Welcome to the second issue of the European Journal of Archaeology (EJA) for 2017. In this issue, we present six regular articles, extending chronologically from the Lower Palaeolithic to the Medieval period, followed by eight book reviews.
Policarpo Sánchez-Yustos, Joan Garcia Garriga, and Kenneth Martínez contribute to archaeological understanding of European (and African) Lower Palaeolithic stone tool technologies and typologies through their work on the bipolar core technology identified at the site of Vallparadís in northeast Spain. Like other scholars, they initially encountered difficulties in identifying and analysing this hominin lithic assemblage due to the large number of undiagnostic pieces generated through the bipolar knapping process. However, informed by the results their experimental work, they end up advocating dispensing with classic artefact categories (cores, flakes, fragments) and conceptions of artefact orientation (distal/proximal and dorsal/ventral) in favour of reconsidering such assemblages in terms of morphotechnical types that take into consideration the variable morphology and fracture consistency of the knapped nodules. This is an important contribution to our understanding of bipolar technology.
Eric Guiry, Ivor Karavanić, Rajna Šošić Klindžić, Sahra Talamo, Siniša Radović, and Michael Richards present the results of new radiocarbon and stable isotope analyses on Early Neolithic human and animal bone from Zemunica cave in Dalmatia. The radiocarbon data confirm the rapid spread of a full agricultural ‘package’ along the eastern Adriatic coast, which was arguably introduced by seafaring colonists. The stable isotope data reveal that these earliest agricultural communities obtained the majority of their protein from domesticated animals and avoided marine foods (not that Zemunica afforded easy access to the coast). Ancient DNA data will surely deepen our understanding of these patterns in the future.
Andrew Whitefield challenges the established dating of the stone field boundaries of Céide Hill in northwest Ireland to the Early Neolithic, which has been claimed to be the oldest enclosed landscape in Europe. Whitefield argues that this early dating stems from flawed research. Instead, on the basis of a detailed re-evaluation of old and new archaeological data, he proposes that the enclosure complex should―like other early field systems in Europe―be assigned to the later Bronze Age. This argument is not yet conclusive; further fieldwork and dating are clearly necessary. However, if Whitefield is proven correct, a major revision of both the presentation of this heritage landscape at the Céide Fields Visitor Centre and of the Early Neolithic in Ireland will be required.
Remaining with Bronze Age Ireland, Barry Molloy draws upon archaeological analyses of weaponry to explore transformations in combat practices across this period. He charts a shift from impromptu warriors using traditional (Neolithic) fighting techniques and tools (projectiles and impact weapons―notably axes) to specialist warriors trained and skilled in a martial art tradition that invested resources in both defensive and cutting weapons (shields, spears, and swords). He argues that this technical development stimulated change in the social organization and status of warriors and warfare, which became an influential, specialist area of craft, skill, and ideology. This is an interesting perspective, which makes good use of Ireland's particularly rich wetland deposits of Bronze Age weaponry, but is it too technologically determinist?
Guido Furlan offers a cautionary tale for scholars working on Roman towns. Based on his post-excavation analysis of the House of Titus Macer at Aquileia in northeast Italy, whose mid-imperial occupation phase is poorly represented, he points out that the periodic removal of solid waste from urban areas has impacted on the representativeness of the archaeological record. To overcome this problem, Furlan persuasively calls for targeted research on large extra-mural rubbish dumps.
Urban practices are also considered by Rebecca Griffin, who compares the oral health of Roman, early medieval, and late medieval populations living in urban and rural communities in Britain. Pulling together an extensive body of published data on ante-mortem tooth loss, calculus, caries, dental abscesses, and periodontal disease, she finds that urban populations enjoyed better oral health than rural populations in Roman Britain, but poorer oral health in the late Middle Ages. Griffin offers some plausible general explanations for this patterning: for example, that, in the Roman period, the highest quality rural produce might have been concentrated in towns at the expense of the rural population. However, she also takes care to consider a wide variety of complex contributory factors, ranging from the age-profile of buried populations to relative ease of access to dental treatment. Both bioarchaeologists and historical archaeologists will now inevitably call for more detailed research on this topic.
In our reviews section, Palaeolithic studies are well served by three valuable, wide-ranging books covering early human uses of plants, dietary breadth, and Palaeolithic art. Later prehistorians will also be interested in the new books centred on mortuary and settlement studies and their implications for on-going debates about topics such as the mobility of people, objects, and ideas across Europe.
If you are interested in submitting an article on any aspect of European archaeology, or have recently published a book that you would like us to review, do please get in touch with a member of our editorial team or visit us on https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-archaeology
