Debates and emerging issues in 2022

Abstract

Most of the papers in this volume are united by their use of large datasets and their application to bioarchaeological, palaeoenvironmental, heritage and preservation practices. Through synthesis, integration and reanalysis the authors provide entirely new perspectives that either confirm or refute received wisdom. For example, Key (2022) brings together lithic data from 81 early and late Acheulean sites across Afro-Eurasia. Using statistical analyses to model spatiotemporal patterns, he is able to support the accepted belief that the Acheulean tradition was cohesive across its 1.6-million-year range. By contrast, Komatsu et al.’s (2002) synthesis of plant and animals remains from prehistoric Japan disproves the traditional discourse concerning the transition from hunter-gatherer-fishers to agriculturalists. Rather than these economies being found in binary opposition, Komatsu et al.’s (2002) analysis demonstrates that, over 10,000 years, Jōmon diets and economies varied more by geography and environment than chronology. Challenges to existing theories are also provided by Ayala et al.’s (2023) study of early farming at Çatalhöyük, Turkey. They combine high-resolution palaeoenvironmental and palaeohydrological reconstructions with extensive archaeobotanical data to provide an alternative to the traditional ‘floodplain cultivation model’, originally proposed by Sherratt (1980). Here, Ayala et al. argue that, far from being low-investment and opportunistic, the agriculturalists of Çatalhöyük adopted strategic planting of diverse crops creating an agroecology that was resilient to climate change. Garrido et al.’s (2023) fascinating reanalysis of severed heads from Argentina and Chile demonstrates how bioarchaeological and biomolecular data can be brought together to inform on sociocultural dynamics and political performance. Their programme of C14 and isotope analysis on skulls recovered from sites in Fiambalá (Argentina) and Copiapó (Chile) provided sufficient new evidence to propose that colonising Inca groups co-opted local ritual practices of skull display as a way of legitimising their power in areas of expansion. Whilst many of the studies in this volume highlight the value of large datasets for better understanding the past, Shriver-Rice et al. (2022) argue that data from environmental archaeology and palaeoecology should be used to underpin debates concerning modern and future species conservation. They point to the fact that the archaeological record contains important evidence about changing patterns of biodiversity and the status (e.g. native or introduced) of plants and animals that is not always known by policy makers. To refine understanding of ancient biodiversity, it is often necessary to apply new biomolecular techniques to archived assemblages. As Johnston et al. (2023) highlight, thanks to the ‘organics revolution’ archives have never been a more important source of biocultural evidence. Yet this is coinciding with a crisis in museum storage where curators are under pressure to either discard or provide space for collections of archaeological organic remains. Johnston et al. (2023) provide a timely call to arms for all within the heritage sector to work together to preserve the future of archives. WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY 2022, VOL. 54, NO. 3, 363–364 https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2022.2206196