What do you think?
Rate this book
The Quality of the Archaeological Record
Paleobiology struggled for decades to influence our understanding of evolution and the history of life because it was stymied by a focus on microevolution and an incredibly patchy fossil record. But in the 1970s, the field took a radical turn, as paleobiologists began to investigate processes that could only be recognized in the fossil record across larger scales of time and space. That turn led to a new wave of macroevolutionary investigations, novel insights into the evolution of species, and a growing prominence for the field among the biological sciences.In The Quality of the Archaeological Record, Charles Perreault shows that archaeology not only faces a parallel problem, but may also find a model in the rise of paleobiology for a shift in the science and theory of the field. To get there, he proposes a more macroscale approach to making sense of the archaeological record, an approach that reveals patterns and processes not visible within the span of a human lifetime, but rather across an observation window thousands of years long and thousands of kilometers wide. Just as with the fossil record, the archaeological record has the scope necessary to detect macroscale cultural phenomena because it can provide samples that are large enough to cancel out the noise generated by micro-scale events. By recalibrating their research to the quality of the archaeological record and developing a true macroarchaeology program, Perreault argues, archaeologists can finally unleash the full contributive value of their discipline.
264 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 16, 2019
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 12, 2026
Book review of “Perreault, Charles. The Quality of the Archaeological Record. University of Chicago Press, 2019.” by International-Reading-Clubbers
Perreault’s “The Quality of the Archaeological Record” (2019) seeks to redefine the foundations of archaeology, to criticize current methodological and theoretical approaches, to foster archaeology, and to claim back the importance of archaeological investigation for adjacent fields. Perreault contends that, with very few exceptions (seldom spelled out or supported with concrete citations), contemporary archaeology tries to answer questions that the available data cannot meaningfully sustain. In his view, nearly all modern archaeologists are hopelessly attempting what anthropologists already struggle with doing in real-time but with insufficient and noisy data and inequivalent research questions. As a solution, he presents a “new” way of archaeology which takes advantage of large datasets and a zoomed out approach across time, space (and, presumably, species) which he labels macroarchaeology.
The main claim is that the practice of researching micro-scale patterns and processes should be abandoned in favour of macroarchaeology. The book develops this argument across eight chapters. Chapter 1 explains the problem of underdetermination in archaeology and the use of “smoking guns” for hypothesis testing in archaeological research. Chapter 2 describes archaeological data quality in terms of scope, sampling interval, resolution, and dimensionality. Chapter 3 and 4 address what the author calls the two major problems affecting the quality of the archaeological record. Chapter 3 deals with data mixing, which results from depositional processes, disturbance processes, and analytical processes. Chapter 4 deals with data loss, examining its causes (cultural practices, deterioration, field methods and geological processes) and the effects of loss in temporal analyses. Chapter 5 discusses time intervaling in contemporary archaeology. Chapter 6 analyzes the problem of underdetermination in real-world archaeological practice, its consequences, and the reasons why underdetermination still persists. Chapter 7 is, in many ways, the main chapter, as it outlines the author’s call for a switch to what he calls “macroarchaeology,” which focuses on the identification of large-scale patterns. Cultural history is proposed as another solution; however, the methods, goals and meaning of this “cultural history” remain underdeveloped and appear shoehorned in. Chapter 8 is short, containing final remarks and conclusions.
The author critiques popular narratives and methodologies used by archaeologists. To the author, archaeologists present claims that are often unsupported and unsupportable by the amount and scope of evidence that is available in a given context. Perreault suggests that current archaeologists' claims are anthropological claims, despite the data quality that is necessary for this exceeding what is archaeologically achievable. Archaeology, according to Perreault, impossibly sells “how-possibly” (Craver 2006) anthropological stories as “how-actually” (Craver 2006) explanations of their noisy, low-quality data. We will not dwell on a meta-point that raises its head here, but as Fuks (2021) pointedly asks “why is Perreault so concerned with answering questions about the human past definitively?”.
In his critique of archaeology’s underdetermination problem, Perreault calls into question the fields’ scientific validity, as the epistemological standards of archaeological interpretation are often lower (and also, according to him, too low generally) than in neighboring fields. He provides framing with his analysis of “tests of consistency”. Interpretations are often chosen based on whether they are broadly consistent with the data, rather than the most likely interpretation out of multiple, competing hypotheses. Chapter 5 supposedly puts data on this claim, but falls short of proving this as the literature review discussed fails to report the level of detail archaeologists give in relation to the age of their data. Thus, even after reading chapter 5, the reader does not have an empirical overview of the actual frequency of claim overreach in archaeology.
The author advocates for researchers to focus on larger data sets and mathematically testing the hypotheses to be able to present “smoking guns”. This is a valid and presently used methodology that could be more widely adopted into archaeological science and integrated through collaborations across disciplines. That being said, the field has more databases than Perreault gives credit to, though he does cite some databases in his own later articles (e.g. ROAD; Kandel et al. 2023; Paige & Perreault 2024). In the book, the field is presented as lacking any such efforts, which was not true even at the time of publication (e.g. PACEA; d’Errico et al. 2011).
However, big databases are only as good as their data, or, as other fields like to say “garbage in, garbage out”. As Geller (2009) and other feminist archaeologists (see also Fuks, 2021) have long highlighted, databases can result in systematic bias in the data. The plural of biased data is not unbiased data. These biases would be expected to carry through to the large databases and follow into macroarchaeological interpretations. Big databases may be able to calm other noise in the data, but they cannot remove biases. So, macroarchaeology, as proposed by Perreault, will suffer from these biases as well. The author's argumentation is partially based on statistical modeling from Perreault’s own research (some new research is contained in the book itself). Even though macro-scale models are presented as a main solution, what the authors leaves untouched is the problem that statistical modelling is not free of subjective influences and other human biases (e.g. c.f. androcentric narratives, Geller 2009), especially considering the biases that may already exist in the databases utilized as input data for these models.
Perreault might even object that certain types of data (such as sexed/gendered claims) should not have entered into the database to begin with (though on this point he is not very clear in the book). But then, the issue falls back to data quality and the kinds of data that could be collected to begin with and the kinds of claims that are feasible to support. On one hand, Perreault’s analysis on data quality provides a useful reference and visualization for these data quality issues. Conversely, across the chapters, he does not seem to always heed his own advice. Perreault’s primary claim seems to be that the more fine grained distinctions one may wish to make interact with the age of the site(s)/layer(s) one examines. This reasoning however implies that younger sites are less affected by the problem of time-induced data degeneration, so these younger sites might actually allow for the fine-grained distinctions needed to convincingly show even how-plausibly or how-actually interpretations. We may have no realistic hope for such quality interpretations regarding, say, fine-grained social structures in the Oldowan - but Perreault’s rhetoric across the book culminates in him dismissing the possibility across all time horizons, contradicting his own logic. It strikes us as more useful to say that the questions we can meaningfully ask as archaeologists need to be more coarse grained in relation to the time depth of our data.
One of our primary issues as readers is that Perreault does not cite all relevant sources and fails to recognize both previous authors and current research throughout his critiques on archaeology. Not only does he not include contributions from researchers who historically have already focused on pattern recognition on a macro scale (e.g. Mary Stiner, working within the same state in the U.S.), Perreault also ignores contributions from modern fields making great strides in archaeology and possibly expanding the limits of the archaeological record (i.e. geoarchaeology, aDNA; Fuks 2021). He also seems biased towards North American scholars and case studies, which sits uncomfortably against his claims that the problem of underdetermination is affecting archaeology globally. Additionally, he implies he is the only one who is doing the right thing and presenting your own work as the exception always raises eyebrows. His repetitive use of citation from his own research and, where not, from close colleagues, as well as almost the sole use of modelling and mathematical methods, raises questions about whether this book is built around an unbiased review and approach. It also raises questions of raising one's own prestige and power in perhaps a too active way.
The book presents itself as a comprehensive critique of the current state of archaeology and archaeological interpretation; yet Perreault shies away from discussing politics, which is particularly evident in his lack of referencing from structuralistic and feminist archaeologists who thoroughly critique the problematic narratives he presents (see also Fuks, 2021). His discussions of ethnography are reminiscent of old-fashioned approaches that have become less common as postcolonial perspectives have gained importance in recent ethnographic works. In Chapter 6, he very briefly mentions some systemic issues that negatively impact archaeologist’s work, but he does not acknowledge how politics shape which interpretations “consistent” with the data are seen as valid, or seen as so “likely” that their shaky epistemic foundation is not questioned by other researchers. If macroarchaeologists do not engage with political theories, it is questionable whether they would not reproduce the same ideological biases of the “microscale” interpretations. There are other unaddressed issues, such as the permanent risk of falling into patriarchal instead of data-driven narratives (Geller, 2009).
