Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology

K Kakadu National Park: Rock Art Key Issues Sally Kate May1 and Paul S. C. Tacon2 1 School of Archaeology and Anthropology and Rock Art Research Centre, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia 2 PERAHU, School of Humanities, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, QLD, Australia Characteristics It is estimated that there are over 15,000 rock art sites of varying ages within Kakadu. While this is only a fraction of Australia’s rock art, sites contained within Kakadu represent a highly significant and diverse suite within a protected national park. The rock art is overwhelmingly paintings; however, stencils also feature heavily. Less frequent are prints, engraved motifs including cupules, and beeswax figures pressed onto the rock surfaces. Paintings, stencils, and prints are made using natural ochers and white pipe clay sourced locally and traded across Kakadu and neighboring regions. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Reckitt’s Blue washing powder was occasionally used to depict traditional and new subject matter. Introduction Kakadu National Park, located in the top end of the Northern Territory of Australia, covers 19,804 km2 of diverse tropical ecosystems. This vast area includes mangroves, mudflats and floodplains, major rivers, savanna woodlands, monsoon forests, sandstone escarpments, and rocky plateaus. Most importantly, Kakadu is an Aboriginal living cultural landscape. There are many different clan groups within Kakadu with each caring for their “country” and sharing in joint management of the park with the Commonwealth Government of Australia. Kakadu is universally acknowledged as one of the world’s great rock art provinces. Internationally recognized through UNESCO World Heritage List for both its cultural and natural heritage, Kakadu has one of Australia’s largest concentrations of rock art sites. Rock art played a vital role in Kakadu, achieving world heritage status, with particular mention made of the antiquity, concentration, temporal span, and diversity of the art as well as its links to continuing cultural traditions (Fig. 1). Chronology Rock art dating is one of the biggest challenges in rock art research so few images have been directly dated. Consequently, we do not know how old much of the art is, but there is a range of evidence to suggest that the oldest surviving rock art, including paintings of large naturalistic animals, is over 15,000 years of age and possibly as much as 30,000 years. G. Chaloupka has argued some rock art could be even older and that Kakadu has “the world’s longest continuing art tradition” (Chaloupka 1993: 15). Certainly, the rock art illustrates significant environmental, technological, and stylistic change over time and C. Smith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2, # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 K 4236 Kakadu National Park: Rock Art Kakadu National Park: Rock Art, Fig. 1 Most rock art in Kakadu adorns the surfaces of open-air rockshelters rather than cave systems such as those in Spain or France a number of sequential styles have been identified in the art by studying the superimposition of individual paintings and comparing this across many hundreds of sites so far studied (see, e.g., Lewis 1983, 1988; Chaloupka 1984, 1993; Figs. 2 and 3). These studies have largely used the depiction of extinct animals and a wide variety of artifacts, clothing, and recent subject matter to mark the changes in style from the pre-estuarine, estuarine, freshwater, and historic periods (Figs. 4 and 5). Research The first record of rock art in (what is now known as) Kakadu was made by explorer Ludwig Leichhardt in 1845; however, it was not until the 1960s that rock art studies gained some momentum. The earliest work was undertaken by W. Arndt (1962) with his published interpretations of paintings at three sites. In the late 1960s, J. Jelinek (1978) carried out intensive recording of the Ubirr sites during the Czechoslavakian Expedition to Arnhem Land. These fleeting studies were then followed by more significant work in the late 1960s and 1970s, largely concentrating on artistic styles and establishing relative chronologies. E. Brandl (1968, 1973) was the first to systematically analyze the rock art of the region through an examination of changes in technology reflected within superimposed motifs. The most widely recognized rock art recorder (and key advocate for the protection of rock art in Kakadu) was G. Chaloupka who, in 1984, produced a stylistic chronology of the Arnhem Land plateau rock art that incorporated four broad artistic periods: pre-estuarine, estuarine, freshwater, and contact (Chaloupka 1984, 1985). He defined the sequence by combining the evidence of superimpositions, differential weathering, defined styles, and changes in the range of depicted animal species and their environmental contexts. This work both expanded upon and departed from Brandl’s earlier work. Chaloupka believed the key to major stylistic changes was significant environmental change, particularly Kakadu National Park: Rock Art 4237 K K Kakadu National Park: Rock Art, Fig. 2 The changing environment of this region is reflected in the rock art of Kakadu Kakadu National Park: Rock Art, Fig. 3 Stencils of material culture (such as this boomerang) can be found across Kakadu and help to fill gaps in our understanding of materials that do not survive in the archaeological record K 4238 Kakadu National Park: Rock Art Kakadu National Park: Rock Art, Fig. 4 Paintings of extinct animals such as the thylacine (Tasmanian tiger) provide important clues as to the age of rock art in Kakadu Kakadu National Park: Rock Art, Fig. 5 One of the most common subjects in Kakadu rock art is fish and other animals depicted with internal organs showing (x-ray) sea level fluctuations, experienced in the region during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene. The late 1970s and 1980s saw a peak in the level of rock art and archaeological research occurring within Kakadu, associated both with mining exploration and the establishment of Kakadu as a national park and World Heritage site. This included research by D. Lewis (1977, 1983, 1988), P.S.C. Taçon (e.g., 1987, 1988, 1989a, b), J. Jelinek (1989), and R. Gunn (e.g. 1987). Throughout the 1980s, G. Chaloupka, R. Gunn, I. Haskovec, and H. Sullivan undertook a number of cultural surveys within the park which included community consultation (e.g., Chaloupka et al. 1985; Chaloupka & Kapirigi 1981; Gunn 1987; Sullivan & Haskovec 1986, 1987, 1988). These reports, as well as Taçon’s Ph.D. thesis (1989b) and related publications, contain important ethnographic information relating to rock art and rare firsthand accounts from Aboriginal rock artists. Collaborative rock art research continued in the early 1990s, particularly by Tacon (e.g., 1992, 1993 and with Chippendale & Taçon 1993, 1998; Taçon & Chippendale 2001, 2008; Kakadu National Park: Rock Art Taçon et al. 1996), Gunn (1992), and Chaloupka who in 1993 published “Journey in Time: the World’s Longest Continuing Art Tradition.” This detailed publication provides a summary of his extensive research into the art sequence of Kakadu over the preceding decades. Since the mid-1990s, the level of rock art research occurring throughout Kakadu National Park has largely declined. Some Aboriginal people in Kakadu felt overrun by archaeologists and rock art researchers and desired to better control access to their country and to participate more equally in the documentation of sites for management (KCHS 2012). Alongside of rock art management and conservation programs run by staff of the Natural Cultural Programs Unit in Kakadu, two major rock art research projects, both initiated by local Aboriginal organizations, are currently underway in Kakadu. The first is led by the Jawoyn Association and relates to Jawoyn country in the south of Kakadu and beyond, and the second is associated with the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation and focuses on Mirarr country including the Jabiluka Leasehold area and surrounds. Continuing Artistic Traditions For local Aboriginal people, rock art is just one part of a much wider and more complex cultural system that interweaves land, cultural law, other art traditions, ancestral beings, people, and other creatures. While we may try to ease our understanding by separating out the strands, in essence, one component of “culture” cannot be fully understood without the others. Some rock art imagery is intimately linked with ceremony, other designs to storytelling, and training in cultural law. Many sites simply relate to the everyday activities of past and present men, women, and children. The role that rock art plays in Aboriginal cultures is best described by local Aboriginal people and information should only be shared in line with cultural protocols determined by different clan groups within Kakadu. The rock art of Kakadu National Park is one of the world’s great treasures, an immense source of pride for local Aboriginal groups, and an irreplaceable resource for understanding Australia’s past. 4239 K Cross-References ▶ Australian Paleoart ▶ First Australians: Origins ▶ Rock Art Sites: Management and Conservation ▶ Rock Art, Forms of References ARNDT, W. 1962. The Nagorkun-Narlinji cult. Oceania 32(4): 298-320. BRANDL, E. J. 1968. Aboriginal rock designs in beeswax and description of cave painting sites in western Arnhem Land. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 3(1): 19-29. - 1973. Australian Aboriginal paintings in western and central Arnhem Land: temporal sequences and elements of style in Cadell River and Deaf Adder Creek art. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. CHALOUPKA, G. 1984. From palaeoart to casual paintings: the chronological sequence of Arnhem Land Plateau rock art (Monograph series 1) : 77-98. Darwin: Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences. - 1985. Chronological sequence of Arnhem Land plateau rock art, in R. Jones (ed.) Archaeological research in the Kakadu National Park 1981-1984: 269-80. Canberra: Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. - 1993. Journey in time: the world’s longest continuing art tradition. Chatswood: Reed. CHALOUPKA, G. & N. KAPIRIGI. 1981. Cultural survey of Yamitj Gunerrd (Yamitj’s country). Report for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. CHALOUPKA, G., N. KAPIRIGI, B. NAYIDJI & G. NAMINGUM. 1985. Cultural survey of Balawurru, Deaf Adder Creek, Amarrkananga, Cannon Hill and the Northern Corridor - Parts A and B. Report for the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. CHIPPENDALE, C. & P.S.C. TAÇON. 1993. Two old painted panels from Kakadu: variation and sequence in Arnhem Land rock art, in J. Steinbring, A. Watchman, P. Faulstich & P.S.C. Taçon (ed.) Time and space: dating and spatial considerations in rock art research (Occasional AURA Publication 8): 32-56. Melbourne: Archaeological Publications. - 1998. The many ways of dating Arnhem Land rock-art, north Australia, in C. Chippindale & P.S.C. Taçon (ed.) The archaeology of rock-art: 90-111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. GUNN, R. G. 1987. Aboriginal rock art in the Gimbat Area, Kakadu National Park - an initial assessment. Report to the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority, Darwin. K K 4240 - 1992. Bulajang – a reappraisal of the Archaeology of an Aboriginal religious cult, in J. McDonald & I. Haskovec (ed.) State of the art: regional rock art studies in Australian and Melanesia (Occasional AURA Publication 6): 174-94. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association. JELINEK, J. 1978. Obiri – a rock gallery in Arnhem Land. Anthropologie 16(1): 35-65. - 1989. The great art of the early Australians: the study of the evolution and role of rock art in the society of Australian hunters and gatherers. Brno, Czechoslovakia: Anthropos Institute, Moravian Museum. KAKADU CULTURAL HERITAGE STRATEGY (KCHS). 2012. Natural cultural programs unit, Kakadu National Park. LEWIS, D. 1977. More striped designs in Arnhem Land rock paintings. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 12(2): 98-111. - 1983. Art, archaeology and material culture in Arnhem Land. Unpublished BA Honours dissertation, Australian National University. - 1988. The rock paintings of Arnhem Land, Australia. Social, ecological and material culture change in the post-glacial period (BAR International series). Oxford: Archaeopress. SULLIVAN, H. & I. HASKOVEC. 1986. Najombolmi: the life and work of an Aboriginal artist, Volume I. Report to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. - 1987. The 1986 Annual report for the archaeological section of the Kakadu National Park scientific services. Report to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. - 1988. The 1987 Annual report for the archaeological section of the Kakadu National Park scientific services. Report to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Canberra. TAÇON, P.S.C. 1987. Internal-external: a re-evaluation of the ‘x-ray’ concept in western Arnhem Land rock art. Rock Art Research 4(1): 36-50. - 1988. Identifying fish species in the recent rock paintings of western Arnhem Land. Rock Art Research 5(1): 3-15. - 1989a. Art and the essence of being: symbolic and economic aspects of fish among the peoples of western Arnhem Land, Australia, in H. Morphy (ed.) Animals into art: 236-50. London: Unwin Hyman. - 1989b. From rainbow snakes to ‘x-ray’ fish: the nature of the recent rock painting tradition of western Arnhem Land, Australia, Volumes I and II. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian National University. - 1992. Somewhere over the rainbow: an ethnographic and archaeological analysis of recent rock paintings of western Arnhem Land, Australia, in J. McDonald & I. Haskovec (ed.) State of the art: regional rock art studies in Australian and Melanesia (Occasional AURA publication 6): 202-15. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association. Kanaseki, Hiroshi - 1993. Regionalism in the recent rock art of western Arnhem Land, Northern Territory. Archaeology in Oceania 28(3): 112-20. TAÇON, P.S.C. & C. CHIPPENDALE. 2001. Najombolmi’s people: from rock painting to national icon, in A. Anderson, I. Lilley & S. O’Connor (ed.) Histories of old ages: essays in honour of Rhys Jones: 301-10. Canberra: Pandanus Books. - 2008. Changing places: ten thousand years of north Australian rock-art transformation, in D. Papagianni, H. Maschner & R. Layton (ed.) Time and change: archaeological and anthropological perspectives on the long-term in hunter-gatherer societies: 73-94. Oxford: Oxbow. TAÇON, P.S.C., M. WILSON & C. CHIPPINDALE. 1996. Birth of the rainbow serpent in Arnhem land rock art and oral history. Archaeology in Oceania 31(3): 103-24. Further Reading JAWOYN ASSOCIATION. n.d. Available at: http://www. jawoyn.org/cultural-heritage/cultural-sites. MIRARR ROCK ART PROJECT. n.d. Available at: http://www. mirarrrockart.net/. Kanaseki, Hiroshi Makoto Tomii Centre for Cultural Heritage of Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan Basic Biographical Information Hiroshi Kanaseki is a Japanese archaeologist and an Emeritus Professor of Tenri University (Fig. 1). He was born in Kyoto in 1927 as the second son of the famous anthropologist, Takeo Kanaseki. Takeo learned archaeological methodology at Kyoto University from Kosaku Hamada, who is regarded as the father of archaeology in Japan, while he worked as an Assistant Professor of the Department of Anatomy of the university. Takeo Kanaseki submitted a doctoral thesis on the anthropological study of Ryukyu people in East Asia, three years after Hiroshi was born, and then moved to Taipei to become a Professor of the former National Taiwan University. Hiroshi Kanaseki joined his father on the island in 1936. During his teenage years in Taiwan, Hiroshi often Kanaseki, Hiroshi 4241 K Kanaseki, Hiroshi, Fig. 1 Hiroshi Kanaseki (left) with Claire Smith and Katsu Okamura at WAC Inter-Congress, Osaka, January, 2006 (# Hidetaka Bessho) accompanied his father to help at archaeological excavations. After returning to Japan in 1946, Hiroshi Kanaseki finished the science course in Matsue High School (in the old system of education, equal to the half stage of undergraduate studies in the present educational system) and then started studying archaeology at Kyoto University. The main material that he investigated at that time was Chinese bronze objects of the Warring States period. In 1953, he received his Bachelor of Arts from Kyoto University. In 1956, after several years of postgraduate study, he became an assistant specializing in drawing archaeological materials at the Nara National Research Institute of Cultural Properties. During his time at the Institute, Hiroshi Kanaseki joined in the excavations of cemeteries of the Yayoi period in Western or Southern Japan, including Doigahama and Hirota, where considerable data was collected on prehistoric mortuary practices. In addition, he excavated some of the oldest Buddhist temples, dating to sixth century CE, in and around Osaka, including Asuka-dera and Shiten’no-ji. From 1959 Hiroshi Kanaseki worked as a member of the academic staff of Tenri University, and from 1965 onwards he started his expeditions of archaeological research in Israel. In that same year, he was asked to direct a large-scale excavation of a Yayoi village in Osaka, named Ikegami-Sone. Following his contribution to this excavation and continual advice of wisdom for the local government which succeeded to conduct the series of excavations there, Hiroshi Kanaseki asked to be the Director of the Osaka Yayoi Museum (1991–2012), which is built beside the traces of what is assumed to be large shrine of Ikegami-Sone site. In 1992, he founded the Department of Archaeology at Tenri University, which included study of the discipline of folklore. He retired the university in 1997. Professor Kanaseki played a key role in the internationalization of Japanese archaeology through his support for the World Archaeological Congress’ Inter-Congress of the topic of “Kyosei-no-koukogaku: Coexistence in the Past – Dialogues in the Present,” which was held in Osaka in January, 2006. In 2013, his contribution to world archaeology, particularly to breaking down barriers between archaeology in Japan and in the outside world, was recognized when he received the Inaugural President’s Award of the World Archaeological Congress. K K 4242 Major Accomplishments Professor Kanaseki became very experienced in excavation during his stay in Taiwan with his father. This attracted him so much as to lead him to the discipline of archaeology. Moreover, since his childhood, the wide range of acquaintance with leading scholars basically through his father’s connections continued to help him to accumulate his immense knowledge on ancient human life. However, his considerably broad knowledge of archaeology and its surrounding disciplines within the global scale emerged in the latter half of his career in archaeology. For example, while he worked as a Professor at Tenri University, he was involved with so-called Biblical archaeology in Israel, contributing to excavations at Tel Zeror and directing excavations at Ein Gev. This research seems to have made him consider the relationships between archaeological activities and the religious and political aspects of the modern world. Professor Kanaseki’s research has provided much insight into religious beliefs in the prehistoric and protohistoric periods in Japan, but his chief concern lies with the Yayoi period, the time when domestication was first introduced, from the early first millennium BCE to the third century CE. He has tried to increase the systematic understanding of Yayoi culture by paying more attention to the aspect of past beliefs, the subject of which has been almost untouched among most Japanese archaeologists because of the difficulty to approach this topic. Professor Kanaseki has researched a range of archaeological materials such as figurines, images drawn on objects, and grave goods and used a range of information sources from literature and folklore. One of the outstanding results of his investigation is his discussion of bird spirit worship, based on his analysis of wooden bird objects found at Ikegami-Sone. Professor Kanaseki argues that this belief was introduced in the Yayoi period along with agricultural practice and that it derived from the ancient Chinese civilization. He says that the essence of archaeology is not only to examine materials and analyze data but also to create something new that arises from the integration of past materials and the mind. Kanaseki, Hiroshi Professor Kanaseki’s erudition and extensive knowledge together with his affectionate nature have allowed him, for a long time, to supervise various projects relating to ancient cultures, to organize many symposia and academic meetings, to edit a number of books, and to be invited to be the Director of a number of museums. The standing of his contributions to international archaeology is recognized in the Inaugural President’s Award of the World Archaeological Congress. Cross-References ▶ Periodization in Japanese Prehistoric Archaeology ▶ World Archaeological Congress (WAC) Further Reading KANASEKI, H. 1982. Kami wo maneku tori. [Bird serving as a guide for the God.], in Publication Committee for Doctor Yukio Kobayashi’s Seventieth Birthday Memorial Essays (ed.) Koko-gaku ronko. [A collection of papers on archaeology.]: 281-303. Tokyo: Heibon-sha (in Japanese). - 1985. Sekai no kokogaku to nihon no kokogaku [Archaeologies in the world and archaeology in Japan.], in Y. Kondo et al. (ed.) Iwanami koza: nihon kokogaku. [The Iwanami’s academic courses: Japanese archaeology.] Volume 1: 301-43. Tokyo: Iwanami-Shoten (in Japanese). - 1986. Jujutsu to matsuri [Magic and ritual.], in Y. Kondo et al. (ed.) Iwanami koza: nihon kokogaku. [The Iwanami’s academic courses: Japanese archaeology.] Volume 4: 269-306. Tokyo: Iwanami-Shoten (in Japanese). - 1988. Seishin seikatsu [Spiritual life.], in H. Otsuka, M. Tozawa & M. Sahara (ed.) Nihon kokogaku wo manabu: Shinpan. [Studying the Japanese archaeology: new edition.] Volume 2: 292-309. Tokyo: Yuhikaku (in Japanese). - 1993. Kosho-bo shutsudo no gazo-mon ni tsuite. [On the pictorial motif on the grave goods found in Gao Zhuang Tomb.], in Publication Committee for Mr Kiyotari Tsuboi’s Seventieth Birthday Memorial Essays (ed.) Ron’en koko-gaku. [A collection of papers on archaeology.]: 737-49. Tokyo: Tenzan-sha (in Japanese). - 1997. Saishu kogi roku: ibutsu no kokogaku, iseki no kokogaku. [Final lecture: archaeology of objects and archaeology of sites.] Koji [Ancient matters] 1: 54-65 (in Japanese). Kantman, Sönmez - 2004. Yayoi no Shuzoku to Shukyo. [Mores and religion of Yayoi period.] Tokyo: Gakusei-sha (in Japanese). KOKUBU, N., et al. 1968. Kanaseki Takeo hakushi nenpu [A chronological record of Dr. Takeo Kanaseki’s career.], in Publication Committee for Professor Takeo Kanaseki’s Seventieth Birthday Memorial Essays (ed.) Nihon minzoku to nanpou bunka. [The Japanese race and south cultures.]: 959-65. Tokyo: Heibon-sha (in Japanese). PUBLICATION COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSOR TAKEO KANASEKI’S SEVENTIETH BIRTHDAY MEMORIAL ESSAYS. 1997. Kanko ni atatte [Foreword.], in Publication Committee for Professor Takeo Kanaseki’s Seventieth Birthday Memorial Essays (ed.) Shukyo to kokogaku. [Religion and archaeology.]: 1-3 Tokyo: Bensei-sha (in Japanese). Kantman, Sönmez Ece Birçek Istanbul, Turkey Basic Biographical Information Sönmez Kantman was born in İstanbul in 1940. He died in 1999. He got his degree from Robert College, Istanbul. Afterward, he studied law in Switzerland and then continued his education in the Department of Protohistory and Near Eastern Archaeology at İstanbul University, Turkey. Kantman was a Renaissance scholar with wide-ranging interests. Besides his scientific research, he was interested in art studies and literature. He wrote a play in French, named Patira, and he translated thirteenth century Japanese haikus into Turkish in preparation for a book called Kokinşiu. He participated in excavations and survey studies early in his career, but in his later career concentrated his research efforts on the theory of practicing archaeology. His book Analytic Archaeology is a result of this research. Major Accomplishments Sönmez Kantman’s name is on the verge of being forgotten. However, he should be remembered and honored for his remarkable study Analytic Archaeology which he coauthored with Ali Dinçol. 4243 K In the 1960s, around the world, the social sciences stream was strongly influenced by developments in new approaches and thinking systems. In the field of archaeology, new concepts such as archaeometry and processual archaeology were much discussed by academics. In Turkey, two young researchers Sönmez Kantman and Ali Dinçol who were in their early 20s undertook a study of both theoretical and practical methods in archaeology. This study emerged to contest the excavation-based archaeological tradition in Turkey. Kantman and Dinçol aimed to generate a discussion about the problems of practicing archaeology in Turkey and to offer a systematic approach to archaeological theory and method. Their interdisciplinary work was published under the title of Essays on Analytic Archaeology. However, their work was ignored by the conservative structure of academy. After this, Sönmez Kantman gave up his career in archaeology and continued his career in a completely different field, while Ali Dinçol became a philologist. However, their work had a significant impact on the next generation of archaeologists, suggesting avenues for research that are beyond the normal focus on excavations. While Sönmez Kantman and his work Analytic Archaeology did not find the response that they deserved at the time the work was published, this volume did open up a new area of discussion area and encouraged young researchers to generate new ideas that went beyond the traditional focus on excavations in Turkish archaeology. Cross-References ▶ Excavation Methods in Archaeology ▶ Practice Theory in Archaeology ▶ Processualism in Archaeological Theory ▶ Surface Survey: Method and Strategies Further Reading KANTMAN, S. 1969a. Trakya ve Marmara Kiyi Bölgesi Paleolotik yerleşme yerleri arastirma plânlamasi, in Analitik Arkeoloji, Anadolu Araştırmaları III: 37-46. € İstanbul: Ozel Sayı. K K 4244 Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology - 1969b. Cilâli tas aletlerde mikroanalitik metodla fonksiyon tayini, in Analitik Arkeoloji, Anadolu € Sayı. Araştırmalar, III: 81-102. İstanbul: Ozel - 1969c. Prehistorik arkeolojide kavramyapım, in Analitik Arkeoloji, Anadolu Araştırmaları III: 47-62. İstanbul: € Ozel Sayı. - 1969d. Deneysel katkı. Gözlemcilik ve fonksiyonalizmin arkeolojik tıpbilimde önemi, in Anadolu € Araştırmaları III: 63-80. İstanbul: Ozel Sayı. KANTMAN, S. & A. DINÇOL. 1969. Arkeolojide yeni kavramlar ve metodolojik arastirma plânlamasi, in Analitik Arkeoloji, Anadolu Araştırmaları III: 15-36. € İstanbul: Ozel Sayı. papers and publications and the integration of geoarchaeology in research clusters and institutes focusing on the interdisciplinary study of karstic landscapes. The present contribution thus aims at drafting a broader definition of this potential branch of archaeological and palaeoenvironmental research, stemming from scientific archaeology, environmental archaeology, and human ecology, in view of possible future developments. Definition Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology 1 2 Andrea L. Balbo and Eneko Iriarte 1 Complexity and Socio-Ecological Dynamics, Departamento de Arqueologı́a y Antropologı́a, Istitució Milà i Fontanals, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientı́ficas (IMF-CSIC), Barcelona, Spain 2 Laboratorio de Evolución Humana, Departamento de Ciencias Históricas y Geografı́a, Universidad de Burgos, Burgos, Spain Introduction Karstic landscapes are found over 12 % of the Earth’s terrain. Due to their physicochemical (e.g., high alkalinity) and physiographical (e.g., caves, dolines, poljes) characteristics, they preserve some of the most impressive evidence of human evolution and behavior as well as good continental palaeoenvironmental records. It is perhaps due to these reasons that karstic landscapes have seen some of the earliest applications of geoarchaeology (e.g., at the Haua Fteah cave in McBurney 1967). In spite of recent attempts (e.g., Reeder 2011), a full overview on the geoarchaeology of karstic landscapes that goes beyond the study of caves is still missing in textbooks and review articles. The need for a more comprehensive definition and systematization is apparent from the rising number of dedicated conference The broad geographical distribution of karstic regions, together with the potential they show for archaeological preservation, means that they have provided much evidence to virtually all the current relevant questions in archaeology and human palaeontology. In this sense, a definition of the geoarchaeology of karstic landscapes needs to be made in the broadest possible sense, especially concerning its resolution in terms of the scales of approach and methods implied. Thus, the geoarchaeology of karstic landscapes is no different from geoarchaeology as a whole, in that it contributes to issues related to both human-environment interaction and archaeological site formation and preservation, employing a hybrid multi-scalar methodological and theoretical framework with contributions from archaeology and the geosciences. However, geoarchaeological applications in karstic regions need to take into account the peculiarities of such landscapes in terms of their origin, distribution, taxonomy, and taphonomy. Karstic regions offer the possibility for geoarchaeological applications in two main contexts, namely, subterranean and surface karst (Fig. 1). Cave deposits preserve long sequences of human occupation where micromorphology and microarchaeology find some of their most fruitful applications. As for palaeoenvironmental reconstructions within caves, the isotopic study of speleothemes currently offers some of the records with highest resolution. As for surface karst, superficial wetlands offer the Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology 4245 K K Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology, Fig. 1 Examples of geoarchaeological contexts in surface and subterranean karstic landscapes. (a) Historical watermill hanging from the side of a karstic canyon in Istria (Croatia), note the stark contrast between the dryness of the watercourse (photo was taken in summer) and watermarks on the artificial water channel. (b) Neolithic coastal site near Liznjan in Southern Istria (Croatia) being eroded away by Holocene sea-level rise. (c) Sampling speleothemes at Cova Murada, Menorca. A megalithic Bronze Age wall used to close the entrance to the cave, where dozens of burials were excavated in the early twentieth century. (d) Cyrene (Libya, UNESCO World Heritage site since 1982), a Greek colony of Thera founded in 630 BCE, romanized in 74 BCE. The photographs show the damages of an earthquake on the bathing quarters of the city known as the Aqua Augusta. Classic writers attest two major earthquakes affecting Cyrene in CE 262 and in CE 365 best-preserved and more continuous sedimentological sequences with preserved proxies for palaeoenvironmental reconstructions and for studying trajectories of long-term interaction between humans and this particular kind of landscape. While archaeological preservation is often poor in surface karst, the study of the distribution of surface archaeological evidence in connection with regional physiographical traits (through remote sensing, geomorphology, pedology) is key to understanding human occupation strategies and impact within these environments. K 4246 Origin and Distribution of Karstic Landscapes Worldwide The solid geology of most of our planet (c. 70 %) is made of highly soluble sedimentary calcareous rocks, such as limestone, dolomite, and aragonite, formed at the bottom of the sea during different geological periods (Ford & Williams 2007). Karstic landscapes are formed within these carbonate geological formations through meteoric dissolution, a process referred to as karstification. Across latitudes karstic regions give origin to contrasting landscapes (from barren ground to rain forest) in different climatic zones (from circumpolar to temperate and tropical). The distribution of karstic regions, from Malaysia to Cuba and from Alaska to New Zealand (Fig. 2), makes them most interesting for archaeologists and human palaeontologists. Karstic landscapes are often distributed along tectonically active regions (e.g., Alpine and Himalayan systems). In addition, karstic regions coincide with some of the main intercontinental corridors and bridges (e.g., Sinai, East Africa, Indonesia, Central America). As a result, karstic regions are ideal places for studying trends in human evolution and dispersal. Besides, they Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology show some of the highest concentrations of human population, past and present (e.g., Egypt, Mesopotamia, North and Northwest India). Taxonomy of Karstic Landscapes Most karstic features and landscapes were first observed in SE Europe, and their geomorphological definition derives often from Slavic languages. Karst is the German modification of the Croatian word krš (rock). In common language, the word was originally employed to indicate the bare stony ground of the limestone regions of western Slovenia. The term karst has now become part of the geomorphological lexicon to define a “terrain with distinctive characteristics of relief and drainage, arising primarily from a higher degree of rock solubility in natural waters than is found elsewhere” (Jennings 1971: 1). Karstic landscapes may be classified into two major groups, each generating a variety of landforms: surface and subterranean (Ford & Williams 2007). Surface landforms (exokarstic) include dissolution features such as poljes, karrens, dolines, sinkholes, cenotes, bridges, and towers. Due to the high permeability of carbonate rocks, surface karstic landscapes are Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology, Fig. 2 Karst regions of the world. Available at http://www.circleofblue.org/ waternews/2010/world/chinas-karst-region-infographics/ (accessed 22 May 2012) Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology characterized by low water retention and scarce surface waterways. In surface karstic landscapes, most water penetrates rapidly through sinkholes or diffusely through the permeable calcareous bedrock generating extensive subterranean drainage systems and a variety of subterranean landforms (endokarstic), mostly vadose and/or phreatic conduits of different scale, caverns, and caves. Taphonomy of Karstic Landscapes Despite being by definition more easily accessible, surface karstic landforms have received much less attention in archaeological and geoarchaeological research than subterranean ones. This is mainly due to the “aggressiveness” of the soils and sediments found on surface karstic landforms. The high alkalinity (low pH) of carbonate rocks and derived soils, combined with weathering, leads to the rapid dissolution of bone collagen and organic materials in surface karstic landforms. Even phytoliths, among the most resistant plant fossil remains, suffer from higher dissolution rates in archaeological assemblages from surface karstic landforms, where lithic remains are often the only evidence preserved (Andel & Runnels 2005). However, in specific cases, past surface karstic landforms (e.g., palaeosoils, limnic deposits, fluvial sequences) have been preserved within karstic depressions, buried under later alluvial, colluvial, and anthropic deposits, or in waterlogged conditions. In such cases, preservation of palaeoenvironmental proxies in sedimentary sequences and anthropic features in archaeological contexts has been maintained (e.g., Siart et al. 2010; Palomo et al. 2011). Geoarchaeology can therefore be applied in exokarstic landscapes in both archaeological and non-archaeological contexts, providing an insight into humanenvironment interaction and past socio-ecological systems. Archaeological deposits provide evidence relative to the use of surface karstic environments for settlement and sustenance, while sedimentary sequences provide information relative to environmental change at the local, regional, and global scales (Balbo et al. 2006; Balbo 2009; Iriarte et al. 2011). 4247 K Subterranean karstic landforms have been a critical source of archaeological and geoarchaeological information worldwide (Rapp & Hill 1998; Goldberg & Macphail 2006). Caves and rockshelters provide a protected environment and have been occupied throughout human history for different activities. Endokarstic landforms show much less diurnal and seasonal variation in terms of moisture and temperature than exokarstic ones. In addition, caves and rockshelters favor burial, increasing the potential for preservation. In some exceptional cases, e.g., when cave entrances have been sealed rapidly after human occupation, materials as fragile as human hair have been found (e.g., Bronze Age deposits found at Cova d’es Càrritx, Menorca, in Wellman 1996). Although artifacts and fossil accumulations may be preserved, taphonomic histories of these types of deposits are often complicated. Site formation processes are eclectic due to the characteristics of the bedrock and the complicated depositional, erosional, and occupational processes involved. Both clastic and chemical depositions occur. Clastic deposits include debris produced by human and animal occupation, washes, fluvial, and aeolian deposits, as well as rockfalls. The most common chemical precipitates are calcite depositions such as flowstone or dripstone. While preserved from weathering, bone deposited in karstic caves is exposed to calcification, often resulting in poor collagen preservation. Exceptional situations exist where good DNA preservation has permitted a first sequencing of the Neanderthal genome (Green et al. 2010). As a result of such taphonomical advantages and limitations, cave stratigraphies constitute intriguing depositional systems. They have played an important role in archaeology, and they are still a critical source of chronostratigraphic and artifactual data. Again, in these contexts geoarchaeology may contribute in terms of understanding human-environment interaction based on a combination of evidence from archaeological deposits and specific sedimentary features such as stalagmites, providing high-resolution palaeoenvironmental information through isotopic analysis (McDermott 2004). K K 4248 Key Issues/Current Debates Archaeology of Karstic Landscapes Karstic landscapes worldwide are intertwined with major questions in archaeology and human palaeontology including human origins and dispersal, human environmental behavior, and the emergence of early civilizations. Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology findings from the Island of Flores, Indonesia, question the lone existence of AMH on Earth since the extinction of Neanderthal. Fossils of Homo floresiensis found in tropical karstic caves provide evidence of karstic landscapes supporting species other than our own as late at 15 ka (e.g., in Aiello 2010). Human Environmental Behavior Human Origins, Evolution, and Dispersal Karstic caves have provided key archaeological and palaeontological evidence of hominin and modern human origins, evolution, and dispersal. Some of the most spectacular discoveries of hominin fossils were made in the past decades in the karstic landscapes of the South Cape province, South Africa, e.g., at Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, and Kromdraai (Martini & Kavalieris 1976; Dirks et al. 2010). Zhoukoudian cave in China gave one of the earliest examples of hominin presence in Asia 1 Ma (Goldberg et al. 2001). The karstic complex of Atapuerca offers the most continuous fossil record of Europe with dates ranging from c. 1.5 Ma virtually to the present-day (Carbonell et al. 2008). Blombos cave in the South Cape province (South Africa) has provided some of the earliest fossils and artifacts attesting to the origin of anatomically and behaviorally modern humans (AMH) before 100 ka (Fisher et al. 2010; Henshilwood et al. 2011). The worldwide dispersal of AMH has been documented in karstic caves and landscapes in Israel (e.g., the disputed case of the Qafzeh in Niewoehner 2001), Borneo (Niah cave in Barker et al. 2007), and SE Alaska, where karstic caves bear evidence of AMH migration into the American continent crossing the Laurentide ice sheet (Dixon et al. 2001). Karstic islands and wetlands have also offered evidence concerning the role of boats and seafaring for human dispersal and the spread of agriculture (Marangou 2003; Papageorgiou 2009). The demise of Neanderthals in Europe (e.g., Gibraltar in Finlayson et al. 2006) and their possible presence in Africa (e.g., Benzú in Ramos et al. 2008) have also been the subject of extensive archaeological research in karstic landscapes. More recently, A large proportion of rock paintings and carvings have been found in karstic caves. Similarly, numerous portable decorated objects have been found in karstic caves and in surface karstic landscapes. Such depictions of zoomorphic and human figures as well as plants offer evidence of the fauna and flora that characterized karstic environments before their extensive transformation through intensive hunting, domestication, and urbanization. Examples of rock art and portable art in karstic landscapes include Altamira (Valladas et al. 1992) and Fumane (Peresani et al. 2011) in Europe, as well as controversial sites such as Pedra Furada in Brazil (Santos et al. 2003). Early agricultural and pastoral societies settled karstic landscapes in regions as different as the Mediterranean and subtropical China. Within the semiarid strongly seasonal Mediterranean climate, karstic wetlands seem to have acted as major attractors for foraging and farming communities alike through glacial and interglacial cycles (Balbo 2009). Some of the major presentday European pastoral communities are still found in karstic landscapes in the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the Dinarides (Angelucci et al. 2009). On the other side of the world, in a completely different climatic setting, the humid steamy to subtropical conditions that characterize the South China karst have contributed to the formation of spectacular landscape features such as stone pinnacle forests, cone and tower karsts, huge sinkholes, natural bridges, and caves. It is within these settings that some of the earliest evidence of rice agriculture in Asia has been discovered within the framework of “The early rice agriculture and pottery production project.” Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology Megalithism, Urban Contexts, and Early Civilizations A significant portion of European megalithic archaeology is found in karstic landscapes. Stonehenge is but one of the best-known examples. Less-known examples, also from the British Isles, include the Burren uplands, a karstic landscape located on the midwestern coast of Ireland and the karstic landscapes of Western Britain. Other cases of early megalithism in karstic landscapes come from Mediterranean Islands (Corsica, Sardinia, Malta, Cyprus, the Balearic Islands to cite but a few) (e.g., Cassar 2010; Feeser & O’Connell 2010). Karstic landscapes have provided the raw material to some of the most impressive early urban civilizations, for architecture and statuary work in Egypt (e.g., the Saqqara step pyramid), Europe (e.g., the Acropolis in Athens, the Minoan palace in Knossos), and Central and South America (e.g., buildings parts and decorations in Teotihuacan and Tikal) (e.g., Haviland 1970). Geoarchaeology of Karstic Landscapes Geoarchaeological applications in karstic landscapes contribute to some of the questions in archaeology and human palaeontology discussed Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology, Fig. 3 Resuming excavations at the Haua Fteah karstic cave in 2007 half a century after Charles McBurney made here some of the first systematic applications of geoarchaeology in the 1950s 4249 K above. Introduced along with a whole new array of field and laboratory archaeological methods in the 1950s, geoarchaeology has been formally defined in the 1970s as one of the latest developments within the archaeological sciences and environmental archaeology (Renfrew 1976). Mediterranean karstic landscapes have been a kind of testing ground for the discipline, with some of the earliest examples of geoarchaeological applications (e.g., Haua Fteah in McBurney 1967) (Fig. 3). The geoarchaeological tradition in Mediterranean karstic regions has been continuous ever since (Barker & Bintliff 1999). Geoarchaeological applications are by definition multi-scalar, based on methods spanning from space-born observations through remote sensing for physiographical characterization and archaeological site detection (e.g., Lasaponara & Masini 2011) to the sedimentological study of alluvial and colluvial sequences and cave fills for palaeoenvironmental reconstructions (e.g., Brown 1997; Woodward & Goldberg 2001; Balbo et al. 2006; Iriarte et al. 2011; Marriner et al. 2012), site preservation assessment and formation processes of stratified archaeological deposits (e.g., Angelucci 2003; K K 4250 Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology Araujo et al. 2008; Mallol et al. 2009; Iriarte et al. 2010), and the micromorphology of specific anthropic features (e.g., Wadley et al. 2011) as well as palaeosoils and ancient field systems (e.g., Fuchs & Lang 2004; Sedov et al. 2008; Puy & Balbo 2013). More recently, coastal and submerged archaeology in karstic regions is opening new horizons for the application of geoarchaeology underwater, e.g., in the context of Central American and Caribbean archaeology (e.g., Faught & Donoghue 1997; Beeker et al. 2002). (Woodward & Goldberg 2001). The isotopic study of speleothemes provides key information on past environmental and climatic change (McDermott 2004). In Sicily, speleothemes have provided highly resolved continental records of Holocene climate in connection with the spread of agriculture (Frisia et al. 2006). Frumkin et al. (2009) provide an example of how geochronology (Walker 2006) and isotopic analysis of speleothemes were used to reconstruct long-term cave stratigraphy within the Qesem karst system in Israel. Geoarchaeology of Subterranean Karst Geoarchaeology of Surface Karst Among the different geoarchaeological specialties, micromorphology has been widely applied in karstic caves (Goldberg & Berna 2010). Beside the assessment of site formation and taphonomical processes (Angelucci 2003; Araujo et al. 2008; Mallol et al. 2009; Iriarte et al. 2010), micromorphology (Stoops 2010) and microarchaeology (Weiner 2010) have been used to put under scrutiny some of the earliest evidence for the use of fire at Zhoukoudian cave 1 Ma (Weiner et al. 1998). On the other hand, based on the same methods, Berna et al. (2012) recently demonstrated cooking capabilities among hominins 1.2 Ma at Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa. On a similar note, microscopic techniques have been used in the karstic cave of Klisoura (Greece) to identify the earliest example of clay hearths 34 to 23 ka (Karkanas et al. 2004). One of the best-understood features in cave micromorphology in connection with animal domestication and husbandry is that of spherulites, carbonatic nodules found in ovicaprid dung that is found in great quantities in caves that have served for animal keeping (Canti 1997). Shahack-Gross (2011) has recently proposed an overview of microscopic features related to animal husbandry that find application in most Holocene anthropic karstic cave deposits. Karstic rockshelters and caves also provide archives of past environmental change that can be analyzed using methods integrated in the geoarchaeological approach Geoarchaeology allows the combination of physiographical characterization (through remote sensing and geomorphology) and archaeological survey in surface karstic landscapes. This hybrid approach is necessary to fully understand the significance of the archaeological and palaeontological record preserved in caves within its broader environmental and socio-ecological context. Gaps in the often ill-preserved surface archaeological record can then be critically read in function of the preservation biases involved. Within karstic regions, this approach has revealed large numbers of open-air archaeological sites from the Pleistocene and Holocene periods (e.g., Runnels et al. 2004; Andel & Runnels 2005; Balbo 2009). In some instances and in spite of the generally poor taphonomical conditions, exceptional preservation has been maintained within archaeological sites found in surface karst landscapes. The Lower Palaeolithic site of West Stow, found in a depression within the chalk karst region of West Anglia, provided evidence of the use of fire in Europe as early as 450 ka (Barendregt et al. 2005; Preece et al. 2006). Micromorphology and isotopic studies have been used in the region to reconstruct past climatic settings (Candy 2009). A recent review by Coxon (2011) provides an insight into issues concerning the impact of agriculture on karst terrains and their management. Geoarchaeology has provided support to research on early agricultural adaptations and impact within the main foci of plant and animal domestication (e.g., the Levant) as well as in peripheral Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology areas (Thomas 1990; Homburg & Sandor 2011). Using ground penetrating radar (GPR), MunroStasiuk and Manahan (2010) and Gunn et al. (1995) studied ancient Maya field systems in the karst terrains of Northern Yucatan, Mexico. Geoarchaeological methods (mostly coring and geophysics) are among the main tools deployed in the “Early rice agriculture and pottery production project” to study early rice agriculture in tropical karstic China. Apart from the definition of irrigation and terrace field systems, the geoarchaeological approach to the study of agricultural systems in karstic landscapes involves the reconstruction of the environmental settings prior to the introduction of the new agricultural order through the analysis of the underlying palaeosols and nearby sedimentary sequences. Examples are found across the Holocene, from Neolithic agricultural soils in the Levant (Iriarte et al. 2011) to the complex irrigated terrace systems of Medieval Al-Andalus (Puy & Balbo 2013) and SE Asia, where clusters of terrace fields such as those of Ifugao (Philippines) have been inscribed in 2001 in the UNESCO list of world heritage in danger. Within open karstic landscapes, karst depressions are perhaps the best archives for geoarchaeologists to find past environmental proxies preserved and propose reconstructions of human-environment interaction (Siart et al. 2010). Karstic wetlands function as refugia and transitional (buffer) zones and have acted as attractors for mobile hunter-fisher-gatherers, herders, and settled agriculturalists (Coles 1984; Gams et al. 1993; Nicholas 1998). In some instances karstic wetlands have given geoarchaeologists exhaustive continental palaeoenvironmental sequences (e.g., Giraudi 2001; Lawson et al. 2004; Balbo et al. 2006), more complete and less biased by human action than those usually found in cave contexts. Likewise, wetlands have provided some of the best contexts for the application of geoarchaeology in waterlogged conditions within karstic regions. It is within the mixed karstic and volcanic landscape of the shore of the Sea of Galilee (Israel), the lowest freshwater lake of the world, that perfectly preserved remains of 4251 K bedding were studied microscopically within the 23 ka fisher-hunter-gatherer camp of Ohalo II (212–213 m below mean sea level) in occasion of a rapid drop of the water level in the lake (Nadel et al. 2004). Velušćek (2004) provides an overview of lake-dwelling sites found in the karstic region of Slovenia. Another example, currently under investigation, is the Neolithic lake dwelling of La Draga (Spain), where micromorphology is employed in a multidisciplinary approach to clarify site formation and taphonomical processes and lakeshore sediment and pedological analyses are used to reconstruct past environmental change (Palomo et al. 2011). Early Civilizations, Geohazards, and Submerged Geoarchaeology Megaliths have been the focus of much archaeological research. Focus has been put on their value as ritual and astronomical centers for early agricultural societies. More recently, the involvement of geoarchaeologists in the study of their immediate environment has revealed salient aspects of the surrounding landscape, indispensable for a full understanding of these early building complexes (Pearson et al. 2008). Geoarchaeology is becoming more and more integrated in the study of early civilizations, some of which are located in regions predominated by karstic landforms, as discussed above. Geoarchaeological applications within and around archaeological contexts in the tropical karst of Yukatán have focused on the impact Maya had on the local environment, their use of space within settlements, and their use of cenotes as sources of freshwater (Gilli et al. 2009; Hutson et al. 2009). In Egypt, sedimentology and geomorphology have been used to define palaeoenvironmental and landscape dynamics (Ghilardi & Tristant 2012 and references therein). Within ancient urban contexts located in tectonically active karstic regions, geoarchaeology has been used to detect and date past geohazards, e.g., along the Dead Sea fault where earthquakes had devastating effects on the Late Byzantine communities of Syria (Marco 2008). The occurrence, impact, and media coverage of recent geohazards have K K 4252 inspired ever more geoarchaeologists to study the effects of such events as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tsunamis (many of which happen to affect karstic regions) on past societies using sedimentology, micropaleontology, archaeology, and geochemistry (e.g., Reinhardt et al. 2006; Goodman-Tchernov et al. 2009). On a similar note, geoarchaeology has found significant applications in the understanding of the dynamics of site abandonment of karstic coastal areas due to submersion following sea-level rise in the Holocene (e.g., Florida in Faught & Donoghue 1997). Some of the karstic caves submerged following sea-level rise in the Pleistocene-Holocene transition have given remarkable rock art as well as important palaeoenvironmental information, e.g., the Cosquer cave off the shore of Marseille (France) (Collina-Girard 2004). International Perspectives The international presence and visibility of the geoarchaeology of karst landscapes in conferences and research institutes is briefly discussed in view of a possible more consistent future definition. The Geoarchaeology of Karstic Landscapes at International Conferences In general, geoarchaeology is gaining weight at international conferences on geosciences and archaeology. European Geosciences Union (EGU) Assembly in April 2011 had a full session dedicated to “Late Quaternary environments and societies: progress in geoarchaeology.” At the International Quaternary Association (INQUA) congress in July 2011, “Geoarchaeology: palaeoenvironments and human interaction” was the most extended session. Similarly, international conferences on archaeology have also seen a steep rise in geoarchaeological contributions in recent years. The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) conference in April 2012 dedicated a general session to “Geoarchaeology and Geophysics.” In contrast, the European Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology Archaeological Association (EAA) conference in August–September 2012 had no specific session dedicated to geoarchaeology. Although several geoarchaeological case studies presented at international geosciences and archaeology conferences have been developed in karstic landscapes, a fully dedicated session has not yet been organized. Likewise, at specialist conferences and sessions dedicated to karstic landscapes, geoarchaeology plays only a little part, e.g., at the International Association of Sedimentologists (IAS) meeting in September 2012, where a full session on “Karst, cave sediments and speleothemes” was devoted to karst formation, cave deposits, geochemistry, chronology, and climatic reconstruction. Similarly, although focusing on geoarchaeological applications in karst-dominated Mediterranean landscapes, the International Colloquium on Geoarchaeology in September 2011 did not have a session fully dedicated to geoarchaeological applications in karstic landscapes. Dedicated Institutes and Research Clusters Institutes dedicated to karst landscapes exist worldwide (Veni 2011). However, few of them explicitly include geoarchaeological research among their activities. Existing research clusters and institutions dedicated to karst landscapes are located in the hearth of emblematic karstic regions. The Department of Geography, Environment and Planning at the University of South Florida, has a research cluster on “Karst and wetland environments,” including a specific research line on the geoarchaeology of karst landscapes in Belize, Israel, Poland, and Spain. The Centro de Estudos em Geografia e Ordenamento do Território (CEGOT), Faculdade de Letras, Universidade de Coimbra (Portugal), includes a “Karst research group” focusing on cave deposits, palaeoclimatic reconstructions, and cave and rockshelter geoarchaeology in Portugal, Italy, and France. Outstanding international initiatives include the “Interdisciplinary studies of karstic landscapes (INTERKRAS),” an EU-funded project within the “Long Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology life learning program (ERASMUS-IP).” INTERKRAS includes geoarchaeology among its approaches to training students to the integrated long-term study of karstic landscapes, viewed as a combination of natural and cultural heritage. Future Directions Major questions in archaeology and human palaeontology involve the study of deposits found within karstic regions. The integration of methods from archaeology and the geosciences in geoarchaeology provides the tools for a multiscalar approach to such issues as the construction of the domestic environment (e.g., control of fire, construction of floors, and beddings) and the transformation of the surrounding environment (e.g., construction of field and irrigation systems). Micromorphology and geomorphology provide an insight into formation and taphonomical processes. Sedimentology and pedology allows proposing palaeoenvironmental, climatic, and land-use reconstructions. In spite of recent attempts at drafting a synthesis of new directions in karst geoarchaeology (e.g., Reeder 2011), a comprehensive overview including karstic landscapes as a whole, i.e., subterranean and superficial karst systems, is still missing. Historically, the main focus of karstic geoarchaeology has been on caves and shelters. However, it is within exokarstic depositional environments that geoarchaeology is likely to bring a greater contribution to karstic landscape archaeology in the coming years. It is within superficial and submerged karstic deposits that most univocal evidence of human activity in karstic landscapes is likely to emerge in the near future, from poljes, dolines, incised river valleys, and submerged coastlines. Geoarchaeology provides the necessary framework to maximize information found in these environments. An increasing number of centers interested in archaeology and socio-ecological systems are applying geoarchaeological approaches in karstic landscapes. Although research tools are ever 4253 K more refined, the promotion of a coherent teaching framework is still lacking. Innovative future teaching resources will benefit from an exhaustive review and systematization of information scattered online, in print, and in class. The outcome of such review could span from specific textbooks to conference sessions as well as university and online courses on the geoarchaeology of karstic landscapes. An international commission of experts focusing on the geoarchaeology of karstic landscapes, possibly clustering as a web community stemming from the present initiative, would bring great benefit to the definition of a discipline apt to solving major issues in archaeology. Cross-References ▶ Agrarian Landscapes: Environmental Archaeological Studies ▶ Altamira and Paleolithic Cave Art of Northern Spain ▶ Animal Domestication and Pastoralism: Socio-Environmental Contexts ▶ Anthropogenic Environments, Archaeology of ▶ Anthropogenic Sediments and Soils: Geoarchaeology ▶ Cultural Ecology in Archaeology ▶ Environmental Sampling in Mediterranean Archaeology ▶ Europe: Prehistoric Rock Art ▶ Geoarchaeology ▶ Historical Ecology and Environmental Archaeology ▶ Human Evolution: Use of Fire ▶ Hydraulic Engineering: Geoarchaeology ▶ Iberia: Medieval Archaeology ▶ Iberian Mediterranean Basin: Rock Art ▶ Landscape Archaeology ▶ Landscape Domestication and Archaeology ▶ Mediterranean Sea: Maritime Archaeology ▶ Niah Cave (The West Mouth) ▶ Niah Caves: Role in Human Evolution ▶ South American Rock Art ▶ Stratigraphy in Archaeology: A Brief History ▶ Taphonomy in Human Evolution K K 4254 Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology References significance. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 120(1): 49–57. Available at: http://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016787809000030 (accessed 25 May 2012). CANTI, M.G. 1997. An investigation of microscopic calcareous spherulites from herbivore dungs. Journal of Archaeological Science: 219–231. CARBONELL, E. et al. 2008. The first hominin of Europe. Nature 452(7186): 465–9. Available at: http://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18368116 (accessed 29 February 2012). CASSAR, J. 2010. The use of limestone in a historic context - the experience of Malta. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 331(1): 13–25. Available at: http://sp.lyellcollection.org/cgi/doi/10.1144/SP331.2 (accessed 29 May 2012). CENTRO DE ESTUDOS EM GEOGRAFIA E ORDENAMENTO DO TERRITÓRIO (CEGOT), FACULDADE DE LETRAS UNIVERSIDADE DE COIMBRA. Available at: http://www. uc.pt/fluc/cegot (accessed 25 May 2012). COLES, J. 1984. The archaeology of wetlands. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. COLLINA-GIRARD, J. 2004. Prehistory and coastal karst area: Cosquer Cave and the “Calanques” of Marseille. Speleogenesis and Evolution of Karst Aquifers 2(2): 1–13. COXON, C. 2011. Agriculture and karst, in P. E. Beynen (ed.) Karst management. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/ index/10.1007/978-94-007-1207-2 (accessed 12 April 2012). DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY, ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA. Available at: http:// gep.usf.edu/research/esp/ (accessed 25 May 2012). DIRKS, P.H.G.M. et al. 2010. Geological setting and age of Australopithecus sediba from southern Africa. Science (New York, N.Y.) 328(5975): 205–8. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378812 (accessed 18 March 2012). DIXON, E.J. et al. 2001. Geoarchaeology of Southeast Alaska karst: a progress report. Geoarchaeology An International Journal 12(6): 689–712. FAUGHT, M.K. & J.F. DONOGHUE. 1997. Marine inundated archaeological sites and paleofluvial systems: examples from a karst-controlled continental shelf setting in Apalachee Bay, Northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 12(5): 417–58. FEESER, I. & M. O’CONNELL. 2010. Late Holocene land-use and vegetation dynamics in an upland karst region based on pollen and coprophilous fungal spore analyses: an example from the Burren, western Ireland. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 19(5–6): 409–426. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/ index/10.1007/s00334-009-0235-5 (accessed 1 April 2012). FINLAYSON, C. et al. 2006. Late survival of Neanderthals at the southernmost extreme of Europe. Nature 443(7113): 850–3. Available at: http://www.ncbi. AIELLO, L.C. 2010. Five years of Homo floresiensis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 142(2): 167–79. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/20229502 (accessed 4 March 2012). ANDEL, T.H.V. & C.N. RUNNELS. 2005. Karstic wetland dwellers of middle Palaeolithic epirus, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 30: 367–84. ANGELUCCI, D. E. 2003. Geoarchaeology and micromorphology of Abric de la Cativera (Catalonia, Spain). Catena 54: 573–601. ANGELUCCI, D.E. et al. 2009. Shepherds and karst: the use of caves and rock-shelters in the Mediterranean region during the Neolithic. World Archaeology 41(2): 191–214. ARAUJO, A.G.M. et al. 2008. Lapa das boleiras rockshelter: stratigraphy and formation processes at a paleoamerican site in Central Brazil. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(12): 3186–202. Available at: http:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S03054403 08001635 (accessed 9 March 2012). BALBO, A.L. 2009. Human adaptation to Mediterranean wetlands. The geoarchaeology of Polje Čepic´ (Istria, Croatia) in the late Pleistocene and Holocene. Saarbrücken: Verlag Doctor Müller. BALBO, A.L. et al. 2006. Palaeoenvironmental and archaeological implications of a sediment core from Polje Čepić, Istria, Croatia. Geologia Croatica: 109–24. BARENDREGT, W. et al. 2005. The earliest record of human activity in northern Europe. Nature 438: 1008–12. BARKER, G. et al. 2007. The “human revolution” in lowland tropical Southeast Asia: the antiquity and behavior of anatomically modern humans at Niah Cave (Sarawak, Borneo). Journal of Human Evolution 52(3): 243–61. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/17161859 (accessed 5 March 2012). BARKER, G. & J. BINTLIFF. 1999. 19. Geoarchaeology in Mediterranean landscape archaeology: concluding comments, in G. Barker et al. (ed.) Environmental reconstruction in Mediterranean landscape archaeology (The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes): 207–10. Oxford: Oxbow Books. BEEKER, C.D., G.W. CONRAD & J.W. FOSTER. 2002. Taı́no use of flooded caverns in the east national park region, Dominican Republic. Journal of Caribbean Archaeology 3: 1–26. BERNA, F. et al. 2012. PNAS Plus: Microstratigraphic evidence of in situ fire in the Acheulean strata of Wonderwerk Cave, Northern Cape province, South Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/ 10.1073/pnas.1117620109 (accessed 3 April 2012). BROWN, A.G. 1997. Alluvial geoarchaeology. Floodplain archaeology and environmental change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CANDY, I. 2009. Terrestrial and freshwater carbonates in Hoxnian interglacial deposits, UK: micromorphology, stable isotopic composition and palaeoenvironmental Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16971951 (accessed 13 March 2012). FISHER, E.C. et al. 2010. Middle and Late Pleistocene paleoscape modeling along the southern coast of South Africa. Quaternary Science Reviews 29: 1382–98. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S027737911000017X (accessed 15 December 2010). FORD, D.C. & P. WILLIAMS. 2007. Karst hydrogeology and geomorphology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Fossil hominid sites of Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Kromdraai, and environs. n.d. Available at: http:// whc.unesco.org/en/list/915 (accessed 30 May 2012). FRISIA, S. et al. 2006. Holocene climate variability in Sicily from a discontinuous stalagmite record and the Mesolithic to Neolithic transition. Quaternary Research 66(3): 388–400. Available at: http://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0033589406000706 (accessed 4 August 2010). FRUMKIN, A. et al. 2009. Gravitational deformations and fillings of aging caves: the example of Qesem karst system, Israel. Geomorphology 106(1–2): 154–64. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0169555X08004157 (accessed 16 April 2012). FUCHS, M. & A. LANG. 2004. The history of Holocene soil erosion in the Phlious Basin, NE Peloponnese, Greece, based on optical dating. The Holocene 14(3): 334. Available at: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/14/3/ 334.short (accessed 3 November 2010). GAMS, I. et al. 1993. Environmental change and human impacts on the Mediterranean karsts of France, Italy and the Dinaric region. Catena Supplement 25: 59–98. GHILARDI, M. & Y. TRISTANT. 2012. Geoarchaeology of Egypt and the Mediterranean: reconstructing Holocene landscapes and human occupation history. Quaternary International: 266: 1–3. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S10406182 12001711 (accessed 16 April 2012). GILLI, A. et al. 2009. Geological and archaeological implications of strontium isotope analysis of exposed bedrock in the Chicxulub crater basin, northwestern Yucatan, Mexico. Geology 37(8): 723–6. Available at: http://geology.gsapubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/37/ 8/723 (accessed 14 March 2012). GIRAUDI, C. 2001. Nuovi dati sull’evoluzione tardopleistocenica ed olocenica di Campo Felice (L’Aquila - Abruzzo) [New data on the tardo-Pleistocene and Holocene evolution of Campo Felice (L’Aquila, Abruzzo)]. Il Quaternario. Italian Journal of Quaternary Sciences 14: 47–54. GOLDBERG, P. et al. 2001. Site formation processes at Zhoukoudian, China. Journal of Human Evolution 41(5): 483–530. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/11681863 (accessed 21 March 2012). GOLDBERG, P. & F. BERNA. 2010. Micromorphology and context. Quaternary International 214(1–2): 56–62. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. quaint.2009.10.023. 4255 K GOLDBERG, P. & R.I. MACPHAIL. 2006. Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology. Malden: Blackwell Science Ltd. GOODMAN-TCHERNOV, B.N. et al. 2009. Tsunami waves generated by the Santorini eruption reached Eastern Mediterranean shores. Geology 37(10): 943–6. Available at: http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/37/10/943.full (accessed 18 March 2012). GREEN, R.E. et al. 2010. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science (New York, N.Y.) 328(5979): 710–22. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/20448178 (accessed 29 February 2012). GUNN, J.D., W.J. FOLAN & H.R. ROBICHAUX. 1995. A landscape analysis of the Candelaria watershed in Mexico: Insights into paleoclimates affecting upland horticulture in the southern Yucatan peninsula semikarst. Geoarchaeology 10(1): 3–42. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/gea.3340100103 (accessed 24 May 2012). HAVILAND, W.A. 1970. Tikal, Guatemala and Mesoamerican urbanism. World Archaeology 2(2): 186–98. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ 10.1080/00438243.1970.9979473 (accessed 29 May 2012). HENSHILWOOD, C.S. et al. 2011. A 100,000-year-old ochreprocessing workshop at Blombos Cave, South Africa. Science (New York, N.Y.) 334(6053): 219–22. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ 21998386 (accessed 14 March 2012). HOMBURG, J. A. & J.A. SANDOR. 2011. Anthropogenic effects on soil quality of ancient agricultural systems of the American Southwest. Catena 85(2): 144–54. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0341816210001256 (accessed 15 April 2012). HUTSON, S.R. et al. 2009. Phosphate fractionation and spatial patterning in ancient ruins: a case study from Yucatan. Catena 78(3): 260–9. Available at: http:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S034181620900 0356 (accessed 25 May 2012). Ifugao (Philippines) terrace system in the UNESCO list of World heritage in danger. Available at: http://whc. unesco.org/en/list/722 (accessed 24 May 2012). INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDIES OF KARSTIC LANDSCAPES (INTERKRAS). Available at: http://www.wix.com/ predragnovakovic/vrgorac1 (accessed 25 May 2012). IRIARTE, E. et al. 2010. Geological risk assessment for cultural heritage conservation in karstic caves. Journal of Cultural Heritage 11: 250-8. IRIARTE, E. et al. 2011. Late Pleistocene and Holocene sedimentary record of the Bouqaia Basin (central Levant, Syria): a geoarchaeological approach. Comptes Rendus Palevol 10: 35–47. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S16310683 10001272 (accessed 13 January 2011). JENNINGS, J.N. 1971. Karst. Cambridge (MA) and London: The M.I.T. Press. KARKANAS, P. et al. 2004. The earliest evidence for clay hearths: Aurignacian features in Klisoura Cave 1, southern Greece. Antiquity 78(301): 513–25. K K 4256 Karst regions of the world. n.d. Available at: http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/ chinas-karst-region-infographics/ (accessed 22 May 2012). La Draga Neolithic lake dwelling. n.d. Available at: http:// www.banyolescultura.net/dragcat0.htm (accessed on 25 May 2011) LASAPONARA, R. & N. MASINI. 2011. Satellite remote sensing in archaeology: past, present and future perspectives. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(9): 1995–2002. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S030544031100032X (accessed 11 July 2011). LAWSON, I. et al. 2004. The Lateglacial and Holocene environmental history of the Ioannina basin, northwest Greece. Quaternary Science Reviews 23 (14–15): 1599–1625. Available at: http://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277379104000459 (accessed 7 May 2012). MALLOL, C., S.M. MENTZER & P.J. WRINN. 2009. A micromorphological and mineralogical study of site formation processes at the late Pleistocene site of Obi-Rakhmat, Uzbekistan. Geoarchaeology 24(5): 548–75. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ gea.20280 (accessed 25 May 2012). MARANGOU, C., 2003. Neolithic watercraft in Greece: circumstantial evidence and serious guesses, in C. Beltrame (ed.) Boats, ships and shipyards: 14–18. Oxford: Oxbow Books. MARCO, S. 2008. Recognition of earthquake-related damage in archaeological sites: examples from the Dead Sea fault zone. Tectonophysics 453(1–4): 148–56. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0040195108000607 (accessed 4 August 2010). MARRINER, N., T. GAMBIN, M. DJAMALI, C. MORHANGE & M. SPITERI. (2012). Geoarchaeology of the Burmarrad ria and early Holocene human impacts in western Malta. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 339–341: 52–65 MARTINI, J. & I. KAVALIERIS. 1976. The karst of the Transvaal (South Africa). International Journal of Speleology 8: 229–51. MCBURNEY, C.B.M. 1967. The Haua Fteah (Cyrenaica) and the Stone Age of the South-East Mediterranean. New York: Cambridge University Press. MCDERMOTT, F. 2004. Palaeo-climate reconstruction from stable isotope variations in speleothems: a review. Quaternary Science Reviews 23(7–8): 901–18. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0277379104000198 (accessed 1 March 2012). MUNRO-STASIUK, M.J. & T.K. MANAHAN. 2010. Investigating ancient Maya agricultural adaptation through ground penetrating radar (GPR) analysis of a karst terrain, Northern Yucatán, Mexico. Acta Carsologica 39(1): 123–35. NADEL, D. et al. 2004. Stone Age hut in Israel yields world’ s oldest evidence of bedding. Proceedings of the Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101(17). NICHOLAS, G.P. 1998. Wetlands and hunter-gatherers: a global perspective. Current Anthropology 39(5): 720–31. NIEWOEHNER, W.A 2001. Behavioral inferences from the Skhul/Qafzeh early modern human hand remains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98(6): 2979–84. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ articlerender.fcgi?artid¼30592&tool¼pmcentrez& rendertype¼abstract. PALOMO, A. et al. 2011. Harvesting cereals and other plants in Neolithic Iberia: the assemblage from the lake settlement at La Draga. Antiquity 85: 759–71. PAPAGEORGIOU, D. 2009. The marine environment and its influence on seafaring and maritime routes in the prehistoric Aegean. European Journal of Archaeology 11(2–3): 199–222. Available at: http://eja.sagepub. com/cgi/doi/10.1177/1461957109106374 (accessed 12 March 2012). PEARSON, M.P. et al. 2008. The Stonehenge Riverside Project: exploring the Neolithic landscape of Stonehenge. Documenta Praehistorica 7(410): 153–66. PERESANI, M. et al. 2011. Late Neandertals and the intentional removal of feathers as evidenced from bird bone taphonomy at Fumane Cave 44 ky B.P., Italy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108(10): 3888–93. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ articlerender.fcgi?artid¼3054018&tool¼pmcentrez& rendertype¼abstract (accessed 17 April 2012). PREECE, R. et al. 2006. Humans in the Hoxnian: habitat, context and fire use at Beeches Pit, West Stow, Suffolk, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science 21(5): 485–96. Available at: http://www3.interscience. wiley.com/journal/112664038/abstract (accessed 17 November 2010). PUY, A. & A.L. BALBO. 2013. The genesis of irrigated terraces in Al-Andalus. A geoarchaeological perspective on intensive agriculture in arid environments (Ricote, Murcia, Spain). Journal of Arid Environments 89: 45–56. RAMOS, J., D. BERNAL & S. DOMÍNGUEZ-BELLA. 2008. The Benzu rockshelter: a Middle Palaeolithic site on the North African coast. Quaternary Science. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0277379108002047 (accessed 2 November 2010). RAPP, G. & C.L. HILL. 1998. Geoarchaeology: the earthscience approach to archaeological interpretation. London: Yale University Press. REEDER, P. 2011. Geoarchaeology and karst: a new perspective, in P.E. Beynen (ed.) Karst management: 169–200. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/97894-007-1207-2 (accessed 12 April 2012). REINHARDT, E.G. et al. 2006. The tsunami of 13 December A. D. 115 and the destruction of Herod the Great’s harbor at Caesarea Maritima, Israel. Geology 34(12): 1061. Keatley Creek and Bridge River: Complex Hunter-Gatherer Villages of the Middle Fraser Canyon Available at: http://geology.gsapubs.org/cgi/content/ abstract/34/12/1061 (accessed 18 March 2012). RENFREW, C. 1976. Archaeology and the earth sciences, in D.A. Davidson & M.L. Shackley (ed.) Geoarchaeology. Earth science and the past: 1–8. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd. RUNNELS, C. et al. 2004. The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic of Albania: survey and excavation at the site of Kryegjata B (Fier District). Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 1: 3–29. SANTOS, G. et al. 2003. A revised chronology of the lowest occupation layer of Pedra Furada Rock Shelter, Piauı’, Brazil: the Pleistocene peopling of the Americas. Quaternary Science Reviews 22(21–22): 2303–10. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0277379103002051 (accessed 23 May 2012). SEDOV, S. et al. 2008. Micromorphology of a soil catena in Yucatán: pedogenesis and geomorphological processes in a tropical karst landscape, in S. Kapur, A. R. Mermut & G. Stoops (ed.) New trends in soil micromorphology: 19–38. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. SHAHACK-GROSS, R. 2011. Herbivorous livestock dung: formation, taphonomy, methods for identification, and archaeological significance. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(2): 205–18. Available at: http:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030544031000 3419 (accessed 28 April 2012). SIART, C. et al. 2010. Karst depressions as geoarchaeological archives: the palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of Zominthos (Central Crete), based on geophysical prospection, sedimentological investigations and GIS. Quaternary International 216(1–2): 75–92. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. quaint.2009.06.020. STOOPS, G. 2010. Interpretation of micromorphological features of soils and regoliths. Amsterdam: Elsevier. THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE BURREN UPLANDS. n.d. Available at: http://mappingtheburren.com/burrenArchaeology. php (accessed 23 May 2012). THE EARLY RICE AGRICULTURE AND POTTERY PRODUCTION PROJECT. n.d. Available at: http://www.bu.edu/ asianarc/field_projects/fp_yuchanyan1.html (accessed 23 May 2012). THOMAS, K., 1990. Aspects of soils and early agriculture. World Archaeology 22(1): 7–13. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1990.9980124 (accessed 24 May 2012). VALLADAS, H. et al. 1992. Direct radiocarbon dates for prehistoric paintings at the Altamira, El Castillo and Niaux caves. Nature 357(6373): 68–70. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v357/n6373/pdf/ 357068a0.pdf (accessed 21 May 2012). VELUŠĆEK, A. 2004. Past and present lake-dwelling studies in Slovenia, in F. Menotti (ed.) Living on the lake in prehistoric Europe: 69–82. London: Routledge. VENI, G. 2011. National karst research institutes: their roles in cave and karst management, in P.E. Beynen (ed.) Karst management. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 4257 K Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/ 10.1007/978-94-007-1207-2 (accessed 12 April 2012). WADLEY, L. et al. 2011. Middle Stone Age bedding construction and settlement patterns at Sibudu, South Africa. Science (New York, N.Y.) 334(6061): 1388–91. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/22158814 (accessed 19 April 2012). WALKER, M. 2006. Quaternary dating methods. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Available at: http:// linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S187110140600 1063. WEINER, S. 2010. Microarchaeology. Beyond the visible archaeological record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. WEINER, S. et al. 1998. Evidence for the use of fire at Zhoukoudian, China. Science 281: 251–3. WELLMAN, H. 1996. The identification and treatment of a unique cache of organic artefacts from Menorca’s Bronze Age. Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies 1. Available at: http://www.jcms-journal. com/article/view/jcms.1961/1 (accessed 1 July 2011). WOODWARD, J.C. & P. GOLDBERG. 2001. The sedimentary records in Mediterranean rockshelters and caves: Archives of environmental change. Geoarchaeology 16(4): 327–54. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/ 10.1002/gea.1007.abs. Keatley Creek and Bridge River: Complex Hunter-Gatherer Villages of the Middle Fraser Canyon Anna Marie Prentiss Department of Anthropology, The University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA Introduction Complex hunter-gatherers depart from the traditional model of hunter-gatherers as small relatively egalitarian groups, engaged in frequent residential moves, employing little formal storage and consuming a very broad diet drawn from non-domesticated food sources (Lee 1968). In contrast, complex hunter-gatherers often live in large groups, are typically characterized by social status distinctions, move residences somewhat infrequently, rely upon storage, and typically specialize in select non-domesticated food sources (Sassaman 2004). Archaeologists have been interested in better understanding variation K K 4258 Keatley Creek and Bridge River: Complex Hunter-Gatherer Villages of the Middle Fraser Canyon in the evolution and organization of these societies. The archaeological record of complex hunter-gatherers is widespread and includes such archaeological entities as the Middle Jomon culture of Japan, the northern European Mesolithic, the Natufian of the Near East, the Thule Eskimo tradition of North America’s Western Arctic, the Marpole phase of British Columbia’s southern coast, and the Lillooet Phenomenon of Interior of British Columbia. The Lillooet Phenomenon is best represented by two important archaeological sites known as Keatley Creek and Bridge River (Fig. 1). These sites have become particularly important for their fine-grained data reflecting development of socioeconomic and political complexity in this region of North America (Prentiss & Kuijt 2012). Definition The Keatley Creek and Bridge River sites are housepit villages (Figs. 2 and 3) located in the vicinity of Lillooet, British Columbia, and densely occupied during the period of approximately 1,800 to 200 years ago (Prentiss & Kuijt 2012). Housepits are semi-subterranean dwellings with large wooden superstructures and earthen caps. Entrances to the dwellings could be on the side, or in larger structures, down a ladder made from a hollowed tree trunk, through a hole in the roof. Normally, one or more extended families resided in the houses, and the largest structures could hold 50 or more people. Keatley Creek and Bridge River are particularly large villages, containing, respectively, 115 and 80 housepits. At peak size each site may have been occupied by groups in excess of 600–800 persons (Hayden 1997; Prentiss et al. 2008). Archaeological research at the Keatley Creek and Bridge River sites began during the late 1960s with Arnoud Stryd’s Lillooet Archaeological Project. Stryd visited Keatley Creek and conducted limited test excavations at Bridge River. His primary focus, however, was a somewhat smaller village known as the Bell site. Excavations at Keatley Creek began in 1986 under direction of Brian Hayden, whose Keatley Creek and Bridge River: Complex HunterGatherer Villages of the Middle Fraser Canyon, Fig. 1 Map of Middle Fraser Canyon showing approximate locations of Bridge River and Keatley Creek sites (Map created by Guy Cross) research at the site continues to the current period (Hayden 1997). Anna Prentiss excavated at Keatley Creek in 1999–2002 (Prentiss et al. 2007). She then conducted mapping, geophysical studies, and excavations at Bridge River from 2003 through 2012 (Prentiss et al. 2008, 2012). Archaeological investigations at Keatley Creek and Bridge River have had a number of significant outcomes. All archaeological interpretations in the Middle Fraser Canyon have been enhanced by an excellent ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological record (Hayden 1992). Indeed, partnerships between archaeologists and indigenous groups have led to a range of creative studies and interesting conclusions about the recent and more remote past (Prentiss & Kuijt 2012). The housepits of Keatley Creek and Bridge River have outstanding stratigraphic records and preservation of organic materials including wood and basketry in some contexts. It has been Keatley Creek and Bridge River: Complex Hunter-Gatherer Villages of the Middle Fraser Canyon 4259 K Keatley Creek and Bridge River: Complex Hunter-Gatherer Villages of the Middle Fraser Canyon, Fig. 2 Photograph of Keatley Creek site showing core area with greatest density of housepits K Keatley Creek and Bridge River: Complex Hunter-Gatherer Villages of the Middle Fraser Canyon, Fig. 3 Photograph of Bridge River site showing a portion of the core area with highest density of housepits possible to chronicle many details of the life histories of particular households. The Bridge River site has proven particularly productive as many housepits feature stratified sequences of buried floors. Housepit 54, for example, included a sequence of 13 distinct clay floors and seven roof deposits. These contexts provide the rare opportunity to examine household histories (Ames 2006) that sometimes span hundreds of years at a level of resolution rarely available to archaeologists working with complex huntergatherers (Prentiss et al. 2012). The combination of fine stratigraphy, excellent preservation of materials, frequent house features, and abundant artifacts has permitted archaeologists to conduct fine-grained analysis of the evolution and organization of the complex societies that resided at these places. Brian Hayden’s (1997) research emphasized intra- and inter-household variation in artifacts, food remains, and storage features as indicators of inter-household ranking at Keatley Creek. He sought to demonstrate that largest houses were able to accumulate more nonlocal goods K 4260 Keatley Creek and Bridge River: Complex Hunter-Gatherer Villages of the Middle Fraser Canyon such as shell jewelry and jade and soapstone tools, along with large quantities of high-quality food such as Chinook salmon. This permitted him to argue that during the time of peak occupation, social life was organized around a system of elite-dominated manipulation of debt capital, manifested in elaborate feasts and potlatches similar to those of the nearby Northwest Coast groups. Prentiss and colleagues (Prentiss et al. 2012; Prentiss & Kuijt 2012) recognized markers of similar behavior at the Bridge River site as manifested in part by evidence for feasts featuring young dogs, salmon, and deer, along with differential accumulation of prestige goods such as copper jewelry and jade tools. A final significant contribution of archaeological research in the Middle Fraser Canyon has been the recognition of a range of ritual behavior in housepits. Evidence for feasting is known from Keatley Creek and Bridge River. However, recent studies by Hayden and colleagues (Hayden & Adams 2004) have also revealed small houses on the periphery of the Keatley Creek village with evidence for a variety of ritual activities including the possible activities for special social groups and shamans. Research at these places is ongoing, and it remains to be seen whether they are related to the larger occupations in the core village. Regardless, they provide a window into an aspect of behavior among hunter-gatherers rarely available to most archaeologists. Key Issues/Current Debates/Future Directions/Examples There are several issues debated in Middle Fraser Canyon archaeology centered on chronology, socioeconomic change, political evolution, and village abandonment. Archaeologists differ over the founding of the large Middle Fraser villages (Prentiss & Kuijt 2012). Brian Hayden has argued for early dates in excess of 2,600 years ago, while Prentiss, drawing from more recent excavations and radiocarbon dating, argues for a start date of less than 1,800 years ago. Archaeologists also differ on interpretations of socioeconomic and political history. In brief, Brian Hayden (1997) contends that once present, the villages changed little in basic economy and political organization. In contrast, Prentiss and colleagues (Prentiss & Kuijt 2012) have presented new data suggesting that the Keatley Creek and Bridge River villages grew as much as 300 % between 1,800 and 1,200 years ago. During that time, subsistence economies remained dominated by salmon, but the role of mammals gradually increased in importance, particularly after 1,200 years ago when salmon fishing apparently became less productive. Prentiss also argues that it was under the latter period that social status differences became obvious in the villages. Thus, drawing from Bridge River and Keatley Creek data and in contrast to Hayden, Prentiss contends that material wealth-based inequality was not obviously present in the early history of the villages. A final source of debate concerns the abandonment of the villages at around 1,000 years ago (Prentiss & Kuijt 2012). Brian Hayden and colleague June Ryder argue for an abrupt abandonment due to a massive landslide. This argument has been critiqued by Ian Kuijt who points out that there is no firmly dated evidence for such landslides. Prentiss & Kuijt (2012) contend that dense human populations and local depression in terrestrial food resources could be a more likely cause. Future archaeological research in the Middle Fraser Canyon will seek to test alternative hypotheses offered by Hayden and Prentiss. In addition, archaeologists should explore a number of other critical issues. How were the Keatley Creek and Bridge River villages organized sociopolitically during their earliest occupations? How and why did life in these villages change over the following centuries? In particular, what were the conditions that favored the rise of archaeologically obvious socioeconomic and political competition? What was the role of this socially competitive process in the demographic decline and abandonment of the villages? Application of new research approaches will be essential to advancing knowledge of the ancient cultures of the Middle Fraser Canyon. Geophysical remote sensing techniques have been very productive for mapping Keel, Bennie C. subsurface features (Prentiss et al. 2008). Studies of paleo-DNA have been initiated and have shown promise, particularly in the identification of salmon species and recognition of domesticated dog lineages. Finally, researchers will need to develop more advanced studies of organic residues on tools and in floor sediments in order to resolve questions regarding the roles of many plant foods, particularly geophytes (plants with edible roots). Cross-References ▶ Complex Hunter-Gatherers ▶ Hunter-Gatherer Settlement and Mobility ▶ Hunter-Gatherers, Archaeology of 4261 K PRENTISS, A.M., T.A. FOOR, G. CROSS, L.E. HARRIS & M. WANZENRIED. 2012. The cultural evolution of material wealth based inequality at Bridge River, British Columbia. American Antiquity 77:542–64. SASSAMAN, K.E. 2004. Complex hunter-gatherers in evolution and history: a North American perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 12: 227–80. Further Reading HAYDEN, B. (ed.) 1992. A complex culture of the British Columbia plateau. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. PRENTISS, W.C. & I. KUIJT. (ed.) 2004. Complex hunter-gatherers: evolution and organization of prehistoric communities on the plateau of northwestern North America. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. PRENTISS, W.C., J.C. CHATTERS, M. LENERT, D. CLARKE & R.C. O’BOYLE. 2005. The archaeology of the plateau of northwestern North America during the late prehistoric period (3500–200 B.P.): evolution of hunting and gathering societies. Journal of World Prehistory 19:47–118. References AMES, K. 2006. Thinking about household archaeology on the Northwest Coast, in E.A. Sobel, D. A. T. Gahr & K.M. Ames (ed.) Household archaeology on the Northwest Coast (International Monographs in Prehistory Archaeological series 16):16–36 Ann Arbor. HAYDEN, B. 1997. The pithouses of Keatley Creek. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. HAYDEN, B. & R. ADAMS. 2004. Ritual structures in transegalitarian communities, in W.C. Prentiss & I. Kuijt (ed.) Complex hunter-gatherers: evolution and organization of prehistoric communities on the plateau of northwestern North America: 84–102. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. LEE, R.B. 1968. What hunters do for a living, or, how to make out on scarce resources, in R.B. Lee & I. Devore (ed.) Man the hunter: 30–48. New York: Aldine. PRENTISS, A.M. & I.KUIJT. 2012. People of the Middle Fraser Canyon: an archaeological history. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. PRENTISS, A.M., N. LYONS, L.E. HARRIS, M.R.P. BURNS & T.M. GODIN. 2007. The emergence of status inequality in intermediate scale societies: a demographic and socio-economic history of the Keatley Creek site, British Columbia. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:299–327. PRENTISS, A.M., G. CROSS, T.A. FOOR, D. MARKLE, M. HOGAN & D. S. CLARKE. 2008. Evolution of a late prehistoric winter village on the interior plateau of British Columbia: geophysical investigations, radiocarbon dating, and spatial analysis of the Bridge River site. American Antiquity 73:59–82. K Keel, Bennie C. Michele C. Aubry Alexandria, VA, USA Basic Biographical Information Bennie Carleton Keel is an American archaeologist and government official. He grew up in Panama City, in Florida and graduated from Bay County High School in 1952. He completed one year of college before enlisting in the US Army (1954–1957) and serving as a military policeman with the 11th Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. After military service, he completed undergraduate studies in anthropology and sociology at Florida State University where he received B.S. (1960) and M.S. (1965) degrees. He undertook graduate studies in anthropology and quaternary studies at Washington State University in Pullman where he received a Ph.D. (1972). Early in his career, Bennie Keel worked on several government-sponsored archaeological projects including the Weiss Reservoir in K 4262 Alabama, the Town Creek Indian Mound in North Carolina, and the Marmes Rockshelter in Washington. He was the archaeologist at the Research Laboratories of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill (1964–1967; 1969–1973), taught at St. Andrews Presbyterian College (1971) and Wright State University (1973–1976), and worked on compliance projects in Ohio. In 1976, Dr. Keel was hired by the National Park Service (NPS) to lead its Interagency Archeological Services Division in Atlanta, Georgia. In 1980, he was promoted to head the division’s headquarters in Washington, DC, and serve as the Department of the Interior’s Departmental Consulting Archeologist. In 1983, he was promoted to serve as Assistant Director for Archeology and continued as Departmental Consulting Archeologist. In 1990, he transferred to the NPS Southeast Archeological Center in Tallahassee, Florida, serving as Regional Archeologist (1990–2007) and Director (2007–2008) until his retirement. Major Accomplishments Bennie Keel’s career in archaeology, spanning five decades, was coterminous with a period of significant change in American archaeology. During this time, many federal laws were passed, and presidential executive orders were issued calling on federal, state, and local governments and Indian tribes to preserve and protect the nation’s archaeological resources. It was a time when the federal government was establishing its approach to managing these important resources. Bennie Keel was in a unique position to do groundbreaking work, and he had a profound influence on the direction the government took. He played a key role helping establish the framework for the federal archaeology program that exists today. Dr. Keel brought a fresh approach to contract management in the southeastern United States in the 1970s. Most importantly, he instituted transparency in archaeological contracting. He insisted that contracts not only were academically justifiable, they also were fiscally Keel, Bennie C. responsible and in the public interest. He promoted the concept of treating large-scale federal undertakings as single archaeological districts to optimize and rationalize decision-making and insisted that major projects produce popular publications. Dr. Keel oversaw development of regulations and guidelines of major impact nationally in the 1980s. The Protection of Archaeological Resources: Uniform Regulations (18 CFR 1312, 32 CFR 229, 36 CFR 296, 43 CFR 7) help federal land managers preserve and protect resources under their jurisdiction or control. The Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archeological Collections regulation (36 CFR 79) helps agencies care for their collections. The Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines help government owners comprehensively manage shipwrecks. Dr. Keel also promoted development of the National Archeological Database and the NPS Cultural Sites Inventory, reported to Congress on federal archaeology (Keel et al. 1989), highlighted federal program accomplishments (Keel 1988), and encouraged peer review (Keel et al. 2007), archaeological resource protection (Keel 1991) and cultural conservation (Loomis 1983). Dr. Keel developed a long-range plan (Keel et al. 1996) to help 64 southeastern NPS units identify their archaeological resources. He directed or coordinated projects at Cane River Creole National Historical Park (Keel 1999), Charles Pinckney National Historic Site, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve. The Ravensford land exchange work (Keel 2007) at Great Smoky Mountains was the largest single Cherokee archaeology research project in North Carolina and set new standards for fieldwork. Dr. Keel has received numerous awards for his contributions to the profession including the Department of the Interior Superior Service Award (1979), the Society of Professional Archeologists Distinguished Achievement Award (1993), the Southeastern Archaeological Conference Lifetime Achievement Award (2008), and the Society for American Archaeology’s Lifetime Achievement Award (2012). A symposium Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues recognizing his contributions to the development of North Carolina archaeology was held in 2008 (Davis 2010). Early in his career, Bennie Keel gained renown for his pioneering research into Cherokee origins, and his book Cherokee Archeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit (1976) remains the most comprehensive analysis of late prehistoric archaeology in this area. 4263 K KEEL, B.C., F.P. MCMANAMON & G.S. SMITH. 1989. Federal archeology: the current program. Annual report to congress on the Federal Archeology Program FY1985 and FY1986. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. Further Reading LOOMIS, O.H. 1983. Cultural conservation: the protection of cultural heritage in the United States. Washington: American Folklife Center, Library of Congress. Cross-References ▶ Cultural Heritage Management Quality Control and Assurance ▶ Cultural Heritage Management: Project Management ▶ United States: Cultural Heritage Management Education ▶ United States: Cultural Heritage Management Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues Francis P. McManamon Center for Digital Antiquity, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA K Introduction References DAVIS, S. 2010. The contributions of Bennie Carlton Keel to the development of North Carolina archaeology. Southeastern Archaeology 29: 1–7. KEEL, B.C. 1976. Cherokee archaeology: a study of the Appalachian summit. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. - 1991. The future of protecting the past, in G.S. Smith & J. Ehrenhard (ed.) Protecting the past: 291–96. Boca Raton: CRC Press. - 1999. A comprehensive subsurface investigation at Magnolia Plantation. Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service. - 2007. The Ravensford Tract archeological project. Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service. KEEL, B.C. (ed.) 1988. Proceedings of a symposium: advances in southeastern archeology 1966–1986: contributions of the Federal Archeological Program (Special Publication 6). Southeastern Archaeological Conference. KEEL, B.C., J.E. CORNELISON JR. & D.M. BREWER. 1996. Regionwide archeological survey plan, southeast field area, National Park Service. Tallahassee: Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service. KEEL, B.C., B.J. LITTLE, M. GRAHAM, M. CARROLL & F.P. MCMANAMON. 2007. Peer review of federal archeological projects and programs (Technical Brief 21). Washington: Department of the Interior Departmental Consulting Archeologist, National Park Service Archeology Program. The human skeletal remains that have come to be referred to as the “Kennewick Man” or the “Ancient One” were found in July 1996 below the surface of Lake Wallula, a section of the Columbia River pooled behind McNary Dam in Kennewick, Washington. The discovery was made by a pair of college students wading in the shallow water along the southern lake bank. Most commentators and reporters described the legal controversy that developed and swirled around the Kennewick remains in rather super-heated rhetoric pitting the interests of “science” against those of Native Americans. This characterization ignores the detailed, intensive, and wide-ranging scientific investigation of the Kennewick remains undertaken by scientists and scholars as part of the government team’s effort to determine the facts relevant to the questions in the case. Many news reports inaccurately suggested that scientific study of the Kennewick remains did not occur, or that studies were hidden from the American public. In fact, this is quite untrue. A number of studies were conducted (McManamon 2013). These studies have been K 4264 easily and publically accessible since shortly after their completion between 1998 and 2000. Several are summarized and most are cited in this essay. The government team responsible for trying to resolve the case successfully also organized and carried out a series of consultation meetings with representatives of the Indian tribes. These meetings, outlined in Table 1, were attempts to find common ground between the need to study the remains and the general opinion of tribal representatives that no studies were needed. The consultations also were justified on the grounds that if the Kennewick remains were found to be “Native American,” consultation with possibly culturally affiliated Indian tribes would be required for compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The combination of scientific studies and consultation with the tribal representatives reflects the balanced approach to resolving the case that characterized the overall approach of the government agencies involved. Historical Background From the end of July 1996, when the remains were discovered until early September, whole and fragmentary human skeletal material that eventually proved to be a single, nearly complete, and ancient human skeleton that came to be called the Kennewick Man were gathered in shallow water from the bottom of Lake Wallula in Kennewick, Washington. The collection was made by James Chatters, a local archaeologist working for the county coroner. He recorded some information about the remains and showed the remains to a few other individuals who inspected them briefly. Based on these limited, cursory inspections, many simple facts were unclear. For example, were these the remains of one or more than one individual and what was the age of the remains? Were these the remains of a Euro-American settler or a “Native American,” in which case, because they were found on land administered by the US Corps of Engineers (CoE), a federal Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues agency, NAGPRA would apply. Radiocarbon testing of a piece of bone from the skeletal remains resulted in a very early date of about 8400 BP. When the date and other preliminary interpretations were announced at a press conference in August, the controversy about how the Kennewick remains should be treated became more pronounced and more widely known. Over 350 separate pieces of unarticulated human bones were gathered during several weeks by repeatedly wading in the water and picking up bones observed on the river bottom (Nickens 1998; Chatters 2000: Fig. 3). We now know that the remains eroded from the river bank near the area where they were found. These remains were recovered from an extremely disturbed context, bones were collected, piece-by-piece, from beneath the shallow lake water with only general recording of their locations and spatial relationships (Nickens 1998). The archaeological context, typically so informative concerning behavioral, chronological, and cultural interpretations, was lost completely after the remains eroded into the riverbed. The skeletal remains were handed over to the CoE in early September 1996. Apart from brief notes made available in the fall of 1996, no further reporting about the collection activities and spatial distribution of the Kennewick remains at the discovery site was provided until 2000 (Chatters 2000). The CoE did not allow further study of the skeletal remains from that time until the government team studies that began in February 1999. Despite the scanty information that was available at the time, individuals and organizations took steps to try and resolve the controversy that quickly developed concerning the proper treatment of the remains. Claims for repatriation were made by Indian tribes whose historical traditional territories overlapped the discovery site. Members of the scientific community called for full scientific study of the remains. The local CoE office began procedures to repatriate the remains in early September to the local tribes who claimed them. This attempt was challenged in the federal court in October. In order to have time to address the legal complaint against Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues the CoE, the court ordered the agency to halt its planned repatriation. Reviewing the CoE activities during this period, the federal magistrate ruling on the case determined that the agency had not used adequate information to resolve the matter. In June, 1997, he ordered the CoE to reconsider its decision making and report to the court quarterly on its progress in resolving the matter. At this point, the CoE and the Department of the Army (DoA) turned to the Department of the Interior (DoI), which had expertise in both archaeology and the implementation of NAGPRA, for assistance. A series of discussions ensued involving officials from these departments and the Department of Justice (DoJ), which was representing the CoE in the case. In March 1998, the Secretary of the Interior agreed to assist the Secretary of the Army in resolving the issues related to the human remains found in Kennewick, Washington. The Secretary agreed to have experts at the DoI assist in the case by: 1. determining if the human remains found in the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington, are “Native American” within the meaning of NAGPRA; and, 2. if these remains are found to be “Native American”, determine their appropriate disposition under the terms of the statute and its implementing regulations. Within the DoI, the Departmental Consulting Archeologist (DCA) and National Park Service (NPS) were assigned to develop and carry out a program to resolve the issues at hand. Although one of the questions raised by the court was whether or not NAGPRA applied in this case, the NPS also undertook, from its earliest involvement, consultation with the Indian tribes that had come forward to claim the remains when they were found. Officials from the NPS, as well as representatives of the CoE and the DoJ, which was overseeing the legal case, met with tribal representatives six times between 1998 and 2000 to ascertain the tribal perspectives on the case and to discuss the approach to the scientific studies, the rationale for such studies, and the results of the investigations (Table 1). The consultations all were held in the state of Washington at locations central to the locations 4265 K Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues, Table 1 Consultations with claimant Indian tribes and scientific examinations and studies Date Topic Location Consultation Meetings with Tribal Representatives May 1998 Proposed approach for Walla Walla DoI investigation July 1998 Draft multiphase DoI Walla Walla investigation plan July 1999 Plans for bone sampling Walla Walla and C14 testing October Plans for cultural Walla Walla 1999 affiliation investigation Plans for bone sampling Walla Walla February for DNA testing 2000 Spokane July 2000 Cultural affiliation investigation/ interpretations Scientific Physical Examinations and Studies Burke Museum, Examination, February Seattle documentation, 1999 measurement September Bone extraction for C14 Burke Museum, 1999 tests—2 samples/split Seattle April 2000 Taphonomy Burke Museum, investigation; Seattle microsampling bone for aDNA analysis of the tribes involved. The face-to-face meetings usually lasted for a day and gave officials of the agencies involved the opportunity to describe their plans to resolve various aspects of the case and listen to the concerns of the tribes. Officials considered many suggestions of the tribal representatives to fashion the studies that the officials believed were necessary to address the case in ways that were as inoffensive as possible for the tribal members yet without compromising the methods and techniques essential for conducting the necessary historical and scientific research. Tribal representatives frequently expressed their frustrations with the process and the agencies’ positions, but at least the meetings provided a context for communication. Consultation with tribes played a major role in the DoI’s involvement. NAGPRA requires consultation with tribes that have or may have a cultural affiliation with the human remains of objects covered by the law. The statute directs K K 4266 that consultations should start soon after any discovery of remains on federal land and should address issues related to excavation, documentation, analysis, recording, and ultimate deposition of the remains or objects in question. Compliance with NAGPRA requires consultation with tribal representatives, not consent of the tribe, except in cases where the discovery is on tribal lands. The Kennewick case presented a situation, not uncommon when remains that may be subject to NAGPRA are found accidentally, in which facts and evidence were needed in order to make determinations of whether NAGPRA applied and if so, what disposition was appropriate. In such cases, both scientific and historical investigations frequently are necessary to establish facts about the remains and answer basic questions. The studies necessary must be developed and conducted in concert with consultations with representatives of the tribes who were potentially culturally affiliated with the remains, although, as noted above, except for discoveries on tribal lands, the consent of tribe(s) is not a requirement. To resolve some of the factual matters in the Kennewick case and answer the interpretive questions asked by the federal court, the DCA organized and conducted three physical scientific examinations of the Kennewick remains (Table 1), as well as several background research investigations that did not involve direct examination of the Kennewick remains. The historical and scientific background research included anthropology, archaeology, biology, history, linguistics, and traditional oral histories. 21 nationally and internationally recognized scientists and scholars conducted this variety of historical and scientific examinations, analyses, tests, and studies (Table 2; McManamon 2013). The initial scientific examination and recording of the Kennewick skeleton, conducted at the Burke Museum, University of Washington, in late February 1999, was designed to be nonintrusive, that is, no physical samples of the remains were removed. The skeleton was physically examined, measured, and recorded using current and standard scientific methods and techniques. Sediments adhering to the bones and trapped within bone cavities were examined, Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues, Table 2 DOI/NPS Kennewick Man scientific investigationsa Investigations and dates 1. NPS Research Design: Approach to Documentation, Analysis, Interpretation, and Disposition of Human Remains Inadvertently Discovered at Columbia Point, Kennewick, WA November–December 1998 2. Physical Examination of the Kennewick Remains February 1999 3. C14 Dating of Kennewick Remains September–November 1999 4. Cultural Affiliation Report November 1999–February 2000 5. Physical Examination of Kennewick Remains; Analysis of Organic Content of Bone Samples; Sample Selection for Ancient DNA Analysis April, 2000 6. Tests of Bone Samples for Ancient DNA June–September 2000 Scientists and institutionsb Dr. Francis P. McManamon; Peer reviews by: Dr. Bruce Smith, Smithsonian Institution and Dr. Clark Larsen, University of North Carolina Dr. John Fagan, Archaeological Investigations Northwest, Portland; Dr. Gary Huckleberry, Washington State University; Dr. Joseph Powell, University of New Mexico; Dr. Jerome Rose, University of Arkansas; and, Dr. Julie Stein, University of Washington Dr. Douglas Donahue, University of Arizona, NSF Radiocarbon Lab; Mr. Darden Hood, Beta Analytical Laboratory; and, Dr. R. E. Taylor, University of California, Riverside Dr. Kenneth Ames, Portland State University; Dr. Daniel Boxberger, Eastern Washington University; Dr. Steven Hackenberger, Central Washington University; and, Dr. Eugene Hunn, University of Washington Dr. Clark Larsen, University of North Carolina; Dr. Joseph Powell, University of New Mexico; Dr. Phillip Walker, University of California, Santa Barbara; Dr. David Glenn Smith, University of California, Davis; and, Dr. R. E. Taylor, University of California, Riverside Dr. Frederica Kaestle, Yale University; Dr. Andrew Merriwether, University of Michigan; and, Dr. David Glenn Smith, University of California, Davis (continued) Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues, Table 2 (continued) Investigations and dates 7. Potential for DNA Testing December 1999 Scientists and institutionsb Dr. Connie Kolmon, University of Florida and Dr. Noreen Tuross, Smithsonian Institution a Copies of reports of all of these investigations can be found in McManamon (2013) and accessed in tDAR (the Digital Archaeological Record; tDAR PROJECT ID 6325) b Individuals are listed with the professional affiliations they had when the investigations were conducted in 1999–2000. Dr. Phillip Walker is deceased described, and analyzed for similarity with the soil sediments in the vicinity of the discovery of the skeletal remains. The stone projectile point embedded in the skeleton’s pelvis was described and analyzed. The physical anthropological examination by Powell and Rose (see the chapter by Powell and Rose in Report on the Non-Destructive Examination… in McManamon 2013) indicates that the Kennewick skeleton represents a male who died between 45 and 50 years of age. He was about 50 900 tall and well muscled indicating a life of rigorous physical activity. His teeth have extremely worn surfaces, but no caries. Evidence of arthritis is minor and his joints were in excellent shape for a man of his age and activity. Early in his life, probably when he was still a teenager, he was involved in an accident or conflict in which a projectile point became embedded in the right iliac blade of his pelvis. His bones indicate that he recovered completely from this wound without any infection or disability and lived for many years afterwards. Like other ancient American skeletons, the Kennewick remains exhibit morphological features not found in modern populations. For all craniometric dimensions examined, the Kennewick remains do not resemble any modern populations. Powell and Rose noted that this is not unexpected given that the Kennewick remains date over 8,000 years earlier than the modern samples used for most of the comparative analyses. The Kennewick cranial measurements were most similar to populations from the South Pacific, Polynesia, and the Ainu of northern Japan, a pattern 4267 K observed for other crania with such very old dates from North and South America. This similarity does not mean that the Kennewick Man is an ancient Polynesian voyager who made his way up the Columbia River. Rather, the differences in cranial morphology observed probably reflects the complex events and different migrations of human populations into North America from 20,000 BP onwards and the long ancient history of interaction among populations in the region since the original colonization of the continent (e.g., see Brace et al. 2001; Schurr 2004; Dillehay 2009). The noninvasive examination included the removal, description, and analysis of soil sediments from the skeletal remains. Our original hope in using the sediments was that enough organic material from the original burial context of the remains could be obtained from the sediment adhering to the skeleton for a radiocarbon date to be made on it. However, during analysis it could not be determined with sufficient reliability that the sediments were not from the river or that they were not older sediments into which the Kennewick remains had been buried (see Huckleberry and Stein chapter in Report on the Non-Destructive Examination… in McManamon 2013). Both possibilities created contextual problems that made radiocarbon dating of the sediment an unreliable proxy for the age of the skeletal remains. The 1999 investigation of the Kennewick remains included a careful examination of the lithic object lodged in right pelvic bone. The object, which probably is a projectile point, was examined, documented, and analyzed in place. CT scans were essential to this part of the investigation. The descriptive information could not have been determined in any other nondestructive manner. They revealed that the object is at least 5.6 cm long and 2 cm wide at widest end, tapering to 3 mm wide at narrowest end. The object has two convex faces with a wide, rounded base and a narrow tapering tip. There is no evidence of notches or stem. The exposed portion of the object, around the middle, is 6–5.5 mm thick. Based upon comparative analysis with other specimens in collections at the Burke Museum K K 4268 and the Oregon State Museum, Fagan infers that the size, shape, and raw material give the object the appearance of a Cascade projectile point. However, these characteristics are not exclusive to Cascade points (see Fagan chapter in Report on the Non-Destructive Examination… in McManamon 2013). The possibility that this object is a Cascade point is particularly interesting because archaeological sites containing such points are common throughout the Pacific Northwest. These site components often are associated with deposits of volcanic ash that originated during the eruption of Mt. Mazama approximately 7,600 years ago. The 1999 physical examination provided the basic description and detailed documentation of the remains that is required by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), NAGPRA, and other resource management and protection laws and regulations. The characteristics of the skeleton, the nature of the sediments embedded in and on the bones, and the attributes of the stone artifact in the pelvic bone all suggested an individual living a life way consistent with an 8,000 year date. The information derived from the noninvasive studies, however, was not adequate to determine whether or not the remains fit the definition of “Native American” for purposes of NAGRPA, as understood by the DoI officials at the time. Therefore, in order to make a reasonable decision about the age of the skeleton, which was considered at the time an essential aspect of making the “Native American” determination, the DoI officials decided it was necessary to conduct additional tests, specifically radiocarbon dating of small samples of bone from the remains. Following review and consideration of the results of the February examination, it was decided that two bone samples would be extracted from the Kennewick remains for radiocarbon dating. In September, bone samples were taken and sent to several radiocarbon dating labs to check and confirm the ancient date for the remains. Four C14 dates were obtained from these samples. The samples were processed and dated by Beta Analytical, Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues Inc. (BA), of Miami, Florida, the Radiocarbon Laboratory of the University of California, Riverside (UCR), and the NSF-Arizona AMS Facility of the University of Arizona. Two of the four new dates were in substantial conformance with the initial radiocarbon date of the portion of the metacarpal dated by UCR in 1996. All the carbon samples showed very low carbon content which slowed the processing of the samples and extended the time required to interpret the results. The BA date (Beta-133993) gave a conventional radiocarbon age of 8410 +/ 40 BP. The equivalent calibrated radiocarbon age (using the two sigma, 95 % probability) in years BP is cal BP 9510 to 9405 and cal BP 9345 to 9320. The bone sample used for this date was approximately half of the right metatarsal, one of the load-bearing bones of the foot. The UCR lab processed and dated two of the Kennewick bone samples. Like the BA sample, both of these were very low in carbon content. Due to the low carbon content and the lack of clear collagen-like characteristics of the extracted carbon, the dates were reported as “the apparent C14 ages” for each sample. One of the samples was dated as 8130 +/ 40 BP (UCR-3806/CAMS-60684), slightly different from the BA date, but not inconsistent with it. These two samples, in fact, are from the same bone, the right first metatarsal. Both of these dates (Beta-133993) and (UCR-3806/ CAMS-60684) are consistent with the earlier C14 date (from the 1996 test) obtained from a portion of the 5th left metacarpal. The BA date, in fact, is almost identical to the first C14 date. Much more about the radiocarbon dating is available (see Memorandum: Determination that the Kennewick Skeletal Remains are “Native American”… in McManamon 2013). The C14 chronological information added to other information about the remains that supported the determination that the Kennewick skeletal remains should be considered “Native American” as defined by NAGPRA. All the dates obtained from the Kennewick Man samples predate 6000 BP and are clearly pre-Columbian. Two of the dates match closely the C14 date Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues obtained in 1996 on another bone fragment believed to be from the skeleton. This chronological information, along with the results of the earlier documentation, examination, and analysis of the remains themselves, led the DoI to conclude that, for the purposes of NAGPRA, the Kennewick remains should be considered as “Native American,” thus subject to the provisions and procedures of the law. With this initial determination made, the government team next had to resolve the question of whether or not the Kennewick remains could be “culturally affiliated” with any of the Indian tribes who were claiming the skeleton as their ancestor. The DCA organized and coordinated the preparation of a series of scholarly reports by experts summarizing archaeological, biological, historical, linguistic, and traditional information that could be used for determining the cultural affiliation of the Kennewick remains (see Cultural Affilation Report Kennewick Man… in McManamon 2013). In April 2000, as part of the effort to determine the cultural affiliation of the Kennewick remains, an additional physical examination of the remains was conducted and samples were taken to conduct tests for the detection of ancient DNA in the bones. Physical anthropologists Clark Larson, Joseph Powell, and Phillip Walker conducted macroscopic and microscopic examinations of the Kennewick skeleton to determine the suitability of specific skeletal elements for DNA analysis (see Report on the Skeletal Taphonomy, Dating, and DNA Testing Results of the Kennewick Human Remains… in McManamon 2013). The 2000 taphonomic examination confirmed the conclusion of Powell and Rose, based on their 1999 examination that these are the remains of a single individual who was interred at the site, not one whose remains decomposed on the surface of the ground or who was incorporated into the deposit through some catastrophic hydrologic event. This conclusion is supported by the completeness of the skeleton and the absence of any clear indications of carnivore scavenging of the remains. 4269 K Micro-samples were taken from the most suitable skeletal elements. The samples were analyzed by ancient DNA laboratories at the University of California–Davis, the University of Michigan, and Yale University. Each lab attempted to isolate and amplify ancient DNA from the skeleton; however, none of the tests were able to isolate and examine any ancient DNA (see Report on the Skeletal Taphonomy, Dating, and DNA Testing Results of the Kennewick Human Remains… in McManamon 2013). In September 2000, the Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt recommended to the Department of the Army that the Kennewick remains could be culturally affiliated with the claimant tribes. His decision was controversial both within the DoI, where a different interpretation was advocated by some of the officials involved in the case, and outside of the department (a copy of Babbitt’s letter and attachments justifying his recommendation is in McManamon 2013). The DoI determination that the Kennewick remains were culturally affiliated with the claimant tribes was rejected by the US District court in a decision released in 2002. The judge commented that the scientific evidence argued against such a determination and was not adequately taken into account in the Secretary’s determination. The District court also ruled that NAGPRA did not pertain to the Kennewick remains because the available evidence did not show a clear link between the remains and the claimant Indian tribes. The DoI and DoA accepted the first determination of the court, i.e., that cultural affiliation between the remains and the tribes was not supported by a full consideration of the evidence. However, DoI and DoA appealed the District court ruling that NAGPRA did not apply to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Kennewick Man case, which began in October 1996, reached its legal conclusion in February 2004, when a three-judge panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion supporting the earlier decision of the District Court in Oregon (Gould 2004). The Circuit Court decision emphatically agreed with K K 4270 the District Court opinion that in order for NAGPRA to apply to a set of Native American human remains, the remains must “. . .bear some relationship to a presently existing tribe, people, or culture to be considered Native American” (emphasis in original; Gould 2004: 1596). The Circuit Court, again in support of the District Court, stated that the facts about the Kennewick Man skeleton could not reasonably be construed to provide such a link to any of the modern tribes or Indian groups who claim a relationship with the remains. The Court went on to generalize from the specifics of the Kennewick case, noting that the scientific excavation, investigation, and, study of ancient human remains that are unrelated to modern American Indians are neither a target of the law, nor precluded by NAGRPA (Gould 2004: 1598). The Circuit Court provided some detail, albeit brief, about the kind of a relationship that might serve as a threshold for other situations. In other words, how much of a relationship and what kinds of relationships should exist for a set of remains to pass into the “Native American” category and thus be subject to NAGPRA. The opinion notes, . . .though NAGPRA’s two inquiries have some commonality in that both focus on the relationship between human remains and present-day Indians, the two inquiries differ significantly. The first inquiry [i.e., asking whether human remains are Native American] requires a general finding that [human] remains have a significant relationship to a presently existing ‘tribe, people, or culture,’ a relationship that goes beyond features common to all humanity. The second inquiry [i.e., asking which American Indians or Indian tribe bears the closest relationship to Native American remains] requires a more specific finding that [human] remains are most closely affiliated to specific lineal descendents or to a specific Indian tribe (Gould 2004: 1599). Key Issues/Current Debates Opinions differ on the interpretation of evidence and the law in the complex and unusual case of Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues the Kennewick Man. This case has been surrounded with controversy from the very beginning. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the various decisions and positions as this case worked its way through the federal court system, the thoroughness and objectivity of the government scientific investigations, the expertise of the investigating scientists, and the value of the information obtained should not be ignored. In addition to the analyses and interpretations about the skeletal remains, the Kennewick case generated discussion and written opinions regarding the study and treatment of human burials and remains from archaeological sites, the appropriate balance between humanistic, cultural, and scientific investigation, and the appropriate interpretations of ARPA and NAGPRA (e.g., Swedland & Anderson 1999, 2003; Owsley & Jantz 2001; Watkins 2003; Bruning 2006; Burke et al. 2008). Future Directions The Circuit Court reviewed the evidence collected and used by the government in the case, more specifically, the conclusions that the Secretary of the Interior had drawn from the evidence. The Court found that the Secretary’s interpretation had inadequate factual support for the remains being either Native American or culturally affiliated with the claimant tribes (Gould 2004: 1603 ff.). The Court noted that the Secretary overlooked evidence for a lack of connection or cultural continuity between the ancient remains and the modern tribes that his own experts had pointed out. The Secretary relied upon interpretations of tribal oral history accounts to reach his decision that the Kennewick remains were both Native American and culturally affiliated. The Court recognized the legitimacy of the investigation of oral histories as one kind of evidence used to answer the inquiries that NAGPRA poses. However, in this case, the Court concluded Kennewick Man Case: Scientific Studies and Legal Issues . . .that these accounts are just not specific enough or reliable enough or relevant enough to show a significant relationship of the Tribal Claimants with Kennewick Man. Because oral accounts have been inevitably changed in context of transmission, because the traditions include myths that cannot be considered as if factual histories, because the value of such accounts is limited by concerns of authenticity, reliability, and accurate, and because the record as a whole does not show where historical fact ends and mythic tale begins, we do not think that the oral traditions. . .were adequate to show the required significant relationship of the Kennewick Man’s remains to the Tribal Claimants. (Gould 2004: 1607) Following the conclusion of the legal case, the Corps of Engineers worked with the plaintiffs, whose request to study the Kennewick remains was approved by the federal court, to develop a study plan that would be as unobtrusive as possible to the remains. Researchers associated with the plaintiffs in the federal case examined the Kennewick Man remains in July 2005 and February 2006. Reports about these examinations and subsequent analysis of the measurements and observations have not yet been produced and distributed. The most accessible and detailed descriptions, analyses, and interpretations of the Kennewick Man remains and related information can be found in tDAR (the Digital Archaeological Record) tDAR Project 6328, The Archaeology of Kennewick Man (McManamon 2013). Legislation was proposed by the Senate to amend NAGPRA to ease the need to demonstrate clearly that Native American human remains or objects are affiliated with a current, federally recognized tribe in order for the remains to be subject to the law and regulations in 2004 and 2005. The NAGPRA Review Committee annual report for 2006 endorsed this approach. However, in the House of Representatives, a bill designed to focus the intent of NAGPRA on remains for which clear tribal affiliation could be determined was introduced in 2006. Neither of these legislative approaches to clarifying appropriate implementation of NAGPRA on this matter moved any further in Congress. 4271 K Cross-References ▶ Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), USA ▶ Paleoindians ▶ United States: Cultural Heritage Management References BRACE, C.L., A.R. NELSON, N. SEGUCHI, H. OE, L. SERING, P. QIFENG, L. YONGYI & D. TUMEN. 2001. Old World sources of the first New World human inhabitants: a comparative craniofacial view. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 98 (17): 10017-22. BRUNING, S.B. 2006. Complex legal legacies: the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, scientific study, and Kennewick Man. American Antiquity 71: 501-21. BURKE, H., C. SMITH, D. LIPPERT, J. WATKINS & L. ZIMMERMAN. 2008. Kennewick Man: perspectives on the Ancient One. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press. CHATTERS, J. C. 2000. The recovery and first analysis of an early Holocene human skeleton from Kennewick, Washington. American Antiquity 65(2): 291-316. DILLEHAY, T.D. 2009. Probing deeper into First American studies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 106 (4): 971-8. GOULD, R.M. 2004. Opinion, Bonnichsen v. United States, 4 February 2004: 1579 ff. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, San Francisco. MCMANAMON, F.P. 2013. The archaeology of Kennewick Man. The digital archaeological record (tDAR) project ID 6325. Available at: http://core.tdar.org/project/6325 (accessed 2 April 2013). NICKENS, P.R. 1998. Discovery and recovery of human remains from Columbia Park, Kennewick, WR, JulySeptember 1996. Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Expert Witness Unit, U.S Department of Justice. Available at https://core.tdar.org/document/391003 (accessed 13 May 2013). (tDAR ID: 374888), doi:10.6067/XCV8ZF7P9E. OWSLEY, D.W. & R.L. JANTZ. 2001. Archaeological politics and public interest in Paleoamerican studies: lessons from Gordon Creek Woman and Kennewick Man. American Antiquity 66: 565-575. SCHURR, T.G. 2004. The peopling of the New World: perspectives from molecular anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology 33: 551-583. doi: 10.1146/ annurev.anthro.33.070203.143932 SWEDLUND, A. & D. ANDERSON. 1999. Gordon Creek Woman meets Kennewick Man: new interpretations and protocols regarding the peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity 64: 569-576. K K 4272 - 2003. Gordon Creek Woman meets Spirit Cave Man: a response to comment by Owsley and Jantz. American Antiquity 68: 161-167. WATKINS, J.E. 2003. Beyond the margin: American Indians, First Nations, and archaeology in North America. American Antiquity 68: 273-285. Kent, Susan Wendy Ashmore Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA Basic Biographical Information Thoroughly engaged in anthropology, ethnoarchaeology, and social activism, Susan Kent (1952–2003) was born on 26 June 1952 in Oakland, California, and passed away on 12 April 2003 while attending the annual Society for American Archaeology meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Educated at the University of Southern Colorado, Pueblo, Colorado (B.S. in Anthropology, 1973), and Washington State University (M.A., 1975; Ph.D., 1980, both in Anthropology), she held visiting faculty appointments at the Universities of New Mexico, Iowa State, and Kentucky before joining the faculty at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, in 1986. In 2000, Old Dominion honored Kent as Eminent Professor of Anthropology. Major Accomplishments From the outset of her career, Kent challenged herself, as well as her colleagues, to think across disciplinary boundaries and theoretical perspectives and to value the insights such intersections could produce. Indeed, she sought to communicate with and involve notably diverse groups – anthropologists and other social scientists, as well as architects, medical practitioners, people who set government policies, and multiple publics. For presenting her arguments, she set great Kent, Susan store by the power of sound statistical analysis, necessarily grounded in carefully gathered evidence sets and critically assessed (1984). At the same time, she appreciated the importance of qualitative differences within and between cultures and the impact of social, political, and economic circumstances on both observer and observed. Kent had a pronounced positive impact in and beyond her field. An edited volume honoring her life and legacy offers a multivocal critical review of her diverse career-long contributions and continuing influence (Ashmore et al. 2006). The research for which she is best known is ethnoarchaeology, the study of living peoples and their customs with special attention to the archaeologically observable material traces of these societies and cultures. Originally treated by most as a methodological tool to improve the reliability and richness of archaeological inference, ethnoarchaeology has become much broader as a field of intellectual and practical inquiry. In this scientific and interpretive blossoming, Kent was long a recognized leader. Initially, her work focused on ethnoarchaeological study of spatial organization, especially in activity areas. Drawing from her research on domestic spatial arrangements in three present-day cultures of New Mexico (1984), she became a strong advocate for crosscultural and interdisciplinary inquiries and for developing theory and methods for activity area studies (1987). These early books remain critical sources for ongoing research in ethnoarchaeology and spatial studies. By 1987, she was already conducting research in the Kalahari, among the Bajarwa (“bushmen,” San), laying the interpersonal and scientific foundations for her enduring close involvement with people and cultures of southern Africa. Kent viewed her studies of life among the Bajarwa in Botswana, Navajo, Hispanic, and Euro-American communities in the western United States, and with other peoples and cultures, as yielding insights for a broad range of significant social, medical, anthropological, and archaeological questions. These include, but are Kent, Susan far from restricted to, the social meaning and implications of domestic spatial organization (1990); the causes and structure of sedentism and residential mobility (1989, 1996); the articulation of sedentism, diet, demography, and health (Stuart-Macadam & Kent 1992); the impetus and constraint to gender differentiation in distinct societies, especially in Africa (1998); and a wide array of topics on social justice (2002). Prominent among her enduring concerns were efforts to recognize and rectify inequalities in health, gender relations (1998), and relations between hunter-gatherer and farming societies, especially as these are now further encompassed in modern nation states (1989, 1996, 2002). Working directly with hunter-gatherer and middle-range societies, Kent actively fomented debate on such critical issues as the autonomy and subordination of hunter-gatherers today and the diversity of customs within and between groups, now and in the past. Egalitarianism and sedentism are recurring themes in her published statements. The foregoing concerns are evident consistently in her numerous articles and book chapters and more especially in the volumes she edited, calling on colleagues with varying perspectives to engage cross-culturally the issues she posed (1989, 1996, 2002). Although not all her colleagues agreed with her every argument, Kent was undeniably a key contributor to the research discourse and dedicated to bringing out the best models and inference from the collective research endeavor, especially for benefit of the people from whom scholars and policy makers learned. As Rosen and colleagues note: “She staunchly believed in the equality of all peoples and in the dignity of individuals—most especially those who for decades informed her work and enriched her life.... [she contended that] anthropologists should lead the way in informing policy-makers about the plight of indigenous populations who might not be granted a voice of their own” (2006: 1). As archaeologist, ethnoarchaeologist, anthropologist, and activist, Susan Kent was an original thinker and prodigious researcher, beginning new high points in her productive career when her 4273 K work came to an abrupt, unforeseen halt. Kent’s final research project returned her to archaeological fieldwork about Middle-to-Late Stone Age activity areas and paleoenvironment in South Africa; a book manuscript on avoiding pitfalls of incautious statistical inference was under review; and the new book in progress at her death was a decade-long review of egalitarianism and sedentism in Botswana. Cross-References ▶ Activism and Archaeology ▶ Archaeology and Anthropology ▶ Engendered Archaeologies ▶ Ethnoarchaeology ▶ Ethnoarchaeology: Approaches to Fieldwork ▶ Ethnoarchaeology: Building Frames of Reference for Research ▶ Floors and Occupation Surface Analysis in Archaeology ▶ Households and Domesticity: Historical Archaeology ▶ Hunter-Gatherer Settlement and Mobility ▶ Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Variation and Intensification ▶ Hunter-Gatherers, Archaeology of ▶ Southern and East African Middle Stone Age: Geography and Culture ▶ Spatial Analysis in Field Archaeology References ASHMORE, W., M.-A. DOBRES, S.M. NELSON & A. ROSEN. (ed.) 2006. Integrating the diversity of twenty-first-century anthropology: the life and intellectual legacies of Susan Kent (Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 16). Arlington (VA): American Anthropological Association. KENT, S. 1984. Analyzing activity areas: an ethnoarchaeological study of the use of space. Albuquerque (NM): University of New Mexico Press. KENT, S. (ed.) 1987. Method and theory for activity area research: an ethnoarchaeological approach. New York: Columbia University Press. - 1989. Farmers as hunters: the implications of sedentism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. K K 4274 - 1990. Domestic architecture and the use of space: an interdisciplinary cross-cultural study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - 1996. Cultural diversity among twentieth-century foragers: an African perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - 1998. Gender in African archaeology. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira Press. - 2002. Ethnicity, hunter-gatherers, and the “other”: association or assimilation in Africa. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press. STUART-MACADAM, P. & S. KENT. (ed.) 1992. Diet, demography, and disease: changing perspectives on anemia. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Further Reading KENT, S. 1986. The influence of sedentism and aggregation on porotic hyperostosis and anemia: a case study. Man 21: 605-36. - 1989. And justice for all: the development of political centralization among newly sedentary foragers. American Anthropologist 91: 703-12. - 1990. Kalahari violence in perspective. American Anthropologist 92: 1015-7. - 1991. Partitioning space: cross-cultural factors influencing domestic spatial segmentation. Environment and Behavior 23: 438-73. - 1992. The current forager controversy: real versus ideal views of hunter-gatherers. Man 27: 45-70. - 1995. Does sedentarization promote gender inequality? A case study from the Kalahari. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 1: 513-36. - 1999. The archaeological visibility of storage: delineating storage from trash areas. American Antiquity 64: 79-94. - 1999. Egalitarianism, equality, and equitable power, in T.L. Sweely (ed.) Manifesting power: gender and the interpretation of power in archaeology: 30-48. London: Routledge. KENT, S. & D. DUNN. 1993. Etiology of hypoferremia in a recently sedentary Kalahari village. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 48: 554-67. KENT, S. & R.B. LEE. 1992. A hematological study of Kung Kalahari foragers: an eighteen year comparison, in P. Stuart-Macadam & S. Kent (ed.) Diet, demography, and disease: changing views of anemia: 173-99. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. ROSEN, A., S.M. NELSON, M.-A. DOBRES & W. ASHMORE. 2006. Introduction. Susan Kent: a life and a legacy, in W. Ashmore, M.-A. Dobres, S.M. Nelson & A. Rosen (ed.) Integrating the diversity of twentyfirst-century anthropology: the life and intellectual legacies of Susan Kent (Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 16): 1-9. Arlington (VA): American Anthropological Association. (contains a complete bibliography of Susan Kent’s writings). Kewibu, Vincent Kewibu, Vincent Matthew Leavesley James Cook University, School of Arts and Social Sciences, Cairns, QLD, Australia Basic Biographical Information Vincent was born on January 28, 1972, in Didiwa village in the Rabaraba District of Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea (PNG). He is the second born son of John and Joyce Kewibu who are subsistence farmers. His paternal grandfather (Lawrence Irimoai) died during WWII while working as a carrier for the Australian forces primarily between Buna and Kokoda. He attended Korkoyabagira Community School before moving to Martyr’s Memorial High School in Popondetta (Oro Province). He finished his Grade 12 exams at Sogeri National High School in 1991 before entering undergraduate studies in Education at the University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) in Port Moresby. After having completed his first year at UPNG, he switched across to archaeology and completed his B.A. in 1995. While studying at UPNG, he participated in research projects investigating trade and exchange at Woodlark Island with Simon Bickler and agriculture in the highlands of PNG at Kana with John Muke and Jack Golson. In 1997, he was awarded a scholarship to study archaeology at La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australia. Major Accomplishments During his candidature he participated in a number of research projects including the survey for European gold rush and contemporary Aboriginal archaeological sites at the Howqua Hills in Eastern Victoria with Susan Lawrence and Richard Cosgrove. He also participated in excavations at the Marki Alonia site in Cyprus run by David Frankel and Khok Phanom Di, Archaeology of Jenny Webb. He graduated from La Trobe University with a B.A. (Honors) in 1999. His Honors project focused on notions of trade and exchange as they apply to the archaeological predicates of the ethnographically recorded Hiri trade and exchange system that existed on the Papuan Coast of PNG. Upon completion of his undergraduate studies, he returned to UPNG to take up a position as Tutor in Archaeology. During this time, he participated in survey and excavations in the Talasea region of West New Britain Province, PNG, run by Robin Torrence (Aust Mus), Peter White (U of Syd), and Jim Specht (Aust Mus). This project was broadly focused on prehistoric human adaptations to natural disasters. In 2001, he was promoted to Lecturer in Archaeology at UPNG. At this time, his attention turned to cultural heritage management issues related to the dissemination of archaeological research into village-based rural communities. Between 2001 and 2003, he contributed to three separate workshops held across the New Guinea Islands region in Kavieng, Lorengau, and Buka coordinated by Glenn Summerhayes (Otago). In 2004, he was awarded another scholarship, this time to attend the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra. His research focus returned to issues of trade and exchange; however, this time, his case study was the Massim region of SE Papua (PNG). In particular, he focused on establishing an archaeological connection between the Trobriand Islands and mainland New Guinea by undertaking investigations on the D’Entrecasteaux Island Group, specifically, West Fergusson, Dobu, and SE Goodenough Islands. Upon his return to UPNG in 2006, he has participated in various projects. These include investigations into the paleoenvironment of the Port Moresby region with Simon Haberle (ANU). The Port Moresby Region Hilltop Survey Project based at UPNG, for example, seeks to investigate when and why populations appear to have used these apparently less hospitable locations. He also participated in the ongoing Caution Bay Project (a collaboration between Monash University and UPNG) that seeks to investigate notions 4275 K of the Motuan expansion along the Papuan Coast and subsequent rise of the Hiri trade and exchange network. Cross-References ▶ Australia, New Zealand, and Papua New Guinea: Museums ▶ First Australians: Origins ▶ Mandui, Herman ▶ Mangi, Joseph Tumbe ▶ Oceania: Historical Archaeology ▶ Torrence, Robin ▶ White, J. Peter ▶ World Archaeological Congress (WAC) and Cultural Heritage Management Further Reading KEWIBU, V. 2010. Archaeology and the perspective of the past in Papua New Guinea, in G. Nicholas (ed.) Being and becoming Indigenous archaeologists: 156–66. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Khok Phanom Di, Archaeology of Charles F. W. Higham Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Introduction Khok Phanom Di is a deeply stratified prehistoric mound located on the eastern margin of the Bangkok Plain in Thailand. Excavations in 1984–1985 in an area of 100 m2 revealed a stratigraphic sequence 7 m-deep. The cultural buildup incorporated shell middens, occupation and industrial remains, and human inhumation graves. The radiocarbon determinations indicated that the site was occupied between approximately 2000 and 1500 cal. BCE (Fig. 1). K K 4276 Khok Phanom Di, Archaeology of, Fig. 1 The calibrated radiocarbon determinations and spans based on charcoal from Khok Phanom Di, following the application of an outlier model which specifies charcoal and gives an exponential tail to the data, saying effectively that it is more likely to be older than younger Khok Phanom Di, Archaeology of OxCall v4.1.7 Bronk Ramsey (2010); r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2009); End 6 ANU-5482 6 Transition 7/6 7 Transition 8/7 ANU-5483 8 Transition 9/8 9 Transition 10/9 ANU-5492 ANU-5490 ANU-5491 ANU-5488 ANU-5489 ANU-5487 ANU-5486 ANU-5485 ANU-5484 10 Transition 11/10 ANU-5493 11 Start 11 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 Modelled date (BC) 1000 500 Definition Key Issues The second millennium BCE was a most significant period for Southeast Asian prehistory. In 2000 BCE, the area was occupied by hunter-gatherers whose ancestors had arrived from an African homeland at least 50,000 years ago. Over the ensuing five centuries, the indigenous hunter-gatherers interacted with intrusive groups of rice and millet farmers expanding south from the Yangtze and Yellow River valleys of China (Rispoli 2008; Zhang & Hung 2010). In the eleventh century, the now established farming communities entered the Bronze Age, and social changes took a dramatic turn (Higham et al. 2011). Khok Phanom Di is a key site in illuminating what happened during the first half of this second millennium BCE. The unusual survival of organic remains, linked with the flotation to recover plant and microfauna, has led to the reconstruction of a detailed environmental history. The first occupants occupied an estuary when the sea rose significantly above its present level. The analyses of the plant remains, forams, ostracodes, and shellfish are unanimous in reconstructing a mangrove shore that persisted through the first three of seven mortuary phases (Fig. 2) that demarcate the site’s cultural Khok Phanom Di, Archaeology of 4277 CLUSTER D 10 CLUSTER D E CLUSTER C 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 CLUSTER E CLUSTER C K Shell 5 5 4 4 3 3 CLUSTER F CLUSTER F 2 E 2 CLUSTER B CLUSTER B MP2 CLUSTER A 1 MP3 CLUSTER A J I H G F E C D B A J I E G F E D B 10 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 6 B15 CLUSTER E 5 B16 5 4 B14 4 3 CLUSTER F 1 A Ash lens Ash lens CLUSTER C C B43 10 CLUSTER D H 3 2 E 2 Shell lens Burnt area 1 MP4 CLUSTER A J I H G F E B B18 A J I H B6 G F E 1 MP5 Shell lens C D D C B A 10 B11 9 8 B19 7 6 5 Ash and shell lens B4 Shell lens 4 B2 B7 B8 B5 3 B9 B13 Shell lens E 2 Burnt area J I H MP6 G F E D C B 1 A Khok Phanom Di, Archaeology of, Fig. 2 The layout of the mortuary phases 2–6 at Khok Phanom Di sequence (McKenzie 1991; Mason 1996; Thompson 1996). The tropical estuary is one of the richest habitats known in terms of bioproductivity, and during this period, the occupants of the site harvested the fish, crabs, and shellfish but showed no signs of cultivating plants or maintaining domestic animals. In a word, they were coastal hunter-gatherers. However, a few exotic potsherds were tempered with rice chaff, which might have come from a domestic plant. K K 4278 With mortuary phase 3B, there was a dramatic change in the environment, involving a sharp rise in freshwater indicators compatible with a decline in the sea level. At this juncture, we find that some women came to the site from a different habitat (Bentley et al. 2007), while rice harvesting knives and granite hoes were used. The remains of partially digested food found in the stomach area of a woman contained domestic rice chaff and freshwater fish scales and bones. This period, which probably dates to the eighteenth century BCE, clearly witnessed the establishment of rice cultivation, which persisted into mortuary phase 4. However, with mortuary phases 5–7, marine conditions returned, and no further harvesting knives or granite hoes were found. The rapid accumulation of cultural remains at the site, which included the deposition of thick shell middens, has resulted in a remarkable mortuary sequence in which the dead were interred over the ancestors. This has allowed the reconstruction of about 20 generations over a period of five centuries, leading in turn to a detailed exposure of social changes over time. The earliest occupants of Khok Phanom Di buried the dead in shallow graves, within their middens. A child was found interred in a fetal, crouched position, while two men and a woman were placed extended, on their backs with the head directed to the east, one accompanied by a handful of shell beads. Two of the adults and the child exhibited bone conditions that suggested that they suffered from a blood disorder that, while shielding the individual from malaria, caused anemia. This genetic disorder may well reflect many generations of survival in a malarial environment (Tayles 1999). The second mortuary phase reveals a marked change in the treatment of the dead, for they were now interred in tight clusters, laid out on a checkerboard pattern, still with the head to the east. In some cases, mineralized wood under the skeleton suggested that they were placed on a bier, and to add to the increasingly complex rituals that attended funerals, bodies were sprinkled with red ocher and wrapped in a shroud of asbestos sheets. Mortuary offerings now included Khok Phanom Di, Archaeology of brilliantly polished and decorated pottery vessels. One man stood out for his lavish ornaments that included 39,000 shell beads. Cowrie shells were also found as mortuary offerings, as well as a rhinoceros tooth and bangles fashioned from fish vertebrae. The layout of the burial clusters was complemented by a thick shell midden that ran between them and even turned at right angles, as if it had accumulated against a structure of some sort. This, combined with the presence of the holes that would once have held the upright posts of a building, strongly suggests that there had once been mortuary buildings to contain the dead. The study of the bones themselves reveals a very high proportion of newly born infants. The adults, many of which continued to exhibit symptoms of anemia, had well-developed bones with robust musculature, which Tayles (1999) has suggested might have been the result of such activities as paddling canoes, or kneading and converting clay into pottery vessels. The third mortuary phase continued in the established tradition of interment in tight groups lying over the ancestors, associated with finely made pottery vessels and shell jewelry. Half of all graves also continued to contain newly born infants. However, during the course of this phase, there were also a series of important changes seen in the adoption of rice cultivation. A few dog bones were also found, but no other domestic animals. The presence of the dog is significant, for it must have been brought into Southeast Asia from an exotic source, probably China. During mortuary phase 4, the freshwater indicators continued, and there was a marked drop in infant mortality, but four of the five children encountered had suffered from severe anemia. Men were physically less robust than their predecessors, and they were increasingly distinguished from women when interred: men were found with large, fractured ornaments fashioned from turtle carapaces, whereas women were accompanied by the anvils and burnishing stones used to manufacture and decorate pottery vessels. But with the reversion to marine hunting and Khok Phanom Di, Archaeology of Khok Phanom Di, Archaeology of, Fig. 3 Burial 15, of mortuary phase 5. This woman was interred with a remarkable amount of shell jewelry including over 120,000 shell beads gathering during mortuary phase 5, there was a profound change in the rituals of death. In place of the traditional groups, we find a single grave far larger than was necessary to contain the body of the woman within it (Fig. 3). She had been interred in upper garments embellished with over 120,000 shell beads. There were shell discs on her chest, shell ear ornaments, and a shell bangle. Her body had been covered in red ocher and laid under a pyramid of clay cylinders destined to be converted into pottery vessels. Several completed vessels, each a masterpiece, were laid beside her, and by her right ankle, there was a potter’s anvil and a shell containing two wellused burnishing stones. This staggering mortuary wealth was matched by that associated with an infant, not yet two years old at death, in an adjacent grave. Again, there were clay cylinders heaped over the body with thousands of shell 4279 K beads, a shell bangle, fine pots, but also a miniature clay anvil placed beside the infant’s right ankle. It is hard not to identify this woman as a master potter, particularly given the strong musculature of her wrists, and the infant as her daughter, a future potter who suffered a premature death. Her wealth might well have been due to her expertise in manufacturing vessels for exchange that brought to the site, exotic shell from a coralline environment. Although the absolute amount of wealth fell back with the ensuing phase 6, rituals were still intense, for two women and a child were found buried within a raised mortuary chamber with clay wall foundations and floor. They wore thousands of shell beads and again, were accompanied by their clay anvils. In front of them, however, enclosed within a wooden building, was a row of graves containing men and women, as well as newly born probable twins, with much more modest offerings. A lively discussion could be generated from this information, as to whether this hunter-gatherer society was now divided into rich and poor social groups. However, after a handful of scattered burials representing mortuary phase 7, the sequence spanning perhaps as many as 20 generations came to an end. Current Debates The interpretation of this site is controversial. In reviewing alternatives, it is essential to appreciate that between 12,000 and 5,000 years ago, the sea level rose dramatically from a base of about 120 m below its present position to rise about 2 m above it. This drowned ancient Sundaland, inundating an area the size of India. The excavators have concluded that the initial inhabitants were descended from the coastal hunter-gatherers who had long been adapted to a marine environment; and through being largely sedentary in their warm and rich environment, had developed a sophisticated ceramic industry; and used polished stone tools to fashion their houses and sea going craft (Higham & Thosarat 2004). K K 4280 This portrayal of Southeast Asian huntergatherers contrasts sharply with the upland Hoabinhian groups who had for millennia occupied rockshelters, leaving a distinctly poorer material culture. The inhabitants of Khok Phanom Di were in constant exchange contact with inland groups. We find marine shell ornaments moving north and fine stone adzes reaching Khok Phanom Di. It was during the third phase that such trade involved some women coming to the site permanently, presumably as marriage partners, from established Neolithic rice farming sites. Their descendants displayed in their mortuary rituals, a remarkable degree of wealth and status expressed in fine ceramic vessels and shell jewelry. On the other hand, the presence of the sophisticated ceramics and polished stone adzes has encouraged some authorities to suggest that the inhabitants of Khok Phanom Di were immigrant rice farmers who, on reaching a coastal habitat that was not conducive to cultivation, became hunter-gatherers (Bellwood & Oxenham 2008). This fails to take into account several key issues. The first is that the material culture in the earliest layer at Khok Phanom Di is a mirror image of that from an earlier coastal settlement of Nong Nor, located only 22 km to the south, and dated to the mid third millennium BCE. This is too early to be associated with intrusive rice farmers. Then the basal layers at Khok Phanom Di contain no dog bones, an animal that would surely have been introduced by early farmers. The people of Khok Phanom Di suffered from anemia linked with the gene to inhibit the effects of malaria. This would, it is thought, have taken centuries to be adaptive in ancestral coastal hunter-gatherers. Perhaps the solution to this debate will 1 day be found in the DNA of those who first settled Khok Phanom Di, but so far the bones have stubbornly refused to yield any. Future Directions No comparable site to Khok Phanom Di is known. Only a tiny fraction of the mound has been excavated. Future research should be Khok Phanom Di, Archaeology of directed to finding more settlements along the raised shoreline of the Gulf of Siam, while opening up by excavation more of Khok Phanom Di to identify its internal structure and layout. Cross-References ▶ Complex Hunter-Gatherers ▶ Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence Variation and Intensification References BELLWOOD, P. & M. OXENHAM. 2008. The expansions of farming societies and the role of the Neolithic demographic transition, in J.-P. Bocquet-Appel & O. Bar-Yosef (ed.) The Neolithic demographic transition and its consequences: 13-34. New York; Berlin: Springer. BENTLEY, A., N. TAYLES, C.F.W. HIGHAM, C. MACPHERSON & T.C. ATKINSON. 2007. Shifting gender relations at Khok Phanom Di, Thailand: isotopic evidence from the skeletons. Current Anthropology 48: 301-14. HIGHAM, C.F.W., T.F.G. HIGHAM, K. DOUKA, R. CIARLA, A. KIJNGAM & F. RISPOLI. 2011. The origins of the Bronze Age of Southeast Asia. Journal of World Prehistory 24: 227-74. HIGHAM, C.F.W. & R. THOSARAT. (ed.) 2004. The excavation of Khok Phanom Di, Volume VII: summary and conclusions (Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 72) London: The Society of Antiquaries of London. MASON, G.M. 1996. The micromolluscs, in C.F.W. Higham & R. Thosarat (ed.) The excavation of Khok Phanom Di, a prehistoric site in Central Thailand, Volume IV: subsistence and environment: the botanical evidence. The biological remains (Part II) (Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London LIII): 239-64. London: Society of Antiquaries of London. MCKENZIE, K.G. 1991. The ostracodes and forams, in C.F. W. Higham & R. Bannanurag (ed.) The excavation of Khok Phanom Di, Volume 2 (Part 1): the biological remains (Research Report of the Society of Antiquaries of London XLVIII): 139-46. London: Society of Antiquaries of London. RISPOLI, F. 2008. The incised and impressed pottery style of mainland Southeast Asia: following the paths of Neolithization. East & West 57: 235-304. TAYLES, NG. 1999. The people (Research Report of the Society of Antiquaries of London LXI). London: Society of Antiquaries of London. THOMPSON, G.B. 1996. The excavation of Khok Phanom Di. A prehistoric site in central Thailand, Volume IV Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union (Part II) (Report of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London LIII): subsistence and environment: the botanical evidence. London: Society of Antiquaries of London. ZHANG, C. & H.C. HUNG. 2010. The emergence of agriculture in southern China. Antiquity 84: 11-25. 4281 K niche (Fig. 1) is quite large: 11 m wide, 9 m deep, and 9 m high and faces southeast. Key Issues/Current Debates/Future Directions/Examples Further Reading HIGHAM, C.F.W. & R. THOSARAT. (ed.) 1998. The excavation of Nong Norn a prehistoric site in Central Thailand (Otago University Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology 18). Otago: University of Otago, Department of Anthropology. Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union Yuri E. Demidenko Crimean Branch, Institute of Archeology, National Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Simferopol, Crimea, Ukraine Introduction Kiik-Koba grotto and its finds, including Neanderthal remains, occupy a special place not only in the Crimean Paleolithic. Their significance for Paleolithic studies in East Europe and the former Soviet Union in general is impossible to exaggerate. Its excavations in the 1920s and subsequent publication had a significant influence on trends in Paleolithic archaeology in this part of the Old World for many years (see Bonch-Osmolowski 1940), due to the scientific rigor of Gleb A. Bonch-Osmolowski of then Leningrad. According to Gladilin, his scientific works “entered into the Golden Fund of Soviet and World-wide archaeological science and till now remain exemplary” (Gladilin 1985). The grotto is situated on the right bank of the Zuya river 120 m above the river’s modern water level, in a rocky massif of Jurassic limestone, within the northern spurs of Dolgorukovskaya Yaila, part of the first ridge of the Crimean Mountains in Eastern Crimea, about 25 km east of Simferopol and 7 km south of Zuya. The grotto’s Discovery, Excavations, and Stratigraphy The grotto was discovered by BonchOsmolowski in 1924 but known to local Tatars as “Kiikin-Kobasy” (Savage’s Cave) or “KiikKoba” (Wild Cave). The latter name was chosen by Bonch-Osmolowski. Excavations were carried out in 1924 and 1925, while 1926 was devoted to two trenches on the slope outside the drip line, where Paleolithic artifacts were rare or absent. During a test excavation (1.5 m2, see Fig. 1 – sq. 2), two brownish-gray/almost black hearth layers (stratigraphic layers IV and VI or upper and lower archaeological layers, respectively) with flint artifacts and animal bones were identified within a sequence less than 1 m thick. The deposits were mainly clayey and loamy with a varying number of limestone eboulis. The lower hearth layer was near bedrock, separated from it only by thin clayey layer VII. The dark color of hearth layers was due to multiple overlapping of hearths/fireplaces from different human occupation events and subsequent ablution and mixture during human activity into dark ashy depositional components. After the test sondage was dug, the site was spatially mapped using a 1  1 m2 numerical grid system (Fig. 1) and several datum points were established for elevation measurements. Two Neanderthal burials were discovered in 1924. The 1925 excavations concentrated documentation of the stratigraphic and structural features of the two archaeological layers over as large an area as possible. In total an area of 60 m2 was excavated. Limits of each arcaheological layer within the grotto were identified, enabling BonchOsmolowski to consider many aspects of human settlement. The excavations concluded with sample collection for later laboratory studies: charcoal and burnt bone fragments and a sediment column sequence (0.2 m wide and almost 1 m thick) from square 41. All lithics and K K 4282 Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Fig. 1 Kiik-Koba grotto. Plan and stratigraphy. (a) Excavation plan (Modified after BonchOsmolowski 1940: Fig. 10) 1 – limestone blocks in modern lithological layer I; 2 – limits of lithological layer II; 3 – the grotto’s drip line. (b) The grotto’s longitudinal stratigraphical profile from northwest to southeast through the grotto’s central line (Modified after BonchOsmolowski 1940: Fig. 11) 1 – Holocene lithological layer I; 2 – gray limestone loamy sand with some “Tardenoisian” finds; 3 – lithological layer III; 4 – lithological layer IV (upper hearth layer); 5 – lithological layer VI (lower hearth layer); 6 – clay lenses a x2 N x1 78 79 77 76 35 31 36 S 2m 18a 32 18 11 5 4 37 33 19 12 1925r. 38 34 20 13 40 63 68 72 41 27 23 16 3 10 64 69 73 24 58 59 65 70 74 60 66 71 61 67 39 82 83 84 54 52 7 1 21 14 2 1924r. 26 22 15 25 42 28 43 44 45 17 1925r. 29 30 30a 8 9 62 88 57 1 75 2 1926r. 3 89 87 1926r. 90 1926r. slope b 97 96 95 94 93 92 zero line 91 57 30 29 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 18a 76 78 x 1 90 bedrock 1 2 burial pit of the adult Neandertal 2m 3 4 5 6 animal bones, including the smallest items collected by dry sieving through 1-cm mesh screens, were transported to Leningrad. Many stratigraphic profiles and sedimentary features were drawn and photographed. Indeed, the Kiik-Koba excavation documentation is quite similar to modern standards, with description cards for nearly all excavated squares and recording of stratigraphic and planographic data. This information allowed Bonch-Osmolowski himself, many of his contemporaries, and later colleagues to propose various interpretations of different aspects of the site. Archaeology and Chronology Many archaeological and chronological interpretations of the archaeological layers at Kiik-Koba have been proposed over the more than 80 years since the site’s first excavations. Lower Layer Bonch-Osmolowski (1940) considered the layer’s assemblage, with almost 13,000 flints, (Fig. 2) as “an amorphous stage of Pre-Chelleen,” finding that “the most similar . . . assemblages appear only far away in the West, in the lower layers . . . of La Ferrassie, La Micoque and Le Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Fig. 2 Kiik-Koba, lower archaeological layer. Flint artifacts. (a) Cores – 1 – 2 – primitive parallel cores; 3 – discoidal core (Modified after BonchOsmolowski 1940: Table I). (b) Tools – 1–2 – retouched pieces; 3, 7, 9 – denticulates with Clactonian notches; 4–6 – Tayacian points; 8 – burin + perforator (Modified after Bonch-Osmolowski 1940: Tables I, VI - IX) Moustier,” as well as the lower layer at Tabun Cave in Palestine and “numerous . . . horizons of alluvial find spots with Pre-Chelleen, Old Clactonian, ‘Tayacien’ and other atypical artifacts” having “the same absence of definite tool types, connected to a primitive variety of both the same massive primitive debitage and rough, denticulated edge retouch.” With respect to dating, Bonch-Osmolowski first attributed the lower layer to the “Last Interglacial epoch” (1934) but then proposed a considerably older position in “an Interglacial period preceding the Maximum (Riss) Glacial time” (1940) or even the “beginning of Mindel-Riss” (1940). 4283 K At the start of the 1950s in Soviet archaeology, the layer was considered to be Late Acheulian– Early Mousterian. Since the late 1960s, Gladilin viewed this assemblage as a sort of Tayacian-like Denticulated Micro-Mousterian (Gladilin 1966, 1976, 1985). Also, given the presence of only Upper Pleistocene animal species, the lower layer was attributed to the end of Riss/beginning of Riss-Würm or Riss-Würm/beginning of Würm in the mid1960s. Gladilin (1976) later noted stadial period sediment and pollen for both lower and upper layers at Kiik-Koba and proposed two chronological phases for the lower layer – “either . . . Riss II or . . . an initial phase of Würm I.” Since the early 1970s, the Denticulated Micro-Mousterian industrial attribution became widely accepted among Paleolithic archaeologists. It was only in the early 2000s that another assemblage similar to the Kiik-Koba lower layer was found in the Crimea: Starosele, level 3 after the 1990s excavations (Demidenko 2003–2004). Starosele, level 3, is geochronologically attributed to the Lower Pleniglacial of the Last Glacial (MIS 4), c. 70,000 BP (Chabai 2004), which also appears comparable to the pollen data for the Kiik-Koba lower layer. Such comparisons between Kiik-Koba and Starosele have opened new doors for research on this Early Last Glacial Middle Paleolithic industry type in Crimea. Upper Layer Bonch-Osmolowski (1940) compared this assemblage, with c. 4,700 flints (Fig. 3), to the Micoquian from the eponymous French site and chronologically attributed it to the end of the Lower Paleolithic/beginning of Mousterian (Middle Paleolithic in modern terminology). He connected it to the “Late Micoquian, . . . very end of the Acheulian stage on its transition into Mousterian” (Bonch-Osmolowski 1934) or to the “end of the Acheulian or . . .to the transition from Acheulian to Mousterian” (Bonch-Osmolowski 1940). In his view, there was a group of similar Late Acheulian complexes in the Old World (e.g., La Micoque, upper layer in France, Okiennik and Nad Galonska in Poland, Koesten and Klausennische in Germany, Tabun Cave, K K 4284 Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Fig. 3 Kiik-Koba, upper archaeological layer. Flint artifacts. (a) cores – 1 – discoidal core of triangular shape; 2 – orthogonal core of triangular shape; 3 – conventionally parallel transverse core of triangular shape/angle burin; 4 – conventionally parallel transverse core of rectangular shape (After Demidenko et al. 2013). (b) Tools – 1 – simple convex sidescraper; 2 – transverse convex sidescraper; 3 – transverse convex oblique sidescraper; 4 – convergent sidescraper; 5–8 – unifacial points; 9 – bifacial point; 10 – bifacial sidescraper (Modified after BonchOsmolowski 1940: Tables XI – XIV, XVI – XVII) layer E in Palestine) with “a combination of Mousterian unifacial tools and bifacial hand axes of Late Acheulian type” (BonchOsmolowski 1940). Similar complexes were also identified by him in the Crimea (Volchiy grotto, Chokurcha, Adzhi-Koba Cave, lower layer) and in the Northern Caucasus (Ilskaya). Initially, Bonch-Osmolowski attributed the upper layer “to the end of the Last Interglacial or to the beginning of the Last Glacial” (1934) but then considered it to be much older – to “a dividing line” between Mindel-Riss and Riss (1940). In the 1950s, however, Soviet colleagues attributed the upper layer assemblage to the Mousterian and even to a sort of Mousterian with Acheulian Tradition. Since the mid-1960s, based on lithological, faunal and pollen data, the geochronology of the Kiik-Koba, upper layer was discussed in terms of the Upper Pleistocene: either the beginning of Würm or end of Riss-Würm/beginning of Würm. Gladilin first proposed a “Micro-Mousterian with Acheulian Tradition variant” attribution (Gladilin 1966) but concluded by arguing for the “Kiik-Koba culture of Mousterian period in Crimea” within the “Bifacial Micro-Mousterian variant” (Gladilin 1976, 1985). This was done on not only on the basis of clear differences between Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union the “Bifacial Mousterian in the Russian Plain and Crimea with sites of Mousterian with Acheulian Tradition in France” but also a major culture paradigm shift in Soviet archaeology in the 1970s for understanding all Paleolithic periods (Gladilin 1976). Based on lithological data, Gladilin attributed the upper layer to a stadial period, which is “not older than the first half and not younger than the second half of Würm I,” quite congruent with Bonch-Osmolowski’s (1940) reconstruction of the prehistoric landscape around the site based on fauna species composition: “a dry grassy steppe with a rather harsh continental climate.” The existence of a “Kiik-Koba Mousterian culture” in Crimea was supported by Yu.G. Kolosov (see in Demidenko 2004; Demidenko et al. 2013) in the 1970s and 1980s, after his excavations at Prolom I in the 1970s and comparison of the Prolom I material with Bonch-Osmolowski’s and Gladilin’s data for the Kiik-Koba, upper layer assemblage. The Kiik-Koba upper layer was attributed by him to the “end of the Early Mousterian, in geological age close to the end of Early Würm I.” The cultural paradigm for the Kiik-Koba materials was developed by V.N. Stepanchuk in the 1990s and 2000s (see in Demidenko 2004; Demidenko et al. 2013). Using the paradigm’s concept in which each tool was made intentionally, each Neanderthal tribe had its own industrial tradition, territory, hunting habits, etc.; he constructed the Kiik-Koba culture with a “distinct and syncretic tradition” of either a “paraMicoquian or Charentoid para-Micoquian” or an “atypical Charentian with features of a Micoquian influence” reflecting a “para-Micoquian KiikKoba industrial tradition” in the 1990s. Chronologically, the Kiik-Koba culture complexes were placed by him in the 1990s based on the following Last Glacial interstadial period intermittent sequence: Brörup (Kiik-Koba grotto, upper layer) – Moershoofd (Prolom I grotto, lower layer) – Hengelo (Prolom I grotto, lower layer) – Denekamp (Buran-Kaya III grotto, level 7: 2), lasting from c. 100,000 BP to c. 30,000 BP, about 70,000 years for the Middle Paleolithic. In the 2000s, he radically changed the culture’s chronology. After obtaining several new C14 4285 K dates for Kiik-Koba and Prolom I, the Kiik-Koba culture chronology became much shorter: the Stadial preceding the Denekamp interstadial and the Arcy interstadial (c. 35–28,000 BP), cultural characteristics remaining unchanged. Since the mid-1990s a new approach for understanding Crimean Micoquian Tradition sites and find complexes, including Kiik-Koba, upper layer (Chabai et al. 2000; Chabai 2004; Demidenko 2004), was proposed. The Crimean Micoquian Tradition includes three traditionally defined industry types (Ak-Kaya, Kiik-Koba, Starosele). The industry types have the same primary flaking processes (a combination of radial, discoidal, multiplatform and parallel reductions without the Levallois method) and tool types, but tool type proportions differ by industry. Typological differences are connected to different human activities taking place at different sites, related to fauna processing and lithic reduction, as well as distances to high quality flint outcrops. As a result of the highest rates for human activities and the most distant location from flint outcrops, the Kiik-Koba lithic assemblages feature the highest indications of reduction with a medium amount of bifacial tools (c. 15 %), an abundance of points among the unifacial (c. 40 %) and bifacial (c. 50 %) tools, a rather low frequency of simple sidescraper types (c. 20–30 %) among unifacial tools, as well as mostly small (less than 5 cm long) bifacial and unifacial tools, which is why the industry was often attributed to the MicroMousterian. Complex reanalyses of the 1920s Kiik-Koba, upper layer lithic assemblage and fauna were recently realized (Demidenko et al. 2013), clarifying the features of this industry type. A chronological position has been proposed in the stadial preceding the Arcy/Denekamp interstadial (Chabai et al. 2000; Chabai 2004; Demidenko 2004; Demidenko et al. 2013). Kiik-Koba Grotto: Neanderthal Burials The first burial of a child (Bonch-Osmolowski 1940) was found “in sq. 13, in 30 cm distance to the North from northern corner of another grave pit, which is from head of the adult human.” The 5–8-month-old child “was lying in a so-called K K 4286 Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Fig. 4 Kiik-Koba. Neanderthal burials. (a) Human burial plans where shaded skeleton parts do indicate the ones found during the 1920s excavations (Modified after Smirnov 1991: Fig. 57; Chabai 2004: Fig. V-4). (b) First host/economic pit in sq. 21 and 25 of upper archaeological layer that considerably destroyed the lower layer’s adult human burial (Modified after Bonch-Osmolowski 1940: Fig. 33b) N 13 a 34 20 14 21 25 b A 21 25 5 zero line I III V IV 0 uterine position, at left side, almost at very bedrock. . . . The skeleton was positioned in a lower portion of VI layer being 15 cm thick at this place. Above, being unclearly separated from it, a so-called inter-hearth layer (Yu. D. –lithological layer V) is not present here, was distributed upper hearth layer, also c. 15 cm thick” (Fig. 4a). The child’s “bone preservation is very bad.” It was possible “to extract only part of skeleton bones, although most of them were in a defective condition” and “any skull and even teeth were absolutely missing.” The grave pit was not traced during excavations. At the same time, the Pleistocene age was definitely established for the skeleton, taking into consideration “non disturbance of all lithological layers above the upper hearth layer and fossilization degree for the child bones.” 1m But because “in this place the inter-hearth layer was absent and the upper cultural layer was directly resting on the lower cultural layer, to define stratigraphically the belonging of the child skeleton to one or another layer was not possible.” Thus, the layer to which the child burial belonged remained an open question for BonchOsmolowski. In the 1980s, Yu.A. Smirnov, using Bonch-Osmolowski’s unpublished field notes, reconstructed the stratigraphy of sq. 13 and 14 in detail, showing that the child burial “was done during the existence of IV upper hearth layer and already after deposition of about half of its thickness” and that it was dug into the underlying lower archaeological layer – “in a clay, . . . in one of sublevels of lithological layer VII” (Smirnov 1991). No indisputable grave goods were identified with Kiik-Koba Grotto: Significance for Paleolithic Studies in East Europe and the Former Soviet Union the burial, although some unassociated lower layer flints were found when the grave was dug. The Neanderthal morphology for the child skeleton has established (Yakimov & Kharitonov 1979; Trinkaus 2008). As a result, Neanderthals appear to be the makers of the Kiik-Koba industry type of Crimean Micoquian Tradition. More well-known Kiik-Koba hominin remains were found in another burial, also Neanderthal, but an adult 40–45 years old (Yakimov & Kharitonov 1979). Unlike the child burial, the adult burial had clearer stratigraphic and spatial features (Bonch-Osmolowski 1940). Although the grave pit was damaged for c. two thirds of its area by a host/economic pit, it had clear ovoid configuration with northeastern–southwestern orientation and size: 2.10 m long, 0.80 m wide, and 0.45 m deep (Fig. 4a–b). The pit was not only stratigraphically related to lower archaeological layer but it was also “cut into the grotto’s bedrock,” where it was “partially deposited both in a solid limestone and clay pockets.” Taking the bone leg position, the human body was placed into the grave “on the right side with slightly bended legs” and by its head to northwest (Fig. 4a). The main problem was the burial’s stratigraphy relation to either upper or lower archaeological layer’s human occupation. The difficulty was caused by the pit, destroyed much of the grave. Initially, Bonch-Osmolowski (1940) was sure that the burial was made by lower layer humans – “the seemingly clear covering by lower hearth layer of human bones in not disturbed grave pit’s part, that has been authentically stated by photo pictures, alongside with common find characteristics, did not leave no doubts that the burial was realized by lower hearth layer people” (see Fig. 4b). But then in the same 1940 book, Bonch-Osmolowski changed his opinion connecting the adult burial to upper layer humans. “Indeed, it very hardly agrees with a common conception on a historical development of Old Paleolithic Man in combination with such the primitive material culture and such the perfect burial type. The burial seems to be more appropriate for upper hearth layer humans.” Moreover, in doing so, Bonch-Osmolowski (1941) also suggested that Kiik-Koba child burial also belongs to upper layer because of “general 4287 K considerations on a simultaneous burial probability for mother and child” close one to another at Kiik-Koba grotto. All these Bonch-Osmolowski’s contradictory notes and hypotheses were in details analyzed by V.N. Gladilin. He certainly concluded that the initial Bonch-Osmolowski’s opinion was correct and the adult burial belongs to human occupation of lower layer (Gladilin 1979). So, now it is almost universally accepted among the ex-USSR archaeologists that the adult burial is related to lower layer and the child burial is associated with upper archaeological layer at Kiik-Koba grotto. And again, all the 1970s and 1980s new analyses on the Kiik-Koba human burials were only possible thanks to the detailed published and unpublished BonchOsmolowski’s field observations. References BONCH-OSMOLOWSKI, G.A. 1934. The results of the investigations in the Crimean Paleolithic. The Proceedings of the Second International Congress of the Association for the Quaternary Investigations in Europe 5: 114–83 (in Russian). - 1940. Paleolithic of Crimea, Part 1: Grotto Kiik-Koba. Moscow (in Russian). - 1941. Paleolithic of Crimea, Part 2: The hand of the fossil man from Kiik-Koba Grotto. Moscow (in Russian). CHABAI, V.P. 2004. The Middle Paleolithic of Crimea: stratigraphy, chronology, typological variability & Eastern European context. Simferopol: Shlyakh (in Russian). CHABAI, V.P., Y.E. DEMIDENKO & A.I. YEVTUSHENKO. 2000. Paleolithic of the Crimea: methods of investigations and conceptual approaches. Simferopol; Kiev: (in Russian). DEMIDENKO, Y.E. 2003–2004. Problems of epochal and industrial attribution for Kiik-Koba grotto, lower layer type complexes in the Crimea. Stratum Plus 1: 271–300 (in Russian). DEMIDENKO, Y.E. (ed.) 2004. Buran-Kaya III rock-shelter, layer B - the etalon find complex for Kiik-Koba type industry of Crimean Micoquian tradition. Complex analysis of flint artifacts. Kiev; Simferopol: Shlyakh (in Russian). DEMIDENKO, Y.E., J. RICHTER & T. UTHMEIER. (ed.) 2013. Micoquian of Kiik-Koba grotto, lithological layer IV (Crimea): complex re-analyses of 1920s excavation materials. Köln: Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität zu Köln. GLADILIN, V.N. 1966. The distinct types of stone industries in the Mousterian of the Russian Plain and Crimea and K K 4288 their place in the early Paleolithic of the USSR. Proceedings of the VIIth International Congress of Protoand Prehistorians: 14–18. Moscow (in Russian). - 1976. The problems of the early Paleolithic of eastern Europe. Kiev: Naukova Dumka (in Russian). - 1979. On a cultural-chronological attribution of Neanderthal burials at Kiik-Koba grotto, in Y.G. Kolosov (ed.) The investigation of Paleolithic in the Crimea: 67–76. Kiev: Naukova Dumka (in Russian). - 1985. The early Paleolithic. Archeology of the Ukrainian SSR 1: 12–53 (in Russian). SMIRNOV, Y.A. 1991. Mousterian burials in Eurasia. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian). TRINKAUS, E. 2008. Kiik-Koba 2 and Neanderthal axillary border ontogeny. The Anthropological Society of Nippon: 1–6. YAKIMOV, V.P. & V.M. KHARITONOV. 1979. Towards Crimean Neanderthals problem, in Y.G. Kolosov (ed.) The investigation of Paleolithic in the Crimea: 56–66. Kiev: Naukova Dumka (in Russian). Kim, Nam C. Nam C. Kim Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA Basic Biographical Information Nam C. Kim received a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Illinois at Chicago, a M.A. in Political Science from New York University, and a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Pennsylvania. Prior to a career in anthropology, he worked in the private and nonprofit sectors. He is an anthropological archaeologist in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Major Accomplishments Much of Dr. Kim’s work has been dedicated to ancient state formation, social complexity, and various factors for social change including warfare, trade, and various leadership strategies. He has performed fieldwork in Belgium (Neolithic village fortifications of the Linearbandkeramik culture), the southeastern USA (historic Native Kim, Nam C. American Creek site), and Mesoamerica (postclassic and historic Mayan sites). Most recently, his research has been geographically focused on East and Southeast Asia, specifically Vietnam, and he has been conducting investigations at the site of Co Loa in the Red River Delta of northern Vietnam. Kim was the first foreigner allowed to collaborate on excavations at the site, codirecting investigations with colleagues at the Vietnam Institute of Archaeology of the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences. Nam Kim is an honorary member of the Vietnam Institute of Archaeology. The Co Loa Middle Wall and Ditch Project (2007–2008) was the first full-scale, systematic investigation of the site’s monumental system of earthen enclosures. The collaborative research at Co Loa is ongoing and aims to augment an overall understanding of the site’s emergence as an early urban center and political capital for proto-Vietnamese civilization during the Iron Age. The research has been funded by various institutions and organizations, including The Henry Luce Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Philosophical Society, the National Science Foundation, the George Franklin Dales Foundation, the University of Illinois at Chicago, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The investigations at Co Loa have provided new data that Kim has presented at a variety of conferences and invited lectures in the USA and Asia, including the Society for American Archaeology, the Association for Asian Studies, the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association, and the Archaeological Institute of America. Research findings have also been disseminated through journals such as Antiquity, Journal of Archaeological Research, and Khao Co Hoc. The research will also be featured in a book currently being written by Kim on the origins of the ancient state in Vietnam. Kim is also working with colleagues in Vietnam’s Conservation Center for the Co Loa and Hanoi Citadels (also known as the Hanoi Ancient Wall-Co Loa Vestiges Preservation Center) in efforts related to cultural heritage management. Objectives include obtaining UNESCO World Heritage Site status for Co Loa, as well as the Kinahan, John promotion of education, outreach, and global understanding regarding the site’s history and cultural significance for Vietnam. Cross-References ▶ Insular Southeast Asia at the Interface of Continent-Archipelago: Geography and Chronology ▶ Vietnam’s Archaeological World Heritage Sites ▶ World Heritage List: Criteria, Inscription, and Representation ▶ World Heritage Objectives and Outcomes Further Reading KIM, N.C. & L. KEELEY. 2008. Social violence and war, in D. Pearsall (ed.) Encyclopedia of archaeology. San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press. KIM, N.C. & C. KUSIMBA. 2008. Pathways to social complexity and state formation in the southern Zambezian region. African Archaeological Review 25:131-52. KIM, N.C., V.T. LAI & H.H. TRINH. 2010. Co Loa: an investigation of Vietnam’s ancient capital. Antiquity 84:1011-27. SCHWEYER, A-V. 2011. Ancient Vietnam. History, art and archaeology. Bangkok: River Books. Kinahan, John Ndukuyakhe Ndlovu Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Pretoria, Hatfield, Pretoria, South Africa 4289 K of Namibia until 1996. He is currently Director of the Namib Desert Archaeological Survey, a long-term, field-based research project primarily funded through contract surveys for mining projects. He has published more than 70 articles, including peer-reviewed papers, chapters in books, edited volumes, and one book. His research interests are broad, ranging from post-Pleistocene hunter-gatherer archaeology to rock art interpretation, nomadic pastoral settlement and land use, as well as the history of archaeology and the links between archaeology and related fields such as human and animal ecology. Apart from his work in Namibia, John Kinahan has also carried out field surveys and excavations in Botswana, Mali, Angola, and Tanzania and completed a major survey and excavation project under contract to the Government of Ethiopia, in the Gilgel Gibe valley in the south of that country. In addition, he has served as a visiting lecturer at universities in Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and South Africa. He is an Honorary Research Fellow of the Rock Art Research Institute in the School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies at the University of the Witwatersrand. He has presented his research at many regional and international conferences and has collaborated in a number of regional projects, serving as country coordinator in the Swedish Sida-SAREC-funded program of archaeological cooperation linking nine African countries with common research interests in the archaeology of human responses to environmental change. Major Accomplishments Basic Biographical Information John Kinahan was born in Mutare, Zimbabwe, but is a resident and citizen of Namibia, where he and his wife, Jill Kinahan, have worked as archaeologists for more than 30 years. He studied archaeology at the University of Cape Town and completed his Ph.D. at the University of the Witwatersrand in 1989. Kinahan was employed as Curator of Archaeology at the National Museum John Kinahan’s early work in the Namib Desert formed the basis of a revised mid-Holocene to recent archaeological sequence which challenged the regional orthodoxy of successive ethnic migrations, by showing that local transformation in hunter-gatherer economies provided a better account of the evidence. He later extended this research into the archaeology of recent desert communities and established concrete links between the rock art and archaeological evidence K K 4290 for economic and social change and the archaeological basis for ancestral land ownership claims. In his more recent involvement with contract archaeology, Kinahan has developed practical methods for the assessment of archaeological significance and vulnerability as an empirical basis for sensitivity mapping. He has developed GIS-based methods of rapid field survey using the varying desert landscape associations of archaeological sites. Kinahan pioneered rural community-based site management in Namibia, laying the basis for financially self-sustaining rock art tourism. Kinahan served as consulting archaeologist and principal author of the nomination dossier for Namibia’s first listed World Heritage site, Ui-//aes or Twyfelfontein. King, Thomas F. - 2005. Late Quaternary human ecology of the Namib Desert, in M. Smith & P. Hesse (ed.) 23 S: archaeology and environmental history of the southern deserts: 120-31. Canberra: National Museum of Australia. - 2011. From the beginning: the archaeological evidence, in M. Wallace (ed.) A history of Namibia, from the beginning to independence: 15-44. London: David Hurst. KINAHAN, J. & J. KINAHAN. 2006. Preliminary report on the late Holocene archaeology of the Awasib-Gorrassis Basin complex in the southern Namib Desert. Studies in the African Past 5: 1-14. King, Thomas F. Bennie C. Keel US National Park Service, Washington, DC, USA Cross-References Basic Biographical Information ▶ Cultural Heritage Site Damage Assessment ▶ Rock Art Sites: Management and Conservation ▶ UNESCO World Heritage List and “Imbalanced” Properties: An African Perspective Thomas F. King was born October 20, 1942, in Atlanta, GA, to Theophilus T. (Ted) King and Helen Fulling King. He grew up in Petaluma, California, where he graduated from Petaluma High School. He became interested in archaeology at a young age. After serving in the United States Navy (1962–1964), he enrolled in San Francisco State University, where he received his undergraduate degree in Anthropology (1968). Majoring in Anthropology at the University of California, Riverside, he earned his doctorate in 1976. In addition to pursuing his Ph.D., between 1968 and 1975, Tom oversaw the UCLA Archaeological Survey and the UC–Riverside Archaeological Research Unit, and helped found the Society for California Archaeology. He conducted archaeological research in California’s Sierra Nevada, the North Coast Range, the Mojave and Colorado Deserts, and along the Pacific coast, and took part in political activities, court cases, and administrative actions interpreting newly enacted and developing state and federal environmental and historic preservation laws. After Governor Ronald Reagan vetoed legislation to create a California Archaeological Survey, King moved to New York where he oversaw contract archaeological program for the New York Archaeological Council (King pers. comm. 2 May 2011). Further Reading KINAHAN, J. 1993. The rise and fall of nomadic pastoralism in the central Namib Desert, in B. Andah, A. Okpoko, T. Shaw and P. Sinclair (ed.) Food, metals and towns in the archaeology of Africa: 372-85. London: Routledge. - 1995. A new archaeological perspective on nomadic pastoralist expansion in south-western Africa, in J.E.G. Sutton (ed.) The growth of farming in Africa south of the Equator: 211-25. Nairobi: British Institute in Eastern Africa. - 1996. The archaeology of social rank among eighteenth century nomadic pastoralists in southern Namibia. African Archaeological Review 13(4): 225-45. - 1999. Towards an archaeology of mimesis and rainmaking in the rock art of Namibia, in P. Ucko & R. Layton (ed.) The archaeology and anthropology of landscape: 336-57. London: Routledge. - 2000. Fifteenth century agropastoral responses to a disequilibrial ecosystem in eastern Botswana, in G. Barker & D. Gilbertson (ed.) Living on the margins: the archaeology of drylands: 233-51. London: Routledge. - 2001. Pastoral nomads of the Namib Desert: the people history forgot. Windhoek: Namibia Archaeological Trust. King, Thomas F. He was recruited by the National Park Service’s (NPS) Division of Interagency Archeological Service to develop regulations for the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (Public Law 93-291) in 1975. In 1977, he was detailed by the NPS to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to establish historic preservation programs (King 2006). As Consultant in Archaeology and Historic Preservation to the High Commissioner, he was instrumental in building the historic preservation programs of the emerging island nations of Micronesia. Partly as a result of his experience in Micronesia, his horizon broadened from archaeological resources to include concerns with the protection of structures, rural landscapes, neighborhoods, the spiritual places of Indian tribes and Pacific Island groups, and places that are important for their association with the beliefs and ways of life of living communities, for which he and NPS anthropologist Patricia Parker coined the name “traditional cultural properties” (Parker & King 1990). Returning to the states in 1979, he joined the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s (ACHP) staff as Director of the Office of Cultural Resource Preservation, for the next 9 years. Although the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) had been in effect for more than a dozen years, Federal agencies were still grappling with provisions of the Act, especially the Section 106 review process overseen by the ACHP. King oversaw staff efforts to coordinate and provide guidance to federal agencies in implementing their Section 106 responsibilities. After resigning from the ACHP in 1989, he became and continues to be engaged as a consultant to Federal, state and local agencies, Indian tribes, Pacific Island groups, and private clients providing guidance and training related to historic preservation. He has also authored, coauthored, and edited eight textbooks dealing with historic preservations issues, together with one trade book (Amelia Earhart’s Shoes, King et al. 2004), and one work of fiction (Thirteen Bones, King 2009) based on his work as Senior Archaeologist with The International Group for Historic Aircraft Recovery (TIGHAR) is its 4291 K research into the fate of aviation pioneers Amelia Earhart and Fred Noonan. Major Accomplishments Dr. King’s major contributions consist of his books and articles (some critical of the bureaucracies and practitioners) that provide direction and guidance in the art of cultural resource management. See further readings for a selection of his work. Cross-References ▶ Cultural Heritage Management: International Practice and Regional Applications References KING, T.F. 2006. How Micronesia changed the U.S. historic preservation program, and the importance of keeping it from changing back. Micronesian Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 5:1. Available at: http://marshall.csu.edu.au/MJHSS/. - 2009. Thirteen bones (Novel). Dog-Ear Press. KING, T.F., R. JACOBSON, K. BURNS & K. SPADING. 2004. Amelia Earhart’s shoes, 3rd edn. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira Press. PARKER, P.L. & T.F. KING. 1990. Guidelines for evaluating and documenting traditional cultural properties (National Register Bulletin 38). Washington (DC): National Register of Historic Places; National Park Service. Further Reading KING, T.F. 1983. Professional responsibility in public archeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 12: 143-64. - 1989. Preparing agreement documents. Washington (DC): Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. - 2000. Federal projects and historic places: the section 106 process. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira Press. - 2002. Thinking about cultural resource management: essays from the edge. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira Press. - 2003a. Places that count: traditional cultural properties in cultural resource management. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMira Press. - 2003b. Considering the cultural importance of natural landscapes in NEPA review: the Mushgigagamongsebe example. Environmental Practice 5: 4. K K 4292 - 2005a. Doing archaeology: a cultural resource management perspective. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press. - 2005b. What are traditional cultural properties? The Applied Anthropologist 25: 125-30. - 2006a. TIGHAR and the TBD in Jaluit: an example of the complexities to be considered in planning submerged historic aircraft recovery. Micronesian Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 5:1. Available at: http://marshall.csu.edu.au/MJHSS/ . - 2006b. Cultural heritage preservation and the legal system with specific reference to landscapes, in L.R. Lozny (ed.) Chapter 13: landscapes under pressure: theory and practice of cultural heritage research and preservation. New York: Springer. - 2007. Saving places that matter: a citizens guide to the National Historic Preservation Act. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press. - 2008. Cultural resource laws and practice: an introductory guide, 3rd edn. Walnut Creek (CA): AltaMiraPress. - 2009a. Our unprotected heritage: whitewashing destruction of our natural and cultural environment. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press. - 2009b. Backing into disaster: lessons in cultural resource management from the ‘Graving Dock’ at Port Angeles. Journal of Northwest Anthropology 4: 153-61. - 2010. A listless approach to resource management. Heritage Management 3: 97-100. KING, T.F. (ed.) 2011. Companion to cultural resource management. New York; London: Wiley-Blackwell. KING, T.F. & R. GILLESPIE. 1999. Archaeology in the search for Amelia Earhart, in K.L. Felder (ed.) Lessons from the past: an introductory reader in archaeology. Mountain View (CA): Mayview Press. KING, T.F. & P.L. PARKER. 1984. Piseken Nóómw Nóón Tonaachaw: archeology in the Tonaachaw historic district, Moen Island, Truk. Saipan: Southern Illinois University, Carbondale and Micronesian Archeological Survey. KING, T.F. & G. WHITE. 2006. The archaeological survey manual. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press. Kirkman, James Empire including Borneo (as an administrative officer) and Ceylon (as a tea planter). His plans to work in Iraq were interrupted by the Second World War, during which he served as a rear gunner with the RAF. He was posted to the Middle East during the war, becoming fluent in Arabic and afterward worked briefly at the Iraqi embassy in London, later joining the External Services of the BBC (Croome 1989; The Times 1989). Between his stints in Ceylon and Iraq, Kirkman had worked as a volunteer at the Castle Dove and later the Maiden Castle excavations (under Mortimer Wheeler) in the early 1930s. He also spent three years excavating in Palestine. This along with his World War II posting kindled an interest in Islamic culture (Croome 1989). He returned to archaeology in 1948 when, following an inquiry to Louis Leakey, he was appointed as the Warden of the Gedi National Park in Kenya. This marked the beginnings of an archaeological career in East Africa that spanned 24 years. His work was initially carried out under the auspices of the national parks but later was transferred to Kenya Museums (Anonymous 1990). He retired to Cambridge in 1972 where he continued to publish on the Indian Ocean World, edited the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, and served as board member of the British Institute in Eastern Africa. He passed away in 1989 at the age of 82 (The Times 1989; Anonymous 1990). Major Accomplishments Kirkman, James Natalie Swanepoel University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa Basic Biographical Information James Spedding Kirkman (OBE, FSA) was born in 1906. After graduating from Cambridge in 1928, he worked in various outposts of the British In a research context in which most scholarly attention was lavished on the Early Stone Age and human origins, Kirkman can be regarded as a pioneer of East African archaeology of the later periods, focusing on the Swahili towns of the Kenyan coast and later the Portuguese-built Fort Jesus. Kirkman spent 10 years excavating at Gedi, mapping the site and establishing a chronology based on finds such as imported ceramics (Kirkman 1954). In addition, he worked at a number of other Swahili sites including Kilepwa, Takwa, Mnarani, and Ungwana (Kirkman 1966). Klejn, Leo His monographs contain detailed descriptions of the excavation layers and the finds, allowing later researchers to use his notes, even when they disagree with his findings. In 1958, Kirkman was appointed to oversee the archaeological investigation and historical conservation of Fort Jesus (a Portuguese fort) when it was declared a national monument. Thus, he oversaw its transformation from a colonial-era jail to a museum and monument. This can be regarded as a seminal historical archaeological project on the East African coast. Kirkman worked at the site for 11 years, publishing Fort Jesus: A Portuguese Fortress on the East African Coast in 1974. Today the fort is a popular attraction and a World Heritage Site. In addition to producing a number of detailed archaeological monographs, Kirkman also wrote a book – Men and Monuments on the East African Coast (1964) – accessible to members of the general public. While some of his findings and interpretations may be criticized today and it has been shown that many of the levels and indeed the history of Islam on the East African coast date to an earlier time period than he had envisioned, undoubtedly James Kirkman laid the foundation upon which successive researchers such as Neville Chittick, Peter Garlake, and Mark Horton (Anonymous 1990) and a new, younger generation of local scholars, including Chapurukha Kusimba, have built. His contribution to East African archaeology was recognized by the Festschrift From Zinj to Zanzibar: Studies in History, Trade and Society on the Coast of East Africa (Allen & Wilson 1982). Cross-References ▶ East Africa: Museums ▶ Leakey Family ▶ Modern World: Historical Archaeology ▶ Swahili Archaeology ▶ UNESCO World Heritage List and “Imbalanced” Properties: An African Perspective 4293 K References ALLEN, J. DE V. & T.H. WILSON. (ed.) 1982. From Zinj to Zanzibar: studies in history, trade and society on the coast of East Africa. Papers presented in honour of Dr. James Kirkman (Paideuma 28). Wiesbaden: Kommissionsverlag. ANONYMOUS. 1990. James Kirkman 1906-1989. Azania 25: 106-8. CROOME, A. 1989. Dr James Spedding Kirkman. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 18: 189-90. KIRKMAN, J.S. 1954. The Arab city of Gedi: excavations at the Great Mosque. Architecture and finds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. - 1964. Men and monuments on the East African coast. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. - 1966. The Kenya littoral. Current Anthropology 7: 347–8. - 1974. Fort Jesus: a Portuguese fortress on the East African coast. Oxford: The Clarendon Press. THE TIMES. Dr. James Kirkman, Obituary, 3 May 1989. Further Reading KIRKMAN, J.S. 1957. Historical archaeology in Kenya, 1948-1956. The Antiquaries Journal 37: 16-29. - 1963. Gedi: the palace. The Hague: Mouton & Co. - 1966. Ungwana on the Tana. The Hague: Mouton & Co. Klejn, Leo Arkadiusz Marciniak Institute of Prehistory, University of Poznan, Poznan, Poland Basic Biographical Information Lev Samuilovich Klejn, known as Leo Klejn, is an internationally acclaimed Russian archaeologist. He was born in 1927 in Vitebsk, Belarus. Klejn studied philology at the Grodno Pedagogical Institute (1946–1947). He later moved to Leningrad State University where he studied archaeology under the supervision of Mikhail Artamonov and Russian philology and folklore under Vladimir Popp. Klejn remained inspired by semiotics, cognition and epistemological concerns, and Russian structuralism, which significantly contributed to the K K 4294 development of his intellectual profile. He graduated in archaeology in 1951. After working as a librarian and high school teacher and after postgraduate studies (1957–1960), he obtained a position of Assistant Professor of Archaeology in Leningrad State University in 1962. He defended his Ph.D. dissertation The Origin of the Donets Catacomb Culture in 1968. In 1976 he was promoted to the position of Associate Professor. In 1981, he was arrested by the KGB, expelled from the university, deprived of his academic grade and title, and sentenced to prison for alleged homosexuality. The sentence was overruled, but he remained without a position for ten years. He spent this time taking classes at Leningrad State University. In 1994 he submitted a new dissertation and was awarded a second doctorate. In the same year, Klejn helped found the European University at St. Petersburg University, teaching there as a Full Professor until his retirement in 1997. He has been visiting professor at numerous universities, including Durham, Berlin, Vienna, Copenhagen, Tromso, and Washington. Major Accomplishments Leo Klejn’s international prominence is largely due to his contributions to archaeological theory. His major interests comprised theory, epistemology, methodology, and typology. He conceptualizes the nature of archaeology as a mature discipline with a solid empirical basis independent from the disciplines of history and anthropology (Trigger 2006). His program of theoretical archaeology was long in the making. Their elements were presented in details in numerous publications. This innovative and original proposal has emerged in reference to critical assessment of the existing schools of archaeological thought in the second half of the twentieth century, including Marxism, historical materialism, processualism, and post-processualism (Klejn 1977). Archaeology is arguably a source-studying discipline applying solid and explicit methodological and interpretive procedures. It has the Klejn, Leo form of an applied science akin to criminology. Theoretical archaeology, as defined by Klejn (2001), aims to define the algorithm of archaeological research and provide foundations for all facets of the discipline. It comprises three major groups of theories. The first group is called intraarchaeological and includes theories of interrelated issues dealing with archaeological material such as its processing, interpretation, and extracting historical information from it. This also includes theories of classification and typology. The second group of theories is called metaarchaeological. These include philosophical, cognitive, scientific, and logical aspects of archaeology and its practice. They determine the subject matter of archaeology, its methodological nature, and the character of facts and theory. The third group is called paraarchaeological and comprises theories originating from other disciplines like anthropology, sociology, linguistics, or geography. They make possible to conceptualize the laws of functioning the past communities and include such categories as culture, ethnos, society, migration, and historical process. According to Klejn, the aim of archaeology is to restore historical process by applying a set of coherent, explicit, and well-defined methods and procedures. This makes it possible to decode information in material objects and overcome the break between the past and contemporary culture. The major element in this project comprises the archaeological sources. A wide range of sources, including artifacts, features, or structures, need to be conceptualized in the form of archaeological typologies. Hence, Klejn stressed a need of building typologies and captured a fundamental difference between classification and typology. A range of diverse sources is needed to write a comprehensive account about the past to facilitate a complete history. Klejn also developed the system of archaeological categories and notions used in archaeological process and the system of archaeological reasoning and explanation. The ultimate aim of Klejn’s project is to generalize historical process and formulate historical laws by using different sources. However, the archaeologists’ task to restore historical process is Klejn, Leo inevitably compromised by the incompleteness of archaeological sources. In seeking the foundations for a bold and independent discipline of archaeology, it is necessary to grasp circumstances defining the conditions of its practice. In particular, its constitutive elements comprise the origin and significance of theory and the character of methodological frameworks including laws, models, analytical procedures, axioms, parallels, and analogies. Klejn reminds us that theory is not chosen freely but is developed within the general framework and takes into consideration the nature of archaeological sources. Similarly, the building of workable typology involves conceptualization of the foreknowledge. Klejn (2013) is also interested in history of archaeology, and archaeological thought both in Russia and beyond. Soviet archaeology has been presented not as a monolithic entity but as composed of numerous schools and traditions, all embedded in Marxism. His other interests comprised works on the Neolithic, Bronze Age, Scythians, Sarmatians, Slavs, and Norsemen. Klejn worked extensively on the Bronze Age Donets Catacomb culture. He remains interested in ethnic issues including the origin of Indo-Europeans, especially Indo-Aryans, Greeks and Phrygians, and Slavs. He has also contributed to the debate of the origin of Russian state in the Middle Ages and the role of the Vikings in this process. Klejn was also an active member of numerous field projects in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus including Bronze Age sites, Scytho-Sarmatian barrows, and early medieval towns. Klejn is also an acclaimed author of numerous philological works including studies of Homer and Homeric epic, especially Iliad. His interests in cultural anthropology comprised mainly folklore. Klejn has published 18 monographs and more than 500 articles and has edited a few collections of articles. The most important of his theoretical works comprise Archaeological Sources (1978 - Russian), Archaeological Typology (1982 - English; 1991 - Russian), Principles of Archaeology (1991 - Russian), Metaarchaeology (2001 - English), New Archaeology: Critical Analysis of the Theoretical 4295 K Direction of Western Archaeology (2009 Russian), and History of Archaeological Thought, 2 vols (2011 - Russian). His newest book Soviet Archaeology: Trends, Schools, and History will be published in English in 2013. Klejn has also written The World Turned Upside Down (1993 - Russian), a personal account of his years in prison in the 1980s. A history of his life was presented in the book It’s Hard to Be Klejn: Autobiography in Monologues and Dialogues (2010 - Russian). Three other major books: A History of Anthropological Ideas (Russian), Time in Archaeology (Russian), and Culture and Evolution. Theoretical Studies (Russian) are in preparation. Cross-References ▶ Archaeological Record ▶ Archaeological Theory: Paradigm Shift ▶ Archaeology and Anthropology ▶ Histories of the Archaeological Discipline: Issues to Consider ▶ Medieval Russia (Rus’), Archaeology of ▶ Post-Processual Archaeology ▶ Processualism in Archaeological Theory References KLEJN, L. S. 1977. A panorama of theoretical archaeology. Current Anthropology 18(1): 1–42. - 1982. Archaeological typology (BAR International series 153). Oxford: Archaeopress. - 2001. Metaarchaeology. Acta Archaeologica 72(1): 1-149. - 2013. Soviet archaeology: trends, schools, history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. TRIGGER, B. G. 2006. A history of archaeological thought, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Further Reading IMMONEN, V. 2003. The stratigraphy of a life. An archaeological dialogue with Leo Klejn. Archaeological Dialogues 10(1): 57–75. KRISTIANSEN, K. 1993. Exploring the limits. An interview with Leo Klejn. Journal of European Archaeology 1: 184–94. TAYLOR, T. 1993. Conversations with Leo Klejn. Current Anthropology 34(5): 723–35. K K 4296 Klithi Site: Excavating a Rockshelter in Northwest Greece Klithi Site: Excavating a Rockshelter in Northwest Greece Nena Galanidou Department of History and Archaeology, University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece Introduction Klithi is a limestone rockshelter on the right bank of the River Voı̈domatis in Northwest Greece (Fig. 1). Between 1983 and 1989, archaeological excavations here directed by Geoff Bailey brought to light a sequence of Upper Paleolithic deposits exhibiting remarkable uniformity in their artifact and faunal assemblages. Hunter/ gatherer groups of the late glacial period had used ibex and chamois for food, leather, and bone artifacts. They had collected flint pebbles from the nearby river banks to manufacture an Epigravettian industry dominated by backed bladelets which were employed in hunting. Small endscrapers and other tools were employed in the working of hides and bone. Klithi is a lowdiversity site and now features among other specialized ibex-sites that are typically found at high altitudes in or near the sort of rugged terrain that was the habitat of ibex herds. Key Issues The project design combined on-site excavation aimed at producing data with high precision chronological and spatial resolution, with off-site work intended to place Klithi within its local (NW Greece) and regional (SE Europe) geographical and cultural context. To this end, detailed archaeological survey and paleoenvironmental and paleogeographic research were conducted in parallel with excavation. The excavation program sought detailed insights into patterns of change and variability in the excavated record, vertically across stratigraphic layers and horizontally in space. Prior to excavation, the shelter floor was cleared Klithi Site: Excavating a Rockshelter in Northwest Greece, Fig. 1 Klithi rockshelter on the right bank of the River Voidomatis in Vikos Gorge (Photo courtesy of Costas Zissis) of the materials accumulated due to recent herding activity. It was then mapped on a 1  1 m grid with an alphanumeric designation and the major topographic features were projected on it (Fig. 2). Each grid was further subdivided into four quadrants, 50  50 cm each, and for the most part, these quadrants were excavated in 5 cm spits as the minimum provenance units to which all finds are referenced. Beyond this arbitrary threedimensional coordinate system, all excavated finds were also stratigraphically referenced in terms of the geological and archaeological features into a two-tier system: contexts defined as the smallest units of stratigraphic provenance identified during excavation on the basis of lithology, texture, and color and strata, used (at Klithi) to denote groups of layers combined at post-excavation stage to represent a site-wide time unit. Small brushes and shovels were the main excavation tools (Fig. 3). Horizontal plans Klithi Site: Excavating a Rockshelter in Northwest Greece N B 4297 1983 1985 1988 1984/85 1986 Drill holes 0 m K 4 G A F J K L M N P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA BB CC DD EE FF GG HH JJ KK LL MM NN PP QQ RR Klithi Site: Excavating a Rockshelter in Northwest Greece, Fig. 2 Klithi site plan, showing coverage by excavation year (Reproduced by permission of the MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research) Klithi Site: Excavating a Rockshelter in Northwest Greece, Fig. 3 Excavating at Klithi with a small brush and a shovel. The excavator kneels on wooden plank and a foam cushion. The high density of artifacts is visible in the exposed surface (Photo courtesy of Geoff Bailey) of the deposit featuring specimens larger than 5 cm were systematically drawn throughout. Excavated sediments were routinely dry-sieved and watersieved (screened) in the river. Sorting, cataloguing, and study of artifacts and bones took place in the open air in the Vikos Gorge, on a river terrace under the plane trees, a magical spot indeed for archaeologists to set up their laboratory. The excavation strategy evolved in the course of the project. First and foremost, a deep sounding was opened at the front of the shelter, reaching a depth of 2.8 m, to preview the stratigraphy and establish the total time span of occupation (1983). Excavation later continued across a horizontal area in order to examine the spatial distribution of finds and K K 4298 features (1984, 1985), following the principles of French “grands décapages” with detailed three-dimensional piece plotting of each specimen to its nearest centimeter. This procedure was eventually abandoned in view of the extremely high densities of archaeological material encountered – on average 26,424 lithic artifacts and 4,472 identified bones per cubic meter. Subsequent experiments with quadrants or miniquads (25  25 cm) (1986) were applied but were still slow, and it was evident that better scientific design could only come from knowing the character of the total deposit in advance. Hollow steel tubes 1 m long and 60 mm diameter were used to sample the deposit in six boreholes drilled in various parts of the shelter floor, including both excavated and unexcavated areas (1986, 1988). The deposits were relatively loose and unconsolidated scree sediments, with relatively small clasts and high proportions of finer sediment. The maximum depth of scree deposits reached some 7 m in places, but the dense cultural material was confined to the upper 2 m. These 2 m of anthropogenic sediment corresponded to a mode of animal and lithic resource exploitation that remained stable for 3,500 years. Refitting of lithic artifacts and quantitative analyses of spatial patterns were recruited to establish the spatial integrity of the deposits. Klithi, like other caves, contained a palimpsest of cultural material from overlapping occupations, a so-called time-averaged deposit, in which some redundant patterns of stable site structure were observed. A single major hearth area at the back of the shelter represented a complex stratigraphy of superimposed open hearths that was in use throughout the span of human presence on the site (Fig. 4). The repetitive use of the hearth area suggests a longterm familiarity of the Klithi inhabitants with the site and its physical features. One possible interpretation of this is that the rockshelter was in a remote part of the territory of a single group, which returned to the site periodically, relatively briefly, probably during late spring or early summer, and re-used the existing facilities. Klithi Site: Excavating a Rockshelter in Northwest Greece Klithi Site: Excavating a Rockshelter in Northwest Greece, Fig. 4 The hearth area at Klithi with tags marking the superimposed layers corresponding to open hearths. The strings mark the site grid used for planning (Photo courtesy of Geoff Bailey) Future Directions The expedition was completed in 1997 with the publication of an integrated two-volume report, which described the research questions, the methods adopted, the findings, and their interpretations step by step. Over the course of five field seasons, excavation at Klithi exposed 51.5 m2, representing approx. 1/5 of the total floor area available to the Upper Paleolithic occupants. The remaining 4/5 now lie intact, awaiting the archaeologists of the future to return to Klithi with refined recovery methods and a new set of questions. Cross-References ▶ Floors and Occupation Surface Analysis in Archaeology ▶ Karstic Landscapes: Geoarchaeology ▶ Spatial Analysis in Field Archaeology ▶ Switzerland: Upper Paleolithic Living Floor Investigations Further Reading BAILEY, G. (ed.) 1997. Klithi: Palaeolithic settlement and Quaternary landscapes in northwest Greece. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Kondo, Yoshiro BAILEY, G. & N. GALANIDOU. 2009. Caves, palimpsests and dwellings places: examples from southeast Europe. World Archaeology 41(2): 215-41. COURBIN, P. 1987. André Leroi-Gourhan et la technique des fouilles. Bulletin de la Société PréhistoriqueFrançaise 84(10-12): 328-34. Kondo, Yoshiro Koji Mizoguchi Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan Basic Biographical Information Yoshiro Kondo left an enduring influence on Japanese archaeology through his Marxistinspired approach to the study of the Yayoi (c. eighth/sixth century BCE to third century CE) and Kofun (meaning “mounded tomb”) (c. third century to sixth century CE) periods of Japan. He was born in Tochigi prefecture in 1925. His academic career started as an Assistant Professor at Okayama University. He was promoted to full Professor in 1972 and continued to work at Okayama University until his retirement in 1990. He passed away in 2009. Major Accomplishments One of Yoshiro Kondo’s major accomplishments in archaeology was the construction of a sophisticated model of social evolution as part of the emergence of the state in Japan. This model was based on his analysis of excavations of settlements, production sites (including salt- and iron-making sites), cemeteries, and mounded tombs of the Yayoi and Kofun periods. Some of Yoshiro Kondo’s most important research draws upon, albeit tacitly, the Marxist concept of the “Asiatic mode of production” and builds on the Japanese Marxist tradition of his predecessors, such as Akira Misawa (pseudonym of Sei’ichi Wajima), who had been politically purged under the militaristic-imperialistic regime before and during World War II period (see, e.g., 4299 K Watabe et al. 1936). Using a Marxist theoretical approach, Yoshiro Kondo put forward a model whereby the process of social stratification culminated in the establishment of an ancient state through which kin-based communities – clans and lineages – were transformed but, importantly, preserved (Kondo 1983). This model emphasized the importance of mediation through the communal leader to ease the intraand intercommunal/kin-group tension that arose from ever-increasing conflicts of interest arising from the constant development of the forces of production. Kondo argued that the authority and power accorded to the leader, who conducted ancestral-agricultural-communal rituals, functioned to mediate and ease these tensions and to maintain communal collaboration in the face of increasing fragmentation due to the growing autonomy of communal segments. This led to a situation in which the leader and his/her immediate kin members came to “float” above other kin-based communities, with this situation normalized by the community as a whole through ritualistic mediation. Kondo’s model resembles the famous “epigenetic model” of social evolution put forward by Friedman and Rowlands (1977) in its explanation of the formation and transformation of the “Asiatic state,” in particular. However, Kondo’s model provides a more nuanced and believable explanation of the prolonged preservation of kin-based communities in the process of social stratification. In the early 1950s Yoshiro Kondo pioneered the mass involvement of the general public in archaeological practice and knowledge production in Japan. This can be characterized as an early attempt at public archaeology. While the aim of his excavations was to verify his stratification model, Yoshiro Kondo organized the excavation of the Tsukinowa tumulus so as to involve the general public in the process of archaeological knowledge production. The Tsukinowa tumulus is a round tumulus with a small rectangular terrace attached to the main mound and dates from the early fifth century CE, situated in the Yanahara (presently Misaki) township of Okayama prefecture (Kyodo-kenkyu Tsukinowa kofun henshu-bu 1960; Kondo 1985). More than K K 4300 10,000 volunteers were involved in the excavation that took place in 1953. These were mainly, but not entirely, from the Yanahara township and included schoolteachers; primary school, middle school, and high school students; university students; and Koreans in Japan. Through these excavations the entirety of the cobblecovered mound was revealed for the first time in the history of Japanese archaeology. Excavations were undertaken by the main mortuary facility situated on the top of the mound, comprised of two clay-packed dug-out log coffin burials and another clay-packed dug-out log coffin burial on the rectangular terrace. The objective of these excavations was clearly stated, thus to reveal the character of the power of the local despotic ruler and the mechanism of its development. However, they were also aimed at encouraging the general public to learn their local history, think about the origin of the emperor system, and reflect upon its ideological implications in contemporary politicoeconomic/social situation (Kyodo-kenkyu Tsukinowa kofun henshu-bu 1960). Together with the local people, Yoshiro Kondo organized seminars on this important history. The Tsukinowa excavations had many characteristics which can be described as precursors to today’s public archaeology. Evaluation of the achievements of this project should be undertaken in the light of the politically instigated (communist-leaning) massmovement called Kokumin-teki rekishi-gaku undo (movement for the establishment of the history of the Japanese people), which rose as the post-World War II reformation movement was reaching its peak. Deriving from the success of the Tsukinowa excavation, Kondo also founded Kokogaku kenkyu-kai (The Society of Archaeological Studies) in 1954. Its journal was originally called Watashitachi no kokogaku (“Our Archaeology”) and featured reports and essays from amateur enthusiasts as well as professionals and academics. However, as the post-World War II reformation movement ceased, postwar economic difficulties were overcome and rapid economic development began. The movement Kondo, Yoshiro for establishing a community-engaged history of the Japanese people ceased with disillusionment. The editorial policy for the journal Watashitachi no kokogaku changed towards the aim of transforming the journal into a professional academic journal, and its name was changed to Kokogaku-kenkyu (“The Quarterly of Archaeological Studies”) in 1960. Though much transformed in its outlook, Kokogaku kenkyukai (The Society of Archaeological Studies) still retains its original spirit of promoting socially responsible archaeological practice. Around this time, Kondo’s research increasingly focussed on excavations which sought to identify the prototype of the Kofun keyhole tumulus in order to elaborate his model by revealing the process of transition from the Yayoi to the Kofun period. Through these excavations Kondo revealed that the Kofun keyhole tumulus emerged as a consequence of social hierarchization and its ideological-ritualistic mediation. These excavations no longer involved the general public. During the 1980s, Yoshiro Kondo organized and led a major project that compiled a compendium of all the known keyhole tumuli across the archipelago and arranged them into the ten-phase relative chronology which is accepted today as a standard chronological framework of the Kofun period (Kondo 1991 – 2000). In 1983, Kondo published the seminal work Zenpo-koen-fun no jidai (“The Age of the Keyhole Tumulus”), which is one of the finest and most influential archaeological historiographies ever produced in Japan. The trajectory of Yoshiro Kondo’s research career reflects the transformation of post-World War II Japanese society and archaeology. His remarkable efforts in public archaeology in the 1950s were ahead of their time and gave way to a self-conscious professionalization of the discipline in the 1960s. Kondo’s model of continuity in kin-based communities as part of the process of social stratification was the dominant research paradigm in the archaeological study of social stratification and state formation in Japan during the 1960s–1980s and remains highly influential today. Kondoa Rock Paintings: Traditional Use Cross-References 4301 K The Japanese journal Watashitachi no kokogaku, issues published in the 1950s. The Japanese journal Kokogaku-kenkyu, issues published in the early 1960s. District, located within the Dodoma Region in Central Tanzania. These sites are found primarily in granite and gneiss rockshelters. The majority of these sites have rock paintings, with only two exceptions having been reported: rock engraving sites to the west of Kondoa at Usandawe. Common painted motifs are animals, human, and various geometric designs. These rock painting sites do not only contain rock paintings but also have a rich archaeological record dating from the Middle Stone Age (MSA) right up to the Iron Age (Masao 1979; Kessy 2005). Some of the rockshelters, notably the Mongomi wa Kolo shelter and its surrounding environments, are also connected to living heritage. This site and its landscape have been used by local people, the Warangi and Waasi, for traditional ritual ceremonies (Leakey 1983; Chalcraff 2005; Bwasiri 2011). Kondoa sites are National Monument under the Antiquities Act of Tanzania (1964 as amended 1979). In July 2006, UNESCO declared the rock paintings of Kondoa as a World Heritage Site under criteria iii and vi (see Antiquities Division 2004). This is an acknowledgement of its international significance, its authentic beauty, and its living heritage. This entry discusses and describes four types of researchers who have worked on the Kondoa rock paintings and provides a brief speculative discussion on age of the paintings. The management and cultural tradition of the sites are also discussed. Kondoa Rock Paintings: Traditional Use Key Issues/Current Debates/Future Directions/Examples Emmanuel J. Bwasiri Antiquities Division, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Rock Art Research Institute, GAES, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa Group 1: Amateur Recorders Amateur recorders have included colonial administrators and officials who discovered rock paintings in the course of their duties (Bagshawe 1923; Aitken 1948; Fozzard 1959). Reports from these amateur recorders were generally descriptive and discussed the location and content of the paintings. Some reports categorized rock paintings according to style and pigment color to establish typologies (Aitken 1948; Fozzard 1959). For example, Aitken (1948) found that ▶ Marx, Karl ▶ “Public” and Archaeology ▶ Public Archaeology, The Move Towards References FRIEDMAN, J. & M.J. ROWLANDS. 1977. Notes towards an epigenetic model of the evolution of ‘civilisation’, in J. Friedman & M.J. Rowlands (ed.) The evolution of social systems: 201–76. London: Duckworth. KONDO, Y. 1983. Zenpo-koen-fun no jidai [The age of the keyhole tumulus]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. - 1985. Tsukinowa kofun no seiritsu to seikaku [The background of the construction and the character of Tsukinowa tumulus], in Nihon-kokogaku kenkyujosetsu [The treatise of the study of Japanese archaeology]. Tokyo: Iwanami-shoten. - (ed.) 1991–2000. Zenpo-koen-fun shusei [The compendium of the keyhole tumuli]. Tokyo: Yamakawashuppan. KYODO-KENKYU TSUKINOWA KOFUN HENSHU-BU. (ed.) 1960. Tsukinowa kofun: Okayama ken Kume gun Yanahara machi Yuka [Tsukinowa tumulus: Yuka, Yanahara town, Kume county, Okayama prefecture]. Tsukinowa Kofun kanko-kai. WATABE, Y., J. HAYAKAWA, K. IZU & A. MISAWA. 1936. Nihon rekishi kyotei, Volume 1: Genshi- shakai no hokai made [The course in Japanese history, Volume 1: To the collapse of ancient society]. Tokyo: Hakuyosha. Further Reading Introduction There are approximately 1,500 rock painting sites situated in the semiarid area of Kondoa K K 4302 red- and purple-colored figures were older than any others in all cases of superimposition. These two colors and associated naturalistic style which include human, animal, and few geometric figures were linked to Stone Age people. A similar observation was made by Leakey (1936). Both Aitken and Leakey recognized that the white and black colors were relatively recent. They suggested the Bantu-language speakers or Pastoralists were the authors of the rock art in Kondoa but the specific group responsible for the rock paintings is unknown. Group 2: Early Research The earlier reports were improved and refined by subsequent studies undertaken by a number of professional archaeologists (Masao 1979; M. Leakey 1983; Anati 1986). Mary Leakey is the one who made Kondoa paintings known worldwide. She conducted a comprehensive survey and documented dozens of painting sites which had never been reported previously. A total of 186 rock painting sites were surveyed and recorded, 43 sites were traced, and over 1,600 figures were recorded. In her work, the book entitled Africa’s Vanishing Art described the rock painting of Kondoa (see Leakey 1983: 1). From this later research, a system of categorizing the paintings according to style and pigment color was adopted. Scholars in this phase also considered subject matter, technique application, and social economic activities (Masao 1979). The color of the paintings provided the primary variable by which styles were divided. They identified phases of rock painting styles and analyzed the placement of these styles within the complex superposition sequences found in many of the larger Kondoa sites. Masao (1979) produced four chronological cultural sequences that were based on color, subject matter, and technique of application. He defined the kinds of stylized representations into four distinct categories: “naturalistic, semi-naturalistic, silhouette, and abstract/ geometric.” Masao’s naturalistic paintings were the oldest and belong to the indigenous people of the area (Fig. 1). These represent the work of ancestors of modern hunter-gatherers of Kondoa Kondoa Rock Paintings: Traditional Use District conspicuously Hadza and Sandawe click speakers (Masao 1979). M. Leakey (1983) produced nine style bases from 186 sites, while Anati (1986) identified six styles which were thought to represent the chorological sequences and economic activities of the artists. This group of researchers similarly identified that the fingerpainted black (Fig. 2) and white (Fig. 3) images are recent and can probably be attributed to Pastoralists or Bantu-language speakers, while red motifs are the oldest forms. While providing more empirical basis, these descriptions and formal classifications failed to provide a clear understanding of which ethnic group was responsible for which traditions within the Kondoa rock paintings sequence. This created a major problem for understanding the Kondoa rock paintings. Group 3: Ethnographic Approaches A third group of researchers attempted to establish the meaning of the paintings by considering the relationship between the paintings and the ritual beliefs of the indigenous people. The idea of understanding rock paintings through ethnography had already been effectively used in southern Africa to study San rock art (LewisWilliams 1986). The use of ethnography to interpret rock paintings of Kondoa was initially used by Ten Raa. Ten Raa (1971) recognized three categories of rock paintings made by Sandawe, namely, casual, magic, and sacrificial rock paintings. Casual rock paintings are made without ritual association but painted on a particular occasion such as an unsuccessful hunt, when an accident occurred or where there was sickness in the family. Magic rock paintings were associated with hunting rituals and practices before a hunt. In their hunting rituals, the Sandawe performed rites of inductive magic with the hunter making an effigy of the animal he hoped to kill. Sacrificial rock painting involved sacrifices to clan spirits on hills in clan property. The sacrifice was performed away from the residence, mostly at the foot of a large bolder or overhanging rock. Ten Raa linked some paintings to the specific Sandawe ritual of simbò (Ten Raa 1971). Kondoa Rock Paintings: Traditional Use 4303 K Kondoa Rock Paintings: Traditional Use, Fig. 1 Example of rock art created by indigenous people K Kondoa Rock Paintings: Traditional Use, Fig. 2 Example of rock art with finger-painted black images, attributed to pastoralist or Bantuspeaking people Lewis-Williams (1986), using Ten Raa’s writings describes simbó as a spirit control cult. According to Lewis-Williams, simbó is the ritual of being a lion. During simbó Lewis-Williams suggests that simbó dancers are believed to turn into lions rather than being possessed by spirits. Simbó dancers fight off evil spirits. Lewis-Williams, drawing from San trance dances, suggests that both simbó dancers and San medicine men attribute the ability to know things from afar to extra-earthly travel. LewisWilliams’ analysis suggests ways of studying hunter-gatherer paintings by considering specific features in the rock painting in relation to the Sandawe ritual simbó. Like Lewis-Williams, Imogene Lim (1992) undertook research on Kondoa rock paintings in the Usandawe area. Lim attempted to interpret the rock paintings by combining both the physical environment and the social context of the site using “a site-oriented approach to rock art.” This approach focused on the relationship between the rock paintings and sites, sites and the landscape, and the landscape and the K 4304 Kondoa Rock Paintings: Traditional Use Kondoa Rock Paintings: Traditional Use, Fig. 3 Example of rock art with finger-painted white images, attributed to pastoralist or Bantuspeaking people community. Lim concentrated on understanding the Sandawe beliefs and how these beliefs were linked to the rock paintings. She recognized that most of the Sandawe sacrifices were held on the hill; therefore, she considered hills as important points in a symbolic landscape. From this observation, Lim suggested that the hill is the second object in the process of studying rock paintings, while the belief system is the first. According to Lim, the meaning and the potency of a place are produced through ritual activities (1992). Lim also participated in a Sandawe traditional ceremony associated with the birth of twins, which is known as iyari. The ceremony is conducted in order to protect both the mother and her twins from lightning. Combining the painting analysis, oral traditions and iyari ceremony gave her confidence to link the ceremony practices to the production of some of the rock painting images in the Usandawe area (Lim 1992). The works of Ten Raa (1971), Lewis-Williams (1986), and Lim (1992) form the basis for understanding of the original meaning of the paintings through traditional ritual practices. Age of the Paintings While the issue of authorship and meaning is not yet resolved, the age of the paintings is also still a source of speculation. Using stylistic sequences, subject matter of the paintings, and history of the groups inhabited in Kondoa, Anati (1986: 24) suggested that the paintings might date as far back as 40,000 years ago. The Anati’s date was not supported by any archaeological evidence and it was questioned by other researchers. Mabulla (2005: 20) suggested that the surviving paintings probably date to between 20,000 and 1,000 years ago. Other researchers place a maximum age of 10,000 years (Coulson & Campbell 2001), while Masao (1979: 55, 92) using archaeological deposits from Kandaga rock painting site and Mongomi wa Kolo sites suggested an age range of 3,500 years for early paintings and 200 years ago for recent paintings. Although the age of paintings in Kondoa is still controversial, the oldest known date for African paintings was calculated from 15 radiocarbon dates, taken from occupation layer in Apollo 11 cave in southern Namibia. It dated back at least to 27,000 years (see Wendt 1976). Another early date, from Matopos in Zimbabwe, is from a flaked spall of the painted wall in the Cave of Bees which was incorporated in the archaeological deposit. Charcoal from the relevant layer was dated to about 10,500 BP (Thackeray 1983). The exact age of the paintings is unlikely to be resolved until direct dating of exposed parietal paintings is available. Kondoa Rock Paintings: Traditional Use Group 4 A fourth group of researchers (including myself) focus on management of rock painting sites and associated living heritage. The genesis of this approach commenced in 2000 when the Antiquities Department of Tanzania asked the World Heritage Site committee to inscribe the Kondoa rock paintings onto World Heritage List. Inscription onto the World Heritage List required the implementation of various important management measures for Kondoa rock paintings. This started with a lengthy nomination process where expert heritage management consultants evaluated the paintings and associated living heritage (see Chalcraft 2005). The Chacraft findings showed some sites (particularly Mongomi wa Kolo) have living heritage associated with local people. The living heritage of sites needs protection in addition to rock paintings (Bwasiri 2011). The process involved seminars and meetings between the heritage authority and the local associated community. As part of the nomination process, the Department of Antiquities also constructed a new Kolo office in 2002, to accommodate the Antiquities staff and to provide a place for interpretative displays. The Kolo office now has four staff members (including the author) and two trained guides who are custodians of the Kondoa rock paintings’ World Heritage Sites. Traditional Use of Some Kondoa Rock Painting Sites African archaeological sites including rock art in precolonial and the early colonial periods were managed by Africans without any written law. Many archaeological sites had traditional custodians who managed the sites through a series of taboos, rituals, and restrictions. The traditional custodian was chosen from the clan which used the site for their activities and rituals. Custodians decided who had the right to enter a site. Custodians usually fell under a traditional authority system made up of headmen and chiefs. All sections of this system had commitments and responsibilities for the protection and maintenance of cultural heritage. If a problem occurred, all levels would be held accountable and action would be taken. At Kondoa rock paintings 4305 K particularly Mongomi wa Kolo site and surrounding sites Kolo BII and BIII, there was a complex system of traditional management made up of mwenese who is head of the land from the Warangi and hapaloe head of land from Waasi (Bwasiri 2011). Apart from traditional use of the sites, Mongomi wa Kolo and Kolo BII and BIII are also an interpretation focus for both school children and tourists. The three rock painting sites have religious and spiritual associations with the local communities from nearby villages such as Waasi and Warangi (Bwasiri 2011). The Waasi is a Southern Cushitic group who arrived Kondoa perhaps 2,500 years ago (Bower 1973) before Warangi, while the Warangi is a large group of Bantu-language speaker who arrived in Kondoa about 600 years ago (Kessy 2005). Both groups interact and have cooperated and shared rituals such as rainmaking under their leadership hapaloe and Mwenesi (Fosbrooke 1958). The Waasi and Warangi continue to use Mongomi wa Kolo rock painting sites for traditional ritual. The diviners, healers, and rainmakers use the site and surrounding environment to conjure up visions and communicate with the spirits. Oral tradition from one of the traditional healers said that she visits the site five times a month with goats/sheep or chickens for curing sick people. She is mwenese who practices ceremonies at Mongomi wa Kolo (Fig. 4). Her clients come from Arusha, Dodoma, Kondoa town, and the neighboring villages (Bwasiri 2011). Rainmakers from a nearby village also practice rituals at Mongomi wa Kolo three times a year. These rituals are scheduled at the start of the year (November/December when the first rains come), a second time to ask the spirit to bring good rains at the end of February, and a third, when the cereal crops have matured, to thank the spirit for giving a good harvest. The rain ceremony is controlled by the hapaloe. Along with diviners, healers, and rainmakers, individuals also come to Mongomi wa Kolo for divination. Oral traditions indicate that Mongomi wa Kolo is more powerful than other spiritual places in and around Kondoa (Bwasiri 2011). However, nowadays local people are restricted by Antiquities staff because some rituals K K 4306 Kondoa Rock Paintings: Traditional Use Kondoa Rock Paintings: Traditional Use, Fig. 4 Traditional healer who practices ceremonies at Mongomi wa Kolo (such as splashing water) deteriorate the paintings. Such rituals continue but are by necessity performed in secret. The current management system does not facilitate the living heritage, and local people connected with the art were excluded from management and decision-making about these sites (see Bwasiri 2011). Conclusion The Kondoa paintings are important because they retain unique cultural heritage resources both tangible and intangible. The indigenous people around the area continue to use the site for ritual practices of rainmaking and healing, and there is potential for educational and economic values for the local community and the country as whole. While the sites are recognized nationally and internationally, there remains the challenge to establish the painting chronology: authorship and meaning are still contested. The exclusion of living heritage and associated peoples into management and decision-making on the sites also is a challenge and this requires urgent resolution. Cross-References ▶ Tanzania’s History and Heritage References AITKEN, W.G. 1948. Report on a certain sites of archaeological interest in Kondoa Irangi district. M/S, Kondoa district books. Microfilm, National Archives, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania ANATI, E. 1986. The mountain of God: Har Karkom. New York: Rizzoli. ANTIQUITIES DIVISION. 2004. Nomination dossier: Kondoa rock art sites. Dar es Salaam: Antiquities Division. BAGSHAWE, F. J.1923. Rock paintings Kengeju Bushmen, Tanganyika Territory. Man 23: 146-7. BOWER, J.R.F. 1973. Serenora: excavations at a Stone Bowl site in Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Azania 8: 71-104. BWASIRI, E.J. 2011. The implications of the management of indigenous living heritage. The case study of Mongomi wa Kolo rock paintings world heritage sites, central Tanzania. Southern Africa Archaeological Bulletin 194: 129-35. CHALCRAFT, J. 2005. Varimu Valale: rock art as world heritage in a ritual landscape of central Tanzania, in W. James & D.Mills (ed.) The qualities of time: anthropological approaches: 35-54. Oxford: Berg. COULSON, D. & A. CAMPBELL. 2001. African rock art. New York: Abrams. FOSBROOKE, H. A. 1958. Blessing the year: a Wasi/Rangi ceremony. Tanganyika and Records 50: 21-9 FOZZARD, P.M.H. 1959. Some rock paintings in south and south-west Kondoa-Irangi district, Central Province. Tanganyika Notes and Records 52: 94-110. Kono, Toshiyuki KESSY, E.T. 2005. The relationship between the later Stone and Iron Age culture of central Tanzania. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Simon Fraser University. LEAKEY, L.S.B. 1936. Stone Age Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press. LEAKEY, M. 1983. Africa’s vanishing art. London: Hamish Hamilton. LEWIS-WILLIAMS, J.D. 1986. Beyond style and portrait: a comparison of Tanzania and southern African art, in R. Vossen & K. Keuthman. (ed.) Contemporary studies on Khoisan 2: 93-139. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag. LIM, I. 1992. A site oriented approach to rock art: a study from Usandawe, central Tanzania. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Brown University. MABULLA, A.Z.P. 2005. The rock art of the Mara region, Tanzania. Azania 40: 19-41. MASAO, F.T. 1979. The later Stone Age and the rock paintings of central Tanzania. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. TEN RAA, E. 1971. Dead art and living society: a study of rock paintings in social context. Mankind 8: 42-58. THACKERAY, A.I. 1983. Dating the rock art of southern Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin 31: 5-11. WENDET, W.T. 1976. ‘Art mobilier’ from the Apollo 11 cave, South West Africa: Africa’s oldest dated works of art. South African Archaeological Bulletin 31: 5-11. Further Reading CORY, H. 1944. Sukuma twin ceremonies: Mabasa. Tanganyika Notes and Records 17: 34-43. WILSON, M. 1954. Nyakyusa ritual and symbolism. American Anthropologist 56: 288-41. Kono, Toshiyuki Toshiyuki Kono Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan Basic Biographical Information Toshiyuki Kono is professor of law at Kyushu University, Japan. He received his LL.B. and LL.M. from Kyoto University, Japan. Major Accomplishments Between 1997 and 1999, Toshiyuki held the position of secretary general of ICLAFI (ICOMOS 4307 K International Scientific Committee on Legal, Administrative and Financial Issues) and, since 2010, has been vice president of Japan ICOMOS. Other positions include are vice president and titular member of the International Academy of Comparative Law, chairman of the Committee for Intellectual Property and Private International Law, and chairman of the Committee for Cultural Affairs of the UNESCO National Commission, Japan. His main research fields are private international law, international civil litigation, and heritage law, including international enforcement of intellectual property right and litigation and economic analysis of conflict of laws. He also served as a member of an experts group to draft a Convention for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage, and of Japanese Delegation and Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression. He currently serves as a member of Intergovernmental Committee of the Intangible Heritage Convention to draft its Operational Directives. Cross-References ▶ Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage (IpinCH) Project ▶ Japan: World Heritage ▶ Legislation in Archaeology: Overview and Introduction Further Reading ANDERSON, J. 2009. Law, knowledge, culture: the production of indigenous knowledge in intellectual property law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Press. KONO, T. 2009. Intangible cultural heritage and intellectual property: communities, cultural diversity and sustainable development. Antwerp: Intersentia. - 2010. The impact of uniform laws on the protection of cultural heritage and the preservation of cultural heritage in the 21st century. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. VRDOLJAK, A.F. 2009. Cultural heritage in human rights and humanitarian law, in O. Ben-Naftali (ed). Human rights and international humanitarian law: 250-302. Oxford: Oxford University Press. K K 4308 Kosova: Archaeological Heritage Jahja Drançolli Department of History, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Prishtina, Prishtina, Kosovo Introduction Since the prehistoric period until today, people in the present territory of the Republic of Kosova have developed their cultural heritage. They left to their descendants abundant material sources on cultural values. Therefore, Kosova has a rich diversity of architectural heritage (cultural monuments, ensembles of buildings, architectural conservation areas), archaeological heritage (constructions, structures, and groups of buildings, monuments of various kinds and their contents, found on land or under water, cultural landscapes), and movable heritage (objects that are the expression or evidence of human creativity or of natural development, distinguished by values of historical, archaeological, artistic, scientific, or spiritual importance and interest). So far, approximately 3,200 sites with monumental values are known in Kosova, 427 of which are protected by law and as such, are registered on the “Central Register of Monuments of The Republic of Kosova Cultural Heritage.” Other objects of cultural heritage, which are to be declared as historical-cultural monuments, should be added to this rich potential of cultural heritage. A great advance in this direction was made with the inscription of the Monastery of Deçan on UNESCO’s World Heritage List in 2004. Cultural heritage is among the first victims in any conflict. The war in Kosova is no exception. In the territory of Kosova during the war of 1998–1999, 1,025 objects of cultural heritage were destroyed. Among them, 150 were mosques and teqes and 56 churches and monastries. For the protection of cultural heritage, the application for Protection Zones was ratified according to the Law of Kosova’s Cultural Heritage and the plan of Martti Ahtisaar. The experience has confirmed difficulties in harmonizing all positions related to Kosova: Archaeological Heritage the establishment of zones and particularly in defining the mechanism for the management of the zones. “The Evidence of Cultural Heritage” is an important process in the protection of cultural heritage, especially intensively from 2001 until today. The evidence has been gathered by the central and regional institutions of the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Kosova, assisted by international institutions. During the period 2001–2005, approximately 2,800 objects of cultural heritage were recorded. The greatest part of these were created during the Ottoman period (1389–1912). The others belong to the Illyrian-Dardanian, Roman, Paleochritsitian, Byzantine, and Serbian Periods. Despite limited financial means in the Republic of Kosova, special attention is paid to Prehistoric, Antique, and Medieval archaeology. According to political circumstances, this heritage has been and still is instrumentalized. It is worth emphasizing the inadequate treatment of archaeological localities after excavation, which normally should be associated with archaeological conservation, publication, maps, presentation, parks, and signage for localities. Historical Background The archaeology of Kosova dates from the nineteenth century with the work of Sir Arthur Evans (1851–1941): his “Antiquarian Researches in Illyricum.” Other prominent figures of the period were the Austro-Hungarian scholar Felix Philipp Kanitz (1829–1904), the Hungarian archaeologist Buday Árpád (1879–1937), Camillo Praschniker (1884–1949), Arnold Schober (1886–1959), Walter Jesse Fewkes (Bulletin of American School of Prehistoric Research 9, 1933), Anton Von Premerstein (1869–1935), Nikola Vulić (1872–1945), and Alfred Von Domaszevsky (1856–1927). The archaeologist Domenico Mustilli (1899–1966) wrote a brief monograph in Italian language regarding the archaeology of Kosovo. The first archaeological excavations in Kosovo were carried out by Austro-Hungarian troops at Kosova: Archaeological Heritage Neprebisht, near Suhareka during World War I. The Catholic priest Shtjefën Gjeçovi, a pioneer of the archaeology of Kosova, also carried out excavations in the Has region near Prizren until his murder in 1929 (Elsie 2011: 30). After World War II, with the founding of the Museum of Kosova (1949) and the Institute of Kosova for the Protection of Cultural Monuments (1949), archaeological research was completed in a more adequate manner. Later on, these two central institutions were accompanied by the foundation of regional institutions such as the Institutes for the Protection of Monuments based at Pristina, Prizren, Mitrovica, and Gjakova. In addition, the Institutes for the Protection of Monuments based at Peja and Gjilan, and in 2003, the Archaeological Institute of Kosova, with its first director Jahja Drançolli were founded. It should be emphasized as well the importance of the professional and scientific staff of the above-mentioned institutions and their partners such as Adem Bunguri, Dragoslav Srejović, Draga and Milutin Garašanin, Emil Čerškov, Fatmir Peja, Fejaz Drançolli, Gëzim Hoxha, Jovan Glišić, Kemajl Luci, Luan Përzhita, Muzafer Korkuti, Naser Ferri, Nikola Tasić, Skënder Anamali, Selim Islami, Slobodan Fidanovski, and above all Zef Mirdita, who gave their assistance in the prosperity of the archaeology of Kosova. Besides special archaeological editions, the results of the above-mentioned authors from the field of archaeology are published in the following journals of Kosova: Glasnik Muzeja Kosova/Buletin i Muzeut të Kosoves/Bulletin du Musée de Kosovo et Metohie, Starine Kosova i Metohije/ Antikitete të Kosovës e Metohis/Antiquités de Kosovo et Metohija, Gjurmime Albanologjike: Seria e Shkencave Historike, Recherches Albanologique, Kosova Archaeologica/Kosova Arkeologjike, Buletin i Fakultetit FilozofikPrishtinë/Buletin of Philosophyc Faculty, etc. After the fall of Yugoslavia at the beginning of the 1990s, the tendency to politicize the science of history was obvious, including here the politicizing of the archaeological heritage. At the beginning of 1999, an exhibition was held in Belgrade, prepared by the Museum of 4309 K K Kosova: Archaeological Heritage, Fig. 1 Goddess on the throne. Tjerrtorja, Prishtina Prishtina and the Serbian Academy of Sciences and the Arts. This exhibition served as a pretext for the 1,247 exhibits from Kosova to be held in the capital city of Serbia, which are still held through today with the intention never to be returned to Kosova. From the stolen exhibits, 677 were from the archaeological heritage. The only one to be returned to its hometown was the Goddess in Throne in 2003 (Fig. 1). After the settlement of international administration in Kosova in June 1999, the Museum of Kosova has been virtually empty. In the absence of implementation of international laws and conventions referring the return of cultural heritage, the empty shelves of the Museum of Kosova after 1999 are being filled with new artifacts discovered in recent excavations. The archaeological heritage both movable and immovable in the present territory of the Republic of Kosova dates from the Neolithic period K 4310 onward. Also present are Eneolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages, Dardanian (Illyrian) and Roman Antiquity, Early and Late Middle Ages and Ottoman Period. With the support of the archaeological excavations, so far certain archaeological centers as well as movable monuments of Kosova have become known. We must distinguish prehistoric habitats of Hisar and Reshtan near Suhareka; Vlashnje near Prizren; complex of Ulpiana near Graçanica; Municipium DD at Soçanica near Mitrovica; Gradina of Peja (hillfort of Peja); Early Christian Mausoleum of Bajica near Peja; Roman Necropolis Vendenis near Podujeva; Fortress of Harilaq (by Procopius Aria, near Fushë Kosova); and Novobërdo and Pogragja near Gjilan. Here we must also include the complexes of the Paleochristian monuments of the cult which, under the impact of the politics, are called today only complexes of the Orthodox Serbian cult monuments and public access to them is not allowed. Many other movable archaeological artifacts such as The Runner of Prizren, which is preserved in the British Museum of London (Fig. 2); Neolithic Goddesses from “Tjerrtorja” of Prishtina, Bardhosh near Prishtina; Varosh near Ferizaj; Laterculi of Cerca near Istog; Dardanian woman from Baja e Kllokotit near Vitia (Fig. 3); and epigraphic monument of the Dea Dardaniae from Smira, etc., are also known. Kosova: Archaeological Heritage Kosova: Archaeological Heritage, Fig. 2 The Runner of Prizren. British Museum, London Key Issues/Current Debates/Future Directions/Examples Prehistory: Neolithic Period Kosova was rich with agricultural and farming civilizations from the Neolithic Period (6000–3500 BCE), which were located in the plains along the river courses, and fertile pasturelands ideal for their livestock. The agrarian societies in Southeast Europe first appeared by c. 7000 BCE, and among the earliest cultural complexes of this area are included the Early and Middle Neolithic – Starçevo, Vinça cultural group (c. 6000–5000 BCE), and Younger Neolithic – Vinça cultural group (c. 5000–3500 BCE). Kosova: Archaeological Heritage, Fig. 3 Marble bust of a Dardanian woman. Second–third c. CE. Baja of Kllokot, Vitia Kosova: Archaeological Heritage The Early and Middle Neolithic societies practiced extensive farming and stock breading. However, the development of neolithic industry, manufacture of ceramics, and especially adoration of baked clay human-shaped small statuettes provide us with relevant information on their economical and spiritual world. The Early Neolithic culture is well represented by sites such as Runiku I near Skenderaj (Rudnik I), “Fafos” and Zhidkovaci near Mitrovica, Rakosh near Istog, “Tjerrtorja” of Prishtina, etc. The Middle Neolithic is well known and represented by the excavations in the Reshtan settlement by the phases know as Runiku III–IV (Rudniku III–IV), Badoc and Glladnica near Graçanica, Kllokot near Vitia, Prishtina hospital area, Varosh near Ferizaj, Vlashnje, Rakosh, etc. The Middle Neolithic of Kosova is included within Vinça cultural group although it forms a clear variant in terms of its anthropomorphic clay sculpture. Connections are also evident with the Middle Neolithic of Albania (Kolsh II and Dunavec cultures) as well with the cultures of Adriatic Middle Neolithic of Danilo type (Korkuti 2006: 2). Young Neolithic is represented in Kosova with exceptional distinctive anthropomorphic figurines that are counted among the most beautiful examples of prehistoric plastic art in Europe. Affluent cultural life and a sentiment for artistic shaping are also reflected in the parts of architectural plastics ornamented with geometric motives or figural images. The appearance of new technology in pottery making clearly separates it from Starçevo culture. The abundance of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic forms related to cults (Magna Matter – Mother Goddess), biconical bowls, high-footed goblets, and prosopomorphic lids mirror the prosperity of social, economical, and religious Late Neolithic society. The main Vinça recorded sites of Kosova are Bardhoshi (near Prishtina), Zhitkovci, “Fafos” and Vallaçi near Mitrovica, Reshtan, Runik, “Tjerrtorja,” etc. Mentioned locations of the Vinça culture are typical for the realm of Kosova. As such, they are identified like “the variant of Kosova of the culture of Vinça.” There is abundant and well-known evidence regarding this cultural group in Kosova (Maletić 1973: 83). 4311 K Eneolithic Copper Age Eneolithic Copper Age (c. 3500–2200 BCE) is a transitional period from the use of stone to the use of metals. One of the most important developments of this period was the appearance of craftsmen engaged in the mining and working of copper. Main sites are Hisari, Gadimja, Glladnica, etc. Hisar near Suhareka and its material culture are of crucial importance in terms of looking at ethnocultural features of the eneolithics and Early Bronze Age. This site experienced cultural development and expansion during the Eneolithic – Hisar I and Early Bronze Age – Hisar II and it is considered among the most important prehistoric centers of the Central Balkans. During this period, mutual relationships with Bubanj Hum and Baden Kostolac cultural groups were evidenced in eneolithic sites in Kosova, particularly in Hisar, based on the typology and analogy of ceramics (Drançolli 2006: 11–19). The Bronze Age Archaeological excavations in Gllareva near Klina revealed swords and daggers of the Bronze Age of Mycenaean import which characterize a social differentiation and the formation of aristocracy. The phenomenon of bi-ritual burial (cremation and inhumation) was practiced in Kosova during the Bronze Age (2200–1150 BCE). Main sites of Bronze Age in Kosova are Gllareva (fourteenth–thirteenth century BCE), Vallaç, Karagaç near Mitrovica; Glladnica, Lower Bërnica near Prishtina; Boka of Përçeva near Klina; Burial Mound in Rogova near Gjakova; Upper Gadime (Gadime e Epërme) near Lipjan; Cërnica (near Gjilan), etc. Late Bronze Age – Bërnica Cultural Group (fourteenth–tenth centuries BCE) is one of the most characteristic period in Kosova. Cremation was the dominant burial ritual, where the cremated remains of the deceased person were placed in urns and buried in graves. During the transitional period from Late Bronze to Early Iron Age, tumuli and burial mounds were accompanied with grave goods and grave offerings that were typical feature for the Illyrian population such as Dardanians, an Illyrian tribe, which K K 4312 Kosova: Archaeological Heritage Kosova: Archaeological Heritage, Fig. 4 Illyrian tumuli. Gjinoc near Suhareka lived in the present territory of the Republic of Kosova. In most cases, central graves were built from stone structure and surrounded in circle by other graves based on hierarchy of the persons that were buried in the same necropolis (Fig. 4). The Iron Age The Iron Age (1200 BCE–fourth century BCE) is a particular period which is characterized by hillfort settlements and tumuli graves. Unlike the first phase of this period, the second phase, respectively, the early halshtat, according to J. Reineck B 3/C I – D, signals a general stability. This period is characterized by the strengthening of the tribal aristrocracy and the appearance of the ethnic name Illyr in the Central Ballkans. The ethnocultural stability of this zone, which is expressed in the material culture was not destabilized by the penetration of the foreign ethnic elements. In the realm of Kosova, this ethnic element appears in Shiroka and Dubiçak of Suhareka; therefore, it is named “the group of Suhareka” (Mirdita 1997: 170–1). In this context, the necropolises with tumuli are also included: Llashtica near Gjilan (Fig. 5), Upper Gadime, Romaja near Prizren, Rogova, Përçeva, Baja of Peja, etc. Approximately 15 km west of Pristina, Bellaçevc hillfort settlement is situated. It was naturally protected from three sides and only from the eastern side, it was shielded by defensive ditch. The hillfort is of trapeze shape and covers an area of 70  50 m. Dardanian ceramics decorated with grooves and dotted lines, discovered on the plain of Kosova, appears as “the Janjevo pantry” (seventh–eighth c BCE). Since the findings of this cultural group are from metal, like horse equipment, they cannot belong to necropolises. On the other side, a location of the necropolis type with tumuli that attracted attention of many scholars is Baja e Pejës, which is located approximately 12 km on the west from Peja, on the road leading to Mitrovica. A Dardanian prince pair was buried there. The bases of the grave construction were rectangular in shape, with rounded sides. The cemetery inventory consisted of 3 typical Illyrian bronze helmets, 2 silver fubule with an arched body, 2 silver fibulae and omega shape, 2 large silver buttons, 4 large bronze buttons, 2 large silver buckles, a large silver belt plate, 8 small bronze arrowheads, 4 two-handled clay vessels without complete black figures of the fourth century BCE, and some skyphos kantharos and hydria fragments (Fig. 6). The Illyrian cemetery in Baja of Peja is dated into the end of the sixth and the beginning of the fifth century BCE. In the first two phases the culture with traditional decorative elements is encountered, which testifies the autochthonous ethnocultural continuity. In the third and the fourth phase of the Iron Age Kosova: Archaeological Heritage 4313 K Kosova: Archaeological Heritage, Fig. 5 Illyrian tumuli. Lashtica near Gjilan Antiquity-Roman Period Romans conquered Dardania at the end of the first century BCE. During the reign of Emperor Tiberius – Roman Period around the year 15 CE – Dardania was included in the Upper Moesian Province. Only during the reforms of Emperor Diocletian, in 297 CE, Province of Dardania was formed. Roman urbanization of the province was conducted by development of settlements, which were certainly accompanied by construction of roads, evidenced by the milestones, and old maps indicating their existence. The spiritual life of the population was represented mainly by monuments dedicated to the Roman pantheon. The present territory of the Republic of Kosovo represented the nucleus of the Roman Province of Dardania that included Southern part of Serbia, Northeast part of Albania, and Northwest part of Republic of Macedonia. Kosova: Archaeological Heritage, Fig. 6 Silver and bronze grave goods from Baja of Peja. Museum of Kosova (fifth– fourth centuries BCE) in Karagaç, Shirokë, Upper Gadime and Cërnicë near Gjilan, besides the domestic production, the imitation of Hellenic production is clearly noticed. This phenomenon is testified almost in all of the Dardanian territory (Mirdita 1997: 171; Korkuti 2006: 11). Municipium DD The first settlement of Romans in today’s territory of the Republic of Kosovo is dated from the end of first and beginning of the second century CE, a time when they are found predominantly in the rich-in-mine areas of Kosova. Important mining center of this area in ancient times are Municipium DD and Ulpiana. These centers have been built along the settlements of the native people, whose remains have not been sufficiently investigated. Above-mentioned centers were the imperial estates, and as such have had their K K 4314 money on which was engraved METALLUM ULPIANUM and METALLUM DARDANICA. Metallum Ulpianum included the mines in Kishnica near Prishtina, Janjeva, Novoberda. The Metallum Dardanica refers to the Municipium DD and other centers in Kopaonik and Rogozno (Mirdita 1997: 172). One of the most researched Roman cities is Municipium DD (Dardanorum), which is located in the vicinity of Soçanica, 25 km north from Mitrovica. It obtained the status of Municipium in the second century CE. At that time, the Roman population colonized these regions because of their rich mines of lead, zinc, and gold. At the end of the fourth century CE, the town was deserted. Archaeological systematic excavations which were carried out in one part of the village found forum, basilica, parts of thermae, details of smaller buildings, as well as necropolises and discovered epigraphic monuments, where the formulation Municipium DD was written. Based on the researched material and characteristics of buildings, life in the municipium DD of Soçanica, we consider that it existed during the period from the second century CE until the first half of the fourth century CE (Çershkov 1973: 81–187). Municipium Ulpiana Municipium of Ulpiana is situated in the area of the Graçanica municipality, 7 km southeast of Prishtina. It was raised to the rank Roman municipium at the time of Emperor Trainaus (98–117 CE). In the late antiquity, it became episcopal center. The relevant sources mention the first Christian martyrs of Dardania: Florus and Laurus, stonecutters from Ulpiana, who gave their lives as result of religious persecution in the second century CE. A catastrophic earthquake in 518 CE destroyed Ulpiana, which was witnessed and written in Chronicon by Comes Marcelinus. The Municipium of Ulpiana was completely rebuilt and renamed in Justiniana Secunda in tribute and respect of Emperor Justinian I. It is very important to highlight that the Emperor Justinian I was born in the Province of Dardania, as claimed by the author Procopius Caesariensis. In his book, De Aedificiis, Kosova: Archaeological Heritage Procopius informs us about the building activities that were carried out directly by the emperors’ orders and marks 69 fortress in the Province of Dardania, 61 renovated and 8 newly built. The first archaeological excavations in Ulpiana were conducted in 1953. Archaeological excavations during 1953–2010 uncovered stratums of inhabitations and other monuments from the Eneolithic up to the seventh century CE. The city, together with a castrum, suburb, places of worship, and a graveyard, occupies a surface of 120 ha. The first archaeological excavations revealed four graves which are known as “northern necropolis.” Further archaeological excavations were mainly focused in northern part of the settlement and the most significant discoveries are the construction of the basilica type, parts of Roman bath, parts of temple, city road with sewage, North Gate, and rampart of the city. Among the three buildings, the appearance of Northern Memory building with a huge marble sarcophagus is especially worth mentioning (Fig. 7). During archaeological excavations, in Northern Gate of Ulpiana, two horseshoe-shaped fortified towers (kullas) were identified, which were built above two kullas existing before. Some of the parts are evident nowadays, too. The city was encircled by the 3-m-thick ramparts. From the outside, the towers are of the semi-arc form whereas inside the fortified walls, they are of the irregular rectangle form or of the horseshoe or abse form. Much importance is devoted to research of the paleochristian church (Basilica). It is possible that this object of cult is built above the graves of Florus and Laurus. It is worth mentioning that in the altar of the basilica, a grave was discovered, which is chronologically older than the basilica. In addition, older than the basilica is the white and dark gray mosaic discovered under the older layer of the floor of this cult monument. Parts of a mosaic are also encountered in the porch of the Memory building. Both of these mosaics are realized according to the “opus tessellatum” technique. Aside from its architectural inventory and burial structures, many artifacts of archaeological movable heritage were discovered: Sculptures of Apollo, Mercury, and Mercury with Pluto, Kosova: Archaeological Heritage 4315 K Kosova: Archaeological Heritage, Fig. 7 Late Roman Period. Memoria, Ulpiana Iuppiter Ulpianensis (Melcid), head of the man, head of Eros, votive plaque bearing the representation of the Thracian hero, pieces of weapons, jewelry and others, the jewelry from the socalled Gothic grave or cruciform gold-plated fibulae, etc. (Popović & Čerškov 1956: 319–26; Fidanovski 1984: 38–9). The economical development enabled the rich cultural life in Ulpiana. Therefore, the discovery of the theatrical masks in this municipal center testifies about the development of the theater there. A certain form of romanization is expressed not only in its urbanism and infrastructure but also in its religious life. Apart from Ulpiana, but not so far, in “Geography” of Ptolomey is also mentioned Arribantium (47 300 and 42 000 ), one of the four biggest centers of Dardania, which not only is unexplored, but it remains unknown up to today (Kozličić 2006: 21–36). In the first decade of the twenty-first century, Ulpiana became more attractive for archaeological research, not only for the institutions of Kosova but also for major archaeological centers of Europe. In this context, it is neccessary to mention the contribution of the researchers of German Archaeological Intitute (Deutsche Archäologisches Institut) who accompanied by the Archaeological Institute of Kosova and The Museum of Kosova, always using interdisciplinary investigations did the recording of more than fifty acres of land without physical intervention. These results encourage the intensified cooperation with international experts who successfully would fullfill the deficit of the home experts staff. Unlike works at Ulpiana, investigations of the neighboring Roman station Vindenis had the character of test excavations. Vindenis is one of few road stations mentioned in ancient maps that describe the ancient trans-Balkan road NaissusLissus. It is positioned near Gllamnik approximately 6 km to the southeast of Podujeva. Many different objects were found there: jewelry, ceramic pots, glass and terracotta goblets, etc. In the remnants of a villa, a room was found with a floor mosaic presenting the image of Orpheus. Gradina of Peja Along with the above-mentioned excavations in the territory of the Plain of Kosova, archaeological excavations also in the region of the basin of Drini i Bardhë river were also carried out, that pervades Rrafshi i Dukagjinit and a part of the Northeastern Albania. The river has a length of 175 km and a basin surface of 4,956 km2. The surveys between 2000 and 2005 in the region of Drini i Bardhë (Pejë, Deçan, Klinë, Rahovec, Prizren, Dragash, Suharekë e Malishevë) recorded 264 archaeological sites, a part of which were new K K 4316 discoveries belonging to different periods from the Neolithic through to the Early Middle Ages. As an example, we can emphasize the researches in Bajica near Peja; Batusha, Bellacerka, Doblibar, Jahoc, Kusar, Marmullë, Moglica, Rakovina, Ratkoc, and Rogovë near Gjakova; Çifllak, Gegjë, and Zatriq near Rahovec; Dërsnik and Zllakuçan near Klina; Hereq near Deçan; Hisar of Suhareka and Hisar of Kasterc near Suhareka; Fortress of Prizren, Korishë, Tupec, Vërmica, and Vlashnje near Prizren, etc. (Korkuti 2006: 7–8). Kosova: Archaeological Heritage, Fig. 8 Necropolis of Graboc i Ulët, Fushë Kosova view from the excavations Kosova: Archaeological Heritage Unlike Kosova basin settlements where agriculture was secondary compared to the mining, in the settlements along the Drini i Bardhë basin, agriculture represents the primary branch of the economy. From these archaeological sites, the archaeological site in the village Bajicë should be particularly mentioned. Its importance is well known since the work of Arthur Evans in 1885. This is a unique archaeological finding, almost the only one in the Balkans. On the basis of a large crypt, the funeral function of the building is testified which is assumed to represent Kosova: Archaeological Heritage a Paleochristian mausoleum (Jovanović 1967: 121–5). During the survey of this site in 2005, we found traces of archaeological immovable and movable objects of Late Antiquity. We should mention that on the occasion of the opening of the foundation of the factory of accumulators in the field of Peja in 1978, the remains of a big complex were found. From this complex, only three architectonic objects were discovered, one epigraphic monument (which is preserved in the Ethnographic Museum of Peja), and a considerable number of coins. From this excavation only, the results for the epigraphic monument have been published so far (Mirdita 1980: 187, T.1/3, Mirdita 1981: 251, No. 235 (34)). The documentation of the excavation, which was preserved in Institute of Kosova for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, was stolen by the Serbian forces during the war of 1998–1999. Hungarian archaeologist Buday Árpád, while doing the survey in 1917, encountered epigraphic traces and rich architectural material as well as the ruins of the fortress on the left side of the Bistrica river. After his survey in Peja, Árpád left an archaeological map of the region of Peja, a sketch of the fortress of Peja, some photos of the terrain, and some photos of the epigraphic monuments, which Kosova: Archaeological Heritage, Fig. 9 View of Novoberdo Fortress 4317 K were transcribed carefully by him (Buday 1918: 8–25, 77–83). All this rich archaeological material, especially with the epigraphic plates that were discovered in it, proves that Gradina of Peja ranks immediately after the complex of Ulpiana according to their importance. Here in this big archaeological complex, a search should be conducted for the Seperunt of Ptolomey (Çershkov 1973: 50). On a part of this important archaeological complex a factory was built, whereas the remaining part was almost covered entirely with the building of the private houses. All this proves that more research is needed. Medieval Period Archaeological research regarding the Middle Ages Period in Kosova does not possess a long tradition. However, the discovery of a considerable number of monuments and findings created the conditions that this cultural heritage attracts the attention of Middle Ages archaeologists and scholars from other fields. The first archaeological researches in this field were amateurish. But from 1950 on, the research of localities and monuments is a study object not only for professional archaeologists but also for architects, historians, and historians of art. K K 4318 Research conducted so far offers mostly results for the Late Middle Ages Period and the Ottoman Period, whereas we have less information regarding the Early Middle Ages Period. In general, tens of monuments of cult of the Middle Ages Period such as the complex of Studenica Monastery were discovered, which was built on the ruins of a Paleochristian basilica of Studenica village near Istog, the complex of Patriarchanne of Peja, also built on the ruins of a Paleochristioan cult monument, Deçani Monastery, Monastery of Graçanica, Monastery of Banjska near Mitrovica, Cathedrale church of Novobërda, and the Cathedrale church Saint Prena in Prizren, and any other church or basilica discovered within the walls of fortress. In addition, some necropolises such as those in Matiçan near Prishtina, Çeçan near Vuçiterna, Vërmica and Gjonaj near Prizren, Graboci i Ulët near Fushë Kosova (Fig. 8), Përçeva, etc., were discovered. A considerable number of Paleochristian and Medieval necropolises were also discovered within the complexes of churches and monasteries. Besides the monuments of cult, special attention was paid to the fortresses of Late Antiquity and Middle Ages. Of great monumental value is the multilayer complex fortress of Novobërda (Fig. 9), Prizren, Zveçan, Harilaq (http://archaeology-in-europe.blogspot. com/2005_07_01_archive.html#1122651004437 16126; Fig. 10), Pogragja of Gjilanit, Kaçanik, Vuçiterna and Korisha (Figs. 17, 18). The surveys held during the period 2000–2005 in the region of Drini i Bardhë also evidenced a considerable number of fortresses of Late Antiquity and Middle Ages such as that of Brrut near Prizren; Cermjan and Kusare near Gjakova; Gegja and Zatriqi near Rahovec; Jabllanica e Madhe and Radac near Peja; and Dollc, Pogragja, Ujemir, and Volujak near Klina (Drançolli 2006: 167–73; Korkuti 2006: 8). Kosova possesses a great number of objects from the Ottoman cultural heritage. Of great importance are the mosques, such as the Mosque of Sultan Mehmed II-Fatih in Prishtina (fifteenth century) and the Mosque of Sinan Pasha in Prizren (seventeenth century). Besides the mosques, the hamams, cemeteries, teqes, Kosova: Archaeological Heritage Kosova: Archaeological Heritage, Fig. 10 Fortress of Harilaq, Fushë Kosova view from the excavations and their architectural objects are present. This heritage, until 1999, was not an object of archaeological explorations but was treated only as a subject of the general cultural heritage. Cross-References ▶ Central–Eastern Europe: Historical Archaeology ▶ Cultural Heritage Management and Armed Conflict References BUDAY, Á. 1918. Régészeti kutatás Albaniában-recherches archėologiques en Albanie, in Dolgozatok az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múzeum E´rem es régiségtárából szerkeszti: 8–25, 77–83. Kolozsvár: Pósta Béla. ÇERSHKOV, E. 1973. Romakët në Kosovë dhe Municipiumi D.D. te Soçanica (Bashkësia e institucioneve shkencore të Kosovës, Studime, libri 26). Prishtinë: Bashkësia e institucioneve shkencore të Kosovës. Kostenki: Geography and Culture DRANÇOLLI, J. (ed.) 2006. Kosova archaeologica - Kosova arkeologjike. Prishtinë: Instituti Arkeologjik i Kosovës. ELSIE, R. 2011. Historical dictionary of Kosovo, 2nd edn. Toronto: Scarecrow Press. FIDANOVSKI, S. 1984. Pregled rezultata disadašnjih istraživanja antičkog perioda u SAP Kosovu (Buletin i Muzeut të Kosovës XII-XIV). Prishtinë. JOVANOVIĆ, V. 1967. Banjica kod Peći u Metohijikasnoantički funerarna građevina. Arheološki Pregled 9. Beograd: Savez arheoloških društava Jugoslavije. KOZLIČIĆ, M. 2006. O ubikaciji Arribantuma i Vellanisa iz Ptol. Kosova Archaeologica/Kosova Arkeologjike 1:3, 9, 3–4. MALETIĆ, M. (ed.) 1973. Kosovo - Kosova. Beograd: Kultura. MIRDITA, Z. 1980. Novitaes epigraphicae e Dardania collectae. Arheološki XXXI. - 1981. Antroponomia e Dardanisë në Kohën Romake. Prishtinë: Rilindja. - 1997. Kosovo od prapovjesti do kasne antike. Prilozi Instituta za Arheologiju u Zagrebu 11–12/1994–1995. POPOVIĆ, L. & E. ČERŠKOV. 1956. Ulpiana. Prethodni izveštaj o arheološkim istraživanjima od 1954 do 1956 god. Glasnik Muzeja Kosova i Metohije 1. 4319 K Kosovo. 2008. Integrated rehabilitation project plan, survey of architectural and archaeological heritage. Regional programme for cultural and natural heritage in south-east Europe. Prioritised intervention list. Document adopted by the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport of Kosovo on 23 January 2009. Law No.02/L-8 Cultural Heritage Law. MUSTILLI, D. 1941. Archeologia del Cossovo. 1941-XX, Estratto del volume “La terre Albanesi redente”, I-Cossovo: 93–111. Roma: Reale Accademia d’ Italia. Centro Studi per l’Albania. Roman castle found in Kosovo. Video at Reuters. Available at: http://archaeology-ineurope.blogspot.com/ 2005_07_01_archive. STARINE, K. 1961. I Metohije/Antikitetet e KosovëMetohis/Antiquites de Kosova et Metohija, Volume 1. Priština: Oblastni zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture Kosovo i Metohije. VISCOGLIA, D. et al. 2001. The destruction of cultural heritage in Kosovo, 1998–1999: A post-war survey. Cambridge (MA): Kosovo Cultural Heritage Project. VJOLLCA, A., D. FEJAZ, H. NJAZI & Z. ARZIE. (ed.) 2005. Evidences monuments of Kosovo. Prishtinë: Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport. K Further Reading AHTISAARI, M. 2007. Comprehensive proposal for the Kosovo status settlement. Annex V. Religious and cultural heritage. Available at: http://www. assembly-kosova.org/common/docs/Comprehensive %20Proposal%20.pdf. BOARDMAN, J. (ed.) 1982. The Cambridge ancient history, III, Part 1: the prehistory of the Balkans; the Middle East and the Eagean world, tenth to eighth centuries B.C.: 238: 582–619. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ÇAVOLLI, R. 1997. Gjeografia regjionale e Kosovës. Prishtinë: Enti i Teksteve dhe i Mjeteve Mësimore i Kosovës. COUNCIL OF EUROPE - KOSOVO PIL. 2004. Report on the architectural and archaeological survey. COUNCIL OF EUROPE PUBLISHING ED. 2002. European cultural heritage, Volume I: intergovernmental co-operation: collected texts Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. EUROPEAN CULTURAL HERITAGE. 2002. Intergovernmental co-operation: collected texts, Volume I. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. EVANS, A. 1885. Antiquarian researches in Illyricum: part I-IV, communicated to the society of antiquaries, parts 1–4. Westminster: Nichols & Sons. GALERIJA SRPSKE AKADEMIJE NAUKA I UMETNOSTI-MUZEJ U PRIŠTINI. (ed.) 1998. Arheološko blago Kosova i Metohije od Neolita do Ranog srednjeg veka, I-II. Beograd. KORKUTI, M. 2006. Në vend të parathënies, in: Harta Arkeologjike e Kosovës, I. Prishtinë: Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve e Kosovës - Akademia e Shkencave e Shqipërisë. Kostenki: Geography and Culture John F. Hoffecker1 and M. V. Anikovich2 1 Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA 2 Institute of the History of Material Culture, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia Introduction Kostenki is the name of a village on the Don River in the Russian Federation where more than twenty open-air Paleolithic sites are known. Several more sites are found at the village of Borshchevo, which is located about 5 km downstream from Kostenki. The sites are assigned to the Upper Paleolithic and yield skeletal remains of modern humans (Homo sapiens). Artifacts were found in association with the remains of extinct mammals at Kostenki in 1879 and were among the first discoveries of IceAge people in Eastern Europe. By the 1930s, the sites at K 4320 Kostenki and Borshchevo had produced a rich record of middle and late Upper Paleolithic occupation, including large feature complexes with traces of suspected dwelling structures. The excavation and study of the occupation floors had a significant impact on theory and method in archaeology during the Soviet period. In the years following the Second World War, substantial evidence of early Upper Paleolithic occupation was discovered at Kostenki, adding another important dimension to these sites. The recent discovery that several sites contain occupations that underlie a 40,000-year-old volcanic ash provided evidence of the earliest known Upper Paleolithic remains in Eastern Europe. Field research continues today at Kostenki and Borshchevo, and the results continue to have an impact on world archaeology. Definition Kostenki is located on the Middle Don River near the city of Voronezh in the Russian Federation at 51 400 North and 39 100 East. The village lies on the west bank of the river and the eastern margin of the Central Russian Upland at an elevation of approximately 125 m above mean sea level. The village of Borshchevo is situated several kilometers southeast of Kostenki. The area is within the modern forest-steppe zone and experiences a continental climate with mean July and January temperatures of 19  C and 8  C, respectively. Precipitation averages 520 mm per year. A total of 21 stratified Upper Paleolithic openair sites have been investigated at Kostenki, and five or more sites have been discovered at Borshchevo. Although several sites are found in the main valley, most are situated at the mouths or in the upper courses of large side-valley ravines that are incised into the high west bank of the Don River. Springs are active today in the ravines, and primary carbonate deposits in the sites indicate that they were active during Upper Paleolithic times as well (Holliday et al. 2007: 217–219). The sites are found primarily on the first (10–15 m) and second (15–20 m) terrace levels (Lazukov 1982: 21–35). Kostenki: Geography and Culture Mammoth bones were known from Kostenki centuries ago and evidently account for the name of the village (kost’ is the Russian word for bone), but archaeological remains were first discovered in 1879 (Klein 1969: 29). Major excavations began in the 1920s and 1930s, and these were focused primarily on middle and late Upper Paleolithic occupations (especially the large Eastern Gravettian component in Layer I at Kostenki 1 (Efimenko 1958)). Early Upper Paleolithic remains were investigated in the lower layers at Kostenki 1 and other localities prior to World War II (e.g., Kostenki 6), but most research on the early occupations was initiated by A. N. Rogachev in the late 1940s (Rogachev 1957; Klein 1969: 231–2). The high west bank of the Don Valley, which represents the eastern margin of the Central Russian Upland, is composed of Cretaceous marl (chalk) and sand (Lazukov 1982: 15–7). Upper Paleolithic sites are buried in fill deposits of the first and second terraces of the Don River. The terraces are found in both the main valley and in portions of the large side-valley ravines incised into the west bank of the valley. The terraces are composed of alluvium, which unconformably overlies the pre-Quaternary units, capped with a complex sequence of eolian, slope, and spring deposits (Lazukov 1982: 15–22; Holliday et al. 2007: 182–4). The uppermost alluvium is interstratified with coarse slope deposits derived from the Cretaceous bedrock (Lazukov 1982: 21). Above these deposits lies a sequence of alternating thin lenses of silt, carbonate, chalk fragments, and organicrich loam (Holliday et al. 2007: 184–6). At many localities, they are subdivided by the volcanic tephra horizon, which has been identified as the Campanian Ignimbrite (CI) Y5 tephra, derived from an eruption in southern Italy and dated to c. 40,000 cal BP (Pyle et al. 2006; Anikovich et al. 2007). Traditionally, the lenses below and above the tephra have been termed the lower humic bed and upper humic bed, respectively (Rogachev 1957; Klein 1969). The humic beds apparently represent a complex interplay of colluviation, spring deposition, and soil formation (Holliday et al. 2007). At some sites, more Kostenki: Geography and Culture typical soil profiles developed, including a weakly developed soil (Gmelin soil) that formed during the early stages of the LGM (Last Glacial Maximum) and dates to c. 26,000–25,000 cal BP. Above the Gmelin soil lies loess-like loam of LGM age, which is capped with the modern chernozem (Lazukov 1982; Holliday et al. 2007: 219). Key Issues/Current Debates/Future Directions/Examples The earliest occupation levels at Kostenki and Borshchevo underlie the CI Y5 tephra and date to 42,000–41,000 cal BP or older (Anikovich et al. 2007; Hoffecker et al. 2008). There is continuing debate and discussion about the age and cultural affiliation of these occupation levels. In the early 1950s, P. I. Boriskovskii (1963) excavated a level below the tephra at Kostenki 17 (Layer II), which yielded burins, large retouched blades, end scrapers, and microblades. Other items included bone awls and point fragments and various ornaments. A similar assemblage was recovered from below the tephra level at Kostenki 12 (Layer II). These assemblages have traditionally been labeled as a local early Upper Paleolithic industry without clear links to others in Western or Eastern Europe (Spitsyn culture). A somewhat different assemblage has been found below the CI tephra in the lowest level (Layer IVb) at Kostenki 14 containing bladelets, burins, end scrapers, and several bifaces; non-stone artifacts include antler mattocks, bone points, perforated shells, and a carved ivory piece that may represent the head and neck of a (unfinished) human figurine (Hoffecker et al. 2008). Several strikingly different assemblages have been excavated from below the tephra at Kostenki 6, Kostenki 12 (Layer III), and other sites. These occupations contain end scrapers and Middle Paleolithic flake tool types, such as sidescrapers, small bifaces, and triangular points; non-stone tools, ornaments, and art are totally absent (Rogachev 1957; Praslov & Rogachev 1982; Anikovich et al. 2008). Traditionally, they have been assigned to an East European industry 4321 K known as the Strelets culture (Anikovich et al. 2007: 236–40). An alternative view is that these assemblages, which are often associated with evidence for killing and butchering large mammals (primarily horse, mammoth, and reindeer), represent a functional subset of the other industry (i.e., kill-butchery tools and weapons) (Hoffecker et al. 2010). Human skeletal remains in these layers are confined to a third molar from Kostenki 17, Layer II and the crown of a deciduous tooth from Kostenki 14, Layer IVb. Both are tentatively assigned to modern humans, which are widely assumed to have produced all of the artifacts below the CI tephra at Kostenki and Borshchevo (Gerasimova et al. 2007). Less controversy surrounds the classification of assemblages that lie above the CI tephra, but below loess-like loams deposited during the LGM, and date to the later phases of the early Upper Paleolithic. At Kostenki 1, Layer III contains an artifact assemblage widely classified as Aurignacian and comprising large blades with scalar retouch, carinate scrapers, backed bladelets, and other diagnostic items (Anikovich et al. 2007: 228–33; Anikovich et al. 2008). An older Aurignacian assemblage is associated with the tephra layer at Kostenki 14 (Sinitsyn 2003). Another group of artifact assemblages dating to this interval contains a high proportion of end scrapers, as well as typical Middle Paleolithic forms (e.g., sidescrapers, points), and a varied assortment of bone artifacts. Among the bone artifacts are diagnostic “shovels” and the oldest known eyed needles. These assemblages are found in the upper portion of the upper humic bed at Kostenki 14 (Layer II) and the lower portion of the upper humic bed at Kostenki 15 (Praslov & Rogachev 1982); both are associated with evidence for the killing and butchering of a group of horses (Equus latipes) (Hoffecker et al. 2010). A similar assemblage is thought to be deposited with the Streletskaya assemblage in Layer I at Kostenki 12, and the assemblage in the lower part of the upper humic bed at Kostenki 14 (Layer III) is sometimes considered part of this group (Praslov & Rogachev 1982). These assemblages are assigned to the Gorodtsov culture K K 4322 (Rogachev 1957; Efimenko 1958), which is recognized at several other East European sites (e.g., Mira in the Dnepr Valley) but unknown in Western and Central Europe (Anikovich et al. 2007: 248–65). Skeletal remains assigned to modern humans are associated with these assemblages at Kostenki 15, which yielded the partial skeleton of a child in a burial pit, and at Kostenki 12, Layer I (Gerasimova et al. 2007: 102–5). A complete modern human skeleton also was excavated from a burial pit in Layer III at Kostenki 14 (Rogachev 1957); although mid-Holocene dates on the human bone were reported several years ago, the most recent date is more than 30,000 cal BP and consistent with the stratigraphic context of the upper humic bed. Analysis of ancient DNA from this skeleton indicates that it belongs to mtDNA haplogroup U2 (Krause et al. 2010). At Kostenki 11 (Layer V) and Kostenki 12 (Layer Ia), the lower upper humic bed contains assemblages with diagnostic triangular bifacial points, typical Middle Paleolithic artifact forms (points and sidescrapers), and also some end scrapers and burins; non-stone artifacts are absent. Similar artifacts are found in the upper portion of the upper humic bed at Kostenki 12 (Layer I). Traditionally, these assemblages have been assigned to a younger phase of the Strelets culture (Anikovich et al. 2007: 236–48; Anikovich et al. 2008); they also have been interpreted as functional variants related to large mammal kill-butchery (Hoffecker et al. 2010). Yet another industry is represented in the upper portion of the upper humic bed at Kostenki 8 (Layer II). This assemblage is dominated by backed bladelets and points and is widely considered an early form of the Gravettian technocomplex, other sites of which are common above the upper humic bed and its stratigraphic equivalents in Eastern Europe (Anikovich et al. 2007: 233–6; Anikovich et al. 2008). Associated human remains at Kostenki 8 include skull fragments (Gerasimova et al. 2007: 90–1). The archaeological remains for which Kostenki is most famous are those of the Eastern Gravettian (middle Upper Paleolithic) dating to the early phase of the LGM (~25,000 cal BP). Kostenki: Geography and Culture They include, most notably, the large feature complexes at Kostenki 1, Layer I, and associated remains at the nearby localities of Kostenki 13 and 18 on the north side of the mouth of Pokrovskii Ravine (Efimenko 1958; Praslov & Rogachev 1982; Anikovich et al. 2008). The feature complexes comprise a linear arrangement of hearths surrounded by pits of varying size that contain large mammal bones and artifacts. Diagnostic artifacts include “Kostenki points,” “Kostenki knives,” and examples of “Venus figurines” carved in ivory and marl. The assemblages also contain burins, end scrapers, microblades, and a variety of bone and ivory implements. As in Central Europe, there is evidence for Gravettian fired ceramic technology (Praslov & Rogachev 1982). The assemblages are similar to those of comparable age (and associated with similar feature complexes) at Avdeevo and Zaraisk, and sometimes placed in a local Kostenki culture within the broader Eastern Gravettian entity (Anikovich et al. 2008). Faunal remains associated with the Eastern Gravettian occupations at Kostenki are dominated by mammoth and smaller fur-bearing mammals (wolf, fox, and hare). Many of the mammoth bones and tusks are weathered, and these may have been collected from natural occurrences for use in construction of dwellings and other structures or for raw material. Most of the fuel at these sites appears to have been bone (trees were either scarce or absent during this interval), and many of the remains of large mammals hunted by their occupants may have been consumed in the hearths. At least some of the pits may have been dug to the permafrost level during warmer months and used like Inuit “ice cellars” to keep the bone fresh and flammable. There appears to be a hiatus in settlement at Kostenki during the cold peak of the LGM (roughly 23,000–22,000 cal BP). Later Upper Paleolithic occupations include examples of oval mammoth bone houses similar to those of comparable age in the Dnepr-Desna Basin (e.g., Mezhirich) at Kostenki 2, Kostenki 11 (Layer Ia), and probably Borshchevo 1 (on the first terrace level) (Praslov & Rogachev 1982). These occupation levels date to the interval following the Kow Swamp LGM cold maximum, before the end of the Pleistocene (19,000–14,000 cal BP), as do the more widespread mammoth-bone houses in the Dnepr-Desna Basin, although several investigators believe that they are older (e.g., Lazukov 1982). At Kostenki 11, the mammoth-bone structure has been left in situ on the excavated floor of Layer Ia; a portion of the exposed excavation is enclosed in a museum building at the south end of the village of Kostenki. The collapsed mammothbone structure measures 7–8 m in diameter and is composed primarily of mandibles, scapulae, pelves, and long bones. A minimum of 36 individual mammoths are represented. Around the former dwelling, to the north, west, and south, are large pits, filled chiefly with bone debris. At Kostenki 2, a bone-lined pit burial is associated with the mammoth-bone dwelling structure (Praslov & Rogachev 1982; Anikovich et al. 2008). Cross-References ▶ Art, Paleolithic ▶ Bone Tools, Paleolithic ▶ Europe: Early Upper Paleolithic ▶ Europe: Prehistoric Rock Art ▶ European Middle to Upper Paleolithic Transitional Industries: Châtelperronian ▶ Geoarchaeology ▶ Homo sapiens ▶ Human Remains in Museums ▶ Macphail, Richard I. ▶ Marxist Archaeologies Development: Peruvian, Latin American, and Social Archaeology Perspectives ▶ Site Formation Processes ▶ Social Archaeology 4323 K BORISKOVSKII, P.I. 1963. Ocherki po Paleolitu Basseina Dona. Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 121. EFIMENKO, P. P. 1958. Kostenki I. Moscow: Nauka. GERASIMOVA, M. M. et al. 2007. Paleoliticheskii chelovek, ego material’naya kul’tura i prirodnaya sreda obitaniya. St-Peterburg: Nestor-Istoriya. HOFFECKER, J. F. et al. 2008. From the Bay of Naples to the River Don: the Campanian Ignimbrite eruption and the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Eastern Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 858–70. - 2010. Evidence for kill-butchery events of early Upper Paleolithic age at Kostenki, Russia. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 1073–89. HOLLIDAY, V. T. et al. 2007. Geoarchaeology of the Kostenki-Borshchevo sites, Don River, Russia. Geoarchaeology 22(2): 183–230. KLEIN, R. G. 1969. Man and culture in the late Pleistocene: a case study. San Francisco: Chandler. KRAUSE, J. et al. 2010. A complete mtDNA genome of an early modern human from Kostenki, Russia. Current Biology 20(3): 231–6. LAZUKOV, G. I. 1982. Kharakteristika chetvertichnykh otlozhenii raiona. in N.D. Praslov & A.N. Rogachev (ed.) Paleolit Kostenkovsko-Borshchevskogo raiona na Donu 1879–1979: 13–37 Leningrad: Nauka. PRASLOV, N. D. & A. N. ROGACHEV. (ed.) 1982. Paleolit Kostenkovsko-Borshchevskogo Raiona na Donu 1879–1979. Leningrad: Nauka. PYLE, D. M. et al. 2006. Wide dispersal and deposition of distal tephra during the Pleistocene ‘Campanian Ignimbrite/Y5’ eruption, Italy. Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 2713–28. ROGACHEV, A. N. 1957. Mnogosloinye stoyanki Kostenkovsko-Borshevskogo raiona na Donu i problema razvitiya kul’tury v epokhy verkhnego paleolita na Russkoi Ravnine. Materialy i Issledovaniya po Arkheologii SSSR 59: 9–134. SINITSYN, A. A. 2003. A Palaeolithic ‘Pompeii’ at Kostenki, Russia. Antiquity 77: 9–14. Kow Swamp Julie Lahn The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia References ANIKOVICH, M.V. et al. 2007. Early Upper Paleolithic in eastern Europe and implications for the dispersal of modern humans. Science 315: 223–6. - 2008. Paleolit Kostenkovsko-Borshchevskogo raiona v kontekste verkhnego paleolita Evropy. Saint Petersburg: “Nestor-Istoriya.” Introduction Kow Swamp is the name given to the largest Late Pleistocene cemetery thus far found in Australia. Site excavations led by Alan Thorne in the late K K 4324 1960s and early 1970s revealed skeletal material belonging to more than 40 individuals with ages ranging from infant to adult. All but one were male. The morphological character of the material presented an important challenge to existing evolutionary theories of human settlement in Australia. Amid controversy, in 1991, the collection was repatriated to Aboriginal people and subsequently reinterred, heralding a significant shift in the ethics of conducting archaeological research to include a greater involvement with Indigenous Australians. Key Issues Early Humans in Australia As the largest group of Late Pleistocene fossils found in Australia, the Kow Swamp material substantially increased the body of evidence from which archaeologists and physical anthropologists could theorize about a range of complex issues such as the biological origins and transformations of human populations in Australia (Thorne 1971). As with other skeletal material found on the continent, the collection was generally poorly preserved, and only twelve of the best preserved and most complete individuals were recorded in detail. The collection generally was deemed morphologically “robust” but found to be relatively young with radiocarbon dating of shell, bone, and charcoal providing age estimates ranging between 9,000 and 15,000 years ago (Thorne 1976). The collection challenged any simple evolutionary framing of the origins and transformations of humans in Australia, whereby a robust population preceded but subsequently transformed to produce morphologically gracile humans. The robust morphology but relatively young age of the Kow Swamp material led to two possible explanations that Kow Swamp represented either the descendents of one (of multiple) colonizing populations or the descendents of a single colonizing population that subsequently diversified (Thorne 1971; Thorne & Macumber 1972). The proposition that multiple founding populations entered Australia was preferred at the time, but contemporary Kow Swamp reinterpretation favors a single founding population entering Australia that later diversified to produce the considerable variation evident in the human skeletal record (see, e.g., Pardoe 2006). Both explanations are theoretically possible. While the Kow Swamp collection has been significant in debates relating to the peopling of the Australian continent, it also played an important role in shaping contemporary archaeological practice in Australia, in relation to Indigenous Australians. Repatriation Controversy Indigenous opposition to the Kow Swamp excavations had been voiced since the early 1970s and a formal attempt made to halt excavations (which had by then ended) by the Aboriginal Legal Service issuing a writ to the authorizing institution, the then named National Museum of Victoria (Griffiths 1996). Subsequent removal of the Kow Swamp material from archaeological possession was made possible some time later by legislative changes in 1984 to the Victorian Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972 (Mulvaney 1991). These made display or possession of skeletal material illegal without permission from the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment. The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service learned from Aboriginal employees of the National Museum of Victoria that one of the Kow Swamp crania was to be exhibited at a high-profile exhibition Ancestors: Four Million Years of Humanity at the American Museum of Natural History which ran from April 13 to September 9, 1984 (Tattersall et al. 1985). The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service then applied under the act to have the material removed. Just days before it was due to be exhibited, the cranium was withdrawn and the entire collection held by the National Museum of Victoria until the eventual repatriation. The Australian Archaeological Association (AAA) responded to the removal and the legislative changes that facilitated the event by forming a committee, chaired by Alan Thorne. They prepared their first ever position paper drawing on and closely following the reburial policies of similar societies in the USA and Canada Kow Swamp including the Society for American Archaeology, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and the Canadian Association for Physical Anthropology (Meehan 1984). The AAA also wrote letters to both state and federal government ministers. These professed sympathy for Aboriginal views generally and “welcomed” their “first time” “interest” in “prehistoric sites.” The AAA also fully supported the reburial of individuals who were known to living Aborigines. However, the paper remained opposed to the reburial or cremation of other skeletal material highlighting the “scientific importance” of the Kow Swamp fossils to archaeology and related disciplines. The paper’s proposed solutions for addressing tensions around the reburial issue included training Aboriginal people as archaeologists and museum curators, establishing “keeping places” (buildings made to securely house material under Aboriginal control such as that already planned for Lake Mungo), and initiating joint projects between Aboriginal people and archaeologists (Meehan to Walker, in Meehan 1984). The AAA committee and individual archaeologists and physical anthropologists expressed great concern for the future study of skeletal material in the state of Victoria, and elsewhere (e.g., Brown in Meehan 1984). Victorian institutions held the largest share of prehistoric skeletal collections found in Australia (Lewin 1984). At the time, it seemed that all skeletal material held by these could be subject to claim. The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service making the claims clearly expressed their clients’ preference that “everything must return home, to be reburied” (Lewin 1984: 393). In that same year, using the same legislation, the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service had applied to have repatriated from the University of Melbourne’s Anatomy Department, the Murray Black skeletal collection which consisted of some 800 individuals. Also in 1984, Tasmania, another Australian state, announced its intentions to return all publicly housed skeletal material to Aboriginal people. It was expected that all would be cremated. At the time, the AAA committee expressed a deep concern that the potential removal and reburial of all Victorian and Tasmanian skeletal material would 4325 K effectively end all scientific study of prehistoric human biology in Australia (Meehan 1984). The AAA dedicated a special session of their annual conference to the issue in that same year. The Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service also sought to explore the issues by holding a conference on an Aboriginal Skeletal Remains Conference in Melbourne, and representatives from the AAA and Victorian Government attended. Specific responses from individual archaeologists at the time were varied but largely unsupportive of Aboriginal claims. More extreme responses to the removals and eventual repatriations included claims that the actions were “criminal,” “racist,” and potentially heralded the “death” of the discipline (see, e.g., Lewin 1984; Meehan 1984; Mulvaney 1991). Interviewed for an article on the issue in Science, Thorne noted that “the speed of recent developments has taken the scientific community by surprise, and there is a great deal of uncertainty about what will happen now” (quoted in Lewin 1984: 393). Aboriginal views were largely absent from the public debate, and their feelings on the issues were often portrayed negatively in media reporting. Information regarding their views was largely based on speculation and gleaned from archaeologists directly involved in the repatriation claims (Bowdler 1992: 103). A full account of Aboriginal views on the Kow Swamp repatriation has never been published though it seems that Aboriginal requests for greater involvement in discussions involving the use and display of human remains by the museum led to internal disputes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff of that institution. These disputes contributed to the steadfast Aboriginal preference for reburial in that state (Turnbull 2010: 132). While the Kow Swamp collection had been removed in 1984, its repatriation to Aboriginal people was difficult and lengthy. Negotiations extended over years until amended federal legislation was appealed to by Aboriginal legal representatives. This act, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Amendment Act 1987 (No. 39 of 1987), states that “the Aboriginal people of Victoria are the rightful owners of their heritage and should be given K K 4326 responsibility for its future control and management” and that “where Aboriginal remains discovered in Victoria are delivered to the Minister, he or she shall: (a) return the remains to a local Aboriginal community entitled to, and willing to accept, possession, custody or control of the remains in accordance with Aboriginal tradition” (see Mulvaney 1991). This legislation facilitated the eventual repatriation of the Kow Swamp collection to the Echuca Aboriginal Cooperative, the organization representing local Aboriginal interests. By the time the Kow Swamp collection was repatriated in 1991, archaeological opinion had shifted, and calls for respectful acceptance of Aboriginal claims of ownership were appearing (e.g., Webb 1987; Bowdler 1992). The controversy surrounding the removal of the Kow Swamp remains, combined with postprocessual attacks on the discipline in the 1980s, accelerated and intensified the political consciousness of archaeological practitioners in the creation and management of the past. Some though were famously hardened in their views. Australia’s most senior archaeologist, Professor John Mulvaney, who became involved in the final years of negotiations, referred to the removal and reburial as “the most serious confrontation in Australian archaeology” (Mulvaney 2006: 428) and much later as his “career’s most distressing episode.” He was generally in favor of greater engagement with interested Aboriginal people and establishing “keeping places” for excavated material, but he remained opposed to reburying material and rejected the proposition that “the remote past can be ‘owned’ by a local clan” (Mulvaney 2006: 428); it belonged to all humanity. When the National Museum of Victoria repatriated the Kow Swamp collection in 1991, he resigned his (honorary) position at that institution in protest. Moreover, he exited the field of prehistory entirely feeling that his continued oppositional stance to reburial placed him in a “minority” position among his fellow archaeologists (Mulvaney 2006: 428). Significantly, the removal and repatriation of the Kow Swamp material helped to prompt the development and adoption of a Code of Ethics Kow Swamp by the Australian Archaeological Association (McBryde 1992). Based on the World Archaeological Congress’ own Code and with input from Australian Indigenous input, Association members discussed and adopted a Code at their Annual Meeting in 1991. Designed to formalize “obligations” to Australian Indigenous peoples and guide appropriate conduct of archaeologists when their work concerns Indigenous heritage, it states that: Members agree to acknowledge the special importance of indigenous ancestral human remains, and sites containing and/or associated with such remains, to the indigenous people [and that] members shall not interfere with and/or remove human remains of indigenous peoples without the written consent of representatives authorised by the indigenous people who cultural heritage is the object of investigation (Australian Archaeological Association 1991). Archaeological Identity The repatriation of the Kow Swamp collection made plain the differing sociocultural values held by archaeologists and Indigenous people in relation to the human fossil record, and the idea that what archaeologists refer to as “prehistory” also represents personal and collective Indigenous history. Debates over the Kow Swamp repatriation also demonstrated not just the significance of the collection to Aboriginal identity but to archaeological identity (Lahn 2007). In doing so, it exposed archaeology as a contemporary practice, situated as much in the present as it is concerned with the past. The “loss” to archaeology of the Kow Swamp material remains important as it signaled a (perhaps momentary) reshuffling of power. This required listening to Aboriginal opposition to an archaeological monopoly over the definition and use of heritage. Archaeology has had to redefine its relationship to those objects upon which its livelihood depends. Reshaping this relationship has required closer attention to the processes (of object creation) than just to the product (archaeological objects), and with this, the realization that heritage is not given but produced. Finally, far from representing the “death” of archaeology in Australia, the repatriation of the Kow Swamp Kow Swamp material helped provoke the opening of a space for new archaeological endeavors with Indigenous people including collaborative research, and an evolving conversation about the appropriate conduct of archaeology that is respectful of the views of Indigenous people on whose lands archaeologists work. 4327 K THORNE, A.G. & P.G. MACUMBER. 1972. Discoveries of late Pleistocene man at Kow Swamp, Australia. Nature 238: 316-9. TURNBULL, P. 2010. The Vermillion Accord and the significance of the history of the scientific procurement and use of indigenous Australian bodily remains, in P. Turnbull & M. Pickering (ed.) The long way home: the meaning and values of repatriation: 117-34. Oxford: Bergham Books. WEBB, S. 1987. Reburying Australian skeletons. Antiquity 61: 292-8. Cross-References Further Reading ▶ Australia: Repatriation Acts ▶ Ethics and Human Remains ▶ Indigenous Archaeologies: Australian Perspective References AUSTRALIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION. 1991. Code of ethics. Australian Archaeology 39: 129. BOWDLER, A. 1992. Unquiet slumbers: the return of the Kow Swamp burials. Antiquity 66: 103-6. GRIFFITHS, T. 1996. Hunters and collectors: the antiquarian imagination in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (especially Chapter 4) LAHN, J. 2007. Finders keepers, losers weepers: a ’social history’ of the Kow Swamp remains, in L. Smith (ed.) Cultural heritage: critical concepts in media and cultural studies. Volume 1: history and concepts: 361-410. London: Routledge. LEWIN, R. 1984. Extinction threatens Australian anthropology. Science 225: 393-4. MCBRYDE, I. 1992. The past as symbol of identity. Antiquity 66: 261-6. MEEHAN, B. 1984. Aboriginal skeletal remains. Australian Archaeology 19: 122-47. MULVANEY, D.J. 1991. Past regained, future lost: the Kow Swamp pleistocene burials. Antiquity 65: 12-21. - 2006. Reflections. Antiquity 80: 425-34. PARDOE, C. 2006. Becoming Australian: evolutionary processes and biological variation from ancient to modern times. Before Farming 1: Article 4. TATTERSALL, I., J.A. VAN COUVERING & E. DELSON. 1985. The ’Ancestors’ project: an expurgated history, in E. Delson (ed.) Ancestors: the hard evidence: 1-5. New York: Alan R. Liss. THORNE, A.G. 1971. Mungo and Kow Swamp: morphological variation in Pleistocene Australians. Mankind 8: 85-9. - 1976, Morphological contrasts in Pleistocene Australians, in R.L. Kirk & A.G. Thorne (ed.) The origin of the Australians (Human Biology series 6, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies): 95-112 New Jersey: Humanities Press Inc. ANGIER, N. 1984. Burying bones of contention. Time, 10 September 1984, p. 49. BROWN, P. 1981. Artificial cranial deformation: a component in the variation in Pleistocene Australian Aboriginal crania. Archaeology in Oceania 16: 156-67. CRIBB, J. 1990. Return of remains may bury past. Weekend Australian, 28-29 July 1990, p. 1, 10. DAVIDSON, I. 1991. Notes for a code of ethics for Australian archaeologists working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage. Australian Archaeology 32: 61-4. DONLON, D. 1994. Aboriginal skeletal collections and research in physical anthropology: an historical perspective. Australian Archaeology 39: 73-82. DUNCAN, T. 1984. Aborigines: now it is bone rights. The Bulletin, 21 August 1984, p. 26-8. FFORDE, C. 2002. Collection, repatriation and identity, in C. Fforde, J. Hubert & P. Turnbull (ed.) The dead and their possessions: repatriation in principle, policy and practice: 25-46. London: Routledge. HISCOCK, P. Archaeology of ancient Australia. Abingdon: Routledge. HUBERT, J. 1992. Dry bones or living ancestors? Conflicting perceptions of life, death and the universe. International Journal of Cultural Property 1: 105-28. LANGFORD, R.F. 1983. Our heritage, your playground. Australian Archaeology 16: 1-6. LAYTON, R. (ed.). 1989. Conflict in the archaeology of living traditions. London: Unwin Hyman. MC NIVEN, I. & L. RUSSELL. 2008. Towards a postcolonial archaeology of indigenous Australia, in R. Bentley, H. Maschner & C. Chippindale (ed.) Handbook of archaeological theories: 423-43. Lanham: AltaMira Press. MULVANEY, D.J. 2011. Digging up a past. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press. SMITH, L. 2006. The uses of heritage. Abingdon: Routledge. STONE, T. & M.L. CUPPER. 2003. Late Glacial Maximum ages for robust humans at Kow Swamp, southern Australia. Journal of Human Evolution 45: 99-111. THORNE, A.G. 1969. Preliminary comments on the Kow Swamp skeleton. Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Newsletter 2: 6-7. K K 4328 - 1971. The racial affinities of the Australian Aborigines, in D.J. Mulvaney & J. Golson (ed.) Aboriginal man and environment in Australia: 316-25. Canberra: Australian National University Press. - 1975. Kow Swamp and Lake Mungo: towards an osteology of early man in Australia. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Australian National University. - 1977. Separation or reconciliation? Biological clues to the development of Australian society, in J. Allen, J. Golson & R. Jones (ed.) Sunda and Sahul: prehistoric studies in Southeast Asia, Melanesia and Australia: 187-203. London: Academic Press. WESTWAY, M.C. & C.P. GROVES. 2009. The mark of ancient Java is on none of them. Archaeology in Oceania 44: 84-95. WRIGHT, R.V.S. 1975. Stone artefacts from Kow Swamp, with notes on their excavation and environmental context. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 10: 161-80. Kristiansen, Kristian Kristiansen, Kristian, Fig. 1 Kristian Kristiansen and a reconceptualization of heritage work within Europe. Kristiansen, Kristian Major Accomplishments Timothy K. Earle Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA Kristiansen’s work on Bronze Age Europe has been published in two foundational books published by Cambridge University Press: Europe before History (Kristiansen 1995) and The Rise of Bronze Age Society (Kristiansen & Larson 2005). Developing various theoretical themes on materiality, he has focused on the social roles of cultural materials from swords to houses to rock art for materializing local institutions, establishing social identities, and making distant connections. Perhaps most original has been his concern with relationships in shaping the broadest connections across Europe and into Asia. Previously conceived simply in terms of migrations, acculturation, emulation, or trade, he has developed a highly sophisticated view of distant relationships as international travels and linkages built strategically to formulate broadscale networks of chiefs, warriors, priests, and craftsmen. His first formulation of these international relationships relied on an adaption of world systems theory to prehistory (Rowlands et al. 1987). He has replaced rather unsatisfying concepts of extensive “influences” with a robust model of human agency in a highly interactive and extensive social world. He has built his model with a comprehensive knowledge of the Basic Biographical Information Kristian Kristiansen (Fig. 1) is the leading European Bronze Age archaeologist of his generation and has helped make Europe into a key anthropological case in the comparative study of complex societies. He received his Ph.D. from Aarhus University in 1975 and continued there as a postdoctoral research fellow until 1979. Then until 1994, he directed the Archaeological Monuments Division in the National Agency for Nature, Monuments and Sites in the Danish Ministry of the Environment. He became Professor of Archaeology at the University of Gothenburg in 1994 and served as Chair from 1994 to 2010. His lasting contributions to European prehistory and world archaeology include a major reconceptualization of Bronze Age Scandinavia and Europe, the internationalization of Bronze Age studies, the formulation of model field research projects that combine diverse scientific and humanist approaches, Kristiansen, Kristian archaeology literature and museum collections and with a thorough understanding of the ethnographic literature. Bringing together an impressive array of scientific (ancient DNA, wool, and copper analyses) along with humanitarian approaches to identity, his career trajectory has received support from a European Research Council Advanced Grant for his capping project: “Travels, transmission, and transformation in temperature northern Europe during the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE: The rise of Bronze Age societies.” As a modern academic chief, Kristiansen has built an impressive network of friends among the prehistorians across Europe and many anthropological archaeologists of Anglo-American academia. He initiated the formation of the European Association of Archaeologists with its successful European Journal of Archaeology. He helped found the Humanities Centre at the University of Copenhagen, which became a locus for international visits to Denmark by many archaeologists and anthropologists. A who’s who of theoretical archaeologists came as guests to his apartment in central Copenhagen, creating a nexus of extraordinary intellectual interchange. The result has been his frequent visits internationally to conferences and many chapters in classic edited books (Kristiansen 1982, 1984, 1987, 1991). From this network of scholars, he wove his own eclectic theory of society based on many intellectual threads often seen in opposition to each other. The result has been an original formulation that blends the best of processual and post-processual thought (Kristiansen & Rowlands 1998). A major contribution by Kristiansen has been his organization of international and interdisciplinary projects that have systematically integrated a diversity of intellectually themes and field research strategies. Starting in 1990, he organized the Thy Archaeological Project, initially bringing together diverse theoretical ideas from Denmark (Kristiansen and JensHenrik Bech), England (Mike Rowlands and Nick Thorpe), and the United States (Earle and John Steinberg). Probably the most significant contribution of that project was 4329 K a reconceptualization of field methods that united research strategies of American archaeologists, the long paleoenvironmental tradition of Danish researchers, and a commitment to integrate academic and rescue studies. Research involved developing methods for pollen sampling, settlement survey including phosphate sampling and plowsoil sampling, and household excavations with full screening and bone recovery and systematic soil sampling for macrofossil remains. Although each part of the research design had been used previously in Europe, the Thy project provided a uniquely integrated approach to longterm sociopolitical change from the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. The Thy Project then provided a model for a massive comparative, international study The Emergence of European Communities: Household, Settlement and Territory in Later Prehistory (3200–300 BCE), funded by the Swedish Riksbanken Jubieumsfond and the Marie Courie European Council Grant. This unprecedented comparative work included three new field projects in Tanum, Sweden, Százhalombatta, Hungary, and Monte Polizzo, Sicily, and involved primary researchers from 6 countries and 10 universities. Each project retained the same basic theoretical approaches and diverse field methods to provide comparable data. The result has been a long string of doctoral dissertation, publication, and a major overview book Organizing Bronze Age Society (Earle & Kristiansen 2010). Kristiansen has sought many ways to bring academic research and rescue archaeology together. Although all too often operating separately, he has had the vision to try to integrate the common interests of the two endeavors, the funding of each reinforcing the goals of the other. His attempts have involved creative project design by the Danish Ministry, joint excavations in Denmark, funding of special work in Hungary, and the large-scale investigation of the World Heritage sites in Tanum. European graduate students have been encouraged by Kristiansen to use the rapidly expanding data from rescue investigations for doctoral dissertations and major articles. Kristian Kristiansen is remarkable for his energy, creativity, and vision. He has had K K 4330 the ability to bring diverse researchers together, energize and help fund their joint research, and use his personal charm to overcome frequent intellectual differences and personal conflicts. His non-doctrinaire theoretical approach is both creative and inclusive, creating a complex and realistic understanding of the human experience. Kryder-Reid, Elizabeth Kryder-Reid, Elizabeth Elizabeth Kryder-Reid Department of Anthropology and Museum Studies, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), Indianapolis, IN, USA Cross-References Basic Biographical Information ▶ Earle, Timothy ▶ World-Systems Analysis Elizabeth Kryder-Reid is an associate professor of Anthropology and Museum Studies in the IU School of Liberal Arts, at Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). She trained as an anthropological archaeologist at Harvard University (A.B.) and Brown University (M.A. and Ph.D.). References EARLE, T. & K. KRISTIANSEN. (ed.) 2010. Organizing Bronze Age societies: the Mediterranean, central Europe, and Scandinavia compared. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KRISTIANSEN, K. 1982. The formation of tribal systems in late European prehistory, 4000-500 BC, in C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands & B. Seagrave (ed.) Theory and explanation in archaeology: 241-80. New York: Academic Press. - 1984. Ideology and material culture: an archaeological perspective, in M. Spriggs (ed.) Marxist perspectives in archaeology: 72-100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - 1987. From stone to bronze: the evolution of social complexity in northern Europe 2300-1200 BC, in E. Brumfiel & T. Earle (ed.) Specialization, exchange, and complex societies: 30-51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - 1991. Chiefdoms, states, and systems of social evolution, in T. Earle (ed.) Chiefdoms: power, economy, and ideology: 16-43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. - 1995. Europe before history (New Studies in Archaeology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KRISTIANSEN, K. & T. LARSSON. 2005. The rise of Bronze Age society: travels, transmissions and transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. KRISTIANSEN, K. & M. ROWLANDS. 1998. Social transformations in archaeology: global and local perspectives. London: Routledge. ROWLANDS, M., M. LARSEN & K. KRISTIANSEN. (ed.) 1987. Center and periphery in the ancient world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Further Reading - 1998. Europe before history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Major Accomplishments Dr. Kryder-Reid has worked across the fields of museum studies, public history, art and architecture history, and archaeology with a particular focus on landscape studies. In addition to excavations of Chesapeake landscapes and public program development with Archaeology in Annapolis, Dr. Kryder-Reid has also been a research associate and contributor to Keywords in American Landscape Design, a long-term interdisciplinary reference project sponsored by the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art. Her current research focuses on the California mission landscapes and their role during Spanish colonization and in the construction of public memory in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Her teaching areas include cultural heritage, historical and landscape archaeology, and museum studies courses. Dr. