‘Archaeology has a problem’, in capital letters and red font, starts the blurb of this book, written by Charles Perreault, Associate Professor at Arizona State University. Perrault argues that archaeological research is trying to understand microscale processes (that typically extend over decades or less) using macroscale data generated over centuries or millennia and great distances. A central concept in the book is ‘underdetermination’, or the idea that archaeological data are insufficient to distinguish between different hypotheses of their formation. Each chapter identifies a set of (perceived) weaknesses in archaeological reasoning and practice, before the book ends with a call for a focus on cultural history and long-term perspectives on human behaviour. The narrative in the book was clear and easy to follow and the discussions of archaeological theory, method and data provide an introduction to critical reading. It was an interesting read that left much food for thought.
Perreault emphasizes archaeology as a historical science (e.g. Ch. 1) and later (p. 137) writes that he comes from a perspective of cultural evolutionary theory (see overview in Creanza et al., Reference Creanza, Kolodny and Feldman2017). He ends the book (p. 192) by referring to a more than century old tradition in archaeology of reconstructing cultural history. It is unfortunate that he never pauses for a clear definition, review, or discussion of ‘cultural history’ and archaeology or his use of the term. The term ‘culture-historical archaeology’ and its roots is by many, myself included, associated with Montelius, Childe, nationalism, and searches for origins (e.g. Trigger, Reference Trigger2006: 148–206; Feinman & Neitzel Reference Feinman and Neitzel2020). This kind of archaeology fostered myths of Europe as the cradle of proper civilization and fed colonial interpretations of sites and phenomena. The stone-built architecture of Great Zimbabwe, for example, was considered of non-indigenous origin and its development, thus, not properly investigated for a long time (Chirikure & Pikirayi, Reference Chirikure and Pikirayi2008). Indeed, the recent (and not so recent) calls to decolonize archaeology (e.g. Atalay, Reference Atalay2006; Schmidt & Pikirayi, Reference Schmidt and Pikirayi2016; Porr & Matthews, Reference Porr and Matthews2020) have pointed to a continued westernized perspective and attitude in archaeological research. Perreault misses an opportunity to counter the reader and their stereotypes of the concept ‘cultural history’, to explain his use of the term, and to include a wider range of voices and perspectives in his argument.
An essential term in the beginning of The Quality of the Archaeological Record is ‘the smoking gun’ (Chapter 1). This is the find or trace that will allow the researchers to discriminate between mutually exclusive hypotheses (p. 5). These smoking guns must be found in nature and through fieldwork, not through simulations and models, ethnographic analogies, or experimental archaeology (pp. 14–18). Perreault concedes that the archaeological record is fragmentary and this means that there are hypotheses we will never be able to test properly. His solution is a call to focus on research where we can potentially find smoking guns that provide reasonably secure answers (p. 22). I have to admit that it took me some time to fully process this section. I agree, as an experimental archaeologist, that there are limitations even to long-term experiments. Archaeologists can test hypotheses and examine formation processes over years or decades in projects such as the Butser Ancient Farm in southern England (Macphail et al., Reference Macphail, Cruise, Allen, Linderholm and Reynolds2004), but the past can never be completely recreated in any setting. Discarding all forms of analogies would, however, mean discarding many types of research questions as well as whole archaeological projects. Furthermore, searching for a ‘smoking gun’ reminds me of treasure hunts and not meticulous excavations. This last section of Chapter 1 nevertheless left me wanting more details and discussion on the proposed solution (i.e. ‘macroarchaeology’) and, as such, functioned as a gateway to the rest of the book.
Chapters 2-6 contain thorough descriptions of underdetermination, the shortcomings of the archaeological record and recording, and the problems with the microscale approach. Chapter 2, for example, explains how scope, sampling interval, resolution, and dimensionality in the archaeological dataset lowers its quality. Later, in Chapter 5, data from selected journals and databases are analysed to show that the temporal resolution of the data is often larger than one generation. The analysis provides an interesting addition to the arguments. Perreault concludes (p. 134) that the archaeological dataset with its poor resolution is badly suited to discussing behavioural or societal aspects such as foraging or gender.
It is impossible to me not to agree that archaeological questions, analyses, and inferences are dependent on the archaeological record, or, indeed, that there are answers we might never be able to find (or agree on). However, the archaeological record spans from small grains of sediments (e.g. Mentzer, Reference Mentzer2014) and small objects representing moments in time (e.g., Henshilwood et al., Reference Henshilwood, d'Errico, Yates, Jacobs, Tribolo and Duller2002) to larger structures representing one or more generations of events (e.g. Chirikure & Pikirayi, Reference Chirikure and Pikirayi2008). The provenience of raw materials, the placement of camps and cities, and the food eaten represent but a few choices made within cultural contexts and societal systems. We cannot always pinpoint the year, or millennium, of decisions or events. There is not always sufficient data to draw detailed conclusions on individuals. Nevertheless, the archaeological record is full of small hints of microscale behaviour that can be used to explore various societal aspects including relative status within and between people of different genders or age groups. Perreault calls for future developments in archaeological methods. Archaeologists have experienced how methodological developments can change both our understanding of resolution and the types of questions that can be asked. The study of fire-related behaviour has, for example, benefitted from developments in micromorphological and microcontextual analyses of combustion features. We can now find information on spatial use, frequency of visits, and fuel collection among other aspects (Mentzer, Reference Mentzer2014), thus expanding the range of possible questions. There are also examples of artefacts and artefact groups acting as ‘smoking guns’, changing our perceptions and opening new avenues. The discovery of engraved ochres in Blombos Cave, South Africa, for example, opened new perspectives on the development of early Homo sapiens (Henshilwood et al., Reference Henshilwood, d'Errico, Yates, Jacobs, Tribolo and Duller2002). These are but two examples illustrating that archaeological methods and the kind of questions asked are in constant development and that the current status for archaeological research might not be as grim as one might think while reading Perreault's description.
Chapter 7 sets out a new program for archaeology, focusing on macroscale studies. Perreault here draws on examples from macroecology and paleobiology as he has found few published examples of macroarchaeological studies (p. 169). Examples from other fields are highly welcome and help the reader to understand the message of the book. It means, however, that relevant (archaeological) studies are left out. Studies of cultural phylogenetics (Straffon, Reference Straffon2016), cognitive evolution (Overmann & Coolidge, Reference Overmann and Coolidge2019) and macroevolution (Bettinger, Reference Bettinger, Prentiss, Kuijt and Chatters2009) are but a few examples of study areas that could have been used to illustrate and strengthen the argument and demonstrate the power of macroscale studies.
The Quality of the Archaeological Record is an ambitious book in that it aims to shift the focus of archaeological research. It is not a neutral synthesis of archaeological theory and method, but a critical discussion of the very nature of archaeology: What kind of questions should we be asking and how can we go about answering them? Perreault argues well for his position but has chosen to omit detailed discussions of terms and research history. Nevertheless, the book is an interesting read and a starting point for critical reflections on archaeology.