His assessment of the relative epistemic strength of macroarchaeology vs microarchaeology is a strong assessment; but it does not follow that microarchaeological methods are always without value or impossible. Disciplines like geoarchaeology have been dealing with microscale processes since the 1980s and several handbooks have been developed where these processes are described and interpreted (Fuks, 2021, Courty et al. 1989, Nicosia & Stoops 2017, Karkanas & Goldberg, 2018). Interpretations of phenomena that are merely consistent (how-possibly) may be the highest level of certainty that can ever be reached in regards to some questions. Developing more plausible accounts over time is useful because it allows us to get closer to “truth” (how-actually) even if it cannot be fully attained, at least with current methods. This is beneficial to other fields and the wider public as it helps them gauge what is feasibly possible in respect to a given question.
As groundwork for its main arguments, this book provides an overview of the main flaws of archaeology as a field and as a basic introduction to the complexities of archaeological analysis. The broad lack of acknowledgements and citations, e.g. the relative lack of many modern research methods from natural sciences, including high resolution techniques now commonly used in the field prevents us from recommending it as a methods and problems overview for more advanced students. Given that most examples are set in prehistoric archaeology, archaeologists working with archaeological material older than 10 ka BP will benefit most from the insights provided. The main takeaway of the book applies primarily as a word of caution for archaeologists interested in applying anthropological explanations for deep-time finds.
Although the book is well written, easy to follow, and contains new, interesting data on characterisations of the current state of archaeology and on what it describes as macroarchaeology, we are in agreement with Fuks (2021), who calls some of Perreault’s writing “polemic”, that the book is often unnecessarily antagonistic to archaeologists. The main proposal is not as novel as claimed, and the current situation is depicted as excessively doomy despite the exciting and insightful archaeological methodology being continuously developed in today's research. The proposed solution of large-scale approaches as a brand-new “macroarcheology” strikes us as hyperbole and so the implicit (but sometimes explicit) novelty claim is unjustified. Unjustified is also the downplaying of all current archaeology. As the book itself repeatedly shows, even fine-grained depictions of past life are theoretically possible - even anthropological ones - it is simply that this level of detail is feasible only for archaeology of more recent pasts that have high quality resolution. Nonetheless, historical archaeologists are also archaeologists; the claim that archaeology as a whole cannot or should not do this in a natural science way is therefore incorrect.
With all these caveats in mind, for those with an interest in big-picture archaeology and those who wish to study macro-scale outcomes, this book is a good text to consider alongside other literature. It is also recommended for those - who we agree exist - who present deep-time anthropological stories derived from insufficient archaeological data as the definitive truth or as likely interpretations (how-actually) and for students who want to gain a better understanding of underdetermination as a problem in archaeology. However, we wish the book had argued, consistent with its main data message, that fine-grained approaches to archaeology are mainly possible in the recent past. The deep past invites grand-scale approaches, this is true - and perhaps macroarchaeology is a good paradigm for this - but this approach itself is not new, just the coining of the term is.
References
Craver, C. F. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese. 153(3), 355-376.
d'Errico, F., Banks, W. E., Vanhaeren, M., Laroulandie, V., & Langlais, M. (2011). PACEA geo-referenced radiocarbon database. PaleoAnthropology. 1-12.
Geller, P. L. (2009). Identity and difference: complicating gender in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology. 38(1), 65-81.
Fuks, D. (2021). Review of Perreault, C. 2019. The Quality of the Archaeological Record. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Available at https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bits...
Kandel, A. W., Sommer, C., Kanaeva, Z., Bolus, M., Bruch, A. A., Groth, C., ... & Conard, N. J. (2023). The ROCEEH Out of Africa Database (ROAD): A large-scale research database serves as an indispensable tool for human evolutionary studies. PloS ONE. 18(8), e0289513.
Paige, J., & Perreault, C. (2024a). 3.3 million years of stone tool complexity suggests that cumulative culture began during the Middle Pleistocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(26). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319175121
Perreault, C. (2020). The quality of the archaeological record. University of Chicago Press.
Nicosia, C., & Stoops, G. (Eds.). (2017). Archaeological Soil and Sediment Micromorphology. John Wiley & Sons.
Karkanas, P., & Goldberg, P. (2018). Reconstructing Archaeological Sites: Understanding the Geoarchaeological Matrix. John Wiley & Sons.
Courty, M. A., Goldberg, P., & Macphail, R. (1989). Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.
Perreault’s “The Quality of the Archaeological Record” (2019) seeks to redefine the foundations of archaeology, to criticize current methodological and theoretical approaches, to foster archaeology, and to claim back the importance of archaeological investigation for adjacent fields. Perreault contends that, with very few exceptions (seldom spelled out or supported with concrete citations), contemporary archaeology tries to answer questions that the available data cannot meaningfully sustain. In his view, nearly all modern archaeologists are hopelessly attempting what anthropologists already struggle with doing in real-time but with insufficient and noisy data and inequivalent research questions. As a solution, he presents a “new” way of archaeology which takes advantage of large datasets and a zoomed out approach across time, space (and, presumably, species) which he labels macroarchaeology.
The main claim is that the practice of researching micro-scale patterns and processes should be abandoned in favour of macroarchaeology. The book develops this argument across eight chapters. Chapter 1 explains the problem of underdetermination in archaeology and the use of “smoking guns” for hypothesis testing in archaeological research. Chapter 2 describes archaeological data quality in terms of scope, sampling interval, resolution, and dimensionality. Chapter 3 and 4 address what the author calls the two major problems affecting the quality of the archaeological record. Chapter 3 deals with data mixing, which results from depositional processes, disturbance processes, and analytical processes. Chapter 4 deals with data loss, examining its causes (cultural practices, deterioration, field methods and geological processes) and the effects of loss in temporal analyses. Chapter 5 discusses time intervaling in contemporary archaeology. Chapter 6 analyzes the problem of underdetermination in real-world archaeological practice, its consequences, and the reasons why underdetermination still persists. Chapter 7 is, in many ways, the main chapter, as it outlines the author’s call for a switch to what he calls “macroarchaeology,” which focuses on the identification of large-scale patterns. Cultural history is proposed as another solution; however, the methods, goals and meaning of this “cultural history” remain underdeveloped and appear shoehorned in. Chapter 8 is short, containing final remarks and conclusions.
The author critiques popular narratives and methodologies used by archaeologists. To the author, archaeologists present claims that are often unsupported and unsupportable by the amount and scope of evidence that is available in a given context. Perreault suggests that current archaeologists' claims are anthropological claims, despite the data quality that is necessary for this exceeding what is archaeologically achievable. Archaeology, according to Perreault, impossibly sells “how-possibly” (Craver 2006) anthropological stories as “how-actually” (Craver 2006) explanations of their noisy, low-quality data. We will not dwell on a meta-point that raises its head here, but as Fuks (2021) pointedly asks “why is Perreault so concerned with answering questions about the human past definitively?”.
In his critique of archaeology’s underdetermination problem, Perreault calls into question the fields’ scientific validity, as the epistemological standards of archaeological interpretation are often lower (and also, according to him, too low generally) than in neighboring fields. He provides framing with his analysis of “tests of consistency”. Interpretations are often chosen based on whether they are broadly consistent with the data, rather than the most likely interpretation out of multiple, competing hypotheses. Chapter 5 supposedly puts data on this claim, but falls short of proving this as the literature review discussed fails to report the level of detail archaeologists give in relation to the age of their data. Thus, even after reading chapter 5, the reader does not have an empirical overview of the actual frequency of claim overreach in archaeology.
The author advocates for researchers to focus on larger data sets and mathematically testing the hypotheses to be able to present “smoking guns”. This is a valid and presently used methodology that could be more widely adopted into archaeological science and integrated through collaborations across disciplines. That being said, the field has more databases than Perreault gives credit to, though he does cite some databases in his own later articles (e.g. ROAD; Kandel et al. 2023; Paige & Perreault 2024). In the book, the field is presented as lacking any such efforts, which was not true even at the time of publication (e.g. PACEA; d’Errico et al. 2011).
However, big databases are only as good as their data, or, as other fields like to say “garbage in, garbage out”. As Geller (2009) and other feminist archaeologists (see also Fuks, 2021) have long highlighted, databases can result in systematic bias in the data. The plural of biased data is not unbiased data. These biases would be expected to carry through to the large databases and follow into macroarchaeological interpretations. Big databases may be able to calm other noise in the data, but they cannot remove biases. So, macroarchaeology, as proposed by Perreault, will suffer from these biases as well. The author's argumentation is partially based on statistical modeling from Perreault’s own research (some new research is contained in the book itself). Even though macro-scale models are presented as a main solution, what the authors leaves untouched is the problem that statistical modelling is not free of subjective influences and other human biases (e.g. c.f. androcentric narratives, Geller 2009), especially considering the biases that may already exist in the databases utilized as input data for these models.
Perreault might even object that certain types of data (such as sexed/gendered claims) should not have entered into the database to begin with (though on this point he is not very clear in the book). But then, the issue falls back to data quality and the kinds of data that could be collected to begin with and the kinds of claims that are feasible to support. On one hand, Perreault’s analysis on data quality provides a useful reference and visualization for these data quality issues. Conversely, across the chapters, he does not seem to always heed his own advice. Perreault’s primary claim seems to be that the more fine grained distinctions one may wish to make interact with the age of the site(s)/layer(s) one examines. This reasoning however implies that younger sites are less affected by the problem of time-induced data degeneration, so these younger sites might actually allow for the fine-grained distinctions needed to convincingly show even how-plausibly or how-actually interpretations. We may have no realistic hope for such quality interpretations regarding, say, fine-grained social structures in the Oldowan - but Perreault’s rhetoric across the book culminates in him dismissing the possibility across all time horizons, contradicting his own logic. It strikes us as more useful to say that the questions we can meaningfully ask as archaeologists need to be more coarse grained in relation to the time depth of our data.
One of our primary issues as readers is that Perreault does not cite all relevant sources and fails to recognize both previous authors and current research throughout his critiques on archaeology. Not only does he not include contributions from researchers who historically have already focused on pattern recognition on a macro scale (e.g. Mary Stiner, working within the same state in the U.S.), Perreault also ignores contributions from modern fields making great strides in archaeology and possibly expanding the limits of the archaeological record (i.e. geoarchaeology, aDNA; Fuks 2021). He also seems biased towards North American scholars and case studies, which sits uncomfortably against his claims that the problem of underdetermination is affecting archaeology globally. Additionally, he implies he is the only one who is doing the right thing and presenting your own work as the exception always raises eyebrows. His repetitive use of citation from his own research and, where not, from close colleagues, as well as almost the sole use of modelling and mathematical methods, raises questions about whether this book is built around an unbiased review and approach. It also raises questions of raising one's own prestige and power in perhaps a too active way.
The book presents itself as a comprehensive critique of the current state of archaeology and archaeological interpretation; yet Perreault shies away from discussing politics, which is particularly evident in his lack of referencing from structuralistic and feminist archaeologists who thoroughly critique the problematic narratives he presents (see also Fuks, 2021). His discussions of ethnography are reminiscent of old-fashioned approaches that have become less common as postcolonial perspectives have gained importance in recent ethnographic works. In Chapter 6, he very briefly mentions some systemic issues that negatively impact archaeologist’s work, but he does not acknowledge how politics shape which interpretations “consistent” with the data are seen as valid, or seen as so “likely” that their shaky epistemic foundation is not questioned by other researchers. If macroarchaeologists do not engage with political theories, it is questionable whether they would not reproduce the same ideological biases of the “microscale” interpretations. There are other unaddressed issues, such as the permanent risk of falling into patriarchal instead of data-driven narratives (Geller, 2009).
His assessment of the relative epistemic strength of macroarchaeology vs microarchaeology is a strong assessment; but it does not follow that microarchaeological methods are always without value or impossible. Disciplines like geoarchaeology have been dealing with microscale processes since the 1980s and several handbooks have been developed where these processes are described and interpreted (Fuks, 2021, Courty et al. 1989, Nicosia & Stoops 2017, Karkanas & Goldberg, 2018). Interpretations of phenomena that are merely consistent (how-possibly) may be the highest level of certainty that can ever be reached in regards to some questions. Developing more plausible accounts over time is useful because it allows us to get closer to “truth” (how-actually) even if it cannot be fully attained, at least with current methods. This is beneficial to other fields and the wider public as it helps them gauge what is feasibly possible in respect to a given question.
As groundwork for its main arguments, this book provides an overview of the main flaws of archaeology as a field and as a basic introduction to the complexities of archaeological analysis. The broad lack of acknowledgements and citations, e.g. the relative lack of many modern research methods from natural sciences, including high resolution techniques now commonly used in the field prevents us from recommending it as a methods and problems overview for more advanced students. Given that most examples are set in prehistoric archaeology, archaeologists working with archaeological material older than 10 ka BP will benefit most from the insights provided. The main takeaway of the book applies primarily as a word of caution for archaeologists interested in applying anthropological explanations for deep-time finds.
