN, UNESCO,
the Council of Europe, the UN Economic and
Social Council, the EU instruments, and other
international governmental and nongovernmental
organizations with the goal to promote the
protection of cultural heritage. Many exhibitions
of Greek antiquities are circulated abroad in collab-
oration with major museums and cultural institu-
tions all over the world. Through various initiatives
and programs, the Greek Ministry of Culture and
3123 G
Tourism wishes to enhance its heritage, strengthen
its collaboration with cultural actors, and promote
cultural and educational activities.
The scientific personnel of the ministry is open
to exchanging expertise and collaborating with
foreign colleagues. There is great concern about
modern management problems such as cultural
tourism, climate change, natural and human-
provoked hazards, and sustainable development.
At the time of writing, however, an economic
crisis risks diminishing personnel, services,
projects, and cultural benefits, which had occurred
due to great effort and years of dedication.
G
Cross-References
Conservation, Restoration, and Preservation in
Classical Archaeology
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and
Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and
Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property
(1970)
International Council of Museums (ICOM)
International Council of Museums (ICOM):
Code of Ethics
International Council on Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS) (Ethics)
International Council on Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS) (Museums)
International Council on Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS): Scientific Committees and
Relationship to UNESCO
Parthenon (Elgin) Marbles: Case Study
Repatriation: Overview
UNESCO (1970) and UNIDROIT
(1995) Conventions
UNESCOs World Heritage List Process
Uses of Heritage
World Heritage List: Criteria, Inscription, and
Representation
World Heritage Objectives and Outcomes
World Heritage Sites and Education:
UNESCOs World Heritage Education
Programme
World Monuments Fund (WMF)
G 3124 Greece: Cultural Heritage Management

References the tug of war over sculptural property. Brooklyn

Journal of International Law 1: 103-28.
ASKERUD, P. & E. CLEMENT. 1997. Preventing the illicit SIEHR, K. 1998. The protection of cultural property:
traffic in cultural property: a resource handbook for the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention and the EEC
the implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. instruments of 1992/1993 compared. Uniform Law
Paris: UNESCO. Review 4 (2/3): 671-83.
udrZ, D. & A. StratZ. 1999. Prstasa tB WALDEN, D.A. 1996. UNESCO and the Parthenon Marbles
PlitistikZB KlrnmiB se DieynE B kai in A. Lea (ed.) The Parthenon sculptures: their history
Europai__ko Epped (Institt Suntagmatiko n and destiny. Washington (DC): The Society for the
reuno n 3). AyZ na; KmtZnZ: kdoseiB Preservation of Greek Heritage.
Skkula.
CLEMENT, E. 1995. Le reexamen de la Convention de la Further Reading
Haye de 1954 pour la protection des biens culturels en AVEROF, Y. & V. LAMBRINOUDAKIS. (ed.) 2007. History lost.
cas de conflit arme, in International legal issues Athens: Hellenic Foundation for Culture, Anemon
arising under the United Nations Decade of Productions.
International Law: 133-50. The Hague: Martinus asilplu, . (epim.) 2008, EpanapatrisyEnta
Nijhoff. AristurgZmata, NOSTOI. AyZna: KatlgB
GrammatikAkZ-Blexu, B. 2002. DieynZB Diakns kyesZB, E Muse AkroplZB, 24/9-31/12/
Plitistiko n Agayo n kai Idiotiko Dkai. 2008.
AyZna; YessalnkZ: kdoseiB Skkula. BROWNING, R. 1998. The case for the return of the Parthe-
GREENFIELD, J. 1989. The return of cultural treasures. non Marbles. Museum 36 (1): 38-41.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CHAMBERLAIN, R. 1983. Loot: the heritage of plunder.
HITCHENS, CH. 2008. The Parthenon Marbles: the case for London: Thames and Hudson.
reunification. London; New York: Verso. Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological
KORKA, E. (ed.) 2003. The reunification of the Parthenon Heritage of Europe (Revised), Valletta, 16.1.1992,
sculptures. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture- Council of Europe Treaties ETS No. 143.
Melina Merkouri Foundation. GrammatikkZ-Blexu B., B. StratZ, E. MuameletzZ & D.
- 2004. Ellda - Pri__strik kai Klasik Mnmea Bnagnostplu. 2001. Nomim kai parnm
PagkosmiaB PlitistikZB KlrnmiB, diakns plitistiko n agayo n upo t prsma tu
dglossZ EkdsZ se ellZnik kai agglik. dieynB, kintik kai ellnik dikau.
AyZna: purge Plitism- kdoseiB Kapon. AyZna: kdoseiB Skkula.
- 2006. The reunification of the Parthenon sculptures - a DorZB, .F. 1985. Dkain ton ArwaitZton.
cultural imperative. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of AyZna; KmtZnZ : kdoseiB Skkula.
Culture. Kkku, B. 1975. mErimna gia tiB arwaiotZteB stZn
- 2007. Foreign archaeological schools in Greece, from llda kai ta pro ta musea, diatribZ ep
the 19th to the 21st century. Athens: Hellenic Ministry didaktra. AyZ na.
of Culture, Melissa Publishing House. KORKA, E. 2005. The Greek request for the return of
MEYER, K.E. 1977. The plundered past. London: Hamish the Parthenon Marbles. Medelhausmuseet Periodical
Hamilton. 2: 147-50.
Mputplu, S., M. Mliu, S. Kallio dZ & . - 2009. The reunification of the Parthenon sculptures
SakellidZB. 2008. Prstasa ton within the framework of the new international practice
Plitistiko n Agayo n apo tZn ParnmZ of returning cultural goods. Unpublished PhD disser-
DiaknZsZ kai Z DiekdkZsZ  tuB, Praktik tation, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens.
DiZmerdaB: 24-25. AyZna: Septembru E PALMER, N. 2004. Legislation, litigation and loss. The legal
Muse AkroplZB, Mrya Sumeondu (epim.). and ethical obligation of state museums confronted by
PANTOS, A. P. 2000. Greece and Greek legislation about restitution claims, in M.M. Zilemenou (ed.) The
antiquities, in S. Samartzidou (ed.) Cultural property: Parthenon. The repatriation of the sculptures.
return and illicit trade. Proceedings of the meeting. Historical, cultural and legal aspects: 233-41.
Athens: Ministry of Culture, Directorate of Prehistoric Athens: Center of European Studies and Humanities,
and Classical Antiquities, Foreign Schools Division, I. Ioannis Kapodistrias, Cultural Horizons Organization,
Decopoulos. I. Sideris.
PRUNTY, A. P. 1984. Toward establishing an international PntB, P.B. 2005. Kodikps nmyesaB gia tn
tribunal for the settlement of cultural property plitistikZ klrnmi, kat yEmata. DieynEB
disputes: how to keep Greece from losing its marble. kai Kintiko Dkai. AyZ na: PP DAM.
The Georgetown Law Journal 72: 1155-82. PapapetrpulB, D.B. 2006. NomB 3028/2002 Gia tn
RENFREW, C. 2000. Loot, legitimacy, and ownership: the prstasa ton ArwaitZton kai en gE nei tB
ethical crisis in archaeology. London: Duckworth. plitistikZB klrnmiB. AyZna;
SHAW, R. 1979. The retention and retrieval of art and YessalnkZ: Kemen-Swolia-rmZnea,
antiquities through international and national means: kdoseiB Skkula.
Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of 3125 G
PROTT, V.L. (ed.) 2009. Witnesses to history. Documents migration and the reasons for it. Other issues
and writings on the return of cultural objects. Paris: include the nature of interactions between Greeks
UNESCO Publishing.
PROTT, L. V. & P.J. OKEEFE. 1983. National legal and non-Greeks, the influence of colonialism on
control of illicit traffic in cultural property. Paris: the development of the Greek city, and whether
UNESCO. settlement overseas impacted on expressions of
SLJIVIC, A. 1997. Why do you think its yours? An Greek ethnicity. There is a high degree of local
exposition of the jurisprudence underlying the debate
between cultural nationalism and cultural internation- variation in the way these communities devel-
alism. George Washington Journal of International oped, but they highlight some central aspects of
Law and Economics 31: 393-438. Greek archaeology. Greek cities continued to be
ProtpapaB, D. 2004. i pinikE B diatxeiB gia tZn founded outside Greece during the fifth to third
parnmZ diaknZsZ, st . rb (epim)
plitistikZ  klrnmi kai t dkai: 191-210. centuries BCE, but these were rather different in
AyZna; YessalnkZ: Praktik Sunedru, character and this article will focus primarily on
AyZna 3-4 Iunu 2003, kdoseiB Skkula. colonialism in the eighth-sixth centuries.
STAMATOUDI, I. 2004. Legal issues associated with the G
return of the Parthenon Marbles, in M.M. Zilemenou.
(ed.) The Parthenon. The repatriation of the sculp-
tures. Historical, cultural and legal aspects: 214-27. Definition
Athens: Center of European Studies and Humanities,
Ioannis Kapodistrias, Cultural Horizons Organization, The definition of Greek colonialism is conten-
I. Sideris.
SkurZB, P & . rbA. 2003. Prstasa ArwaitZton tious. The Greeks had no word for colony,
kai PlitistikZB KlrnmiB, . 3028 / 2002. referring to overseas settlements as apoikiai
AyZna; YessalnkZ: kdoseiB Skkula. (literally homes away from home), or emporia
STAMATOUDI, A.I. 2011. Cultural property law and restitu- (trading settlements). This distinguishes
tion. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton (MA): Edward
Elgar. between independent Greek city-states
VRELIS, S. 2003. La Convention dUnidroit sur les biens (apoikiai) and trading communities sometimes
culturels voles ou illicitement exportes: Un acquis of mixed ethnicity (emporia). Until the 1990s
culturel, in La protection internationale des biens archaeologists and historians largely accepted
culturels Regard dans lavenir. Athenes; Komotini:
Ant.N. Sakkoulas. the terminology of colonies and colonization to
describe the Greek diaspora of the eighth to sixth
centuries BCE (Graham 1982; Dunbabin 1999).
Recent scholarship has problematized these
terms. They imply acceptance of ancient sources
Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of which present settlement as an organized state-
sponsored act of colonization to an extent which
Kathryn Lomas is now no longer tenable. They are also shaped
Institute of Archaeology, University College by analogy with eighteenth and nineteenth cen-
London, London, UK tury imperialism and colonialism, which are not
appropriate models to apply to Greek colonial-
ism (Osborne 1998; Shepherd 2005). The terms
Introduction colony and colonization have now been
largely replaced by more neutral terms such as
From the mid-eighth century BCE onwards, settlement or migration. Where the terms
Greeks began to migrate in significant numbers colony or colonization are used in this
from Greece and the Aegean to many areas of the article, it should be understood that they are
Mediterranean. By the sixth century, Greek com- being used as a synonym for Greek settlements
munities had been established as far afield as outside Greece, and do not carry any implication
Spain, Italy, France, North Africa, Asia Minor, that these settlements were the result of the
and the Black Sea coast. This colonialism raises structured state foundation of the type critiqued
important questions about the processes of below.
G 3126
Historical Background
Greek mobility in the Mediterranean has a long
history. Mycenaean finds indicate contact between
Greeks and other areas of the Mediterranean from
at least the twelfth century BCE, and Greeks were
a significant presence in ports such as Al Mina
during the ninth century (Boardman 1999). By the
mid-eighth century BCE, the size and importance
of Greek settlement increased markedly. Between
c. 750 and 650 BCE, Greek settlements were
established at many locations on the coasts of
Sicily, southern Italy, and Campania. During the
seventh and sixth centuries, numerous settlements
developed in the northern Aegean and the Black
Sea area, north Africa, the Dalmatian coast, and
coastal Asia Minor. There was also further sixth
century settlement in Italy, Spain, southern
France, and on some of the islands of the western
Mediterranean. Finally, a number of settlements
were founded in Italy, Sicily, and the Black Sea
area in the fifth and early fourth centuries (Figs. 1
and 2; Osborne 1996: 119-29). The settlers were
drawn from many different areas of the Greek
world. Ancient sources attribute notional founding
cities or regions to each colony, and relationships,
but they are based largely on fictive rather than
real kinship. Many settlements have yielded finds
from many areas of the Greek world in their early
phases, suggesting mixed groups of settlers from
several areas of Greece.
In addition to self-identified Greek colonies,
there were many Greeks living in indigenous
communities (Lomas 2006). In Spain, only two
Greek cities Emporion and Rhode were
established, but seventh and sixth century Greek
pottery and amphorae found around Tartessos
suggests large-scale trade between Greeks and
Iberians. Inscribed Greek personal names from
Iberian contexts demonstrate the presence of
Greek people as well as Greek goods, and a fifth
century inscribed lead tablet from Pech-Maho
records a complex commercial contract involving
both Greeks and Iberians. The Greek presence in
Spain was extensive but did not take the form of
city-foundation, and has been termed colonialism
without colonization (Dominguez Monedero
2002).
Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of
The motives for Greek migration are unclear.
The large quantities of Greek goods circulating
throughout the Mediterranean area suggest
a connection with trade, and the nature of the
earliest settlements supports this. Pithekoussai
(modern Ischia), established c. 750 BCE, was
located on an off-shore island, in close proximity
to a major trade route linking Italy and Sardinia
with Cyprus and Greece. Grave goods from
the settlement include pottery from many parts
of the Greek world, along with Italic fibulae,
Egyptian scarabs, and Phoenician artifacts.
Remains of smelting furnaces and waste metal
indicate that the smelting of iron ore from Etruria
was an important activity (Ridgway 1992).
Trade, particularly in metals, was a key activity
as well.
Colonialism is often presented as the result of
a desire for land, prompted by demographic
pressure (Graham 1982: 83-94, 157-9;
Dunbabin 1999: 1-47), but this is questionable.
Although some settlements had abundant sup-
plies of fertile land, others did not. Settlements
on the instep of Italy controlled large amounts
of land, as did those of south-east Sicily, but
other colonies seem to have had different prior-
ities. Rhegion, Taras, and Massalia had good
harbors and strategic positions on trade routes.
Others, such as those on the Calabrian coast,
were in areas that were not attractive to those
mainly seeking land. Evidence for demographic
pressure in Greece which might have forced
Greeks to migrate is also ambiguous. Increases
in the size of cemeteries in the eighth century
demonstrate that the population was growing
(although it also reflect changes in funerary cus-
toms) but not at a rate to force mass migration.
A survey of Megara Hyblaia and its colony
Selinous, designed to test the hypothesis that
migration was driven by demographic expan-
sion and need for land, conclusively demon-
strated that in this case, it was not (De Angelis
1994). When Selinous was founded, c. 650 BCE,
Megara had a plentiful supply of land and no
sign of demographic pressure. Ancient sources
attribute colonialism to specific factors such as
drought, famine, and political strife, rather than
a specific desire for land.
 Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of
3127

Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of, Fig. 1 Greek colonial settlement in the Western Mediterranean
G

G
G 3128 Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of

Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of, Fig. 2 Greek colonial settlement in North Africa, Asia Minor and the Black
Sea area

