The Prehistoric Society Europa Postgraduate Conference: Landscapes, Monuments and Society
University of Reading, 8th June 2012

Call for Papers
The Prehistoric Society and the University of Reading Archaeology department invite current PhD researchers to submit a paper to the Europa Postgraduate Conference. The postgraduate conference will take place on Friday 8th June on the day prior to the Prehistoric Society Europa Conference on Saturday 9th June. This year Professor Richard Bradley has been honoured with the Europa prize for lifelong contribution to European prehistory. The Postgraduate conference will therefore look at issues explored in Professor Bradley’s research: monumental architecture and development, the formation of landscapes, ritual life, hoards and hoarding, social organisation and rock art. We are pleased to confirm that Dr. Rob Hosfield (University of Reading) will act as conference chair and the day will also include a keynote speaker (to be confirmed).

Abstract submissions
Abstracts should be no more than 500 words and should be submitted to the organisers at the addresses below by Friday 24th February 2012.

Courtney Nimura: c.r.nimura@pgr.reading.ac.uk
Alice Rogers: wt018476@pgr.reading.ac.uk

Europa Postgraduate Conference 8th June 2012
http://bit.ly/prehistoricsocietypgeuropa
Or find us on facebook: search ‘prehistoric society europa’

Europa Conference 9th June 2012
http://bit.ly/prehistoricsocietyeuropaconference

Call for Papers:

Vol. 28.1 - April 2013
Archaeology and Cultural Mixing: Creolization, Hybridity, and Mestizaje
Theme editor: Paul van Pelt (wpv20@cam.ac.uk)

In the past decade archaeologists have increasingly embraced a number of concepts involving cultural mixture and exchange developed in the humanities and social sciences as a means to describe cultural process in colonial situations and their postcolonial reactions. Closely related to and often following colonial encounters, the concepts of creolization, hybridity, and mestizaje (although originally purely biological or linguistic terms) are used to describe discursive processes in which different social and economic relations are continually negotiated and renegotiated, and through which entirely “new” or “mixed” social and material conditions are developed.

Notwithstanding their current archaeological popularity, discussions of the terms creolization, hybridity and mestizaje have provoked heated debates in corollary fields and highlighted several of the concepts’ discontents, their primary conceptual drawback allegedly being that of reifying natural cultures (i.e. cultural essentialism) and denying or overlooking the dynamic role of human actors in cultural encounters. In addition, very few contributions have hitherto explicitly tried to problematize creolization, hybridity and mestizaje theory within archaeology, touching upon such related conceptual issues as typology, mobility, the circulation of material culture, and the relationship between objects and meaning.

Bearing these issues in mind, the Archaeological Review from Cambridge invites contributions to the theme of cultural mixing and exchange in archaeology and the concomitant concepts of creolization, hybridity, and mestizaje. Suggested topics include, but are not limited to:

1. Theoretical and historiographical discussions on creolization, hybridity, and mestizaje theory in archaeology, e.g. how should the terms be defined and are there further subdivisions to be made (e.g. between hybridity and hybridization theory)? What do the socio-political contexts in which these concepts emerged and/or gained archaeological popularity tell us about them? Is it possible to apply creolization, hybridity, and mestizaje theory outside of the colonial and post-colonial contexts in which they were developed? If so, how should they be applied and under what conditions?
2. Discussions on whether archaeologists can gain novel insights from creolization, hybridity and mestizaje theory.
3. Conversely, discussions on whether archaeology with its unique time-depth can add meaningfully to theories of cultural mixture in the social sciences.
4. Discussions on the social processes that bring about “hybrid” objects and actions, such as the exchange of craftsmen and technology, intercultural marriage, and the circulation of material culture.
5. Discussions on the relationship between cultural mixtures observed in daily practices, texts, and language and those traceable in the archaeological record.
6. Archaeological case-studies that illustrate recombinations of cultural forms, particularly from those areas and periods where the combined artefactual, architectural, textual and representational records provide a contextualized and sophisticated framework for interpretation.

Please send abstracts of not more than 500 words to Paul van Pelt (wpv20@cam.ac.uk) by 29th February 2012. The full article should not exceed 4000 words. Deadline for first drafts will be in early June 2012, for publication in April 2013. Style guidelines and notes for contributors can be found at http://www.societies.cam.ac.uk/arc/contribute.html.

Vol. 27.1 - April 2012
Science and the Material Record
Theme Editors: Katie Hall (keh48@cam.ac.uk) and Danika Parikh (dp375@cam.ac.uk) (The deadline has passed and the call for papers is now closed)
Call for Papers [pdf]

Advances in archaeological science have opened up new vistas when it comes to the interrogation of archaeological material in the 21st century. Isotopic analyses have provided new insights into the diet and movement of past peoples; archaeo-genetics has been deployed to trace diasporas and date key events in the deep past; geo-archaeologists have harnessed microscopic and geochemical techniques to tease out
untold stories from apparently bare earth. National newspapers rarely miss the opportunity to report on the latest archaeological mystery 'solved' by the application of new scientific techniques.

Less acknowledged is the struggle within archaeology to synthesise the divergent narratives that can emerge from these myriad techniques, and how well specialists in one field can evaluate the conclusions of another. Difficulties in writing good science accessibly have resulted in an increasingly separate specialised literature, polarising practitioners. More worryingly, scientific techniques shorn of their context can be applied inaccurately to the archaeological record, and material culture selected for its suitability for analysis rather than its relevance to archaeological narratives provide a poor picture of the human past. Given this ever increasing application of science to material culture, how wide has the gap between scientific and social archaeology become? Will this gap widen in the new economic climate with increasing pressure to fund purely scientific research?

For its April 2012 Volume ARC invites contribution on the theme of science and the material record. Research demonstrating the appropriate application of science to material culture is welcomed, particularly if new techniques and/or technologies are being utilised, with an emphasis on presentation in a format accessible to archaeologists who are non-specialists in that field.

Suggested topics/themes include but are not limited to:

• Can we now reconcile social and scientific archaeology, after a decade of calls to do so? Is it possible to develop a human narrative through the application of science to material culture, or do we simply tell the story of things? Is there still a place for traditional archaeology?

• Does the frequent application of scientific techniques to all aspects of the material record reflect wider self-confidence issues of a humanities discipline in an increasingly STEM (Science Technology Engineering Maths) centred world?

• Should archaeological scientists be concerned with making their work more accessible to non-specialists?

• Is archaeology doomed to be a discipline built on borrowed techniques, or can archaeologists engage in a dialogue with scientific practitioners? Can the application of scientific techniques to archaeological data result in a meaningful contribution by archaeology to science?

Abstracts of not more than 500 words should be sent to Katie Hall (keh48@cam.ac.uk) or Danika Parikh (dp375@cam.ac.uk) by the 28th February 2011. The full article should not exceed 4000 words. Deadline for first drafts will be in late May 2011, for publication in April 2012. Style guidelines and notes for
contributors can be found at http://www.societies.cam.ac.uk/arc/contribute.html.

Archaeological Review from Cambridge is a journal of archaeology managed and published on a voluntary basis by postgraduate research students at the University of Cambridge. Issues are released twice a year. ARC is a non-profit making organisation. Although primarily rooted in archaeological theory and practice, ARC increasingly accommodates a wide range of perspectives with the aim of establishing a strong, inter-disciplinary journal which will be of interest to those engaged in a range of fields.

Call for Papers:

Vol. 26.2 - November 2011
Collaborative Archaeology
    Theme Editor: Dominic Walker (dw374@cam.ac.uk)
Call for Papers [pdf] (The deadline has passed and the call for papers is now closed)

'Collaborative' archaeology projects are becoming evermore popular around the world and many archaeologists are seeking to involve local communities in projects as a matter of course. Such involvement has created the opportunity for academic and professional archaeologists to interact and engage in dialogues with a broad range of individuals and groups, who harbour myriad views about archaeology and their cultural heritage. Yet current aims, intentions and methods in archaeological collaboration are diverse and have met with varying outcomes. While some maintain a top-down structure, other archaeologists may speak to relinquish archaeological authority over to others.

Many buzzwords have emerged from these projects: alongside 'collaboration' are concepts such as 'community', 'involvement', 'engagement' and 'outreach'. However, these terms are seldom problematised. A more critical assessment of the theoretical, ethical and methodological challenges that face archaeologists in collaborative work should be exercised. We must also analyse the impacts and outcomes of projects on individuals, groups and communities. This may additionally demand that we more reflexively consider our aims and intentions in collaborative work.

For its November 2011 volume, ARC invites contributions on the theme of collaboration in archaeology. Suggesteds topics/themes include, but are not limited to:

• Does archaeological collaboration allow for archaeology to become a discipline 'by/with the people for the people'?

• With whom should one collaborate?

• What factors influence the ability/willingness of individuals, groups or communities (including archaeologists) to become actively involved in collaboration? Have political circumstances or social movements influenced approaches?

• The impacts and outcomes of collaboration, both short-term and long-term, on individuals, groups and communities (including archaeologists)

• Personal self-reflection from experience with collaboration; potential and possibilties for extending collaboration in the future.

Call for Papers:

Vol. 26.1 - April 2011
Archaeology and Economic Crisis
    Theme Editors: Suzanne Pilaar (sp518@cam.ac.uk) and Rosalind Wallduck (rjw8989@cam.ac.uk)
Call for Papers [pdf] (The deadline has passed and the call for papers is now closed)

The economy is at the forefront of many minds due to the current global situation. Governments, organisations and individuals world-wide have been forced to make numerous changes in order to deal with the current economic downturn and a number of lives have been drastically affected. With the financial world in turmoil, constant stories of crisis in the media, and the impact on individuals, its seems fitting that archaeological enquiries into economic crisis should be made at this time.

Economy and change are popular themes in archaeology which can be explored through numerous avenues of study. Investigation into multiple aspects of economic crisis allows the interaction between economy, environment, and importantly, society, to be studied. In investigating the occurrence of economic crises in the past, archaeologists can better understand the mechanisms of these changes and their social iplications. The notion of economic crisis, however is not a simple one; it is complex and multifaceted, raising a number of questions through archaeological enquiry. ARC invites contributions on the theme of Economic Crisis. Suggested topics include, but are not limited to:

• What constitutes an economic crisis? How do we identify and define the occurrence of economic crisis in the archaeological record using artefactual, environmental and societal markers? How do we assess its impact?

• How do human groups with differing social structures respond to economic crisis? Does the definition of a crisis change with the degree of social complexity?

• How is the concept of economic crisis approached using zooarchaeological, archaeobotanical, and other archaeological science techniques?

• What is the relationship between both contract and acadmic archaeology and the economy? How has the economic downturn affected, and how will it continue to affect, employment and dynamics within these sectors?
  
  

Vol. 25.2 - November 2010
Boundaries and Archaeology: Connecting Social and Physical Frontiers of the Past
    Theme Editors: Mark Sapwell and Victoria Pia Spry-Marqués (vps27@cam.ac.uk)
    Call for Papers[doc] (The deadline has passed and the call for papers is now closed)

Boundaries, traditionally seen as lines or edges separating one thing from another, are often approached in archaeology as static limits, dividing human groups, their territories and their actions.

Boundaries are profuse in archaeology, represented in many ways, from large-scale natural frontiers and territorial demarcations, to the divisions of painting motifs on a piece of pottery, or the markings on a fragment of bone. Boundaries are abundant in interpretation, not only in separating the focus of study from its background, but distinguishing one idea and viewpoint from another.

The study of boundaries brings with it a number of empirical and theoretical questions. How are boundaries to be defined or conceptualised? Is the concept of boundary or division universal to human experience or dependent on socail and natural elements?

The wide scope provided by archaeology enables the exploration of different perceptions of separation in time and space. Ranging from the Palaeolithic to the present, 'boundary archaeology' offers insights into changing concepts of social and natural divisions.

ARC invites contributions on the theme of boundaries in the past, which represent current theoretical and methodological approaches to examine notions of separation in the archaeological record. Suggested themes include, but are not limited to:

• Current approaches to boundaries in the archaeological record

• Questioning the concept of boundaries and exploring how modern ideas of division may influence archaeological interpretation

• The relevance of boundary studies in the interpretation of human societies

• The evaluation of prehistoric and historic periodisation. Should time be divided? How valuable is the separation of periods to the archaeologist?

• The effects of natural boundaries in the formation of human/hominid territories and identities. To what extent is human/hominid migration, settlement and group organisation driven by climatic and environment factors?

Now Accepting Credit Cards:

We are happy to announce that we can now accept payments via credit and debit cards. Please visit our Subscriptions Page and our new Online Order Back Issues Page. You do not need a Paypal account to use this service.

Call for Papers :

Vol. 24.2 - November 2009
Engagement and Response in Human–Environment Interactions
    Theme Editors: Robyn Inglis and Alex Pryor (rhi20@cam.ac.uk)
    Call for Papers [doc] (The deadline has passed and the call for papers is now closed)

Human societies and cultures exist and change within climatic and environmental contexts, and shifts in these conditions can impact critically on many areas of culture. Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction is therefore of growing importance in archaeology, specifically in the consideration of cultural change and adaptation. Many climate-centred approaches, however, have been criticised as overly simplistic and environmentally deterministic, and for ignoring the potential diversity of human responses to given climatic/environmental conditions. The question now is how can archaeologists assess the influence of the environment on past societies without being environmentally deterministic?

Recent approaches have recognized that human–environment interactions are highly complex. Populations engage with and adapt to environmental change, buffering its effects to different extents. Human agency can also bring about ecological instability and degradation in previously stable environments. Yet cultural change can also occur in, and be stimulated by, periods of environmental stability, while environmental instability may not always force major cultural change.

ARC invites contributions on the theme of human–environment interaction which represent current theoretical and methodological approaches to examining these interactions in the archaeological record.

Vol. 25.1 - April 2010
Violence and Conflict in the Material Record
    Theme Editors: Belinda Crerar and Skylar Neil (sn361@cam.ac.uk)
    Call for Papers [doc] (The deadline has passed and the call for papers is now closed)

For its April 2010 issue, the Archaeological Review from Cambridge offers papers on the theme of conflict and violence, and how these forces impact and can be interpreted through the material record. Conflict has been—and remains—a pervasive force in both ancient and modern societies, and its effects are visible in the physical record: not only in the remains of military technologies, destruction levels and human casualties, but also through social ramifications such as demographic shifts and the oppression of cultural traits. While the archaeology of conflict has traditionally focused on the martial tactics of political/national ideologies, battlefield archaeology comprises only part of a new interdisciplinary movement that recognises the myriad roles of conflict in societies both past and present. The inclusion of small-scale antagonistic interactions—such as those between religious, socio-economic, ethnic or gender groups—within the study of conflict and violence contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the legacy of conflict in human society and its physical impact on material culture.