Although the book is well written, easy to follow, and contains new, interesting data on characterisations of the current state of archaeology and on what it describes as macroarchaeology, we are in agreement with Fuks (2021), who calls some of Perreault’s writing “polemic”, that the book is often unnecessarily antagonistic to archaeologists. The main proposal is not as novel as claimed, and the current situation is depicted as excessively doomy despite the exciting and insightful archaeological methodology being continuously developed in today's research. The proposed solution of large-scale approaches as a brand-new “macroarcheology” strikes us as hyperbole and so the implicit (but sometimes explicit) novelty claim is unjustified. Unjustified is also the downplaying of all current archaeology. As the book itself repeatedly shows, even fine-grained depictions of past life are theoretically possible - even anthropological ones - it is simply that this level of detail is feasible only for archaeology of more recent pasts that have high quality resolution. Nonetheless, historical archaeologists are also archaeologists; the claim that archaeology as a whole cannot or should not do this in a natural science way is therefore incorrect.
With all these caveats in mind, for those with an interest in big-picture archaeology and those who wish to study macro-scale outcomes, this book is a good text to consider alongside other literature. It is also recommended for those - who we agree exist - who present deep-time anthropological stories derived from insufficient archaeological data as the definitive truth or as likely interpretations (how-actually) and for students who want to gain a better understanding of underdetermination as a problem in archaeology. However, we wish the book had argued, consistent with its main data message, that fine-grained approaches to archaeology are mainly possible in the recent past. The deep past invites grand-scale approaches, this is true - and perhaps macroarchaeology is a good paradigm for this - but this approach itself is not new, just the coining of the term is.
References
Craver, C. F. (2006). When mechanistic models explain. Synthese. 153(3), 355-376.
d'Errico, F., Banks, W. E., Vanhaeren, M., Laroulandie, V., & Langlais, M. (2011). PACEA geo-referenced radiocarbon database. PaleoAnthropology. 1-12.
Geller, P. L. (2009). Identity and difference: complicating gender in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology. 38(1), 65-81.
Fuks, D. (2021). Review of Perreault, C. 2019. The Quality of the Archaeological Record. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Available at https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bits...
Kandel, A. W., Sommer, C., Kanaeva, Z., Bolus, M., Bruch, A. A., Groth, C., ... & Conard, N. J. (2023). The ROCEEH Out of Africa Database (ROAD): A large-scale research database serves as an indispensable tool for human evolutionary studies. PloS ONE. 18(8), e0289513.
Paige, J., & Perreault, C. (2024a). 3.3 million years of stone tool complexity suggests that cumulative culture began during the Middle Pleistocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(26). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2319175121
Perreault, C. (2020). The quality of the archaeological record. University of Chicago Press.
Nicosia, C., & Stoops, G. (Eds.). (2017). Archaeological Soil and Sediment Micromorphology. John Wiley & Sons.
Karkanas, P., & Goldberg, P. (2018). Reconstructing Archaeological Sites: Understanding the Geoarchaeological Matrix. John Wiley & Sons.
Courty, M. A., Goldberg, P., & Macphail, R. (1989). Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology.
November 13, 2020
Some chapters sparkle, others are repetitious sabre rattling which seem to add little new other than the application of the same verbs to new nouns. There is not anything inherently new in the authors thesis, however his presentation and reworking of essentially core processual concepts can make for either a fresh reminder or for others a current introduction to the field. It is ironic and noteworthy however that a book which places so much emphasis on defining assumptions and avoiding their pitfalls, makes no mention that the 'archaeology' referred to in the title is a very specific and defined subset of the discipline. Historical archaeology for example is left unaddressed even though it's data require equal theoretical consideration.
August 31, 2025
Unless you are interested in and conversant with technical statistical analysis, you will find this book pretty heavy, even perhaps boring. If, however, you love archaeological research, you will enjoy the clarity of Perreault's argumentation for understanding the challenge of interpreting archaeological finds. Archaeology is a forensic science rather than a laboratory science (even though from time to time the laboratory analyzes certain recovered artifacts and accompanying materials). That means inaccurate interpretation arises from incomplete contexts, variable time periods, and misapplication of sociological theory. As Perreault demonstrates, there is little room for dogmatism in the field of archaeology. This book presents a sobering analysis of archaeological interpretation in order to be a catalyst for change in how sites are excavated, artifacts handled, sites are compared, and results are reached and reported.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews