Grouping techniques employ similarities within data to create new entities,which lend themselves to the interpretation process. This article presents three different grouping approaches, each... Show moreGrouping techniques employ similarities within data to create new entities,which lend themselves to the interpretation process. This article presents three different grouping approaches, each originally developed independently, and applied to a common dataset of archaeological finds. The aim is not to search for the right approach or results, in a competing way, but rather to present the methods as complementary. It is also our intention to stress that a tight connection between theory and statistical modelling is indispensable. Indeed, the use of a particular methodology must be supported by an adapted theory; similarly, a theory without a proper methodological realisation will often not have any actual utility. The integration of theory and method is exemplified in the three case methods. The first method uses metal objects as cultural indicators. The study area is divided into a set of identical geographical units, characterized according to the type and proportions of indicators and grouped using hierarchical clustering. The second approach deals with cultures as standardisations between individuals, using ‘Typenspektrum’ as significant data for identifying different cultures. Groups are defined through kernel density estimation and a cluster analysis, followed by internal and external validation techniques. A third method characterizes the funerary ritual and grave-goods, using a similarity algorithm coupled with clustering procedures to compare the graves with one another. The outcome is validated with exploratory methods and compared to patterns from different contexts. The complementarity of the results shows that each approach sheds light on a certain facet of the same whole. Show less
This paper addresses the role of archaeologists in informing the public about a fundamental component of contemporary Romanian identity: the Dacian heritage. I start by exploring how the Dacians... Show moreThis paper addresses the role of archaeologists in informing the public about a fundamental component of contemporary Romanian identity: the Dacian heritage. I start by exploring how the Dacians and Romanians came to be connected, a process that resulted from a combination of nationalistic zeal on behalf of archaeologists and the nationalist propaganda of the Ceau¸sescu regime during the 1970s and 1980s. I then move to the present-day situation, where I argue that archaeologists have reduced themselves to having a minor role in the public sphere, while discussions about the Dacians are dominated by two main players: pseudoarchaeologists and re-enactors. This state of affairs delegitimizes Romanian archaeology and places self-declared specialists and enthusiasts in the position of experts. Some of the Dacian narratives produced in this environment are infused with strong nationalist messages and have the potential to fuel extreme right-wing and even xenophobic movements. Consequently, in the final part of the paper, I recommend that Romanian archaeologists should challenge the representations and interpretations of pseudoarchaeologists and re-enactors. Moreover, academics should make it a priority to re-engage with the public and disseminate their work to a broad audience in a convincing manner. Show less
The paper approaches the topic of nationalism in relation to the Late Iron Age archaeology of Romania. It is argued that nationalist agendas have played a significant role in the development of... Show moreThe paper approaches the topic of nationalism in relation to the Late Iron Age archaeology of Romania. It is argued that nationalist agendas have played a significant role in the development of Late Iron Age scholarly work since the beginnings of the discipline in the 19th century and particularly after the start of the 20th century. This phenomenon took extreme forms during Nicolae Ceauşescu’ national-communist regime and continues today, albeit, with reduced intensity. For illustrative purposes, four main ideas are discussed in connection to Late Iron Age Romanian archaeology: the assumed unity of the Late Iron Age inhabitants, referred to as Dacians; the Dacians as ancestors of modern Romanians; the issue of ethnic labelling in Late Iron Age archaeology; and finally the implicit superiority of the Dacians. Although the relationship between nationalism and archaeology should not be condemned intrinsically, in the case of Romania such a link is problematic because of three factors: the belief in the scientific character of the discipline; the lack of theoretical discussions on ethnicity; and the archaeologists’ denial of political responsibility for their research. This strategy has led most Late Iron Age scholars to retreat to the “ivory tower” of positivist research, allowing for a large number of non-academic publications about the Dacians to flood the internet and bookshops. Show less
The paper introduces a method that links environment to landscape. The environment-landscape divide appears because of epistemological differences: since studying the landscape involves describing... Show moreThe paper introduces a method that links environment to landscape. The environment-landscape divide appears because of epistemological differences: since studying the landscape involves describing the world as it was perceived by humans, it is difficult to access this dimension through the numerical data that we employ when studying the environment. We approach the issue of noncorrespondence between environment and landscape knowledge using fuzzy logic. The numerical data describing two geomorphometric parameters, slope and modified topographic index, are split each into three classes with overlapping borders. The classes are then fused into four qualitative categories: flat wet, steep dry, flat dry, and gradual moist. These four categories have direct correspondence in the real world and can be observed by people through simple perception. The correspondence of such categories to peoples’ perception is checked against evidence of past human settlement in three areas coming from Turkey, Serbia, and Syria. The identified qualitative categories resemble the way people categorized their landscape in all but the second case study. Humans were able to perceive and choose areas which correspond to gradual moist in Turkey and broadly to flat Show less