The answer may lie in the fact that the eighth which Greeks moved to exploit a range of
to seventh centuries BCE were periods of great new social and economic opportunities
personal mobility, driven by a variety of factors. (Purcell 2005). The colonialism of the period
It has been described as an era of exploration, in may have been driven by a mixture of
Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of
commercial motives, opportunism, and curiosity
about the wider Mediterranean world, rather than
by demographic pressure and lack of land.
Between c. 720 and 600 BCE colonial settle-
ments show a high degree of local variation in
their development. Some were ethnically mixed
communities and many others may not have been
fully urban in their early stages. By the end of the
seventh century, most had established themselves
as fully urban and fully Greek settlements. Many
developed organized urban plans to a much
greater extent that cities in Greece, and did so
from an early date. This so-called Hippodamian
town plan was based around two main thorough-
fares crossing at the centre of town and a grid of
streets dividing the area into long rectangular
blocks, which were subdivided into regular plots
for housing. The agora was usually placed near
the centre of the urban area. Temples and sanctu-
aries could be grouped together on an acropolis
(as at Akragas), placed at the edges of the urban
area (as at Poseidonia), or a mixture of both.
However, there were many local variations in
the ways sites developed. At Megara Hyblaia,
the regular layout seems to have been in place
from the earliest date of settlement, with desig-
nated areas for cemeteries and sanctuaries and for
public business. The uniformity of the early
houses in size and form suggests a high degree
of central organization in allocating space.
At Thasos, in contrast, pottery deposits demon-
strate that sanctuaries were established early, but
the seventh century city was haphazard and the
first signs of communal planning and organiza-
tion date to the early sixth century (Osborne
1996: 233-42).
Greeks overseas were early adopters of many
aspects of Greek urban life. Colonies built mon-
umental stone buildings earlier and more prolifi-
cally than the cities of Greece; in particular many
monumental temples were constructed. Coinage
was adopted early, as were writing and codified
laws. Territories were also carefully organized.
During the sixth century, the territory of
Metapontion was systematically reorganized
and a regular grid of land divisions imposed
(Di Siena 2001: 24-9). The fact that these were
new communities may have prompted this
3129 G
investment in civic infrastructure. Unlike cities
in Greece, which had grown up piecemeal, devel-
opments on new sites could develop more
systematically, and also a need to create strong
civic organization and a strong civic identity to
integrate the inhabitants into a functioning
citizen body.
Ancient sources describe ethnic conflict
between Greeks and their non-Greek neighbors,
but archaeological evidence presents a more
nuanced picture. Some settlements started out as
mixed communities before adopting a fully Greek
identity during the seventh century. Graves at
Pithekoussai have yielded Italic and Phoenician G
grave goods, suggesting an ethnically mixed rather
than purely Greek community (Ridgway 1992:
109-19). At Metapontion and Siris, Greek and
Italic burial customs co-existed in earliest phases
of the cemeteries, and both Greek and non-Greek
pottery has been found, although buildings are
mainly of Greek type (Carter 1998; Di Siena
2001: 17-26). This persists until the late seventh
century, after which these sites become more
clearly Greek in character. This is accompanied
by changes in the territories of these communities
which may suggest a phase of more aggressive
expansion (Di Siena 2001: 24-31). One hypothesis
is that many Greeks arrived in all-male groups
rather than as families, and intermarried with the
local populations, although studies of this in the
western Mediterranean have shown mixed results
(Shepherd 1999). At Pithekoussai, Metapontion,
and a number of other sites, some female burials
contained Italic fibula brooches rather than the
straight dress-pins used by Greeks, suggesting
that these may have been local women. As there
was no spatial distinction between these and
graves with Greek grave goods, they have been
taken as evidence for women intermarrying with
Greek colonists. At other Greek sites, however,
there is little evidence of ethnic intermingling,
and patterns of interaction with local populations
varied from colony to colony.
Whatever the specific nature of social rela-
tions, there were significant levels of economic
and cultural contact and exchange of goods and
ideas between Greeks and non-Greeks, even dur-
ing periods of conflict. Religious sanctuaries
G 3130
seem to have acted as important points of contact
for such exchanges. Greek inscriptions are found
in non-Greek contexts; the Greek alphabet was
adopted for writing non-Greek languages and
coinage based on Greek designs and weights
was minted by some non-Greeks. Greek pottery
styles were also widely adopted, and adapted by
non-Greeks, often from an early date. In Italy, for
example, Apulia, Lucania, and Campania all
developed local red-figure pottery, closely based
on Greek techniques and designs but with their
own distinctive shapes and decorative styles. In
extreme cases, it can be difficult to distinguish
between Greek and non-Greek settlements.
The Sicilian city of Segesta constructed a fine
Doric temple, despite being an indigenous com-
munity. At Morgantina in southeast Sicily,
a settlement of the indigenous Sikels, the centre
of the city had Greek-style buildings and looked
very similar to the agora of a Greek city, despite
its non-Greek population (Antonaccio 2005:
98-101). The social and cultural interactions
between Greeks and their non-Greek neighbors
were both highly complex and central to the
development of areas of Greek settlement.
The Greeks of the colonial world were not
a cohesive group and is evidence of tension,
sometimes on ethnic lines between those of
Dorian and Ionian origin. Despite this, they
maintained a strong Greek identity. Greeks over-
seas participated in events symbolizing shared
ethnicity, such as the Olympic games and other
Panhellenic festivals. The victory lists at
Olympia and other sanctuaries include victors
from the colonial world. Colonies built treasuries
at Delphi, and made victory dedications at Delphi
and Olympia. Although founding mother-cities
are likely to have been largely fictive, social, and
political links between a colony and its putative
founder were important. Cults associated with the
foundation formed a vital part of civic religion in
the colonial world, whether they were cults of
deities associated with colonialism, cults of
a heroized founder, or cults associated with the
nominal mother city. It was also common for
colonies to adopt the linguistic dialect and form
of script used by their assumed mother city, and
Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of
to use the same weight standard for their coinage.
Although these relationships were largely based
on fictive rather than real kinship, they became
more prominent, and more politicized, from
the sixth century onwards. The colonies
founded by Phokaian refugees after the Persian
sack of Phokaia - Alalia, Elea, Massilia and
Emporion - shared a strong sense of common
Ionian identity, maintaining their Ionic scripts
and dialect, and many aspects of architecture
and material culture derived from Phokaia
(Dominguez Monedero 2004), while Korinth
maintained active links with states which claimed
Korinthian origin during the fifth century. Greeks
outside Greece were embedded in a complex web
of connections to both their non-Greek neighbors
and the wider Greek world.
Key Issues/Current Debates
There are currently several key issues in the
archaeology of Greek colonialism. These
include: the nature of the process by which new
communities were created; the reasons for the
migrations of the eighth and seventh centuries,
the interpretation of relations between Greeks
and local populations, and the impact of colonial-
ism on Greek conceptions of their own ethnicity.
They touch on important problems such as how
(or if) archaeological evidence can be integrated
with ancient sources, whether we can identify
ethnic origins from material evidence, and what
sort of analytical frameworks can be used to
clarify cultural interactions between Greeks and
their neighbors.
Trade and Colonialism
Discussions of mass migration in the eighth and
seventh centuries BCE historically assumed that
trade was of relatively little importance and the
main motivation was desire for land (Boardman
1999; Dunbabin 1999). This was, in part, based on
a tendency to privilege the ancient sources over
material evidence. Accounts which mentioned
desire for land as a motive (Strabo, Geography,
5.4.9) or drew distinctions between mercantile
Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of
Phoenicians who founded trading posts and
Greeks who founded cities (Thucydides 6.2)
were largely accepted. It also relies on
a primitivist view of ancient Greek economies in
which trade is assumed to be of little importance.
Recent critiques demonstrate that this approach
was shaped by eighteenth and nineteenth century
colonialisms, in which trading relationships were
rapidly followed by territorial expansion. New
research on the economy of the archaic Mediter-
ranean suggests that economic behavior was much
more sophisticated and diverse than this model
suggests, and that nineteenth century concepts of
trade before the flag distorts both the nature of
ancient trade and that of the settlement process
(Shepherd 2005: 24-30). The excavations at
Pithekoussai show that it was a community with
a vibrant economy based on trade in mineral
resources as well as agriculture. The archaic Med-
iterranean was a region of high mobility, in which
long-distance travel motivated by commercial
opportunities and curiosity about an expanding
world, was not unusual (Purcell 2005).
The Nature of Settlement
The process by which settlements were
established has generated much debate. Until
the 1990s, ancient accounts of how to found
a new settlement were largely accepted (Graham
1982). These present colonization as an
well-defined and organized process, whether car-
ried out by a state or an individual. An oracle was
consulted to gain divine approval for the mission,
leaders were appointed, and the colonists set off
to find the place indicated by the oracle. Once
located, the leaders laid out the boundary of the
new city, instituted the main cults, and divided
the land within the new city and its territory to
ensure that settlers received a fair share. The
foundation process was presented as setting up
a community to a recognized pattern, replicating
the organization of a Greek polis.
There are many problems with this model. The
texts on which it relies were written long after the
foundation of the early colonies, reflecting later
practices and attitudes, and cannot be accepted as
an accurate account of how colonies were
3131 G
established. In addition, ancient sources and
archaeological evidence address fundamentally
different questions (Owen 2005: 6-8). Archaeol-
ogy reveals long-term trends and patterns but
dating is too imprecise to pinpoint short-term
factors. Ancient sources, in contrast, focus on
immediate events and motivations. Both yield
valuable information, but from radically different
perspectives. Recently, the debate about the
nature of Greek settlement overseas has swung
strongly against the model of colonization as an
organized political project. Many scholars now
regard it as a fluid process, in which Greek
settlements formed by piecemeal migration by G
individuals and small groups, some of whom
initially lived in mixed communities alongside
indigenous populations. Many did not develop
a fully Greek identity and city-state organization,
either by assimilating or ejecting these local
populations, until the late seventh century.
This view is strongest in Anglo-American
scholarship, where the use of the term
colonization to described Greek settlement
overseas has become problematized, but it is not
universally accepted. One of the key arguments
against the organized foundation of colonies is
that the city-state was at an early stage of devel-
opment in Greece in the eighth century and that
the polis was not yet established as the main form
of political and social organization, so the
creation of new settlements which replicated
this emergent form of organization seems
unlikely (Osborne 1998). However, counter-
arguments have been made, that the development
of the polis was assisted precisely by colonization
and the need to create new forms of community
from scratch, and that there is nothing implausi-
ble about a new society inventing new forms of
community and new ways of setting them out
(Malkin 1994, 2002). Although the balance has
tipped in favor of Greek settlement overseas as
a process of migration rather than organized col-
onization, there are still ambiguities to resolve.
Modelling Cultural Interactions
The concept of Hellenization the adoption,
either voluntary or enforced, of Greek
G 3132
customs, language and material culture by
non-Greeks has long been the dominant model
for understanding Greek relations with local
populations. It is an analytical framework shaped
by eighteenth and nineteenth century colonial-
isms, in which a mission to civilize non-European
cultures was an important part of colonial ideol-
ogy (Shepherd 2005). However, it is no longer
tenable to view the archaeology of areas of Greek
settlement as shaped by a one-way transmission
of advanced Greek customs and culture to more
backward locals. Instead, various analytical
models have been put forward to interpret
relations between ethnic groups.
A core-periphery model, in which the
Greek core obtained natural resources such as
mineral ores from the non-Greek periphery in
exchange for Greek manufactured goods, is one
possible approach. This argues that Greek goods
were circulated to non-Greek elites, by either
trade or gift-exchange, in return for resources
such as mineral ores. These goods were regarded
as prestige items, the ownership of which
enhanced the status of the non-Greek owner
and also his/her social and political power
(Dietler 1995). This opens up alternative ways
to look at trade and exchange of goods, and also
gives the local population a more dynamic role
in the relationship but it also implies the same
basic level of inequality between non-Greeks
and Greeks which characterized the Helleniza-
tion model.
Post-colonial theories of hybridization and
Middle Ground theory offer a possible alterna-
tive. These argue that interaction between Greeks
and non-Greeks resulted in the emergence of
hybrid (or creole) culture which contained ele-
ments of both cultures and which facilitated the
development of local and regional identities
which were not Greek or non-Greek but Sicilian,
or Italiote, or Graeco-African, etc. (Antonaccio
2005). A site such as Morgantina, where there is
evidence of the adoption of at least some Greek
customs (e.g., Greek civic architecture) but not
others (Greek religious architecture, Greek sculp-
ture) is not an example of Hellenization but of an
expression of local Sicilian identity in which
Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of
Greek and Sikeliote elements mix to produce
new cultural forms. One strength of this model
is that it allows for changes in the ways in which
artifacts are used. For example, Greek drinking
vessels are frequently found in elite burials in
many areas of Italy, but they do not prove the
adoption of the Greek symposion. Most Italian
societies had their own traditions of elite
banqueting, which were very different from that
of the all-male symposion, and it is far more
likely that Greek drinking sets were used for
these local celebrations. Although Middle
Ground theory and hybridization escape from
the overtly top-down and colonialist aspects of
Hellenization and core-periphery analysis, they
are still problematic as a framework for studying
Greek-local interactions. Recent critiques note
that they potentially underplay aspects of conflict
or imbalances of power between the parties
involved. They can also make it difficult to dif-
ferentiate between the various cultural elements
under discussion, and can obscure important
factors such as gender or social class, which
have an important role in determining which
cultural features are transmitted and how they
are used.
Another influential approach has been exami-
nation of Greek and non-Greek cultures in terms
of localism versus globalization (Hodos 2009).
The spread of Greek culture over such a wide area
of the Mediterranean meant that Greek customs
and artifacts could be used as a form of cultural
lingua franca, just as the Greek language could
be used as a common language to communicate
across ethnic and cultural boundaries. Greek
red-figure pottery, for example, could be custom-
ized with local scenes and therefore used to pre-
sent local identities in a visual idiom which was
familiar throughout the Greek world. South
Italian red-figure vases frequently depicted
scenes of warriors in local costume and with
Italic armor and weapons, using it to present
local elite culture. Greek culture could be seen
as a form of globalised cultural language which
could be customized to reflect local cultures but
also used as a form of communication across
cultural boundaries.
Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of
Ethnicity and Colonization
The role of colonialism in the development of
Greek ethnicity, and how reliably we can identify
ethnicity in the archaeological record, is an
important issue. Distance from ones own culture
or proximity to other cultures is frequently
a factor in the emergence of a stronger and more
assertive sense of ethnic identity. Ethnicity is
often more in evidence in frontier areas where
cultures are in contact, and for this reason, it has
been suggested that Greeks living in colonies
may have had a stronger sense of Greek identity.
This oppositional Greek identity, and the polarity
between Greeks and barbarians is, however, more
developed in the fifth century, when Greek
identity was tested by the Persian invasion, than
it was in the archaic period. It has been argued
that Greeks of the eighth and seventh centuries
may have been more aware of the differences
between settlers from different parts of Greece
as between themselves and neighboring
non-Greeks (Hall 2002).
There is evidence for both points of view.
Greeks outside Greece were not a cohesive
group. Evidence of regionalization is apparent
in their use of different alphabets and dialects
and they seem to have maintained sub-group
identities as either Dorians or Ionians. The
mixed communities found in some early settle-
ments, and evidence for commercial, social and
even familial contacts with non-Greeks suggests
that ethnic boundaries were flexible. However,
there are methodological problems. The hypoth-
esis that Greeks and non-Greeks intermarried is
based on presence of certain artifact types in
funerary assemblages, but possession of local
objects may be a matter of taste, patterns of
trade or gift-exchange, or simply what was avail-
able, rather than an indication of ethnicity
(Shepherd 1999). The presence of other evidence
such as the use of non-Greek burial customs in
a Greek city strengthens the case for mixed com-
munities, but inferring a mixed population on the
basis of grave goods alone is unwise. As with
most aspects of Greek colonialism, patterns
were geographically and chronologically varied.
Relations with locals differed from colony to
3133 G
colony, and Greek identity became more sharply
defined from the fifth century, but it was never
a simple matter of Greeks versus barbarians.
International Perspectives
Greek colonialism is hugely varied, with many
local variations in the development of Greek set-
tlements outside Greece. Some regional patterns
can be discerned: settlement in Spain and the
islands of the western Mediterranean seems to
be less polisbased and more integrated with
local populations than elsewhere, and the emer- G
gence of regional styles in material culture can be
identified, but there is also intense variability of
development even between settlements in the
same areas of the Mediterranean. This has been
exacerbated by some trends in modern scholar-
ship. There has been a tendency for researchers to
focus on specific regions and sites, and dialogue
between these has sometimes been limited. One
of the key challenges in the archaeology of Greek
colonialism is to identify overarching themes and
patterns in colonial settlements without losing
sight of these local factors.
Future Directions
There are many important issues which remain to
be explored in relation to Greek colonialism.
1. Better methodologies for integrating archaeo-
logical and textual evidence are badly needed.
Historians frequently privilege texts over
material evidence, while some archaeologists
adopt the extreme position that textual evi-
dence should be rejected entirely. Dialogue
between archaeologists and historians is
essential for the resolution of this problem.
2. Further research on cultural identities and the
interactions between Greeks and other ethnic
groups is needed. This is a complex area, and
none of the models review above are without
their problems. A single interpretative frame-
work which will address cultural interaction
without any bias or distortion maybe difficult
G 3134
to achieve. In particular, more investigation is
needed on how factors such as gender, or
social class may shape cultural interactions.
There is much scope for the development of
new models of cultural interaction which
place Greeks and non-Greeks on a more
equal footing.
3. Better integration between researchers working
on different areas of the Greek colonial world is
required. As noted above, Greek experiences of
colonialism were often locally-specific, but
more dialogue between researchers working
on different areas of the Greek world may
help to illuminate aspects of colonialism.
Recent research applying network analysis to
the ancient Mediterranean has opened up valu-
able new approaches to aspects of colonialism
and connectivity between different areas of the
Greek world.
Cross-References
Cross-Cultural Interaction Theories in
Classical Archaeology
Ethnicity and Identity in the Ancient
Mediterranean World
References
ANTONACCIO, C. 2005. Excavating colonization, in
S. Owen & H. Hurst (ed.) Ancient colonizations: anal-
ogy, similarity and difference: 97-114. London:
Duckworth.
BOARDMAN, J. 1999. The Greeks overseas: their early
colonies and trade, 4th edn. London: Thames and
Hudson.
CARTER, J.C. 1998. The chora of Metaponto: the
necropoleis. Austin: University of Texas Press.
DE ANGELIS, F. 1994. The foundation of Selinous: over-
population or opportunities? in F. De Angelis &
G. Tsetskhladze (ed.) The archaeology of Greek colo-
nisation: 87-110. Oxford: Oxford University Commit-
tee for Archaeology.
DIETLER, M. 1995. The cup of Gyptis: rethinking the
colonial encounter in early Iron Age western Europe
and the relevance of world systems models. Journal of
European Archeology 3: 89-111.
DI SIENA, A. (ed.) 2001. Metaponto. Archeologia di una
colonia greca. Taranto: Scorpione Editrice.
Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of
DOMINGUEZ MONEDERO, A. 2002. The Greeks in Iberia:
colonialism without colonisation, in C.L. Lyons &
J.K. Papadopoulos (ed.) The archaeology of colonial-
ism: 65-95. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.
- 2004. Greek identity in the Phocaean colonies, in
K. Lomas (ed.) Greek identity in the western Mediter-
ranean: 429-56. Leiden: Brill.
DUNBABIN, T.J. 1999. The western Greeks: the history of
Sicily and south Italy from the foundation of the Greek
colonies to 480 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
GRAHAM, A.J. 1982. The colonial expansion of Greece.
Cambridge ancient history, 2nd edn., Volume III: 83-
162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HALL, J.H. 2002. Hellenicity: between ethnicity and
culture. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
HODOS, T. 2009. Colonial engagements in the global
Mediterranean Iron Age. Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 19: 221-41.
LOMAS, K. 2006. Beyond Magna Graecia: Greeks and
non-Greeks in France, Spain and northern Italy,
500-300 BCE, in K.H. Kinzl (ed.) The Blackwell com-
panion to the classical Greek world, 478-323 BCE:
174-96. Oxford: Blackwell.
MALKIN, I. 1994. Inside and outside: colonization and the
formation of the mother city, in B. DAgostino &
D. Ridgway (ed.) Apoikia: i piu antichi insediamenti
greci in occidente: funzioni e modi dellorga-
nizzazione politica e sociale: 1-10. Naples: Istituto
Universitario Orientale.
- 2002. Exploring the validity of the concept of founda-
tion: a visit to Megara Hyblaia. in V. Gorman &
E.W. Robinson (ed.) Oikistes: studies in constitutions,
colonies, and military power in the ancient world,
offered in honor of A. J. Graham: 195-225. Leiden:
Brill.
OSBORNE, R. 1996. Greece in the making, 1200-479 BCE.
London: Routledge.
- 1998. Early Greek colonization? The nature of Greek
settlement in the west, in N. Fisher & H. Van Wees
(ed.) Archaic Greece. New approaches and new
evidence: 251-70. London: Duckworth.
OWEN, S. 2005. Analogy, archaeology and archaic Greek
colonization, in H. Hurst & S. Owen (ed.) Ancient
colonizations: analogy, similarity and difference:
5-22. London: Duckworth.
PURCELL, N. 2005. Colonization and Mediterranean
history, in H. Hurst & S. Owen (ed.) Ancient coloni-
zations: analogy, similarity and difference: 115-39.
London: Duckworth.
RIDGWAY, D. 1992. The first western Greeks. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
SHEPHERD, G. 1999. Fibulae and females: intermarriage in
the western Greek colonies and the evidence from
cemeteries, in G. Tsetskhladze (ed.) Ancient Greeks:
west and east: 267-300. Leiden: Brill.
- 2005. The advance of the Greek: Greece, Great Britain
and archaeological empires, in H. Hurst & S. Owen
(ed.) Ancient colonizations: analogy, similarity and
difference: 2344. London: Duckworth.
Greek Houses, Archaeology of
Greek Houses, Archaeology of
Barbara Tsakirgis
Department of Classical Studies, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, TN, USA
Introduction
Most visitors to Greek archaeological sites can be
excused if they never visit the residential districts
or even realize that houses have been excavated
there. Greek domestic architecture is often poorly
preserved and consequently neglected by coun-
tries that have more cultural property to protect
than their budgets will cover. This situation
is regrettable, as houses and their contents can
reveal much about the cultural and social life
of the Greeks, providing an insight on the
economy, religion, relationships between men
and women, and the interactions between
freemen and slaves. Careful examination of the
archaeological remains, informed by a judicious
reading of ancient literary and epigraphical
testimonia, and cautious use of ancient visual
depictions of domestic scenes can help bring
Greek houses to life.
Definition
What are the determinants for identifying a house
and for labeling that house as Greek? The first
question can be difficult to answer, as many exca-
vated buildings were both residences and the
locations for industrial or commercial activity.
It is probably most accurate to say that a house
was a building where the primary function was
residence but where there could be attendant
workshop production and/or commercial sales.
A number of Greek houses accommodating such
multiple uses have been recognized in rural set-
tings and almost by definition include agricultural
or pastoral production. The identifying character-
istics for a domestic use of space are as much the
artifactual assemblages as the architectural struc-
ture. The collections of household impedimenta
3135 G
reveal the human use of space within, including
food storage, preparation and consumption, as
well as sleeping, household production such as
textile work, and the entertainment of guests. The
answer to the question of Greek identity is depen-
dent in part on chronology. From the Early Iron
Age until the late fourth century BCE, it is fair to
say that a Greek house is a residence constructed
in territories established and occupied by Greeks,
who identified themselves as such by virtue of
their common language and the gods they
worshiped. This definition follows Greek ideas
of self-identification which were based on lan-
guage and religion (see, e.g., Herodotus 8.1.44). G
Historical Background
The houses considered in this entry date over the
course of a single millennium, from c. 1,000 BCE
until the first century BCE. While Greek speakers
were resident in the Balkan Peninsula, the home-
land of Greece, from before 1,500 BCE, the
governing political and economic structure of
the Greek Bronze Age was such that the house
types of that period were shaped by factors very
different from those in the succeeding Iron
Age when social changes fundamentally altered
the forms of domestic architecture. The study of
the Greek house is inextricably bound to the study
of urbanism in the Greek world, as domestic
architecture responds to the organization of
the city in its adherence to the street system;
the interior arrangements of the house also
recognize the interplay between the interior,
with any attendant notions of privacy or segrega-
tion, and public life in the city.
Throughout the Greek world, Early Iron Age
houses were limited in both size and elaboration.
Houses of one, two, or at most three rooms were
the norm whether the houses were built on the
Greek mainland or in the colonies that multiplied,
especially in the western Mediterranean, from the
late eighth century BCE. The techniques of con-
struction that prevailed throughout history seem
to have originated at an early date mud brick
walls were built on a low stone socle in order that
the easily fashioned mud brick could provide
G 3136
insulation and so that the stone underpinnings
could prevent moisture from destroying the mud
brick. Early Iron Age houses usually had fixed
hearths to serve as a heating element and probably
also as a source of light, a space for cooking, and
a focus of family life and ritual (Tsakirgis 2007).
Another characteristic feature of Greek houses
also emerges early, that is, their southern orien-
tation. Doors and windows were often placed to
open to the south so that the rays of the winter sun
shining low would penetrate the rooms and warm
them and so that the summer sun, high overhead,
would beat on the roof, thus providing much
needed shade in the hot season. This environmen-
tally conscious architectural arrangement is seen
equally in the early colonial houses at Megara
Hyblaea in Sicily, in Classical houses in Athens
(Fig. 1), in the Late Classical houses at Olynthos
(Fig. 2), and in the Late Hellenistic House on the
Hill on Delos (Hoepfner & Schwandner 1994: 4;
Trumper 1998: 211-12; Cahill 2002: 75). The
archaeological evidence for the practice of
southern orientation predates by several centuries
the testimony of the fourth century authors
Xenophon (Mem. 3.8.8-9) and Pseudo-Aristotle
(Oec. 1345a), both of whom prescribe that houses
should be built facing south.
In front of, generally south of the earliest
Greek houses, there is evidence of an open yard.
Given the usually limited size of these houses, the
unroofed area greatly increased the households
living area. At sites such as Zagora, the yard was
shared, suggesting familial or social relationships
among the families who resided in the surround-
ing homes (Hoepfner 1999: 163-69). No
architectural embellishment of the early yards
exists, although the overhanging eaves or shaded
porches in front may have anticipated or given
rise to the roofed porticoes of later houses.
Greek houses increased in both size and archi-
tectural complexity in the sixth and early fifth
centuries BCE, as cities expanded in economic
and political complexity. The open yard, formerly
in front of the house, was in many cities at this
time enclosed within the architectural structure,
creating an unroofed courtyard surrounded by
rooms. The plans of Late Archaic houses at
Athens reflect this change. Entrance to the living
Greek Houses, Archaeology of
space was no longer through the yard but rather
through a door in the facade and often into
a vestibule, creating what has been called
the single-entrance courtyard house. Unlike the
foyer of a modern home, the vestibule of the Late
Archaic and Classical houses was a buffer, sepa-
rating the public world of the street from
the domestic world, and there was neither easy
physical nor direct visual access to the innermost
parts of the house because the interior doorway of
the vestibule was not placed directly in line with
the street entrance (Fig. 1). These architectural
changes have been recognized as reflecting
changing social practice in Greek cities and
houses, a subject that will be discussed in more
detail below (Nevett 1999: 103).
In many houses of the fifth and fourth centuries
BCE, the unroofed courtyard was located fairly
centrally (Figs. 14). Judging from the materials
found in Greek domestic courtyards, many and
varied activities took place there over the course
of a familys life, including food preparation, ritual
events, and probably activities that leave no
archaeological record, including childrens play.
Since the courtyard was unroofed, light and air
would penetrate into the surrounding rooms
through both doorways and windows, as can be
seen in better preserved Hellenistic houses at Iaitas
and Delos (Dalcher 1994: 29-32; Trumper 1998).
The courtyard was the major node of access to all
of the surrounding rooms. Suites exist in Greek
domestic architecture, but passage through several
rooms was not common, and almost all parts of the
house opened directly onto the courtyard. Because
of this arrangement, it has been argued that the
courtyard also enforced social control, as any
inhabitant would have to pass through the court-
yard on the way to any other room or to the street
door of the house (Nevett 2010: 49).
The courtyard served the crucial purpose of
housing the domestic water source. While running
water from springs was preferred for drinking and
was collected from fountains close to residential
districts, wells were dug in or near Greek houses
from a very early date. In the Late Classical
period, the Greeks came to prefer cisterns to
wells as domestic water sources, and one or
more of these storage tanks were dug under the
Greek Houses, Archaeology of 3137 G
Greek Houses,
Archaeology of,
Fig. 1 Athens, industrial
district, houses C and D,
plans (permission:
Athenian Agora
excavations)

courtyard. The cisterns were usually bottle shaped
but larger scale tanks were excavated under the
houses on the dry Cycladic island of Delos and at
Soluntum in Sicily (Wolf 2003: 93). The
terracotta roofs of the houses were sloped to
shed the rainwater into the courtyard, where the
runoff would fill the cisterns (Fig. 4). The paving
of Greek domestic courtyards further facilitated
and maximized the water collection, and gardens
were not planted in courtyards until the Hellenis-
tic period and then only rarely (see, e.g., the House
of the Arched Cistern, Tsakirgis forthcoming).
Beginning in the Classical period, there is
increasing evidence for a shed roof built on one
or more sides of the domestic courtyard. The
roofs were supported on a row of pilasters or
G 3138 Greek Houses, Archaeology of

a b c d

e f

g h i j

k l m

Greek Houses, Archaeology of, Fig. 2 Olynthos, House of Many Colors, plan with distribution of finds (permission:
Nicholas D. Cahill)

columns, but peristyles running around all four
sides of the court were not common until the
fourth century BCE. The covered porticoes pro-
vided shelter for the inhabitants to sit or work out
of the elements while still enjoying the light and
air. Depending on the time of day and the season
of the year, the porticoes also provided shade to
the surrounding rooms. The shade could keep the
inhabitants cool in the summer and the contrast
between the bright exterior and the darker interior
could increase the privacy of those within.
What we learn from the domestic assemblages
recorded at Olynthos, Halieis, Halos, and else-
where is that the Greek house was characterized
by a considerable flexibility in the use of space
(Cahill 2002; Ault 2005; Reinders & Prummel
2003: 284-94). The rigid identifications and spe-
cific functions of rooms in modern houses were
not a feature of ancient domestic space. This
flexibility was enhanced both by the furnishings
in Greek houses, which were fewer than those we
are accustomed to today, and also by the
Greek Houses, Archaeology of 3139 G

Greek Houses, Archaeology of, Fig. 3 Athens, block of classical houses on the north slope of Areopagus, plan
(permission: Athenian Agora excavations)
G 3140 Greek Houses, Archaeology of

Greek Houses,
Archaeology of,
Fig. 4 Athens, House of
the Greek Mosaic,
reconstruction drawing
(permission: Athenian
Agora excavations)

portability of many of the household objects,
including the charcoal brazier and beds.
In the later fourth century BCE, houses
increased significantly in size and in interior dec-
oration. It has been theorized that the breakdown
of the traditional Greek polis turned the Greeks to
the home as a location for the types of social
interaction that had previously taken place in
public settings (Walter-Karydi 1994). From this
date, many houses throughout the Greek world
were built with two courtyards, one of which
served as the hub of a nexus of rooms devoted to
private domestic activities, while the other was
the centerpiece of large and well-decorated rooms
intended to be seen and used by guests. As will be
discussed below, not all could afford such expan-
sive living space, but those who could would
decorate their homes with mosaic floors and
painted wall plaster (Fig. 5). Hellenistic houses
in both this extensive plan and highly embellished
interiors may have been influenced indirectly by
the palaces built by the Macedonian kings and
their successors and the importation of ideas of
private luxury from the newly Hellenized east.
Key Issues/Current Debates
There are many aspects of Greek houses that have
led to scholarly studies; the following section
highlights several that have garnered the most
attention and others which have attracted
recent attention: typology, gender, economy,
and regional variation.
Typology
Early studies of Greek houses focused on
establishing typologies, emphasizing one feature
Greek Houses, Archaeology of
Greek Houses,
Archaeology of,
Fig. 5 Morgantina, House
of Ganymede, mosaic of
Ganymede (permission:
Princeton University,
Department of Art and
Archaeology)
over another as important in the layout of the
house. Many of these early works are barren, as
they focus solely on establishing typologies of
house form. Of particular note in these typologi-
cal studies was the distinction made between the
pastas and the prostas house. Both terms derive
from the same passage of the Roman architec-
tural historian Vitruvius (VI.7.1), who wrote in
the first century BCE that the porch-like area
mediating the transition between the courtyard
of the house and its main rooms was called by
some Greeks the pastas and by others the prostas.
The excavators of the 102 houses at Olynthos
adopted the first term for the wider northern por-
tico of the central courtyard (Fig. 2), while the
excavators of the nearly contemporaneous houses
at Priene adopted the second term for the
columned porch serving a similar but limited
function in front of the main room of the house.
The arrangement of porch and rooms at Priene
was limited to some houses in the eastern
Mediterranean and possibly derived from the
megaron form common in Bronze Age architec-
ture. The typical megaron includes a main living
room with a front porch, often facing south, and
an overall axial approach, that is, direct line of
access from the porch to the main room. In many
Late Classical and Hellenistic houses the portico
on the northern side of the courtyard was wider
3141 G
than any of the other three and can be seen as
a survival of the earlier pastas form.
These earlier studies in terminology and typol-
ogy have recently been supplanted by more
nuanced considerations which have attempted to
understand the use of space in the Greek house.
These later studies stem ultimately from an atten-
tion to research on domestic architecture
conducted by anthropologists and prehistorians
who have not relied solely on literary sources
for their interpretation of the use of space in the
dwellings. Ultimately the more recent analyses
have been of greater value in explicating life in
the Greek house as scholars have based their
ideas more on the humble objects of the domestic
assemblages than on the textual sources (e.g.,
Xenophon. Oec. or Lysias 1), some of which are
highly idealized accounts of Greek private life.
Gender
A critical area to be understood is how Greek
houses were used by women and men in the
course of their daily lives. In the past it was held
to be true that women were secluded in quarters
separate from those of the men, and because
physical proof of this separation is difficult if
not impossible to recognize in the remains of
houses, the womens quarters were conveniently
assumed to have occupied the upper, now
G 3142
destroyed, story. The living arrangement in the
Greek house was doubtlessly far more nuanced
than was earlier believed. The vestibule, as
described above, allowed for a separation of the
private from the public and ensured that the fam-
ily, in particular its female members, were kept
apart from men to whom they were not related.
The parts of the house where women lived and
worked cannot be recognized as separate from
that of the mens quarters because women prob-
ably used all or almost all of the house throughout
the day. What remains to give testimony of their
daily lives is the household equipment used by
them as they tended to domestic affairs. For Clas-
sical Athens these activities can be recognized in
the highly idealized Oeconomicus by Xenophon.
The unnamed bride in this account oversees the
domestic activities, including cooking, textile
work, management of the slaves, and the safe-
keeping of the family storerooms. It is not clear
how much the wife in question actually partici-
pates actively in the housework.
Food was cooked for the family or for the male
guests dining in the andron in any one of several
locations. Terracotta braziers which burned char-
coal were commonly used for heating and
cooking and were small enough to be moved
from one part of a house to another, thus
reinforcing the flexible use of space (Fig. 6).
Much cooking was likely done in the courtyard,
where smoke could be easily evacuated through
the unroofed space. Some houses may have
allowed for food preparation in the anteroom of
the andron (Fig. 2, rm. f), in order to facilitate the
presentation of the hot dishes to the guests. In
many later houses, a fixed hearth was never built,
and its role as heat source, cook stove, and locus
of ritual was accomplished by the humble brazier.
Some houses, especially in northern Greece, con-
tinued to have fixed hearths: for example, less
than a quarter of the houses at Olynthos (Fig. 2,
rm. k), as well as at Orraon, and in one house at
Kassope (Hoepfner & Schwandner 1994: 146-
49). Many of these domestic hearths preserve no
traces of bones or other food stuffs, and they
probably served instead as gathering points for
the family and as sources of heat, light, and ritual
activity rather than as cook stoves. In the later
Greek Houses, Archaeology of
Greek Houses, Archaeology of, Fig. 6 Eschara-type
brazier (Agora P 21956) (permission: Athenian Agora
excavations)
Classical and Hellenistic periods, purpose-built
kitchens became more common and at Olynthos,
flues were constructed in part to evacuate the
smoke from cooking (Cahill 2002: 139).
Weaving is presented in the literary sources as
quintessentially womens work, but the histeion
(loom room) as referred to by Menander (Sam.
19) appears to mean not a dedicated room but
rather wherever the warp-weighted vertical loom
was erected. As the loom was fashioned of
wooden beams, none survives, but the terracotta
weights do, and they are found everywhere in
Greek houses, showing that looms could be
erected wherever the weaver chose (Fig. 7).
Store rooms (pitheon, tameion) can be identified
by a concentration of storage jars (pithoi) or
amphorae, but many houses lack traces of these
terracotta vessels and may have had provisions
stored in now disintegrated cloth or leather sacks
and baskets.
The upper stories of classical Greek houses are
better known from literature than they are from
material evidence and in his first forensic speech,
Lysias (1.9) locates the womens quarters of an
Athenian house on the upper story. The layout of
the rooms mentioned by Lysias and whether they
were dedicated only to the housing of women are
much disputed by scholars of Greek private life.
The northern rooms of classical houses at
Olynthos are restored with upper stories that
were approached by staircases rising from the
domestic courtyard. The upper story was
a feature in many Hellenistic houses such as
Peristyle House I at Iaitas and most of the houses
Greek Houses, Archaeology of
Greek Houses,
Archaeology of,
Fig. 7 Athens, house C,
collection of loom weights,
spindle whorl, rim of
brazier (permission:
Athenian Agora
excavations)
on the Aegean island of Delos (Dalcher 1994;
Trumper 1998: 90-106). In contrast to the
assumptions about the use of the upper rooms as
womens quarters, domestic assemblages show
that they could serve a variety of functions,
including the mens office, as in the House of
the Seals in Delos (Siebert 2001: 91). Many
rooms on the upper floors of Hellenistic houses
were no less well decorated than those on the
lower story indicating that they were to be seen
by guests. One upper room in Peristyle House I at
Iaitas was a dining room, paved with mosaic
rosettes and an inscription set in opus signinum
(Brem 2000: 98-100, 116).
A characteristic room in many Classical Greek
houses is the andron, used primarily as a setting
for entertaining male guests. Purpose-built
3143 G
andrones appear in Classical houses at Priene,
Athens, and Olynthos (Fig. 2, rm. d), but many
houses do not contain a room intended solely for
hosting the symposium. Men could lie on couches
or mattresses around any room and eat or drink
wine, so a house without an andron is not neces-
sarily a house where the symposium did not take
place. Rooms built to function primarily as
andrones were usually square, with an off-center
doorway, so that the maximum number of dining
couches could be placed against the walls; a
raised platform for the couches was common in
the Classical house. Andrones accommodating
three, seven, or even eleven couches were com-
mon in domestic buildings (Fig. 4; Fig. 2, room d).
The andron was the room displaying the
highest quality decoration; mosaic floors were
G 3144
first placed here and only later were used to pave
other rooms of houses and public buildings
(Westgate 1997-1998). The mosaics were pri-
marily decorative with the designs aligned to be
seen best by diners entering the andron (Fig. 5).
The pavements were conceived of as carpets in
stone and some rooms also had a small panel laid
in the doorway to mimic a doormat. The stone
floors had a practical aspect. Many dinner and
drinking parties ended with spilled food and drink
mixed with the remains of vessels that had slipped
from the grasp of drunken guests and the stomach
contents of those who had over-imbibed. Slaves
charged with cleaning the andron could simply
sluice out the mess without damaging a floor laid
in stone. Some andrones were preceded by an
anteroom, a buffer between the noise of the all-
male party, and the privacy of the household
residents, and many anterooms were furnished
as nicely as the dining room itself, with mosaic
pavements and painted walls. The quality of
much of the decor was intended to declare the
wealth and taste of the householder to his guests.
Economy
Status Display
Throughout Greek history, the householder had
many ways to demonstrate his wealth. Some sta-
tus displays were on the house facade and were
intended for both the passerby and the invited
guest. Storage jars were often prominently placed
in early Greek houses on Crete and the Cycladic
islands, declaring that the owner had the neces-
sary resources to supply his dependents in times
of need. Doorways and some windows were
inserted into the exterior walls of Classical and
Hellenistic houses and were further means for
demonstrating wealth (Tsakirgis 2010). Because
the regions that border the Mediterranean are
extremely dry, wood was rare and extremely
costly, so much so that evidence from inscriptions
(e.g., sales contracts and leases for houses as well
as auctions of property) often stipulated that the
doors and shutters were movable property, rather
than part of the real estate (e.g., IG I3 422, ll. 13-6;
IG I3 l. 3, l. 6). The metal nails and bronze bosses
attached to the doors made the wooden doors
impregnable and even more impressive to
Greek Houses, Archaeology of
a visitor. The street entrance to the Classical
Greek house was rarely distinguished by any
architectural embellishments, although some
were favored in the Hellenistic period when pilas-
ters were fashioned on either side of the main
door, as in the House of the Official at Morgantina
(Tsakirgis forthcoming). The upper rooms in sev-
eral Delian houses, such as the House of the
Pediments, were provided with large windows,
framed with impressive pilasters.
In the Late Classical and Hellenistic period
when larger houses were built, the rooms were
more commodious than their predecessors, but
more specialized rooms were also constructed.
As noted above, purpose-built kitchens first
appear in fourth century houses. Personal cleans-
ing, which was earlier accomplished with water
poured into lekanai (basins) or louters (shallow
basins on stands), took place instead in the bath-
rooms of elite houses. The bathrooms were often
constructed next to rooms with hearths, either the
kitchen, as at Eretria, or the hearth room, as at
Olynthos (Reber 1998: 56-7; Cahill 2002: 250).
The proximity of the two rooms allowed water to
be heated before it was used by the bather. Bath-
ing culture developed considerably in the Helle-
nistic period when heated domestic baths were
built in Hellenistic houses, for example, the
House of the Arched Cistern at Morgantina
(Tsakirgis forthcoming; Trumper 2010).
Early Greek houses lacked any permanent
decoration; textiles used as curtains or rugs may
have provided some interior embellishment. The
second half of the fifth century BCE was
a watershed for domestic decor as it was for
house size. At this time mosaic pavements and
painted wall plaster first appeared in domestic
settings and both were intended to impress
guests, as is evident from their placement first in
the andron where men were entertained. As did
the doors and fittings of the street entrance, the
formal flooring and the painted plaster declared
the wealth and taste of the householder to those
outside of the family. The earliest domestic
mosaics were created with black and white peb-
bles laid in designs including the geometric and
floral forms known from vase painting, architec-
ture, and probably also no longer extant textiles.
Greek Houses, Archaeology of
Central scenes were largely mythological and
Dionysos was favored in the andron where drink-
ing was the preferred activity. In the third century
BCE, the stones were cut into cubic tesserae so
that they could be set more closely together and
the palette was broadened to include as full
a spectrum of colors as the available materials
allowed (Dunbabin 1999: 18-37) (Fig. 5).
The painted wall plaster was quite simple in its
arrangement in Classical houses, with one color
used for the dado and another for the wall above.
On the walls of Hellenistic houses, fictive archi-
tecture was produced in painted and sometimes
molded stucco; rows of blocks with drafted edges
were rendered in a variety of hues, often
reflecting the wider array of colors used in the
floor mosaics. Some blocks were painted with
imitation veining to resemble expensive marble,
the ultimate inspiration for all of the colorful
display. Doorframes and cornices were created
in stucco in imitation of the forms used in public
architecture. Figural painting was very rare in the
domestic setting until the late Hellenistic period,
when it is found in some Delian houses. As
houses became larger in the Hellenistic period,
rooms that would be seen by guests were favored
with expensive decoration, but increasingly more
of the house was decorated in some way
(Westgate 1997-1998).
The evidence for other forms of decoration in
domestic contexts is scant, largely due to the
vagaries of archaeological preservation. Greek
houses possessed some sculpture, although most
if not all must have been dedicated to household
ritual; however, a secondary function of the
images would have been their aesthetic effect.
Sculptures in the houses at Eretria and Delos
were displayed so that they could be seen from
many parts of the home and especially by those
entering the front door. Terracotta figurines are
abundant in domestic assemblages and also func-
tioned as both ritual equipment and decoration of
the interior space. Written sources (IG I3 423, ll.
59, 60-1, 62; Pritchett 1956: 250-3) attest that
painted panels (pinakes) were displayed in some
Classical houses, but none is preserved to give
any information as to common subjects or set-
tings for the pictures.
3145 G
Socioeconomic Considerations
Distinguishing between elite and non-elite hous-
ing can be difficult in the absence of both
prosopographic information and complete arti-
factual assemblages. A further complication
results from anachronistic assumptions about
elite residences. While it might be assumed that
the wealthy or politically powerful lived in large
and elaborately furnished homes, testimony from
Demosthenes (Olynthiac 3.25) suggests that at
least in the fifth century BCE men of power
lived in houses indistinguishable from those of
other Athenians. In cities such as Athens, with
a large population of metics (resident aliens) in G
the Classical period, it is also difficult to distin-
guish between houses occupied by citizens and
those lived in by the metics who could not
own a property before the fourth century BCE
and thus rented living space from a citizen land-
lord (Thur 1989).
The homes of the poor are especially challeng-
ing to identify. Literacy among this group was
virtually nonexistent, so there are no firsthand
accounts of their houses. Some two- or three-
room residences, identified as such from the
domestic wares recovered there, have been
recognized in a block of Classical houses on the
slope of the Areopagus in Athens (Fig. 3). A few
of the original housing lots at Olynthos were later
divided into smaller units, perhaps for families
of lesser means. Some Delian houses of the
Hellenistic period, for example, the House of the
Masks, had staircases located in the street,
suggesting that the upper story was independent
of the house below and may have been a rented or
separately owned apartment (Trumper 2005: 136).
Commercial Activity and Houses
In many Greek cities the divide between residen-
tial areas and those dedicated to industry and
commerce was not as pronounced as it is in mod-
ern urban areas. In some Athenian houses living
and workspace was little distinguished, and both
tools and worked materials suggest that industrial
activity was conducted in the same building
where whole families resided (Tsakirgis 2005).
Spacious houses allowed for the segregation of
industrial activity from the domestic, the
G 3146
assemblages indicating that household activities
were relegated to one part of the building and the
manufacturing and sales to another. Several such
houses stand on the periphery of the Athenian
Agora (Fig. 1) and because of their location take
advantage of the commercial activities that were
one focus of the civic center.
Some Greek houses have single rooms or
two-room suites which open directly onto the
street and do not communicate with the living
quarters within (Fig. 1, rm. 12). While these
rooms were likely shops, many do not contain
evidence of what was manufactured or sold
within. Such shops lined major thoroughfares or
clustered at the intersections. The shopkeepers of
antiquity were well aware of the advantage of
location for attracting passersby to purchase
their wares.
Regional Variation
There is evidence of regional variation in Greek
houses. Some differences can be ascribed to the
availability of materials, such as wood or expen-
sive stone, for example, although wood was
scarce in mainland Greece, it was more abundant
in Sicily, and so wooden doors were more com-
monly built in the island houses and woven cur-
tains probably used to close off rooms in
mainland houses. In mainland and eastern Greece
where marble was abundant, household sculpture
or tesserae in the mosaic floors could be crafted
from the more expensive stone.
Other differences were due to climatic varia-
tion in the areas where Greeks lived. Most of the
islands, for example, were especially dry, and the
flat roofs of Cycladic houses can be seen as
responses to this climatic condition. The rainfall
there was so negligible that the pitched roofs with
costly terracotta tiles common on the mainland
were not constructed on island houses. Some
northern sites (e.g., Olynthos and Stageira) were
subject to cold and windy weather in winter, so
fixed hearths continued to be built there through-
out the Classical period, even though elsewhere
the portable brazier served for heating and
cooking.
Significant regional differences in the plans of
houses result from variations in social practice.
Greek Houses, Archaeology of
While the Greeks can be recognized in general
terms as a cultural group, their social organiza-
tion, whether familial or political, was based on
varied practices throughout the Mediterranean.
As the layout of houses has been deemed to be
a direct response to the organization of social life,
we can observe the social variations in the plan
of the city in macrocosm and the house in
microcosm. Thus, while the single-entrance
courtyard house prevailed in democratic cities,
communities with different social practice built
their houses to a different model. Houses on
Crete, for example, continued to have direct
access from the exterior and a linear layout of
rooms in later periods, indicating that the social
norms and practices there differed from those in
cities such as Athens (Westgate 2007).
Cross-References
Andron
Baths and Bathing, Greek
Classical Greece, Archaeology of (c. 490323
BCE)
Crete, Archaeology of
Domestic Architecture, Roman
Early Iron Age Greece (c. 1150700 BCE)
Ethnicity and Identity in the Ancient
Mediterranean World
Hellenistic and Roman Anatolia,
Archaeology of
Nuragic Culture and Architecture (Bronze Age
to Iron Age)
Polis
Sicily and Magna Graecia, Archaeology of
Symposion
Urban Planning in the Greek World
References
AULT, B. A. 2005. The excavations at Halieis. Volume 2:
the houses: the organization and use of domestic
space. Bloomington (IN): University of Indiana Press.
BREM, H. 2000. Studia Ietina 7: Das Peristylhaus 1 von
Iaitas: Wand- und Bodendekorationen. Zurich:
Archaeological Institute, University of Zurich.
CAHILL, N. D. 2002. Household and city organization at
Olynthus. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of
DALCHER, K. 1994. Studia Ietina 6: Das Peristylhaus 1 von
Iaitas: Architektur und Baugeschichte. Zurich:
Archaeological Institute, University of Zurich.
DUNBABIN, K. M. D. 1999. Mosaics of the Greek and Roman
world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HOEPFNER, W. (ed.) 1999. Geschichte des Wohnens, Band 1.
5000 v. Chr.-500n. Chr. Vorgeschichte, Fruhgeschichte,
Antike. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags Anstalt.
HOEPFNER, W. & E. L. SCHWANDNER. 1994. Haus und Stadt
im klassischen Griechenland. 2nd edn (Wohnen in der
klassischen Polis I). Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag.
NEVETT, L. C. 1999. House and society in the ancient
Greek world. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
- 2010. Domestic space in classical antiquity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
PRITCHETT, W. K. 1956. The Attic Stelai: part II. Hesperia
25: 178-328.
REBER, K. 1998. Eretria. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen
X. Die klassischen und hellenistischen Wohnhauser im
Westquartier. Lausanne: Editions Payot.
REINDERS, H. R. & W. PRUMMEL. 2003. Housing in New
Halos. Lisse: Balkema.
SIEBERT, G. 2001. Exploration archeologique de Delos,
XXXVIII: LIlot des Bijoux, LIlot des Bronzes, la Greek Islands (Excluding Crete),
maison des Sceaux, 1: topographie et architecture.
Paris: de Boccard.
THUR, G. 1989. Wo wohnen die Metoken? in
W. Schuller, W. Hoepfner & E.-L. Schwandner (ed.)
Demokratie und Architektur. Der hippodamische
Stadtebau und die Entstehung der Demokratie
(Wohnen in der klassischen Polis II): 117-12. Munich:
Deutscher Kunstverlag.
TRUMPER, M. 1998. Wohnen in Delos: eine
baugeschichtliche Untersuchung zum Wandel der
Wohnkultur in hellenistischer Zeit. Rahden/
Westfahlen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
- 2005. Modest housing in late Hellenistic Delos, in B. A.
Ault & L. C. Nevett (ed.) Ancient Greek houses and
households. Chronological, regional, and social
diversity: 119-39. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-
vania Press.
- 2010. Bathing culture in Hellenistic domestic culture,
in S. Ladstatter & V. Scheibelreiter (ed.) Urban living
in the Eastern Mediterranean: 529-67. Vienna:
Austrian Academy of Sciences Press.
TSAKIRGIS, B. 2005. Living and working around the Athe-
nian Agora: a preliminary case study of three houses,
in B. A. Ault & L. C. Nevett (ed.) Ancient Greek
houses and households: chronological, regional, and
social diversity: 67-83. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
- 2007. Fire and smoke: hearths, braziers and chimneys
in the Greek house, in R. Westgate, N. Fisher &
J. Whitley (ed.) Building communities: house, settle-
ment and society in the Aegean and beyond (BSA
Studies 15): 225-31. London.
- 2010. Illuminating the life within. Windows on behav-
ioral patterns in Greek houses, in S. Ladstatter &
3147 G
V. Scheibelreiter (ed.) Urban living in the Eastern
Mediterranean, fourth century B.C. to first century
A.D: 569-82. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences
Press.
- Forthcoming. The domestic architecture of Morgantina
in the Hellenistic and Roman periods (Morgantina
studies 7). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
WALTER-KARYDI, E. 1994. Die Nobilitierung des
Wohnhauses. Lebensform und Architektur im
spatklassischen Griechenland (Konstanzer
althistorische Vortrage und Forschungen 35). Xenia:
Wolfgang Schuller.
WESTGATE, R. 1997-1998. Greek mosaics in their architec-
tural and social context. BICS 42: 93-115.
- 2007. House and society in classical and Hellenistic
Crete: a case study in regional variation. American
Journal of Archaeology 111: 423-57. G
WOLF, M. 2003. Die Hauser von Solunt und die
hellenistische Wohnarchitektur. Mainz am Rhein:
von Zabern.
Archaeology of
Vangelis Samaras
History and Archaeology, University of Athens,
Athens, Greece
Introduction
The Aegean Sea is full of islands ranging in size
from a few large ones to numerous islets and
uninhabited rocks. It is easy to discern a series of
distinct clusters: the Northern and Eastern Aegean
islands, the Northern Sporades, the Argo-Saronic
Gulf islands, the Cyclades, and the Dodecanese.
Another cluster is formed by the islands in the
Ionian Sea. Although the Greek islands differ in
size, landscapes, or resource wealth, they share
many common features, which have consequently
shaped their more or less common history. In
addition to the numerical dominance of smaller
islands over large ones, just a handful of islands
can be characterized as rather isolated (e.g., Lem-
nos, Skyros, and Astypalaia) since interisland
distances are modest and the majority of the
islands are a short distance from mainland
shores. This feature entails, in optimal weather
G 3148
conditions, the high degree of intervisibility in the
island-studded seas of Greece. Thus, the islands
became enmeshed in interaction networks and,
thanks to their key role in communication routes,
occupied diachronically a particularly favorable
position in these networks. The dialectical rela-
tionship with non-insular communities signifi-
cantly influenced the Greek islands from their
early history. The insularity, however, enabled
islands to assimilate selectively continental ele-
ments and develop their own cultural diversity.
Nevertheless, the escalating incorporation by the
great powers of each historical period led to the
gradual loss of the islands cultural identity.
Explicitly, the flourishing islands of the Early
Iron Age (EIA) and the Archaic period gradually
lost their autonomy and were controlled by the
emergent poleis (city-states) of mainland Greece
and the Hellenistic kingdoms, until they were
reduced to a minor part of the Roman provinces.
Definition
Archaeology of the Greek islands may be
defined as the study of every element of their
material culture, in order to provide an expanded
understanding of island history. The available
archaeological information results from the
numerous systematic or rescue excavations and
field surveys that have been undertaken in the
Greek islands since the end of nineteenth
century by many organizations: the Greek Archae-
ological Service, the Archaeological Society at
Athens, and other Greek institutions (such as uni-
versities and institutes), as well as several foreign
archaeological schools (e.g., the British, the
French, and the Italian) and institutes (including
the German, the Austrian, the Swedish, the Dan-
ish, the Norwegian, the Irish, the Netherland, the
Australian, and the Canadian).
Historical Background
The time span from the end of the Bronze
Age to Byzantine times is conventionally
divided into five periods: the Early Iron Age
Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of
(c. 1050700 BCE), the Archaic (c. 700479
BCE), the Classical (c. 479323 BCE), the
Hellenistic (c. 32331 BCE), and the Roman
period (c. 31 BCE324 CE).
The collapse of Mycenaean palatial centers
in the late thirteenth century BCE and the
consequent gradual disintegration of the Myce-
naean civilization during the twelfth and early
eleventh centuries BCE marked the beginning
of a long period of social upheaval and
political ferment that significantly affected
the Greek islands (Dickinson 2006). In the early
1970s, the term Dark Ages was adopted for
the period c. 1050900 BCE in order to denote
its culture, which seemed to be in a state of
decline and isolation, as well as the low level of
our knowledge of this period (Lemos 2002: 1).
Recent archaeological research, however, is
gradually changing this picture, particularly
regarding the alleged poverty and isolation.
An alternative term for the period c. 1050900
BCE is Protogeometric, after its characteristic
pottery style (Lemos 2002: 27-100).
The ensuing Geometric period (c. 900700
BCE), named after its main style of pottery, was
a time of dramatic transformation that led to the
establishment of primary Greek institutions
(Coldstream 2003). The small Protogeometric
settlements developed into well-organized
towns, population increased, overseas contacts
were intensified, trade was expanded, and iron
metallurgy developed significantly. Moreover,
the Greeks adopted the Phoenician alphabet
during the first half of the eighth century BCE.
It is not possible to determine the birthplace of
the Greek alphabet, but there is no doubt that
Euboea and the Aegean islands played a pivotal
role (Mazarakis Ainian & Leventi 2009: 214-
215). All these advances were interdependent
and resulted in the general improvement of living
conditions. The major rise in population, how-
ever, created a land hunger, which eventually led
to the foundation of colonies overseas, and
wars in the homeland (Coldstream 2003: 368).
Moreover, maritime trade rivalries aroused the
hostility between certain islands, and archaeolog-
ical research may reveal some events related to
these conflicts (e.g., the two massed graves at
Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of
Paroikia on Paros; Coldstream 2003: 398-399;
Mazarakis Ainian & Leventi 2009: 215).
The Archaic period (c. 700479 BCE) was
the heyday of the islands. They enjoyed great
prosperity, thanks to the exploitation of raw
materials (e.g., marble quarries of Naxos and
Paros, gold and silver mines of Siphnos), their
strategic position for control of sea routes, and
their political autonomy. Many flourishing
islands, such as Naxos, Paros, Andros, Thera,
Samos, Chios, Thasos, and Rhodes, took
a leading role in the colonization of Sicily, south-
ern Italy, Thrace, the Black Sea, the west coast of
Asia Minor, and the north coast of Africa, while
several offshore islands (e.g., Thasos, Lesbos,
and Rhodes) controlled extensive lands on the
mainland opposite (Constantakopoulou 2007:
231-253). On the other hand, trade rivalries led
to clashes between island and mainland cities
(e.g., Mytilene-Athens and Samos-Megara) or
between islands (e.g., Naxos-Paros and Samos-
Aegina). Meanwhile, political ferments and
social upheavals took place in the island poleis,
as a result of the economic success of more
middling citizens (e.g., seafarers and merchants)
or the disaffection of excluded aristocrats. This
allowed the emergence of tyrannical regimes in
a few islands, such as Naxos (Lygdamis) and
Samos (Polycrates). In order to maintain and
stabilize their own positions of power, the tyrants
embarked on major building projects, whose
distinguishing feature is monumentality.
Herodotus (3.60) considers the Samian buildings
as the greatest of all Greece and admires particu-
larly the temple of Hera, the aqueduct, and the
great harbor mole, ordered by Polycrates (Rolley
1994: 157).
From the Persian wars onwards (the Classical
period, c. 479323 BCE), the islands lost their
political independence and stayed in the shadow
of the great powers of each historical period.
At the beginning of the fifth century BCE, most
of the islands were under Persian rule. After the
Greek success against the Persian Empire, the
islands fell under the direct control of Athens,
first in the Delian (or First Athenian) League with the 1st Illyrian war (229228 BCE) and
and then in the Second Athenian League,
interrupted only by an interval under Spartan
3149 G
domination (c. 404-378 BCE). After the
victory of Phillip II over the combined Greek
forces at Chaeronea (338 BCE), the islands
became subject states of the Macedonian
kingdom. Nevertheless, thanks to their strategic
position and the exploitation of their natural
resources (e.g., marble from Paros and Thasos;
wine from Thasos, Chios, and Kos; ruddle from
Kea; mastic from Chios), several islands
achieved economic prosperity which is clearly
manifested in their material culture (see below).
During the early Hellenistic period (late fourth
early third centuries BCE), the rivalries between
the rulers of the Successor kingdoms involved the G
Greek islands, as the Antigonids and the Ptolemies
were trying hard to assume the leadership of the
League of Islanders. Rhodes was the only island
able to maintain her political independence and
developed into a naval power until Delos was
declared a free port (167/6 BCE), delivering
a severe blow to the Rhodian economy and pro-
moting the explosive growth of Delos during the
second half of the second century BCE (Bruneau
& Ducat 2005: 41). Meanwhile, trade and, to
a lesser extent, religious festivals (for instance, in
honor of Hera on Samos, Asklepios on Kos, and
the Kabeiroi on Samothrace) gave island commu-
nities a cosmopolitan character, reflected in the
temples which served non-Greek deities on
Delos, as well as in the Jewish synagogues on the
islands of Samos, Delos, Kos, and Rhodes.
Throughout the Hellenistic period, piracy was
a constant threat to the islanders but at the same
time yielded substantial profits for several islands,
such as Delos, Rhodes, and Aegina, where there
were thriving slave markets (de Souza 1999: 43-
96). Moreover, the islands suffered many hard-
ships as a result of the Mithradatic wars and
Romes civil strife during the first century BCE,
as, for example, Delos, which was sacked twice
(88 and 69 BCE) and never fully recovered
(Bruneau & Ducat 2005: 42-43).
Rome first established trade contacts with
the Greek world in the sixth century BCE, while
her political and military involvement started
grew steadily, resulting in the complete submis-
sion of Greece (Alcock 1993: 8-24). It was not
G 3150
until the battle of Actium (31 BCE), however,
that Greece was finally reconciled to Roman
rule in a unified empire. The islands were
included in the Roman provinces of Achaea,
Macedonia, Epirus, and Asia, until the end of
the third century CE when a separate island prov-
ince (Insulae) was formed including most of the
Aegean islands. Trade routes were extended
throughout the Mediterranean due to the vast
size of the Roman Empire. As a result, the islands
lost the key role they had played over the preced-
ing centuries. A clear indication of their marginal
importance is illustrated by the fact that many
islands (e.g., Amorgos, Donousa, and Gyaros)
served as places of exile. Nevertheless, negotia-
tors or pragmateuomenoi (businessmen; Alcock
1993: 75-77, 101) settled in many islands
(e.g., Kerkyra, Zakynthos, Tenos, Delos, Naxos,
Melos, and Thera), and as archaeological evi-
dence indicates, several island communities or
certain islanders enjoyed economic prosperity.
Key Issues/Current Debates
Archaeological research of the Greek islands is
very important, as it can inform us about the
history of the islands themselves, as well as
about the history of the Greek world and, more
generally, of the Mediterranean. There are nota-
ble idiosyncrasies related to island culture as
islanders can be temporarily linked in or cut off
from the Aegean/Mediterranean as networks
shift. Thus, one of the greatest challenges for
scholars is to explore the indigenous island ele-
ments and how they factored into the formation
of island culture. Another challenge is to
understand which aspects of island culture
resulted from the influence of other regions, as
well as in what way the islands affected the
non-island world. Thanks to fieldwork and
study conducted by several generations of
Greek and non-Greek archaeologists, our
knowledge about the archaeology of the Greek
islands has increased significantly. There is cer-
tainly a lot that remains unknown or which
requires further examination, but the current
state of archaeological knowledge about the
Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of
Greek islands provides enough material for a
satisfactory understanding of what living on
the islands might have been like.
Settlement and Settlements
The limited data available about the
Protogeometric settlements do not permit safe
conclusions about their layout. However, it can
be stated that in most islands, habitation was
scattered in villages, hamlets, and isolated
farmsteads (Dickinson 2006: 84-93). Dramatic
changes during the Geometric period resulted in
the gradual development of well-organized towns
towards the end of the eighth century BCE. Most
of these towns (e.g., Zagora and Hypsele on
Andros, Emborio on Chios) were founded on
rather inaccessible and naturally defensible
positions, indicating a feeling of insecurity
(perhaps because of piratical raids), and were
usually densely built but with no precise plan
(Coldstream 2003: 305-311, 399). The houses
were rectangular and stone built, while flat roofs
must have been the general rule (Mazarakis
Ainian & Leventi 2009: 216-218).
During the Archaic period, some of the EIA
settlements grew into poleis (e.g., Naxos,
Xobourgo on Tenos, and Minoa on Amorgos),
while others did not (e.g., Ayios Andreas on
Siphnos, Hypsele on Andros). Island poleis also
were created by the unification of communities
which peacefully abandoned their previous
settlements to found a new city. For example,
Palaiopolis on Andros probably received an
influx of population from Zagora and Hypsele,
and on Paros, the inhabitants of Koukounaries
apparently moved to Paroikia (Mazarakis Ainian
& Leventi 2009: 219). It is noteworthy that
several large islands, such as Andros, Tenos,
Naxos, and Paros, had only one single polis,
while smaller and less prosperous islands (e.g.,
Kea, Mykonos, and Amorgos) had more than one
polis from the Archaic period onwards. There is
no universal explanation for this phenomenon, as
it seems that each case was affected by local
factors. For instance, the division of Kea into
four territories reflects either different periods of
settling or intervention by neighboring and
powerful Athens (Cherry et al. 1991: 5, 8).
Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of
During the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman
periods, the poleis of Archaic times continued to
be inhabited, but the available information is
rather restricted since most of these cities lie
under the modern towns. Regarding settlement
patterns of the islands, archaeological research
indicates a three-tier hierarchy: towns, villages
and/or hamlets, and farmsteads. The Archaic
and Classical houses were simple structures and
served the needs of a family. However, from late
Classical times and during the Hellenistic period,
houses became a medium for the rich and power-
ful to demonstrate their wealth and social status.
As a result, luxurious edifices of two or even three
stories, with peristyle courts, elaborate banquet
halls (andrones), sumptuously decorated rooms,
and a large number of service rooms, were
constructed (Winter 2006: 157-182).
During the Roman period, the island cities
gradually acquired a pronounced Roman flavor,
but they retained their Greek character (see
below). Both in the cities and in the countryside
of islands like Lesbos, Samos, Kos, Naxos,
Melos, Kerkyra, and Kephallenia, luxurious
buildings (usually referred to as villas, Alcock
1993: 64-68) decorated with mosaic pavements,
wall paintings, and statuary were constructed.
These buildings, the most distinguished of
which are the so-called Menandross House
on Lesbos and the Casa Romana on Kos,
usually served as residences of wealthy families
or were intended for certain public services,
such as the Hall of the Mystae in the city of
Melos, a religious meeting place for worshipping
Dionysos (Karvonis & Mikedaki 2012: 38, 92-93,
174, respectively).
Public and Religious Architecture
Strong fortification walls reinforced the natural
defensibility of many EIA settlements, including
Zagora and Hypsele on Andros, Xobourgo on
Tenos, Vathy Limenari on Donousa, Minoa on
Amorgos, and Emborio on Chios. The construc-
tion of fortifications was a corporate enterprise,
indicating a remarkable degree of political
cohesion among the people who dwelt inside
them, as well as of political organization of
island communities. Moreover, in some of the
3151 G
better-preserved island settlements (Emborio on
Chios and Zagora on Andros), an open space
between the sanctuary and the chief residence has
been interpreted as a space for assembly, where the
elite group was entitled to take the decisions on
the public life (Coldstream 2003: 314-315).
Due to the lack of architectural evidence with
undisputed religious purposes, it is assumed that
almost all worship took place in the open air
during the Protogeometric period. The focal
point of the cultic activity was usually an altar
or a large rectangular hearth (eschara). During
the Geometric period, these open-air sanctuaries
gradually evolved into temples, and worship G
habits were standardized. In addition to the
urban temples (e.g., at Emborio on Chios, Zagora
on Andros, and Koukounaries on Paros), there
were sanctuaries and temples located outside the
settlements. These are divided into rural and
peri-urban, such as at Ayia Irini on Kea and
Iria on Naxos. The Heraion on Samos is
a characteristic case of an open-air sanctuary
which subsequently evolved into a major
peri-urban temple.
During the Archaic period, the prosperity of
the islands and intense competition between
citizens, tyrants, and poleis for wealth, power,
and prestige is evidenced by the public and
religious architecture. Until the end of sixth
century BCE, many island poleis had
constructed impressive fortifications (e.g.,
Thasos, Samos, Aegina, Karthaia on Kea;
Xobourgo on Tenos; Vryokastro on Kythnos;
Kastro on Siphnos; Paroikia on Paros; Minoa on
Amorgos; Melos) and aqueducts, such as the
famous aqueduct by the architect Eupalinos for
the city of Samos and the aqueduct on Naxos.
Moreover, public buildings with different
functions appeared mainly in major sanctuaries,
such as Delos (e.g., Oikos of the Naxians,
Treasury 5, Bouleuterion or Building D,
Stoa of the Naxians, Oikos of Andros;
Bruneau & Ducat 2005: 171-176, 188, 189, 199-
200, 205, respectively) and the Samian Heraion
(South Stoa; Gruben 1966: 319-320). Display
of wealth is also observed in impressive architec-
tural offerings, such as the treasury of the
Siphnians dedicated at Delphi and the Naxian
G 3152
dedications at Delos (Gruben 1966: 81-82, 144;
Bruneau & Ducat 2005: 199-200).
Several of the most prosperous islands
contributed significantly to the process that led
to the canonical form of the monumental Greek
temple (Gruben 1966: 32-42, 309-315). At
Samos, three successive temples dedicated to
Hera were built during the Archaic period: the
Hekatompedon II (c. 675625 BCE; Gruben
1966: 318-319), the Rhoikos temple (the first
monumental Ionic temple, c. 570560 BCE;
Gruben 1966: 321-325), and the Great Temple
(erected by Polycrates before the end of sixth
century BCE; Gruben 1966: 325-329). Naxos
undoubtedly played a leading role in the shaping
and development of the Ionic order, as evidenced
by the temple of Yria, the unfinished temple of
Apollo Delios in the city of Naxos, the temple of
Gyroulas (Mazarakis Ainian & Leventi 2009:
220-222), and the Oikos of the Naxians on
Delos (Gruben 1966: 144; Bruneau & Ducat
2005: 199-200). Paros rivaled Naxos with the
temple of Athena at Koukounaries, the temple
of Artemis on the Delion, and the Apollo sanctu-
ary on the islet of Despotiko near Antiparos
(Mazarakis Ainian & Leventi 2009: 219, 222-
223). Lesbos contributed to the formation of the
so-called Aeolic (or Proto-Ionic) order,
whose main feature was the Aeolic column cap-
ital (Betancourt 1977: 87). The Doric order was
formed in mainland Greece, yet important Doric
temples are found on several Greek islands, as,
for instance, the two successive temples of
Athena Aphaia on Aegina (Gruben 1966:
110-115) and the temple of Artemis on Kerkyra
(Gruben 1966: 103-107).
During the Classical period, the majority of
cities had massive fortifications, which were
both a military advantage and a vivid symbol of
the sovereignty of the polis. Some of them (e.g.,
Thasos in 463 BCE, Aegina in 457 BCE,
Samos in 439 BCE, and Mytilene in 427 BCE;
Hansen & Nielsen 2004: 779, 622, 10951097,
and 1027, respectively) were compelled to
demolish their walls for political reasons. Numer-
ous temples, political structures (e.g., prytaneion
and bouleuterion on Delos and Paros), and other
public buildings (e.g., stoas on Delos, Andros,
Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of
Thera, Kos, and Thasos) are attested archaeolog-
ically. Moreover, theaters (e.g., Delos,
Methymna on Lesbos, Ialysos and Lindos on
Rhodes) and stadia (e.g., Aegina, Rhodes) started
to be constructed in the islands probably before
the end of the Classical period (Hansen & Nielsen
2004: 1379-1381).
Freestanding towers, round or square in shape,
are one of the most common features of
the islands in the late Classical and Hellenistic
periods (Morris & Papadopoulos 2005). Particu-
larly numerous on some islands (33 on Thasos,
over 70 on Kea, 76 on Siphnos), they have
been detected on the Cyclades (Andros, Tenos,
Naxos, Kythnos, Seriphos, Ios, Amorgos), the
Northern Sporades (Skopelos, Alonnesos), the
northeastern Aegean (Lesbos), and the Ionian
islands (Leukada), as well as on tiny islands
(e.g., Seriphopoula, Herakleia, Arkioi, and
Pharmakonisi). Various interpretations have
been proposed, such as that they served as agri-
cultural storehouses, slave quarters, lookout, and
signaling posts and that they protected mines and
quarries and/or were used as places of temporary
refuge in cases of emergency; their precise
function, however, remains disputed.
The most characteristic feature of the
Hellenistic architecture is the theatrical mental-
ity, which is expressed mainly in planning and
organization of sanctuaries (Pollitt 1986:
230-242). Stoas, stairways, ramps, colonnades,
and gates were used in a calculated, coordinated
way in order to slowly lead potential visitors to
a dramatic climax before the temple was
revealed. Perhaps the most impressive of such
arrangements are the temple of Athena at Lindos
on Rhodes and the sanctuary of Asclepios on
Kos (Winter 2006: 216-218). It is worth mention-
ing that the initiative in the architectural forma-
tion of the great sanctuaries (e.g., on Samothrace,
Kos, and Rhodes) was being seized by rulers
(such as Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Arsinoe II,
and Eumenes II), who flaunted their power,
wealth, and hegemonic ambitions.
In Roman times, the temples, public buildings,
and urban infrastructure resulted from the
beneficence of local patrons and, sometimes, the
emperor himself, who donated the construction
Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of
costs and materials or underwrote repairs.
The traditional forms of urban architecture
could easily absorb Roman structures. As
a result, certain typical building structures, such
as fora and basilicas, did not exist in most island
cities. Arenas, the main feature of Roman public
leisure, are also not found on the islands, since
preexisting theaters and stadia could be adapted,
as is the case of the theater on Thasos. Odea
(music halls) were built on several islands (e.g.,
Ikaria, Kos, Rhodes; Karvonis & Mikedaki 2012:
58, 94, 124) in order to host music competitions,
oratorical speeches, and philosophical lectures.
Despite their strong Greek character, however,
the islands adopted numerous typical Roman
features, such as temples constructed on
podiums, paved streets (e.g., Samos, Kos;
Karvonis & Mikedaki 2012: 68-69, 94), drains
(e.g., Samos; Karvonis & Mikedaki 2012: 69-70),
aqueducts (e.g., Lesbos, Samos, Melos; Karvonis
& Mikedaki 2012: 32-33, 65-66, 174), and cis-
terns (e.g., Karpathos, Amorgos; Karvonis &
Mikedaki 2012: 81, 143). Moreover, bathhouses
have been found on many islands, such as Lesbos,
Ikaria, Kalymnos, Kos, Nisyros, Telendos,
Amorgos, and Skiathos (Karvonis & Mikedaki
2012: 27, 59, 79-80, 95-97, 105-106, 136, 141,
242), proving that the islanders had adopted
the habit of public bathing, a salient characteristic
of Roman daily life. The scale and the quality
of the baths varied enormously, from small, less
sumptuous structures to large, luxurious
facilities.
Burial Customs
Graves and grave goods provide the greater part of
the available archaeological data for the
Protogeometric period in the islands. The
presence of numerous small, separate, and close
clusters of graves (e.g., at Naxos or Skyros) indi-
cates a dispersed settlement pattern on most of the
islands, on the assumption that each cemetery was
attached to a settled area. Although the universal
rite was inhumation in cist tombs and in vessels,
some cremated burials have been dated to the
same period (Dickinson 2006: 183-195). Offerings
from the graves consisted of pottery, dress-orna-
ments, jewelry, and weapons.
3153 G
During the Geometric period, the dominant
practice was inhumation in cist or pit graves
(e.g., at Tenos and Kos) and urn cremation (e.g.,
at Lemnos, Naxos, Paros, Kimolos, Thera, and
Rhodes). Grave goods (mainly pottery, jewelry,
and weapons) reflect the growth of prosperity in
the period. Also worth mentioning are the ceme-
teries at Tsikalario in central Naxos and at
Kylindra on Astypalaia, as they are unique in
the islands. At Tsikalario, a cemetery of tumuli
that contained varying numbers of cremation
pyres was used during the Middle Geometric
period (c. 850750 BCE). In the recently
excavated Kylindras cemetery on Astypalaia, G
over 2,000 children younger than three years old
were buried in pots from the second half of the
eighth century BCE through Roman times.
Finally, during this period, a new form of
cult developed in the Greek world; the veneration
of heroic forebears first appeared during the ninth
century BCE and became firmly established at
the end of the eighth century BCE. Excavations
at the Metropolis square site on Naxos revealed
that rituals in honor of the dead gradually
took the form of an abstract ancestor cult
(nintheighth centuries BCE) and finally evolved
into hero worship (second half of the eighth cen-
tury BCE). Other examples of this new form of
cult come from several islands, such as Amorgos
and Paros (Dickinson 2006: 191, 234; Mazarakis
Ainian & Leventi 2009: 219, 237 n. 29).
In the seventh century BCE, diversity of burial
customs continued, since the dominant practice
in some islands was inhumation, while in others
was cremation. During the sixth century BCE,
however, inhumation became the more popular
method of burial, although still not exclusively,
and only Thera retained a preference for crema-
tion burials (Kurtz & Boardman 1971: 177-179).
In Aegina, an important series of chamber
tombs began to appear in the early sixth century
BCE. A remarkable innovation of the Archaic
burial customs was the use of the plain or deco-
rated stone sarcophagus, which was used from
the seventh century BCE in many islands, includ-
ing Rhodes, Samos, Chios, and Aegina. The dec-
orated clay sarcophagi, which were used in
Kameiros on Rhodes, Samos, Chios, and Lesbos,
G 3154
date mainly to the sixth and early fifth century
BCE. Moreover, many island cemeteries have
yielded a fair number of grave markers and mon-
uments, such as stelai, relief and decorated grave-
stones, and statuary (mainly kouroi and korai).
Finally, worth mentioning is the grave of
Menekrates on Kerkyra, an impressive circular
cenotaph of c. 600 BCE (Kurtz & Boardman
1971: 245, 375).
During the Classical period, there was
a marked decrease in funerary monumentality
and offerings. In general, chamber tombs went
out of fashion, and graves had the form of shafts
or pits cut into the ground, slab-lined pits,
and sarcophagi. In several islands, however,
there are groups of elaborately constructed cham-
ber tombs (e.g., Rhodes, Aegina). For adults,
inhumation was the usual method of burial, and
cremation was still practiced to any marked
extent only in Thera, although it did not
completely disappear from the islands. Children
were buried in pots, clay tubs, and small
sarcophagi (Kurtz & Boardman 1971: 193,
195-196).
In the Hellenistic period, burial customs did
not change considerably from the preceding
centuries, but in many cases, there is a marked
tendency towards monumentality and theatrical-
ity, adopting the characteristic cultural attitudes
of the period. In Rhodes, for example, there are
impressive rock-cut tombs, several vaulted
chambers, and a small stone tumulus. In Kos,
Charmylos was honored by a two-story building
constructed over a vaulted crypt (c. 300 BCE),
and on second-century BCE Paros, there were
sarcophagi raised on rectangular bases (Kurtz &
Boardman 1971: 281, 286, 300, 373-374).
Finally, in Roman times, there was a great
range of grave types, including rock-cut tombs
and carved stone (usually marble) sarcophagi.
The grave goods included pottery, terracotta fig-
urines, lamps, jewelry, and coins. Worth
mentioning also is the rock-cut necropolis of the
city of Melos (the so-called catacombs) with
the several thousand burials of the third and
fourth centuries CE (although a few were earlier),
virtually unique in Greece (Karvonis & Mikedaki
2012: 175).
Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of
Pottery
Protogeometric pottery offers valuable evidence
for island communities, as well as for their exter-
nal contacts (Lemos 2002). Besides imports,
local productions afford evidence for close con-
tacts with the mainland world, and especially
with Attica and Euboea. During the Geometric
period, many non-insular regions (mainly
Euboea, Attica, Corinth, and Anatolia) continued
to exercise considerable influence on island
pottery production (Boardman 1998: 23-55).
Nevertheless, several islands (e.g., Naxos,
Paros, Melos, Thera, and Rhodes) established
their own workshops, which contributed greatly
to the development of Greek Geometric pottery.
From the end of the eighth century BCE, there
were several local workshops which incorporated
models and ideas from the east into their
Geometric tradition (sc. Orientalizing phase
in Boardman 1998: 83-85, 110-112, 141-147).
Gradually, however, these workshops devel-
oped their own Archaic styles, which were
under the greater influence of Athenian and
Corinthian black figure pottery (Boardman
1998: 177-178, 216).
Throughout the Classical period, island
pottery production was under the artistic domina-
tion of Athens. Besides Atticizing imitations,
ceramic production of the island workshops
was almost limited to the production of transport
amphorae. The Thasian, Chian, Lesbian, Samo-
thracian, Samian, Rhodian, and Koan wine was
famous and their amphorae are found in large
quantities throughout the Mediterranean world
(Whitbread 1995: 41-44).
Production of painted vases in the islands
declined in the Hellenistic period, due to the
general replacement of fine pottery by metal
vessels. Particularly popular, however, was the
relief ware, which imitated luxurious metal table-
ware. The relief bowls (the so-called Megarian,
as it was formerly believed that the sole center of
production was Megara) are black- or red-glazed
hemispherical cups with decoration covering
the entire exterior of the vase (except for the
rim) and ranging from abstract and floral orna-
ments to animal and human figures (Henig 1983:
182; Pollitt 1986: 256). Rhodes has yielded a fair
Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of
amount of distinct black-figured pottery reserved
for funeral use, which has been named the
Hadra style after the homonymous cemetery
near Alexandria, where the first examples were
discovered (Politt 1986: 256-257). Again, several
islands produced transport amphorae for liquid
products, like wine and olive oil. The shape of
a typical transport amphora with a pointed or
rounded toe was unsuitable for storage but ideal
for transportation in the hull of a ship, where
the vessel could be tightly packed (Whitbread
1995: 19-24, 34-37). Finally, in Roman times,
the local pottery production was restricted to
domestic and commercial needs, while imports
from Rome and other major centers were
increased (Henig 1983: 186-187).
The Plastic Arts
Throughout the EIA, the range of plastic works
was restricted to figurines in terracotta, bronze,
wood, and, extremely rarely, ivory. The figurines,
usually male and female, were used almost
exclusively as sanctuary dedications (especially
at major sanctuaries, such as Delos and the
Samian Heraion), but their number increased
gradually during the course of the eighth
century BCE.
In the early Archaic period, elaborately
decorated female statuettes in terracotta were
dedicated at sanctuaries (e.g., Samos, Despotiko,
and Kastro on Siphnos). Plastic works in
terracotta, bronze, wood, and ivory continued to
be produced, but from this time on, stone became
the basic material; one of the earliest works of
monumental sculpture was the female
statue dedicated by the Naxian Nikandre at
Delos (Rolley 1994: 145-146; Bruneau & Ducat
2005: 86).
From the later seventh century BCE onwards,
monumental sculpture underwent a considerable
improvement, and the islands played an impor-
tant role in the development of the two basic
sculptural types: the kouros and the kore (Rolley
1994: 165-174, 176-187). The kouroi, young
men appearing as heroic nudes, were votives
at sanctuaries or used as funeral monuments.
Initially, the kouroi had supernatural size, such
as the Colossus of the Naxians on Delos, a few
3155 G
kouroi from Samos and from the Archaic ceme-
tery of Thera, and the so-called kriophoros
(man carrying a ram) from Thasos (Rolley
1994: 146; Bruneau & Ducat 2005: 177-181).
Gradually, however, they became more realistic:
for instance, the so-called Strangford Apollo
(Anaphe is the reputed provenance, now in
the British Museum) and the kouros from Kea
(Rolley 1994: 272). Several early korai, seated
or standing clothed women, were also
represented as larger than life size (e.g., the
fragment of a 2.5 m. tall kore from Samos),
while later artistic focus shifted to a concern
for a detailed rendering of their elaborate G
dresses. The korai were widely set up as dedica-
tions to female deities (e.g., to Artemis on Delos,
to Hera and Nymphes on Samos), though funer-
ary korai may have been extant on Samos,
Chios, and Thera. Dedicatory inscriptions and
signatures of their sculptors are quite often
found on both types. Several island workshops,
with their own stylistic characteristics, have been
identified; most famous were the Naxian and
Parian workshops which received commissions
from other islands and mainland Greece. Finally,
the architectural sculpture was restricted to
sacred buildings, such as the temple of Artemis
on Kerkyra, the treasury of the Siphnians at
Delphi, and the Samian Heraion (Rolley 1994:
183, 190, 221, 269-270).
The Archaic tradition continued into the first
half of the fifth century BCE, when several
schools (e.g., Naxian, Thasian, Samian, and
East Ionian) functioned on the islands. Paros,
especially with the reliefs in the so-called Severe
style (c. 480450 BCE), was the leading center
for early Classical sculpture (Rolley 1994:
359-362). Parian works, in addition to those
found on the island itself, have been found on
the Aegean islands (mainly Thasos) and main-
land Greece. In the second half of the fifth century
BCE, the sculptural style of Classical Athens
proved to be so influential that the local island
workshops gradually lost their unique styles.
A fine example of this process is seen on the
stele of Krito and Timarista from Rhodes
(c. 410 BCE, Archaeological Museum of
Rhodes), which combines the Parian tradition
G 3156
with the achievements of Attic sculpture (Rolley
1999: 185). During the fourth century BCE,
works (mainly grave stelae in relief or with
anthemion) of Attic origin or inspiration appear
on most islands (mainly grave stelae in relief or
with anthemion; Rolley 1999: 220).
The Hellenistic sculpture covered a wide
range of types, such as freestanding statues of
eminent men and distinguished women, eques-
trian statues of rulers, narrative groups, and
athlete or hero figures. The typical feature of
these works is a theatrical manner of representa-
tion, which emphasizes emotional intensity and
a dramatic crisis. This theatrical temperament is
obvious in the famous Winged Nike of Samo-
thrace, one of the masterpieces of Hellenistic
sculpture (Ridgway 2000: 150-157). The god-
dess is shown in the form of a winged woman
standing on the prow of a ship, braced against
the strong wind blowing through her garments.
This colossal work was placed in a pool filled
with water in which the ship appeared to float. It
has been suggested that this monument was ded-
icated to the sanctuary of the great gods by the
Rhodians in commemoration of a specific naval
victory in the early second century BCE. Natu-
rally, sculpture flourished on prosperous islands,
such as Rhodes, Kos, and Delos. During the
Hellenistic period, Rhodes became a great center
of sculpture in the Aegean, and some of the most
important Hellenistic sculptures, for instance,
the Aphrodite and the Poseidon of Melos, have
been attributed to Rhodian sculptors (Ridgway
2000: 167-171). Kos has also yielded a rich col-
lection of statues in a distinct style (Ridgway
2000: 164). The most renowned sculptors of
the period worked on Delos, and a few work-
shops were established on the island, even
though they cannot be considered a school in
the sense of a unified style (Bruneau & Ducat
2005: 101-111).
Finally, during the Roman period, all the pub-
lic places of the cities were adorned with honor-
ific statuary of prominent citizens, local
benefactors, governors, and emperors. Although
sculpture did not flourish as formerly, a large
number of plastic works have come to light:
copies of great Classical or Hellenistic originals
Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of
(such as the well-known Hermes of Andros),
portraits, funeral or votive steles, sarcophagi, and
altars (Henig 1983: 66-96).
Mosaics
The first mosaics, made of natural pebbles,
appeared in the Greek world c. 400 BCE, but it
was only during the Hellenistic period that the
technique of mosaic making underwent
a striking development and remarkable innova-
tions as a result of the prosperity of individuals
and the desire to demonstrate their wealth
(Pollitt 1986: 210-229). The house was
a tangible symbol of the owners status and
helped to establish and enhance his position in
the social order. Decorated pebble mosaics were
produced in Greece probably from the late fifth
century BCE and continued into the Hellenistic
period. However, from the late third century
BCE onwards, regular cubes (tesserae) of
stone, glass, and terracotta replaced pebbles as
the principal material for mosaics. Mosaics of
very high quality were made in a technique
known as opus vermiculatum, in which
extremely tiny tesserae were used (Pollitt
1986: 212). Some of the finest Hellenistic
mosaics are found on Delos, where the great
majority were produced between 166 and 100
BCE (Pollitt 1986: 215-218; Bruneau & Decat
2005: 125-130). Geometric designs are the most
common, including bands of guilloche, complex
meanders, groups of lozenges, or bead and reel;
also popular are pictorial themes derived from
the world of the sea (e.g., dolphins, tritons, and
anchors) or the theater (e.g., masks). During the
Roman period, mosaic art continued to flourish
using geometric or abstract patterns and
depicting mythological scenes. Masterpieces of
Roman mosaics are found at Menandross
House on Lesbos and at Casa Romana on
Kos (Karvonis & Mikedaki 2012: 38, 92-93).
Numismatics
The first Greek coins seem to have been struck on
Aegina around the middle of the sixth century
BCE, and until the end of that century, many island
poleis (e.g., Kerkyra, Siphnos, Naxos, Paros,
Thasos, Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Rhodes)
Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of
minted their own coinage evidence of their pros-
perity in Archaic times. During the Classical
period, the majority of the islands issued their
own coins, although Athens suppressed the civic
coinage of several islands for a substantial part of
the fifth century BCE (Hansen & Nielsen 2004:
144-149, 1382-1389). The coins were normally
minted in silver or bronze, although some gold
(Thasos) or electrum (Lesbos) issues were also
produced. In most cases, they carry legends
referring to polis-ethnics, regional ethnics, or
place-names, as well as pictorial and other devices
(e.g., the principal deity of each island, subsidiary
or local divinities, heroes, animal, and plants).
Coinage was an essential feature of Greek econo-
mies and the different standards and issues did not
prevent commerce. Nevertheless, the domestic
coinage of many islands, including Lemnos,
Tenos, Syros, Amorgos, and the Northern Spora-
des, enjoyed circulation only at a local level.
Finally, numismatics reveals the loss of the
islands autonomy during the Hellenistic and
Roman periods. In the Hellenistic period, there
were few civic issues of independent types, as
civic coin types were replaced by the mass-
produced coinage of the Successor kingdoms
(Hoover 2010: esp. lix-lxiv). During the Roman
period, several islands (e.g., Chios, Samos,
Lesbos, Cos, Rhodes, and Ios) enjoyed the right
to mint their own coins in order to be used locally,
but it was the Roman currency that dominated
exchange (Heuchert 2005: 29-40, Maps 3.1,
3.2.1, 3.2.2).
Future Directions
The Greek islands are an ideal theater for
exploring the ideas, agendas and methods
employed in island archaeology. The first major
steps in this direction have been made by several
recent publications (e.g., Broodbank 2000; Berg
2007), but these studies so far focus mainly on the
prehistoric periods. More efforts should be made
to analyze the Early Iron Age and later periods, as
island archaeology is vital in order to enhance our
understanding of past communities in the Greek
islands. Moreover, interdisciplinary research
3157 G
projects should be intensified. The systematic
involvement of palynologists, archaeobotanists,
zooarchaeologists, osteoarchaeologists, geolo-
gists, mineralogists, etc. in fieldwork and
material analysis will contribute to the fuller
exploration of the islands.
Some islands have been investigated for many
decades, and as a result, much information about
their archaeology and history is available.
However, there are still several islands that are
less well explored, while others have had little or
no exploration. Therefore, in some cases,
scholars have based their work on incomplete
data, and as the flow of information increases, G
these interpretations are proved to be not valid.
For example, until quite recently, Zagora was
considered to be the only major settlement on
Geometric Andros. In the last decades, however,
another important settlement was excavated at
Hypsele, completely changing the picture of the
settlement pattern of Andros during the Geomet-
ric period. Excavation is a very time-consuming
and expensive process, but intensive surveys may
provide a fuller picture of the archaeology of
the Greek islands and assess the risks and impact
that development projects will have on archaeo-
logical heritage.
Finally, it is important to note that archaeol-
ogy is not just for scholars but for all society.
Unfortunately, there are several sites where the
excavation was completed many years ago, but
the final publication has not yet been produced;
thus our information comes mainly from prelim-
inary reports. Excavators should publish the
results of their studies as soon as possible and
inform both the scientific community and the
general public (especially the local communi-
ties) about their work. Also, the enhancement
of the archaeological sites is very important in
order to make them accessible to everyone.
Cross-References
Agora in the Greek World
Andron
Baths and Bathing, Greek
Baths and Bathing, Roman
G 3158 Greek Islands (Excluding Crete), Archaeology of

British School at Athens BROODBANK, C. 2000. An island archaeology of the

Ceramics, Ancient Greek
Classical (Greek) Archaeology
Classical Greece, Archaeology of (c. 490323
BCE)
Crete, Archaeology of
Cross-Cultural Interaction in the Greek World:
Culture Contact Issues and Theories
Cyprus, Archaeology of
Domestic Architecture, Roman
Early Iron Age Greece (c. 1150700 BCE)
Ethnicity and Identity in the Ancient
Mediterranean World
Greek Colonialism, Archaeology of
Numismatics, Ancient Greek
Numismatics, Roman Imperial
Numismatics, Roman Republican
Orientalizing Phenomenon: Greek
Archaeology Perspective
Panhellenism
Polis
Religion, Greek, Archaeology of
Romanization
Sicily and Magna Graecia, Archaeology of
Stoa
Survey Archaeology in the Greek Aegean
World
Tombs, Greek (Iron Age)
Trade and Transport in the Ancient
Mediterranean
Urban Planning in the Greek World
Urban Planning, Roman
Villas and Farms in the Mediterranean World
References
ALCOCK, S.E. 1993. Graecia capta: the landscapes of
Roman Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
BERG, I. 2007. Negotiating Island identities: the active use
of pottery in the Middle and late Bronze Age Cyclades.
New York: Gorgias Press.
BETANCOURT, P. 1977. The Aeolic style in architecture.
A survey of its development in Palestine, the
Halikarnassos Peninsula, and Greece, 1000-500 B.C.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
BOARDMAN, J. 1998. Early Greek vase painting: 11th-6th
centuries BC. London: Thames & Hudson.
early Cyclades. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
BRUNEAU, P. & J. DUCAT. 2005. Guide de Delos (Sites et
monuments 1). Athenes: Ecole francaise dAthenes.
CHERRY, J.F., J.L. DAVIS & E. MANTZOURANI. 1991. Land-
scape archaeology as long-term history: northern
Keos in the Cycladic islands from earliest settlement
until modern times (Monumenta Archaeologica 16).
Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of
California.
COLDSTREAM, J.N. 2003. Geometric Greece. London:
Routledge.
CONSTANTAKOPOULOU, C. 2007. The dance of the islands:
insularity, networks, the Athenian empire and the
Aegean world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DE SOUZA, P. 1999. Piracy in the Graeco-Roman world.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DICKINSON, O. 2006. The Aegean from Bronze Age to
Iron Age: continuity and change between twelfth
and eighth centuries BC. London & New York:
Routledge.
GRUBEN, G. 1966. Die Tempel der Griechen. Munchen:
Hirmer.
HANSEN, M.H. & T.H. NIELSEN. (ed.) 2004. An inventory of
archaic and classical poleis: an investigation
conducted by the Copenhagen Polis Centre for the
Danish National Research Foundation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
HENIG, M. (ed.) 1983. A handbook of Roman art. A survey
of the visual arts of the Roman world. Oxford:
Phaedon.
HEUCHERT, V. 2005. The chronological development of
Roman provincial coin iconography, in C. Howgego,
V. Heuchert & A. Burnett (ed.) Coinage and identity in
the Roman provinces: 29-56. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
HOOVER, O.D. 2010. Handbook of coins of the Islands:
Adriatic, Ionian, Thracian, Aegean, and Carpathian
Seas (excluding Crete and Cyprus), sixth to first
centuries BC (The Handbook of Greek Coinage series 6).
Lancaster/London: Classical Numismatic Group.
KARVONIS, P. & M. MIKEDAKI. 2012. Tabula Imperii
Romani: J35 Smyrna, Volume I: Aegean Islands.
Athens: Academy of Athens.
KURTZ, D.C. & J. BOARDMAN. 1971. Greek burial customs.
London: Thames and Hudson.
LEMOS, I.S. 2002. The Protogeometric Aegean: the
archaeology of the late eleventh and tenth centuries
BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MAZARAKIS AINIAN, A. & I. LEVENTI. 2009. The Aegean, in
Raaflaub, K.A. & H. van Wees (ed.) A companion
to archaic Greece: 212-38. Chichester:
Wiley-Blackwell.
MORRIS, S.P. & J.K. PAPADOPOULOS. 2005. Greek towers
and slaves: an archaeology of exploitation. American
Journal of Archaeology 109: 155-255.
POLITT, J.J. 1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Green, Jeremy N.
RIDGWAY, B.S. 2000. Hellenistic sculpture, Volume II: the
styles of ca. 200-100 B.C. London: University of
Wisconsin Press.
ROLLEY, C. 1994. La sculpture grecque, Volume 1: des
origines au milieu du Ve siecle. Paris: Picard.
- 1999. La sculpture grecque, Volume 2: la periode
classique. Paris: Picard.
WHITBREAD, I.K. 1995. Greek transport amphorae:
a petrological and archaeological study (Fitch
Laboratory Occasional Paper 4). Athens: British
School at Athens.
WINTER, F. 2006. Studies in Hellenistic architecture.
Toronto: University of the Toronto Press.
Further Reading
ALT-A GINA: Vol. 1 (1974) 4.3 (1997). Austrian Archae-
ological Institute at Athens. Mainz am Rhein: Phillip
von Zabern.
BOARDMAN J. 1967. Excavations in Chios, 1951-1952,
Greek Emporio. Annual of the British School at Athens
Suppl. 6.
BOARDMAN, J. & C.E. VAPHOPOULOU-RICHARDSON. (ed.)
1986. Chios: a conference at the Homereion in
Chios. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
BUCHHOLZ, H.-G. 1976. Methymna: archaologische
Beitrage zur Topographie und Geschichte von
Nordlesbos. Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern.
CAMBITOGLOU, A., A. BIRCHALL, J.J. COULTON & J.R.
GREEN. 1988. Zagora 2: excavation of a geometric
town on the island of Andros. Athens: The Archaeo-
logical Society at Athens.
CAMBITOGLOU, A., J.J. COULTON, J. BIRMINGHAM & J.R.
GREEN. 1992. Zagora 1: excavation of a geometric
town on the island of Andros. Athens: The Archaeo-
logical Society at Athens.
DEOUDI, M. 2008. Ithake. Die Polis-Hohle, Odysseus und
die Nymphen. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.
DIETZ, S. & I. PAPACHRISTODOULOU. (ed.) 1988. Archaeol-
ogy in the Dodecanese. Copenhagen: National
Museum of Denmark.
EKSCHMITT, W. 1986. Kunst und Kultur der Kykladen, 2:
geometrische und archaische Zeit (Kulturgeschichte
der antiken Welt 28.2). Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von
Zabern.
ETIENNE, R. 1990. Tenos II: Tenos et les Cyclades du
milieu du IVe siecle av. J.C. au milieu du IIIe siecle
ap. J.C. (Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d
Athenes et de Rome 263 bis). Paris: De Boccard.
ETIENNE, R., J.P. BRAUN & F. QUEYREL. 1986. Tenos I: le
sanctuaire de Poseidon et dAmphitrite (Bibliotheque
des Ecoles francaises d Athenes et de Rome 263).
Paris: De Boccard.
Etudes Thasiennes: Vol. I (1944) XXI (2009). Ecole
francaises d Athenes. Paris: De Boccard.
Exploration archeologique de Delos: Vol. I (1909) XLII
(2007). Ecole francaises d Athenes. Paris: De Boccard.
HILLER VON GAERTRINGEN, F. 1899-1909. Thera I-IV:
Untersuchungen, Vermessungen und Ausgrabungen
in den Jahren 1895-1902. Berlin: G. Reimer.
3159 G
HOEPFNER, W. 1997. Das dorische Thera, 5:
Stadtgeschichte und Kultstatten am nordlichen
Stadtrand. Berlin: G. Mann Verlag.
MARANGOU, L.I. 2002. Amorgos I. Minoa: the town, the
harbour and the country. Athens: The Archaeological
Society at Athens.
MENDONI, L.G. & A. MAZARAKIS AINIAN. (ed.) 1998.
Kea-Kythnos: history and archaeology. Proceedings
of an international symposium, Kea-Kythnos, 22-25
June 1994 (Meletemata 27). Athens: Research Centre
for Greek and Roman Antiquity National Hellenic
Research Foundation.
RENFREW, C. & M. WAGSTAFF. (ed.) 1982. An island polity:
the archaeology of exploitation in Melos. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
RODENWALDT G., H. SCHLEIF, K. RHOMAIOS &
G. KLAFFENBACH. 1939-1940. Korkyra: archaische
G
Bauten und Bildwerke: Bd. I-II, Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
Samos: Vol. 1 (1961) 26 (2009). German Archaeological
Institute. Bonn: Habelt.
Samothrace: excavations conducted by the Institute of
Fine Arts, New York University: Vol. 1 (1958) 11
(1998). New York: Pantheon Books & Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
SOUYOUDZOGLOU-HAYWOOD, C. 1999. The Ionian Islands in
the Bronze Age and early Iron Age: 3000-800 BC.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
VLACHOPOULOS, A. (ed.) 2006. Archaeology: Aegean
islands. Athens: Melissa.
YEROULANOU, M. & M. STAMATOPOULOU. (ed.) 2005.
Architecture and archaeology in the Cyclades: papers
in honour of J.J. Coulton (British Archaeological
Reports International series 1455). Oxford:
Archaeopress.
Green, Jeremy N.
Myra Stanbury
Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western
Australian Museum, Fremantle, WA, Australia
Basic Biographical Information
Jeremy Green (Fig. 1) is Head of the Department
of Maritime Archaeology at the Western Austra-
lian Museum, a position he has held since 1971.
After receiving a B.Sc. (Hons) in Physics from
the University of Hull (1963), and a B.A. (Hons)
in Physiology at Oxford (1966), Jeremy worked
at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology,
Oxford University (19671971). Here, under the
direction of Professor E.T. Hall (19242001),
G 3160 Green, Jeremy N.

sites that had been legally protected under the

jurisdiction of the museum. He set up the Depart-
ment of Maritime Archaeology and established
a program involving presettlement, post-settle-
ment, and wreck inspection work. Jeremy
Greens expertise was initially applied to the
survey and excavation of the English East India
ship Trial (1622), and the Dutch East India ships
Vergulde Draeck (1656) and Batavia (1629),
and later the preliminary work on the Zeewijk
(1727) and Zuytdorp (1712). The excavation of
the Batavia was the first archaeological excava-
tion of a postmedieval shipwreck in the world
and certainly Australias most significant
maritime archaeological excavation. Assisted
by an Australian Research Council grant, and
an Honorary Research Fellowship at the Institute
of Archaeology, University of Oxford, Jeremy
Green pursued a research program investigating
Green, Jeremy N., Fig. 1 Jeremy N. Green, Head, early seventeenth-century shipbuilding tech-
Department of Maritime Archaeology, Western niques and Asian ships. He collaborated with
Australian Museum (Photo: Glen Martin) international colleagues over the reconstruction
of the Batavia timbers and the Batavia Recon-
a leading expert in archaeometry and the struction Project in Lelystad, the Netherlands,
development of scientific techniques to examine and expanded his work to sites in the Indian
archaeological discoveries, Jeremy developed Ocean, Southeast Asia, and East Asia.
an underwater metal detector, a proton Aimed at developing a sustainable network
magnetometer, and four systems of underwater between maritime archaeological practitioners
photogrammetry. These techniques and and avocational groups throughout Australia,
instruments were investigated in field conditions Jeremy Green co-founded the Maritime
in England, Ireland, and in the Mediterranean. Archaeological Association of Western Australia
Jeremy deployed them on shipwrecks such as (MAAWA) (1973), shortly followed by the
the Byzantine wreck at Yassi Ada, the late Australasian Institute for Maritime Archaeology
fourth-century BCE Greek merchant shipwreck (AIMA), of which he was foundation President
at Kyrenia, the Spanish Armada ships Santa and Editor of its Bulletin and Special Publications
Maria de la Rosa and Trinidad Valencera, the from 1977. In 1980, Jeremy Green initiated the first
Dutch East Indies ship Amsterdam, and various of a series of postgraduate diploma in maritime
sites around Cyprus dating from the Classical to archaeology courses through Curtin University of
the Byzantine period. Technology (WA); his book Maritime Archaeol-
ogy: A Technical Handbook (1990, 2004) was
designed as a primary reader for subsequent post-
Major Accomplishments graduate courses, practicums, teaching, and super-
vision of students from Flinders and James Cook
Jeremy Greens appointment to the Western Universities, the University of Western Australia,
Australian Museum arose out of a need for exper- and overseas interns. He also provides technical
tise to manage a number of significant shipwreck advice and services to professional practitioners
Green, Jeremy N.
in the use of remote sensing equipment magne-
tometers and side scan sonar and the computer
software packages that have radically changed the
efficiency and application of this type of equipment
for locating, surveying, and mapping shipwreck
sites.
Scientifically motivated, Jeremy Green was
the first to install computer technology into
a curatorial department at the Western Australian
Museum, progressively developing shipwreck
and artifact databases that provided the initiative
for a national online system the Australian
National Shipwreck Database (http://www.envi-
ronment.gov.au/heritage/shipwrecks/index.html).
Always eager to experiment with new technology
to improve underwater surveying techniques,
Jeremy has trialed different computer programs
PhotoModeler, VirtualMapper, and Rhino on
Australian and international shipwreck sites to
test their accuracy and usefulness in different
situations.
Jeremy Greens career includes a long span of
field and academic experience around the world.
He has provided expert advice to governments
embarking on maritime archaeological programs;
assisted with the training of overseas personnel
through UNESCO Regional Workshops and local
training programs in places such as Thailand,
China, and Sri Lanka, to advance underwater cul-
tural heritage in these countries; and participated
in numerous international conferences. In addi-
tion to leading the first archaeological project in
China after the Cultural Revolution, Jeremy
Greens work has taken him to Mombasa,
Thailand, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Peoples
Republic of China, the Maldives, Philippines, Sri
Lanka, Sicily, and Turkey. Reports on the various
projects may be found in his extensive list of
publications (http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/
maritime-archaeology-db/maritime-reports).
In recognition of his expertise, Jeremy Green
has been the recipient of numerous grants, fel-
lowships, and awards, among them a Churchill
Fellowship to conduct research work on the
Dutch East India Company in Indonesia, an
Australia-China Council grant to visit the
3161 G
Quanzhou ship in the Peoples Republic of
China, and an Australia-Japan Foundation grant
to work on the Kublai Khan Fleet in Japan.
Jeremy Green holds an M.A. from Oxford
University and is an Honorary Research Fellow
of the Institute of Archaeology, Oxford. He has
held respected positions in Australian Universi-
ties including Honorary Fellow of the Centre for
Archaeology, University of Western Australia,
and Adjunct Associate Professor at Curtin
University of Technology, Flinders and James
Cook Universities. In 1994, he was appointed
Head of the Australian National Centre of Excel-
lence for Maritime Archaeology and is Editor of G
its Special Publication Series. He is a Fellow of
the Australian Academy of the Humanities,
Research Associate of the Institute of Nautical
Archaeology, and Advisory Editor of the Inter-
national Journal of Nautical Archaeology.
Jeremy Greens contributions to maritime
archaeology have been acknowledged both in
Australia and the United Kingdom. In 1986, he
was awarded the Keith Muckelroy Prize for
Achievement in the Field of Maritime Archaeol-
ogy (UK). The following year, he was a finalist in
the Bicentennial BHP Awards for the Pursuit of
Excellence in Science and Technology. In 2003,
he received an Australian Centennial Award and,
in 2007, the prestigious Rhys Jones Medal in
recognition of his pioneering work in the devel-
opment of maritime archaeology in Australia. At
the 2011 Inaugural AsiaPacific Regional Con-
ference on Underwater Cultural Heritage in
Manila, Philippines, Jeremy Green was presented
with the Asia-Pacific Maritime Archaeology
medal in recognition of his contribution to mari-
time archaeology, and in 2012 his long and ded-
icated service to the Australasian Institute for
Maritime Archaeology (AIMA) was acknowl-
edged with a special Appreciation Certificate.
Cross-References
Australia: Maritime Archaeology
Deep-Water Archaeology
G 3162
Hall, Edward T.
Indian Ocean: Maritime Archaeology
Maritime Archaeological Organizations
Underwater Archaeology
Underwater Cultural Heritage: International
Law Regime
Further Reading
CATSAMBIS, A., B. FORD & D. HAMILTON. 2011. The Oxford
handbook of maritime archaeology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
GREEN, J.N. 2002. The application of side-scan sonar and
magnetometer to the location of archaeological sites.
Bulletin of the Australasian Institute for Maritime
Archaeology 26: 119-31.
- 2004. Maritime archaeology: a technical
handbook, 2nd edn. San Diego (CA): Elsevier
Academic Press.
- 2005. Pursuing Southeast Asian wrecks: Ko Si Chang,
Thailand, in G.F. Bass Beneath the seven seas: adven-
tures with the Institute of Nautical Archaeology.
London: Thames and Hudson.
- 2006a. Collaboration within the region: exchanges of
information and training in the convention, in L. Prott
(ed.) Finishing the interrupted voyage: papers of the
UNESCO Asia-Pacific Workshop on the 2001 Conven-
tion on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural
Heritage: 126-34. London: UNESCO Bangkok and
Institute of Art and Law.
- 2006b. Nautical archaeology in Australia, the Indian
Ocean and Asia, in M. Staniforth & M. Nash (ed.)
Maritime archaeology Australian approaches
(Plenum series in Underwater Archaeology): 97-110.
New York: Springer.
- 2007. Batavia 1629: mutiny and murder, in M. Nash
(ed.) Shipwreck archaeology in Australia: 12-24.
Perth: University of Western Australia Press.
GREEN, J. & C. SOUTER. 2002. Technical communication:
archaeological applications of the HPASS (High pre-
cision acoustic surveying system) to surveys of the
HMS Pandora wreck site and the Roman Bridge at
Maastricht. International Journal of Nautical Archae-
ology 31(2): 273-82.
GREEN, J., S. MATTHEWS & T. TURANLI. 2002.
Technical communication: underwater archaeologi-
cal surveying using PhotoModeler, VirtualMapper:
different applications for different problems. Interna-
tional Journal of Nautical Archaeology 31(2):
283-92.
MCCARTHY, M. (ed.) 2012. Shipwrecks of Australias
West Coast. Welshpool (WA): Western Australian
Museum.
Greenland: Approaches to Historical Norse Archaeology
Greenland: Approaches to Historical
Norse Archaeology
Jette Arneborg
Danish Middle Ages and Renaissance, National
Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
Introduction
The prehistory of Greenland is the story of suc-
cessive migrations of Arctic hunters entering
Greenland from what is now Canada. According
to the archaeological record, the first humans to
set foot on Greenland were the Independence
I Culture who spread from High Arctic Canada
into North Greenland about 4,500 years ago.
During the next 3,000 years, people of the
Saqqaq, Independence II, and Dorset cultures
followed (Gullv 2004). The first people to intro-
duce a writing culture, however, were Norse
colonists, who emigrated from Iceland to the
southern subarctic parts of the Greenland west
coast around CE 980. Unfortunately, we do not
have written accounts from the Norse
Greenlanders themselves; most information
concerning events in Greenland was written
down in either Iceland or Norway. About 100
years after the Norse had become established in
South Greenland, a new group of Arctic hunters,
the Thule Inuit, arrived in North Greenland from
Canada. These were the first Inuit to be described
in texts by the Norse, commencing around the
middle of the twelfth century CE.
Historical Background
According to early historical sources from Ice-
land and Norway, Icelanders under the leadership
of Erik the Red migrated to Greenland around
985, where they settled in what they called the
Eastern Settlement in what is today Kujalleq
municipality, and in the Western Settlement
close to Nuuk (Fig. 1). In broader perspective,
Greenland: Approaches to Historical Norse Archaeology
Greenland: Approaches
to Historical Norse
Archaeology, Fig. 1 The
Norse settlements are both
located on the west coast of
Greenland. The Eastern
Settlement around 60 N in
present-day Kujalleq
municipality and the
Western Settlement around
64 N near Nuuk in
Sermersooq municipality
Norse settlement in Greenland was the last step in
the colonization of the North Atlantic Islands
which began with the settlement of the Faroe
Islands and Iceland in the later part of the ninth
century. Around CE 1124, the first Greenlandic
bishop was appointed and in 1261, Greenlanders
became subjects of the Norwegian king. The last
bishop residing in Greenland died in 1378, and in
the same period, the Western Settlement is
reported as being abandoned. Thirty years later,
in 1408, an Icelandic couple married in the
Hvalseyfjord church in the Eastern Settlement
and the attestation of their marriage is the last
written testimony of life in the Norse settlements
in Greenland (GHM III 1845).
The history of the early years of Norse settle-
ment in Greenland is based on Icelandic and
Norwegian historical accounts and Icelandic
sagas written down in the thirteenth century
from much older oral tradition. Later periods are
based on contemporary Icelandic annals, contem-
porary ecclesiastical correspondences, and
3163 G
topographical accounts; the latter are often only
known from much later copies.
Archaeology and the study of material culture
was introduced in Norse Greenlandic research
early in the nineteenth century, often with closely
defined problems originating from a reading of
the written sources and, as was the common atti-
tude to archaeology at the time (Andren 1997),
the archaeological record was interpreted from
the perspective of the written sources. Discus-
sions of the chronology of the settlements
depended entirely on written accounts, for
instance, and archaeology only served to illus-
trate and verify what was already understood
from the written sources. The medieval topo-
graphical accounts were used to identify the
ruins of farms and churches in the landscape,
several of which were subsequently excavated.
Among others, key sites investigated during this
phase included Erik the Reds farm Brattahlid
(now the present-day settlement of Qassiarsuk);
Gardar, where the bishops lived (present-day
G 3164
Igaliku), and Herjolfsnes (present-day Ikigaat),
which comprise the southernmost of Norse
farms mentioned in the accounts.
In the late twentieth century, processual
archaeology began to have more influence on
approaches to the archaeology of Norse Green-
land, encouraging a focus on the kind of social
and economic questions that only archaeology
can answer. For a period, archaeologists ignored
churches, dwellings, and the stables and barns of
the manor farms and turned instead to excavation
of middens so as to recover data that could pro-
vide insights into the economy of the farms. This
produced fresh insights. In particular, while the
written sources and the settlement pattern gave
the impression of an economy based on pastures
and animal husbandry, the animal bone record
indicated that marine resources played a much
larger role than formerly recognized. In addition,
careful, stratigraphically controlled excavations
and the introduction of radiocarbon dating pro-
vided new insights into changes over time. These
showed that the dependence on the marine
resources increased over time. The animal bone
record also revealed social differences between
the cattle-based manor farms compared to the
smaller farms, where sheep and goats dominated
(McGovern 1985).
Today, midden excavations and the application
of the methods and approaches of historical ecol-
ogy, environmental archaeology, and the natural
sciences still play a fundamental role in Norse
Greenland archaeology. However, research has
been expanded so as to get a broader perspective
on questions such as the nature of social organiza-
tion, systems of governance, variations in econ-
omy and subsistence, religious practices, and
evidence for human well-being/suffering. This
has prompted new surveys and excavations of
farm buildings and churches, and a revival of
interest in artifact studies. Instead of single site
studies, whole regions and the interaction of the
many cultural elements of the landscape are now
standard, and the results are interpreted from
a broader perspective, that include theoretical
frameworks derived from social anthropology
and Annales-oriented research, with special
emphasis on human-environment interaction.
Greenland: Approaches to Historical Norse Archaeology
Most research is also interdisciplinary includ-
ing both natural sciences and humanistic
social-science approaches, i.e., history, human
bioarchaeology, zooarchaeology, archaeobotany,
geoarchaeology, stable isotopic analysis, histori-
cal ecology, environmental modeling, and arti-
fact studies.
Key Issues
Although there are other topics of research, the
following three broad themes capture many of the
current concerns in the historical archaeology of
Norse Greenland. These are the enigma of Norse
settlement, Norse Greenland ecodynamics, and
the causes of depopulation.
The Enigma of the Norse Settlements
One of the key concepts to the New Archaeology
was to seek explanations rather than just provid-
ing descriptions of events, and this has been
a recurrent feature of Norse Greenlandic archae-
ology. Above all, the human story about Norse
Greenland has been a story about colonization of
virgin land, survival for half a millennium, and
then disappearance. The enigma of the depopula-
tion of the settlements has always attracted
archaeological attention and many explanations
have been put forward.
Written accounts indicate hostile encounters
between the Norse and the Thule Inuit who
moved very rapidly from North Greenland
southward toward the Norse settlements, and
the explanation that the Thule Inuit wiped
out the Norse population has for a long time
been the most persistent explanation of Norse
disappearance.
With the growing recognition of the damaging
consequences of modern utilization of Earths
limited natural resources, the Thule Inuit theory
has been overshadowed by ecological explana-
tions, and from the 1980s, the prevailing
explanation of the depopulation of the Norse
Greenland settlements has been one of maladap-
tation and ruthless exploitation of the very fragile
natural resources. The impacts of climate changes
have added yet another facet to the discussion.
Greenland: Approaches to Historical Norse Archaeology
In his famous book Collapse How Societies
Choose to Fail or Succeed, Jared Diamond (2005)
summarized the state of play and argued that the
Norse Greenland society collapsed for three
related reasons. First, they depleted the environ-
mental resources on which they depended by cut-
ting down trees, stripping turf, and overgrazing
their pastures, all of which resulted in heavy soil
erosion. Second, they did not utilize additional and
available food sources such as fish, ringed seal,
and stranded whales, and thirdly because they had
established a rigid social system, that could not
adapt to the changing world. All these arguments
can be challenged on archaeological grounds.
Norse Greenland Ecodynamics
In 2007, a new large scale research project, the
Vatnahverfi project, was launched as one of the
many International Polar Year projects
(Vatnahverfi project n.d.). Vatnahverfi is a c.
500 km2 large peninsula situated in the Eastern
Settlement south of the elite farm Gardar, where
the Greenlandic bishops lived. In the Middle Ages,
Vatnahverfi was relatively densely populated, and
the aim of the project was to study a larger region,
for the first time ever, with the focus on the inter-
action between the individual farms and between
settlement and environment. At the time of writing
(Dec. 2011), post-excavation work is still in
progress. However, preliminary results from the
Vatnahverfi project and other research projects
indicate that the theories of maladaptation and
unsustainable farming practices are contradicted
by the material evidence.
Norse landnam did impact the environment.
The introduction of animal husbandry and strip-
ping off large areas of turf for house construction
caused increased erosion, but in the long run,
Norse interaction with the environment seems to
have been sustainable (Massa et al. 2012; Schofield
& Edwards 2011; Dugmore et al. 2012).
Vatnahverfi, for instance, does not show erosion
disasters of consequence many farms established
artificial irrigation systems and they fertilized their
grass fields, perhaps in the hope to increase yields,
or at least to preserve status quo (Buckland et al.
2009). In the Norwegian text The Kings Mirror
written around CE 1250 (Jonsson trans. 1920),
3165 G
it is stated that the Greenlanders had good pastures
and large and good farms and that they held many
heads of cattle and sheep for butter, cheese, and
meat (Fig. 2). Yet, the author also mentions that the
Greenlanders in addition subsisted on meat from
reindeer, whale, seal, and bear, and both the animal
bone record (McGovern 1985) and the dC13 and
dN15 values measured on Norse human bones
show that the marine component of the diet
increased over time (Arneborg et al. 2012). From
the middle of the thirteenth century, the subsis-
tence economy shifted from a predominantly
terrestrial diet to a more marine diet with seal as
the prime meat producer. G
The climate deteriorated in the settlement
period (Masson-Delmotte et al. 2012), and cli-
mate changes could be part of the explanation of
the increased dependence on marine resources
either because of easier access to seals or because
of a decline in the pasture economy.
In the first period, settlement was concentrated
in the inner and mid-fjord regions where pasture
farming was possible. The large and most
wealthy farms were situated in the inner fjords
where conditions were by far the best. Large
houses, festal halls, byres for cattle, warehouses,
and connected churches were clear marks of sta-
tus (Fig. 3). There are indications that a smaller
number of manors owned all the land and the
farms sitting there, and the reduction in the num-
ber of farms with a connected church at the same
time as a limited number of much larger stone
churches were constructed in a few core manors
suggests a consolidation of power around a few
great families from the thirteenth century and
onward. In the same period, marginal farms on
less favorable locations were abandoned.
During the period of climatic deterioration,
the elite consolidated their farms in the inner
fjords, pasture farming declined, the scale of ani-
mal husbandry decreased, and the subsistence
economy became more and more dependent on
the marine resources that were only available on
the outer coast. Moving inland to the more rural
region at the same time as subsistence became
more dependent on outer coast resources appears
to be inconsistent and could be interpreted as
cultural rigidity but may in fact have been the
G 3166 Greenland: Approaches to Historical Norse Archaeology

Greenland: Approaches
to Historical Norse
Archaeology, Fig. 2 The
ruins of the Norse farm
Gardar in present-day
Igaliku (After Krogh 1982).
Gardar represent one of the
largest farms in the Eastern
Settlement. The
Greenlandic bishops lived
here and ruin no. 1 is the
cathedral. Ruin no. 8 is the
main dwelling, and ruins
nos. 9 and 14 are large
byres with connected barns.
The main buildings were
placed centrally in the
infield. The infield was used
for growing grass for winter
fodder for the animals kept
in the byes and stables
during winter. A fence
surrounding the infield kept
the grazing animals out of
the infield. Water from
dams in the mountains was
led to the infield through
the channels 49, 50, 51,
and 52

opposite. Compared to the animal husbandry seal
kept people alive, and as long as the elite was able
to control the resources and maintain the percep-
tion of Norse Greenland as a society based on
farming and landownership sealing would only
support the prevailing social order.
Depopulation
Although most focus has been on the subsistence
economy, one should however not ignore the fact
that the survival of the Norse in Greenland
depended on both local subsistence and trade
with Europe. Necessities such as iron had to be
imported, and the Greenlanders most important
trade item was tusk ivory from walruses caught in
the Disko Bay and northward (see Fig. 1).
The walrus hunt was elite driven and it was the
elite who controlled the foreign trade linking
Greenland with North Atlantic/Scandinavian net-
works that provided the North European markets
with Arctic exotics first and foremost walrus
tusk. At home, redistribution of imported items
Greenland: Approaches to Historical Norse Archaeology 3167 G
Greenland: Approaches
to Historical Norse
Archaeology, Fig. 3 The
ruin of the church at the
elite farm in the Hvalsey
fjord in n the Eatsern
Settlement seen through the
door of the festal hall. The
remains of the dwellling
can be seen between the
festal hall and the church
(Photo: J. Arneborg 2004)

formed part of the elites power base. However,

over time, trade patterns changed, and the highly
valued and very valuable walrus tusk lost prestige
during the Middle Ages, especially as other ivory
sources became more accessible, and it was no
longer worth risk losing both ships and men to
acquire it (Roesdahl 1995). As a result, in Green-
land, the elite lost prestige and power pari passu
as the calls by foreign merchants ships become
fewer and fewer (Fig. 4).

International Perspectives and Future

Directions

The Norse settlements in Greenland were popu-

lated for about 500 years. New research indicates
that the Norse Greenlanders were well adapted
at least with respect to local subsistence econ-
omy, and economic strategies seem to have
been sustainable. Still, Norse Greenland society
faced several difficulties caused by climate
changes, changed international trade relations,
and, perhaps, the arrival of the Thule Inuit, cir-
cumstances that were out of their power to
change. Altogether life in Greenland became dif-
ficult, resulting in a decrease of population to end
with the total depopulation.
Greenland: Approaches to Historical Norse Archae-
ology, Fig. 4 Woolen dress found 1921 in the
Herjolfsnes church yard in the Eastern Settlement, C14
dated to the beginning of the 1400s. The dress is of
contemporary European fashion and clearly shows the
importance the Norse Greenlanders attached to their Euro-
pean identity (# National Museum of Denmark,
reproduced with permission)
One stress factor on Norse society of which
we know very little was the appearance of the
Thule Inuit in Greenland and in the settlements
in particular. In a late twelfth century
G 3168
Norwegian History book Historia Norwegiae
(trans. 2008), we learn for the first time
about Norse encounters with the Skrlings.
The presence of Thule Inuit in the Disko Bay
region is documented archaeologically from
around 1200 and onward and encounters
between the two people must have been
unavoidable. The archaeological record is still
uncertain when it comes to the arrival of
the Inuit to the Norse settlements. Nevertheless,
if the Thule Inuit actually settled on the coast
in the Norse settlements while the Norse were
still living on their farms, the Thule perhaps
would have been positioned to cut off Norse
access to migratory seals. Future research may
resolve this.
Finally, as research on these issues has
progressed, from having been of local interest
only, the fate of the Norse Greenlanders has now
turned into a matter of global interest. Today,
ecologically orientated archaeology forms
part of interdisciplinary studies on issues of sus-
tainability, resilience, and the future of humans
on earth, and Norse Greenland has become
one of the classic examples of societies that
did not make it. Against this background,
future research in Norse Greenland is likely
to seek to improve our understanding of the
complex interactions of human governance,
climate change, global commodity flows,
human environmental impact, and world system
effects.
Cross-References
Adaptation in Archaeology
Environmental Reconstruction in
Archaeological Science
Farmsteads and Rural Life in the United States,
Archaeology of
Geoarchaeology
Historical Ecology and Environmental
Archaeology
Historical Ecology in Archaeology
Landscape Archaeology
Medieval Archaeology
Greenland: Approaches to Historical Norse Archaeology
People as Agents of Environmental Change
Scandinavia/Northern Europe: Historical
Archaeology
Zooarchaeology
References
ANDREN, A. 1997. Mellan ting och text. En introduktion till
de historiska arkeologierna. Stockholm/Stehag: Bru-
tus Ostlings Bokforlag Symposion.
ARNEBORG, J., J. HEINEMEIER & N. LYNNERUP. (ed.) 2012.
Greenland isotope project: diet in Norse Greenland
AD 1000 - AD 1450. Journal of the North Atlantic
(Special volume 3).
BUCKLAND, P.C., K.J. EDWARDS, E. PANAGIOTAKOPULU & J.
E. SCHOFIELD. 2009. Palaeoecological and historical
evidence for manuring and irrigation at Garar
(Igaliku), Norse Eastern Settlement, Greenland. The
Holocene 19: 105-16.
DIAMOND, J. 2005. Collapse - how societies choose to fail
or succeed. New York: Penguin Books.
DUGMORE, A.J., T.H. MCGOVERN, O. VESTEINSSON,
J. ARNEBORG, R. STREETER & C. KELLER. 2012. Cultural
adaptation, compounding vulnerabilities and conjunc-
tures in Norse Greenland. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
109: 3658-63. Available at: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/
10.1073/pnas.1115292109.
GHM III DET KONGELIGE NORDISKE OLDSKRIFTSELSKAB.
1845. Grnlands historiske mindesmrker, Volume 3.
Kjbenhavn: Det Kongelige Nordiske
Oldskriftselskab.
GULLV, H.C. (ed.) 2004. Grnlands forhistorie. Copen-
hagen: Gyldendal.
JONSSON, F. (ed.) 1920. Konungs Skuggsja: Speculum
Regale. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Nordiske
Oldskriftselskab.
KROGH, K.J. 1982. Erik den Rdes Grnland. Copenha-
gen: National Museum of Denmark.
MASSA, C., V. BICHET, E. GAUTHIER, B.B. PERREN,
O. MATHIEU, C. PETIT, F. MONNA, J. GIRAUDEAU, R.
LOSNO & H. RICHARD. 2012. A 2500 year record of
natural and anthropogenic soil erosion in south Green-
land. Quaternary Science Reviews 32: 119-30.
doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2011.11.014.
MASSON-DELMOTTE, V., D. SWINGEDOUW, D. LANDAIS, M.-S.
SEIDENKRANTZ, E. GAUTHIER, V. BICHET, C. MASSA, B.
PERREN, V. JOMELLI, G. ADALGEIRSDOTTIR, J.
HESSELBJERG CHRISTENSEN, J. ARNEBORG, U. BHATT, D.
A. WALKER, B. ELBERLING, F. GILLET-CHAULET, C. RITZ,
H. GALLEE, M. VAN DEN BROEKE, X. FETTWEIS, A. DE
VERNAL & B. VINTHER. forthcoming 2012. Greenland
climate change: from the past to the future. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews. doi:10.1002/wcc.186.
MCGOVERN, T.H. 1985. Contribution to paleoeconomy of
Norse Greenland. Acta Archaeologica 54: 73-122.
Grimaldi, Stefano
ROESDAHL, E. 1995. Hvalrostand elfenben og nordboerne
I Grnland. Odense (Denmark): Odense
Universitetsforlag.
SCHOFIELD, J.E. & K.J. EDWARDS. 2011. Grazing impacts
and woodland management in Eriksfjord: Betula, cop-
rophilous fungi and the Norse Settlement of Green-
land. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20:
181-97.
Vatnahverfi project. n.d. Available at: http://www.
nabohome.org/cgi_bin/explore.pl?seq17 (accessed
7 December 2011).
Further Reading
ARNEBORG, J., J. HEINEMEIER, N. LYNNERUP, H.L. NIELSEN,
N. RUD & A.E. SVEINBJORNSDOTTIR. 1999. Change of
diet of the Greenland Vikings determined from stable
carbon isotope and 14C dating of their bones. Radio-
carbon 41: 157-68.
ARNEBORG, J. 2003a. Norse Greenland archaeology: the
dialogue between the written and the archaeological
record, in S.M. Lewis (ed.) Vinland revisited: the
Norse world at the turn of the first millennium.
Selected papers from the Viking Millennium Interna-
tional Symposium 15 - 24 September 2000, Newfound-
land and Labrador: 111-23. St. John: Newfoundland
Historic Sites Association.
- 2003b. Norse Greenland - reflections on the discussion
of depopulation, in H.J. Barrett (ed.) Contact, continu-
ity and collapse: the Norse colonisation of the North
Atlantic (Studies in the Early Middle Ages 5): 163-81.
Turnhout: Brepols.
DUGMORE, A.J., C. KELLER & T.H. MCGOVERN. 2007. Norse
Greenland settlement: reflection on climate change,
trade, and the contrasting fates of human settlements
in the North Atlantic Islands. Arctic Anthropology 44:
12-36.
Eirks saga raua, n.d. Available at: http://sagadb.org/
eiriks_saga_rauda.en (accessed 30 November 2011).
FAULKES, A. & R. PERKINS. (ed.) 2001. A history of Norway
and the passion and miracles of the blessed Olafr
(Historia Norwegiae). (Viking Society for Northern
Research XIII). Translated by D. Kunin. London:
Viking Society for Northern Research. Available at:
http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Text%20
Series/Historia%26Passio.pdf (accessed 30
November 2011).
GLOBAL HUMAN ECODYNAMICS ALLIANCE, n.d. Available at:
www.gheahome.org.
GRNLENDINGA SAGA, n.d. Available at: http://sagadb.org/
graenlendinga_saga.on (accessed 30 November 2011).
MIKKELSEN, N., A. KUIJPERS & J. ARNEBORG. 2008. The
Norse in Greenland and late Holocene sea-level
change. Polar Record 44: 45-50.
NORTH ATLANTIC BIOCULTURAL ORGANISATION. n.d. Avail-
able at: www.nabohome.org.
OGILVIE, A.E.J., J.M. WOOLLETT, K. SMIAROWSKI,
J. ARNEBORG, S. TROELSTRA, A. KUIJPERS, A. PALSDOTTIR
& T. MCGOVERN. 2009. Seals and sea ice in Medieval
Greenland. Journal of the North Atlantic 2: 60-81.
3169 G
STREETER, R., A.J. DUGMORE & O. VESTEINSSON.
2012. Plague and landscape resilience in premodern
Iceland. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America 109:
3664-9.
VESTEINSSON, O. 2010. Parishes and communities in
Norse Greenland. Journal of the North Atlantic 2:
138-50.
Grimaldi, Stefano
Stefano Grimaldi
Laboratorio di Archeologia preistorica, G
medievale e Geografia storica B.Bagolini,
Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia, Universita
degli Studi di Trento, Trento, Italy
Basic Biographical Information
Stefano Grimaldi is an Italian archeologist who
specializes in hunter-gatherer groups (Grimaldi
2009; Grimaldi & Flor 2009). He grew up in
Rome and completed his graduate studies in
Prehistoric Archaeology at the La Sapienza
University of Rome (1992). He received
a Ph.D. (1996) in anthropology in the same uni-
versity under the guidance of Professor
Amilcare Bietti.
Early in his career, Stefano Grimaldi worked as
a field technician in several excavations in Europe.
At the same time, he was co-founder member of
a private company that specialized in cultural her-
itage management. Grimaldi has received research
grants from the European Community to work in
Portugal (19961999). In 1999 he was an assistant
professor at the Instituto Politecnico de Tomar,
Portugal, as a colleague of Luiz Oosterbeek. At
this institution he taught prehistory, human evolu-
tion, and lithic technology. Since 2005 he has been
an assistant professor at the University of Trento,
Italy, teaching human evolution and European
prehistory.
Since 2006 Stefano Grimaldi has been presi-
dent of the Human Occupations in Mountains
Environments Commission of the International
Union of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences.
G 3170
He is a researcher in the Quaternary and
Prehistory Group, Geosciences Center, at
University of Coimbra, Portugal, and with the
Instituto Terra e Memoria of Macao, Portugal.
Major Accomplishments
Stefano Grimaldis major accomplishments
involve the development of a techno-functional
approach to the study of lithic assemblages and
new evidence from archaeological excavations in
Italy and Portugal. Since 2007 Stefano Grimaldi
has been a scientific director of excavations at the
Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Riparo Mochi
rockshelter, Balzi Rossi, Italy (Douka et al. 2012).
Since 1999 he has been one of the scientists respon-
sible for excavations at the Lower-Middle-Upper
Palaeolithic Ribeira Ponte da Pedra open-air site in
Portugal (Grimaldi & Cura 2009).
Cross-References
Europe: Early Upper Paleolithic
European Middle Paleolithic: Geography
and Culture
References
DOUKA, K., S. GRIMALDI, G. BOSCHIAN, A. DEL LUCCHESE &
T. HIGHAM 2012. A new chronostratigraphic frame-
work for the Upper Palaeolithic of Riparo Mochi
(Italy). Journal of Human Evolution 62: 286-99.
GRIMALDI, S. 2009. Early Mesolithic hunting strategies in
northeastern Italian Alps: an experimental
analyses in S.B. McCartan, R. Shulting, G. Warren &
P. Woodman (ed.) Mesolithic horizons, Volume 2:
760-65. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
GRIMALDI, S. & S. CURA. (ed.) 2009. Technological
analysis on quartzite exploitation. Proceedings of the
XV World Congress UISPP (Lisbon, 4-9 September
2006) (British Archaeological Reports International
series). Oxford: Archaeopress.
GRIMALDI, S. & E. FLOR. 2009. From the mountain to the
sea: an ethnographic perspective for the early
Mesolithic settlement dynamics in north-eastern
Italy, in S.B. McCartan, R. Shulting, G. Warren &
P. Woodman (ed.) Mesolithic horizons, Volume 2:
754-59. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Gryaznov, Mikhail P.
Further Reading
BIETTI, A., E. CANCELLIERI, C. CORINALDESI, S. GRIMALDI &
E. SPINAPOLICE. 2009-10. La percussion sur enclume en
Italie centrale Tyrrhenienne. Paleo, numero special:
143-80.
CAVULLI, F. & S. GRIMALDI. 2009. Raw material and set-
tlement strategies at the Pleistocene/Holocene bound-
ary in Trentino (northeastern Italian Alps): a GIS
approach, in S.B. McCartan, R. Shulting, G. Warren
& P. Woodman (ed.) Mesolithic horizons, Volume 1:
96-101. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
COIA, V., I. BOSCHI, F. TROMBETTA, F. CAVULLI,
F. MONTINARO, G. DESTRO-BISOL G., S. GRIMALDI &
A. PEDROTTI. 2012. Evidence of high genetic variation
among linguistically diverse populations on a micro-
geographic scale: a case study of the Italian Alps.
Journal of Human Genetics 57(4): 254-60.
GRIMALDI, S., B. ARANGUREN, A. REVEDIN, G. GOTTARDI &
F. CAVULLI. 2011. Remontages, burins de Noailles et
meules: analyse de la distribution spatiale sur le site de
plein air gravettien de Bilancino. Memoire LII de la
Societe Prehistorique Francaise: 85-98.
MARTINS, A.A., P.P. CUNHA, P. ROSINA, L. OOSTERBEEK,
S. CURA S., S. GRIMALDI, J. GOMES, J.-P. BUYLAERT,
A.S. MURRAY & J. MATOS. 2010. Geoarcheology of
Pleistocene open-air sites in the Vila Nova da
Barquinha - Santa Cita area (lower Tejo river basin,
central Portugal). Proceedings of the Geologists
Association 121(2): 128-40.
OOSTERBEEK, L., S. GRIMALDI, P. ROSINA, S. CURA,
P.P. CUNHA & A. MARTINS. 2010. The earliest Pleisto-
cene archaeological sites in western Iberia: present
evidence and research prospects. Quaternary
International 223-224: 399-407.
Gryaznov, Mikhail P.
Nona A. Avanesova
Department of Archaeology, Samarkand State
University, Samarkand, Uzbekistan
Basic Biographical Information
Mikhail Petrovitch Gryaznov (19021984) was
an outstanding Russian scientist, Doctor of
Historical Sciences, Professor, Laureate for the
USSR National Award, and corresponding mem-
ber of the German Archaeological Institute. M.P.
Gryaznov entered into the archaeological chron-
icles of Euroasia as an outstanding specialist in
archaeology, anthropology, and the ethnography
of Siberia, Kazakhstan, and Middle Asia.
Gryaznov, Mikhail P.
Mikhail Gryaznov made his pathway to archae-
ology through a untraditional route. While being
a first year student in the physics branch of the
Physics and Mathematics Department at the Uni-
versity of Tomsk, he participated in the Achinsk
geographical expedition. On the banks of the
Yenisei River, 17-year-old Gryaznov met an
archaeology squad. He stayed there as he was
excited by the excavations. From that time
onward, Gryaznovs scientific interests were in
archaeology, anthropology, and ethnography.
Those interests were strongly connected to the
discovery of the first four stages of currently
well-known cultures by ancient Siberian
archaeology: Afanasievs, Andronovs, Karauk and development of Bronze Age and Scythian
memorials of Bronze Age, and Scythian Time
mounds. In 1922, Mikhail Gryaznov transferred
to Leningrad University, and in 1925, upon
finishing a 3-year study period in the anthropology
branch of the Physics and Mathematics Depart-
ment, he left the university and started to work as
a scientist in the ethnographic department of Rus-
sian National Museum.
At the end of 1920, under the guidance of his
teacher S.A. Teplouhov, Mikhail Petrovitch
Gryaznovs area of interests had become even
clearer. During this period, he concentrated his
attention on researching the monuments of the
Bronze Age in a wide region, including Southern
Siberia, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan.
M.P. Gryaznovs fieldwork on the Scythian
period in Altai Mountains holds a very important
place in the ancient history of Siberia. During the
excavations of large mounds Shibe (1927) and
Pazyryk (1929), cultural and art monuments of
the early nomads were obtained, as they had
been preserved in permafrost. In 1939, Gryaznov
formulated the definition of the early nomads
period as a distinctive period in Eurasian history.
The definition early nomads period entered into
specialized literature thanks to him.
In 1937, M.P. Gryaznov started his work at the
National Hermitage, and from 1939 to June 1941,
he held the position of senior researcher with the
Institute of History of Material Culture at the
Russian Academy of Sciences in Leningrad. Dur-
ing these years, he finished his study of early
nomads and monuments of the Bronze Age. His
3171 G
first book about Pazyryk mound was published in
1937 and was completed as a great handwritten
work, later published in shortened form
(Great Pazyryk Mound, 1950). In January 1945,
M.P. Gryaznov completed his masters thesis on
Bronze Age Burials in West Kazakhstan and in
June of the same year, he was awarded his full
doctoral degree in history for his monograph
Pazyryk Burial of a Tribe Chief in Altai.
Major Accomplishments
At the same time, Gryaznov studied the shaping G
period cultures in Kazakhstan and Southern
Siberia very closely. He devoted a line of his pub-
lishing to this topic, which entered the list of spe-
cialists desk books not only in Russia, but also
abroad. The top of his scientific heritage is South-
ern Siberia (Gryaznov 1969 and 1970; in
Sudsibiren Archaeologia Mundi in English, French
and German in Stuttgart, Munich, Geneva and
Paris) and Arzhan Royal Mound of Early Scyth-
ian Period (Gryaznov 1980). Gryaznov received
the Laureate of the State Prize of the USSR.
His scientific legacy contains more than 140
published studies. They all have an extraordinary
subtlety and accuracy of observation and are of
great interest on the subjects of technology and
the usage of ancient objects. Scrupulous analysis
and deep erudition gave him the opportunity to
recreate the lifestyle of ancient tribes in
completely innovative ways and with details
seemingly unavailable to archaeologists. Those
studies were based on the results of first-rate
excavations undertaken by Gryaznov himself.
Many currently well-known in Commonwealth
of Independent States (CIS/Former USSR)
archaeologists passed through his field schools.
From 1946, Gryaznov supervised archaeological
expeditions to Siberia, and from 1955 to 1970, he
headed one of the biggest expeditions in Krasno-
yarsk (USSR). It can be said without exaggera-
tion that it was due to Gryaznovs study of the
archaeological data of southern Siberia that we
have the most perfect method of complex study
of burial memorials. He often used the correlation
G 3172
method for researching archaeological materials.
M.P. Gryaznov was a pioneer in involving new
methods to study artifacts, from statistical and
multidisciplinary to trasological (science of
traces, from Franch la trace and Greek logB )
M.P. Gryaznov was an excellent teacher.
From 1946, he was giving lectures on Siberian
archaeology and trasology in the history faculty
at Leningrad University, producing highly
qualified archaeologists. The broadness of his
scientific mind and his gift for educating united
many students and followers from different
scientific schools.
Gryaznov always combined his research work
with teaching, lecturing, and administration. From
1949, he was the head of office work laboratory,
and from 1957, he was in charge of the laboratory
of archaeological technology at the Institute of
Archaeology at USSRs Academy of Sciences.
He was the head of the Middle Asia and Caucasus
Sector at Leningrad Department of Institute of
Archaeology (at present time Institute of Material
Culture in Saint-Petersburg) for 15 years from
1953 to 1968. For the last 10 of these years, he
led the Leningrad Section of field research at the
Presidium of USSRs Academy of Sciences.
In the archaeological chronicles of Eurasia,
M.P. Gryaznov is recognized as an outstanding
archaeologist, one of the main specialists of
ancient Siberian history and Eurasian steppe
cultures.
Cross-References
Archaeology of Art: Theoretical Frameworks
Art Studies: Normative Approaches
Askarov, Akhmadali A.
Burial Archaeology and the Soviet Era
Excavation Methods in Archaeology
References
GRYAZNOV, M.P. 1969. Southern Sibiria. Geneva:
Archaeologia Mundi.
- 1980. Arzhan Tsarskiy kurgan ranneskifskogo vremeni
[Arzhan Royal Mound of Early Scythian Period].
Leningrad: Nauka.
Guinea Pig: Domestication
Further Reading
GRYAZNOV, M.P. 1928. Furstengraber im Altaigebiet.
Wiener Prahistorische Zeitschrift XV.
- 1929. Ein bronzener Dolch mit Widderkopf aus
Ostsibirien. Artibus Asiae 4.
- 1930. Drevnie kultury Altaya. Materialy po izucheniyu
Sibiri. Novosibirsk 2.
- 1933. The Pazirik burial of Altai. American Journal of
Archaeology XXXVII.
- 1958. Drevnee iskusstvo Altaya. Leningrad.
- 1970. Pastusheskie plemena Sredney Azii v epokhu
razvitoy i pozdney Bronzy. KSIA 122.
Guinea Pig: Domestication
Silvana Rosenfeld
Department of Anthropology, University of
South Dakota, Vermillion, SD, USA
Basic Species Information
Guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus, Linneaus 1758;
Rodentia, Caviidae) were the only small mam-
mals domesticated in the Americas. The other
New Word animal domesticates were turkeys
(Maleagris gallopavo), llamas (Lama glama),
alpacas (Lama pacos), and muscovy ducks
(Cairina moschata).
Guinea pigs are small Andean rodents that still
function as a delicacy food (Fig. 1), as an instru-
ment to diagnose disease, and as key component
in sacrificial offerings in traditional communities.
In indigenous Quechua, they are referred as jaca
or saca, and in Ayamara the word is wanku.
However, most people in the central Andes call
them cuy. Other known terms in South America
are cobayo and conejito de Indias.
As part of the family Caviidae, guinea pigs
present a particular dental formula: Teeth cheeks
are ever growing and have two enamel prisms
with sharp folds and angular projections. They
have four toes on the front feet, three on the
hind feet, and the tail is extremely reduced.
The adult guinea pig weighs approximately
750 g and is on average 30-cm long. The most
common colors are white, brown, and gray.
Their life span is 57 years. Puberty occurs
Guinea Pig: Domestication
at roughly 70 days of age. The gestation period is
generally 1012 weeks, and litters are usually
composed of two to four pups. A few days after
birth, young cuys are able to care for themselves.
Fertilization takes places again shortly after a
female produces a litter. Pups and pregnant cuys
do not need a special human care. In Andean
communities, they are generally kept inside the
kitchen (Fig. 2), and they are fed with alfalfa and
table waste such as potato peelings, grass, fresh
corncobs, and grains (Bolton 1979).
At sites like Ayamachay and Puente in the
Peruvian Andes, the association between man
and wild Cavia dates back as far as 10,000 years
Guinea Pig: Domestication, Fig. 1 Fried guinea pig
dish as served in a restaurant in Ayacucho, Peru
Guinea Pig:
Domestication, Fig. 2
Guinea pigs kept in a
kitchen, Ayacucho, Peru
3173 G
before present (Wing 1977). Changes from selec-
tion for large size were noted by measuring the
height of the jaw in the middle of the diastema.
Archaeological samples from Ayacucho and
Cuzco show that the most recent samples are the
most variable; the mean of the diastema measure-
ment shows a large and significant increase in
size over older samples. These changes are seen
by 3,000 BP at the Pikimachay cave in the Aya-
cucho Valley (Wing 1977). From this likely single
domestication center, they were then introduced to
sites outside of central Peru. While domestic
guinea pigs preceded Inca occupation in southern
Peru, northern Chile, and Ecuador (Stahl 2003; G
Sportorno et al. 2007), their presence in northwest
Argentina appeared to be due to the Inca occupa-
tion (Rodriguez Loredo 1997-1998).
Two wild ancestors of the domestic guinea
pig have been suggested: Cavia tshudii and
Cavia aperea. The distribution of both wild spe-
cies extends from Colombia to Argentina, though
C. tshudii inhabits high altitude environments,
C. aperea inhabits the eastern lowlands. Both
Cavia species would have been good candidates
for domestication as they have high birth rates,
eat household refuse, and can easily be raised in
captivity: important elements of pre-adaptation
to domestication. Both species produce fertile
hybrids when crossed with C. porcellus (Gade
1967). However, skull morphology (Wing 1977)
G 3174
and recent molecular analysis of cytochrome
b (Spotorno et al. 2004) suggests that the wild
species C. tschudii from western South America,
and not C. aperea, is the ancestor of the domes-
ticated species, C. porcellus.
Wild cuys were surely attracted to human
refuse in caves or other early settlements. People
realized they were a good source of meat and
probably encouraged wild cuys to stay around
the house by giving them food scrapes. They
were eventually brought into the kitchen areas
where they received warmth, food, and protection
until when, finally accustomed, they started
reproducing in captivity (Gade 1967).
Given their small size, the domestication of
guinea pigs does not seem to be related to
increases in their meat productivity. They do not
provide secondary products such as milk, leather,
or wool. Yet cuy manure is a rich fertilizer. It is
collected to nourish orchards, and cornfields in
the Andes. Manure may have also been used as
fuel, although it would have been needed in large
quantities.
A cultural ecological analysis has been used to
explain the successful introduction of guinea pigs
in the Andean diet as environmentally deter-
mined. Data recorded in Cuzco (Peru) shows
that cuys are primarily eaten during Christmas,
Carnival, Easter, and Corpus Christi (Bolton
1979). It has been claimed that major communal
fiestas in rural Andean Peru serve guinea pigs to
distribute proteins during the wet season, Novem-
ber through April, the time of greatest protein
need in Southern Peru (Bolton 1979). However,
this explanation does not take into account other
sources of protein common in rural Peru today,
namely, the introduced chicken and pigs, and the
native camelids. Furthermore, this explanation
does not consider the need for fat and carbohy-
drates in the Andean human diet.
Another explanation for the domestication and
incorporation of guinea pigs in the Andean diet is
the fact that they represented an additional source
of fat, especially during the wet season when
carbohydrates and grain proteins were short in
supply (Rosenfeld 2008). Guinea pig meat is
7.8 % fat, as a weight-based proportion of the
edible meat. This is not a high fat value but it
Guinea Pig: Domestication
could have been crucial as an additional source to
that of camelids, particularly during certain times
of the year and especially to the most needy
segment of the human population (infants, preg-
nant, and nursing women). When carbohydrates
are not abundant, humans must switch to animal
fat as an energy source and/or synthesize energy
from protein. Therefore, when carbohydrates
were in short supply during the wet season of
the Andes, guinea pigs could have provided the
fat needed to help metabolize animal protein in
order to have a balanced diet (Rosenfeld 2008).
Cross-References
Animal Domestication and Pastoralism:
Socio-Environmental Contexts
Domestication: Definition and Overview
Genetics of Animal Domestication: Recent
Advances
References
BOLTON, R. 1979. Guinea pigs, protein, and ritual. Ethnol-
ogy XVIII: 229- 52.
GADE, D.W. 1967. The guinea pig in Andean folk culture.
The Geographical Review 57: 213- 24.
RODRIGUEZ-LOREDO, C. 1997-1998. Estudio
arqueozoologico del sitio inca Potrero-Chaquiago,
barrios La Solana y Retambay, Andalgala, pcia de
Catamarca (Argentina). Relaciones de la Sociedad
Argentina de Antropologia XXII-XXIII: 203-45.
ROSENFELD, S.A. 2008. Delicious guinea pigs: seasonality
studies and the use of fat in the pre-Columbian Andean
diet. Quaternary International 180: 127-34.
SPOTORNO, A.E., J. P. VALLADARES, J.C. MARIN & H.
ZEBALLOS. 2004. Molecular diversity among domestic
guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) and their close phyloge-
netic relationship with the Andean wild species
Caviatschudii. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural
77: 243-50.
SPORTORNO, A., G. MANRIQUEZ, A. FERNANDEZ, J. C.
MARIN, F. GONZALES & J. WHELEER. 2007. Domestica-
tion of guinea pigs from a southern Peru- northern
Chile wild species and their middle pre-Columbian
mummies, in D. Kelt, E. Lessa, J. Salazar-Bravo & J.
Patton (ed.) The quintessential naturalist: honoring
the life and legacy of Oliver Pearson (UC Publications
in Zoology): 367-88. Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press.
STAHL, P. 2003. Pre-Columbian Andean animal domesti-
cates at the edge of empire. World Archaeology
34: 470- 83.
Gwion Gwion
WING, E. S. 1977. Animal domestication in the Andes, in
C. A. Reed (ed.) Origins of agriculture: 827-59. The
Hague: Mouton Publishers.
Further Reading
ARCHETTI, E. 1997. Guinea pigs. Food, symbol and conflict
of knowledge in Ecuador. Oxford: Berg.
MORALES, E. 1995. The guinea pig. Healing, food, and
ritual in the Andes. Tucson: The University of Arizona
Press.
Gwion Gwion
Graeme K. Ward
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Studies, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Introduction and Definition
Gwion as Ancestors and Images
The term Gwion refers to a type of figurative
pictogram found in northwestern Australia, espe-
cially the sandstone of the Kimberley Plateau.
Typically, but not exclusively, the form of the
paintings appears to be elegant humans; they
are depicted in various poses, and appear to be
wearing wigs and carrying items in their
hands or attached to their bodies (Fig. 1).
Often the figures are grouped in apparent scenes;
both as single figures and in groups, the stance
and orientation of many is suggestive of dance or
ceremonial activity. Typically, the depiction is of
small, slender figures, outlined and in-filled pro-
files, whose finely executed painting was
achieved by delicate brush-work. Gwion figures
are usually a wine red, a hue that has been
described as cherry or mulberry-colored.
Their subject matter and method of execution
may be contrasted with those of the much larger,
more boldly wrought Wanjina figures; the distri-
butions of the two overlap. Not dissimilar figures
are found to the northeast in the Keep River and
Fitzmaurice River regions, and it has been
suggested that they are related to the Mimi figures
of Arnhem Land, and that in the ancient past,
there was a shared cultural area joined by the
3175 G
extensive coastal plain of northwestern and
northern Australia that is now a shallow sea.
The region includes the traditional lands of the
Ngarinyin; adjacent languages groups are the
Wunambul and the Worora. The Ngarinyin term
for the figures is Gwion Gwion, sometimes writ-
ten Guyon or Kwion; the Wunambul and
Worora use linguistically similar descriptors
(Ngarinyin are the largest language group).
Some commentators have seen the Gwion as
mysterious and even as having been produced
by non-Aboriginal cultures or even alien beings.
Such a mystery if it ever existed has been
solved by research conducted in collaboration G
with four senior Ngarinyin traditional owners,
munnumburra (initiated men, lawmen). The
verbal testimony of the Pathway Project was
recorded on-site in painted shelters and published
in an illustrated book entitled Gwion Gwion:
Dulwan Mamaa. Secret and Sacred Pathways of
the Ngarinyin Aboriginal People of Australia
(Ngarjno et al. 2000: 14).
Essentially, Gwion are (depictions of) ances-
tral beings and are treated with great respect;
they are not spoken of lightly. It needs to be
recalled that people were frightened of ances-
tors, who were powerful enough to hurt or to kill
them (e.g., Ngarjno et al. 2000: 27, 83); they
exercised great caution in approaching the
painted images (e.g., Ngarjno et al. 2000: 38).
They were secretive about them, to the extent
that some commentators thought and regrettably
still publish that the local people knew nothing
of them. It is evident, however, that the Gwion
are an integral part of the cosmology and social
history of the Ngarinyin and others, and that they
are part of their continuing cultural heritage has
been recognized formally by granting of native
title rights.
Gwion is both the term for the original
humans born from the Great Mother Jillinya
and who inhabited a land without boundaries
(Ngarjno et al. 2000: 36), and, secondly, the cor-
pus of painted images created by the ancestors.
The subject of the Gwion paintings is law.
Gwion were inventors of hunting technology
of stone tools, spears, and woomera (Ngarjno
et al. 2000: 85, 93, 209, 232); Munga.nunga is a
G 3176
Gwion Gwion, Fig. 1 Inventors: Yandama site. The
named Gwion personage, Yandama, the inventor of the
spear-thrower, is depicted at left; his body is delineated
with stripes and his feet end in three digits a reference to
his avian clan. He is depicted wearing a feathered head-
dress, and in his right hand (as seen from the viewers
perspective) he holds the hooked throwing-stick
(nyarndu) of which he is the historic inventor. About his
term for the same artists as visionaries
law-makers and story-tellers (Ngarjno et al.
2000: 128); and Jenagi Jenagi for them as mes-
sengers (Ngarjno et al. 2000: 176), who are
depicted carrying messages relating to the laws
of the Wunan council across the extensive
dambun regions and further afield, to the
Dampier Archipelago and Arnhem Land
(Ngarjno et al. 2000: 174) (Fig. 2). While
Gwion are the first skilled painters of the human
form, it is important not to consider Gwion
images as an art form, as entertainment, but as
legal documents. Depictions of Gwion express
the complex Wunan system of law and exchange
that the Gwion invented and that originated with
Gwion Gwion
waist height, his spear is depicted horizontally to the right;
it is shown having pieced the upper body of the kangaroo
depicted on the right of the panel; the spear is shown with
multiple, sharpened wooden barbs used before hide-
penetrating gimbu points were manufactured. Scale: cen-
tral figure c. 150 mm (Photograph: Pathway Project 1994
PP1309*08 [130908])
the actions of two Gwion heroes named Wodoi
and Jungun, seekers of wisdom and knowledge
(Ngarjno et al. 2000: 192-204). They inform the
senior members of the community, especially the
munnumburra, and might serve for instruction of
younger generations (Ngarjno et al. 2000: 310-6)
(Fig. 3).
Gwion images are painted with skill and often
with some anatomical realism but also with bird
characteristics including pairs of wings (Ngarjno
et al. 2000: 126-7). Frequently, images appear to
depict persons wearing or holding unfamiliar
objects; but these items are extensions of the
persons depicted, as if they are growths from the
knee, elbow, hand, or shoulder they are
Gwion Gwion
Gwion Gwion, Fig. 2 Visionaries: Galeru.ngarri
North site. The Gwion figure on the left is depicted passing
a sacred object to the first of a series of other figures; the
image depicts the distribution of the Wunan Law through
cultural exchange. Note dense silica skin covering part of
imagery at lower left. Scale: central figure c. 110 mm
(Photograph: Pathway Project 1999 PP0059*02 [005902])
extensions of the personage, making emblematic
connections with the landscape of the clan ances-
tors (Fig. 4). In these conceptualizations, every
painted place has its own specific body and
mudurra (headdress) extensions (Figs. 5 and 6),
and refers to the various totems, to plants, ani-
mals, and especially to birds.
The term Gwion invokes the story of the
cave-dwelling Gwion Gwion bird, which used
his beak to wipe blood across the surface of stone
and thus was responsible for the first paintings
copied by humans (Ngarjno et al. 2000: 118-
20). The color of the Gwion paintings derives
from the wine-red sap of the mamandu, a
mulberry-like bush that is commonly found near
painted shelters. The liquid sap was extracted into
shallow cup-shaped depressions in the stone
cupules (norgun in Ngarinyin) (Fig. 7) that
usually are found on the floor near shelter
3177 G
entrances, like painters palettes (Ngarjno et al.
2000: 99-100, 123). (The Ngarinyin say that the
original Gwion artists were clever because this
sap gave them a fixative as well as red color!)
Some images, despite being exposed to sun and
rain, are vivid, contrasting with the surrounding
rock face. Unlike the Wanjina, they were not
regularly over-painted, although if damaged,
might be repaired, restored to maintain the integ-
rity of the image (for example, in the case of
exfoliation of a painted surface: the ring dance
imagery: Ngarjno et al. 2000: 209, 232), and many
painted areas show a great complexity of super-
imposition. Researchers have observed that there G
is no residual pigment in Gwion paintings, but the
images remain visible. Pettigrew et al. (2010)
have written that the original paint . . . has been
replaced by a biofilm of living, pigmented micro-
organisms whose natural replenishment may
account for [their] longevity and vividness . . ..
The cherry to dark purple colors of the image was
determined by the proportions of black pigmented
fungus and red Cyanobacteria. It is likely that the
organic character of the original paint provided
the basis for the development of the biofilm.
Key Issues/Current Debates/Future
Directions/Examples
Origins and Ownerships
A colonial settler, Joseph Bradshaw, exploring
the Prince Regents River region of the Kimberley
in 1891 provided the first known European
recordings of the distinctive Gwion imagery;
while he recognized them as native paintings,
he wrote that standing in front of them was like
viewing ancient Egyptian temple walls. Later, in
ignorance of the significance of these images to
indigenous peoples, his name was used for these
figures, and his casual comparison of the
rockshelter to a southwest Asian locus appears
to have supported ideas of alien origins for the
motifs.
Since then, there has been some debate about
the source of the Gwion images. Ignorance of
their cultural significance encouraged specula-
tion contextualized by the history of nineteenth
G 3178
Gwion Gwion, Fig. 3 Visionaries: Guringe site,
a womens place within the Anaut.ngarri territorial divi-
sion of the Wunan. This scene depicts a public meeting-
dance (birrina); here a distinction is made between male
and female Gwion figures. The central (dark) Gwion fig-
ure depicts a female dancing as a praying mantis among
women who are depicted to each side; the scene signifies
acceptance of the male figure depicted at left. Females
wear mambi (a triangular skirt not in daily use; turned to
and twentieth century colonial settlement of the
continent and concomitant racism in which the
autochthonous occupation was seen in terms of
hyper-diffusionism, primitive peoples, and
advanced civilizations. The non-Aboriginal
origin argument sat within a pervading colonial
discourse; if the elegant and sophisticated Gwion
figures were aesthetically superior to other
Aboriginal paintings, how could they have been
made by uninventive savages, by a primitive
culture? They must have been painted by
another race.
There had been nineteenth century speculations
about earlier, non-Aboriginal, occupants of Austra-
lia some prompted by apparent denials by tradi-
tional owners of knowledge of the origin and
meaning of rock art images; indeed, some similar
suggestions were made by twentieth century
anthropologists so it was perhaps not surprising
that an exotic origin became a convenient if
Gwion Gwion
back for dancing; cf. jalgun). Guringe is an important
womens site of the Great Mother, a sanctuary established
prior to the Wunan laws that were developed by males.
The panel is many-layered and of considerable complex-
ity. Scale: central figure c. 180 mm; note that the figures
are small, and necessarily very finely painted, perhaps
with feather brushes and probably by women (Photo-
graph: Pathway Project 1997 PP1711*23 [171123])
nave explanation of the Gwion images. Few com-
mentators apparently had read in Bradshaws
account in the paragraphs immediately preceding
his descriptions of the paintings of a large group
of men encountered by his party in the same area;
many were painted and some wore large head-
dresses which description sounds not too dissim-
ilar to the painted images that he had recorded.
The debate regarding the origins of the
Gwion images became one of ownership con-
textualized again by the concerns of the late
twentieth century. The claims of a mystery
race had implications for indigenous land rights,
and attempts to deny indigenous peoples, authen-
ticity and legitimacy were pursued by various
elements of the popular media. Despite informed
comments from and rebuttals by researchers, the
popular misconceptions about the Gwion con-
tinue; a researcher who has been following the
debate considers that informed responses have
Gwion Gwion 3179 G

Gwion Gwion, Fig. 4 Messengers: King Edward
River site. This scene depicts a ceremonial dance with
walbud (marsupial hide aprons) removed and holding
mandi (crescent-shaped ceremonial boomerangs). In the
early days, there were three nations. When they came
together to dance, one brother stole another brothers
wife; so he hit him with a mandi. After that they all turned
into different types of birds. Munnumburra Paddy
Neowarra 28 August 2012. Scale 100 mm; these figures
are small and finely depicted (Photograph: GK Ward 1999
(AW09-24) [AW09-24 24Jun99 KEdwardR site2 7 val
Gwion Bcc])

Gwion Gwion,
Fig. 5 Messengers:
King Edward River site.
This scene depicts a group
of women wearing
conspicuous mudurra
(sculptured headdresses).
This is a painting of
a special womens dance.
The women would go to
a sacred place where they
would teach the young
women how to dance. It
was a sacred womens
place and men could not go
there. Munnumburra
Paddy Neowarra 28 August
2012. Scale 100 mm; these
figures are among the
largest depictions of Gwion
figures (Photograph: GK
Ward 1999 (AW09-18)
[AW09-18 24Jun99
KEdwardR site2 Gwion x4
Bcc])
G 3180
Gwion Gwion, Fig. 6 Messengers: Donkey Creek site.
Here a couple is depicted; a female (on right) is shown
with long skirt, elbow, and other ornaments. Scale
100 mm; these figures are also large but finely delineated
(Photograph: GK Ward 1999 (AW08-30) [AW08-30
24Jun99 DonkeyCreek Gwion Bcc])
Gwion Gwion, Fig. 7 norgun (concave palette) with
typical staining from mamandu bark (recent) red around
lip and (transformed) black within norgun. Scale: width of
opening c. 140 mm (Photograph: Pathway Project 1995
PP1318*13 [PP-Wulungarri-53norgun])
Gwion Gwion
been ineffective, and suggests that it is necessary
for archaeologists and indigenous people to com-
bine efforts to provide more proactive mass-
media engagement (McNiven 2011).
In 1992, Banggal (David Mowaljarlai), one of
the Ngarinyin munnumburra, initiated a
recording project in conjunction with ethnogra-
pher and film-maker, Jeff Doring. Their intention
was to regain ownership of the Gwion by
revealing previously secret aspects of their
culture. Their collaboration resulted in a book
(Ngarjno et al. 2000), symposia, and exhibitions
of film in France and Australia, and explicit public
statements: At the 1998 meeting of the Australian
Rock Art Research Association, they spoke
of their knowledge of the Gwion imagery and
called for the Gwion figures to be known by
their correct name.
In August 2004, the Wanjina-Wunggurr Com-
munity gained Native Title rights over their tra-
ditional lands (Neowarra v State of Western
Australia [2004] FCA 1092), including the
painted imagery. The Ngarinyin research and
recording including the published accounts
were significant in achieving the native title
determination.
Dating
Dating of the Gwion figures has been the subject
of much research and considerably more debate.
The Ngarinyin and other traditional owners in the
region consider Gwion to be part of their cultural
landscape, both long-standing and contemporary.
The claims by some of an early age based on
identification of a non-Aboriginal origin
(above), rejected by traditional owners and the
Federal Court, nevertheless have inspired the
popular imagination and much ill-informed com-
mentary. Part of this was based on the mistaken
identification of the Gwion as rubbish pictures,
a term that may be used to refer to old matter
(Redmond 2002: 58) or that is sometimes used
when one wishes to avoid discussion of a matter
particularly given the possible severe sanctions
(above).
Subsequent research into the dating of the
Gwion figures has produced questionable results.
Claims of Pleistocene age are reinforced by
Gwion Gwion
identification of depicted megafauna known to
have been extinct millennia ago, by excavation
of ochre-stained rock panels, and by the results of
optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) applied
to quartz grains from mud-wasp nests seen to
overlie rock paintings. An admirable review of
the various methods of archaeological and chro-
nometric methods and results from the Kimberley
recently has been made by Aubert (2012). Aubert
suggested that the possible identification of
examples of extinct fauna (mostly extinct during
the Pleistocene) should be treated as stimuli for
further investigation rather than as conclusive.
The identification (using elemental analysis) of
ochre on a limestone slab excavated from the
Carpenters Gap (Napier Range) site and dated to
about 40,000 years ago could not be regarded as
conclusive because of the possibility of a natural
source of staining, and lack of clear figurative
intent: . . . a robust interpretation of Pleistocene
rock art would require a recognisable motif as
ochre was not exclusively used to produce rock
art (2012: 574).
Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) radio-
carbon analysis has been used to date various
materials enveloping rock art pigments in
Kimberley sites (Aubert 2012: 574-5).
Determinations made on debris contained within
beeswax deposited over paintings typically range
from modern to less than 4000 years BP; those
made using charcoal suggest that Wanjina motifs
were painted or repainted relatively recently
(dates range from modern to about 1200 years
BP). AMS dating of oxalate salts layered
with paint pigments at the Carpenters Gap site
produced results dating two examples of Gwion
figures to between three and four thousand years
BP, and results using silica skins indicated that
another two Gwion figure types had minimum
ages of about 1,500 years.
The most often quoted age determination for
a possible Gwion figure is that of about 17 000 BP
obtained from application of the OSL technique
to dating quartz grains from mud-wasp nests.
Auberts review (2012: 575-6) of the results
questioned whether the dated nest was actually
overlying the painting, and whether application
of the technique should be restricted to large nests
3181 G
where quartz grains could be extracted from the
nest core where gains are protected from modern
sunlight: whether . . . the Kimberley has Pleisto-
cene aged rock art remains debatable and requires
additional dated motifs.
Aubert (2012: 576) considers that high-
resolution uranium-series dating methods
could be applied to the natural calcite and silica
laminations that have been identified as
enveloping rock paintings in the Kimberley and
could be used to provide estimates of maximum
and minimum ages; there are further such
techniques applicable to age analysis of other
natural surfaces that so far have not been applied G
to rock art.
Considering the range of non-figurative
and figurative pictogram motifs recorded in
the Kimberley region, the complexity of the super-
imposition sequences at many sites, the putative
depiction of some fauna known to have become
extinct during the Pleistocene, and the presence of
various biogeological factors enhancing the pres-
ervation of painted surfaces, it would perhaps be
surprising that a rock art of Pleistocene age was
not present in the Kimberley. This likelihood
should not, however, mean that the painting tradi-
tion that includes the Gwion figures be considered
to be exclusively ancient; not only are there AMS
determinations establishing that Gwion figure
painting was done in the last 4,000 years, but
also the strong and formally recognized claims of
the Ngarinyin that the Gwion are part of their
continuing cultural tradition of Wunan Law. The
last aspect is emphasized by the cinematographic
record made by Jeff Doring in 1999 of Nyawarra
(Paddy Neowarra) spontaneously painting
a sentinel Gwion at the Garimbu Creek shelter, at
the junction of three dambun districts, using char-
coal mixed with water and a sap fixative (Ngarjno
et al. 2000: 120-1) (Fig. 8); the sequence was
included in the ACMI series of films shown
throughout 2002 and discussed at an international
congress in 2004 (Neowarra et al. 2004). The
Ngarinyin recognize periodicity in the imagery
and relate this to their cultural history. The earlier
motifs, as well as being less expertly painted, tend
to depict figures with three digits (e.g., Ngarjno
et al. 2000: 292-3), a reference to the legacy of
G 3182 Gwion Gwion

land titles inherited by

Ngarinyin that defines the net-
work of exchange with their
neighbors
Dududu.ngarri Place near the location of the
stone table
gimbu Reddish-brown stone; raw
material for the sharpest
spear-points invented by the
Gwion; circumcision and
cicatrise scalpel
jalgun A small skirt of hide or string
fiber worn by women
Jenagi Jenagi Another title for the Gwion
artists; literally the wan-
derers or nomads who
Gwion Gwion, Fig. 8 Messengers: Garimbu Creek became messengers of law;
site. Paddy Neowarra painting sentinel figure in 1999. messengers who began the
The figure marks the location of the Wunan cultural exchange of sacred maya.
exchange route connecting three territorial boundaries in
Wunan Law. Scale: sentinel figure c. 600 mm high (Pho-
ngarri
tograph: Pathway Project 1999 [JDC297brush03]) mamandu Sticky red sap of rough-barked
mulberry-like tree; provides
birds in the time of unrestricted wandering; this is fixative and dye used to paint
followed by the time of the inventors in which the and stain many indelible
importance of the gimbu and woomera is empha- Gwion figures onto rock
sized; later, following the agreement at the stone surfaces
table at Dududu.ngarri (Ngarjno et al. 2000: mambi Triangular girdle skirt worn by
141-7,164) to divide the country and to control women in Gwion paintings;
access to one anothers dambun, to institute mothers ceremonial skirt
moiety kinship relationships, and to follow the inherited by daughter
Wunan law, the images of the messengers carrying mandi Crescent-shaped boomerang;
the maya.ngarri and various Wunan ceremonies pairs are clapped together for
prevail. In this context, the chronometric results keeping the rhythm of songs
are not so important, but perhaps they will serve to Munga.nunga Gwion title for ancestors
confirm the longevity of the Wunan and the acknowledged as visionaries
distinctive Gwion images. and originators of Wunan
law . . .
maya.ngarri Messages through sacred
Glossary objects; secret or private
forms of incised and painted
(After Ngarjno et al. 2000: 322-5) boards preserving primary
birrina Coming together dance cultural concepts; abstracted
linking men and women in law symbols circulated as
public event messages of law . . .
dambun Clan regions allocated by the mudurra Sculptured wig or headdress
first Kamali council when of various shapes and sizes
originating law . . .; pattern of recorded in Gwion painting . . .
Gwion Gwion
norgun Concave palette worn into
stone, used for extraction of
red liquid from mamandu bark
nyarndu Hooked sick used as a spear-
thrower . . .
walbud Tri-pointed belt-girdle of mar-
supial hide worn by Gwion
males
Wunan The sharing Law; ancient
agreements that ended nomad-
ism by fixing family dumbun
estates and by establishing
moiety divisions of society
into two cross-marriage
groups. . .
Cross-References
Australias Archaeological Heritage
Australian Rock Art
Dating Methods (Absolute and Relative) in
Archaeology of Art
Dating Techniques in Archaeological Science
Indigenous Archaeologies: Australian
Perspective
Indigenous Knowledge and Traditional
Knowledge
Pigment Analysis in Archaeology
Rock Art Sites: Management and Conservation
3183 G
References
AUBERT, M. 2012. A review of rock art dating in the
Kimberley, Western Australia. Journal of Archaeolog-
ical Science 39: 573-7. Available at: http://uow.acade-
mia.edu/MaximeAubert/Papers/1364692/A_review_of_
rock_art_dating_in_the_Kimberley_Western_Australia
(accessed 22 June 2012).
MCNIVEN, I. J. 2011. The Bradshaw debate: lessons
learned from critiquing colonialist interpretations of
Gwion Gwion rock paintings of the Kimberley, West-
ern Australia. Australian Archaeology 72: 35-44.
NEOWARRA, P., J. DORING & G. K. WARD. 2004. Kimberley
(Australia) rock-markings: contemporary significance
in the context of tourism, in G. Kumar (ed.) Rock art
research: changing paradigms. The RASI 2004 Inter-
national Rock Art Congress (Occasional RASI Publi- G
cation): 46-7. Agra: The Rock Art Society of India.
NGARJNO, UNGUDMAN, BANNGAL, NYAWARRA & J. DORING.
(ed.) 2000. Gwion: Dulwan Mamaa. Secret and sacred
pathways of the Ngarinyin Aboriginal people of
Australia. Koln: Konemann.
PETTIGREW, J., C. CALLISTEMON, A. WEILER, A. GORBUSHINA,
W. KRUMBEIN & R. WEILER. 2010. Living pigments in
Australian Bradshaw rock art. Antiquity 84: 326.
Available at: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/
pettigrew326/ (accessed 13 January 2011).
REDMOND, A. 2002. Alien abductions, Kimberley
Aboriginal cave paintings, and the speculation about
human origins: on some investments in cultural tour-
ism in the northern Kimberley, Western Australia.
Australian Aboriginal Studies 2: 5464.
Further Reading
MCNIVEN, I. J. & L. RUSSELL. 2005. Appropriated pasts:
indigenous peoples and the colonial culture of archae-
ology. Lanham (MD): Altamira Press.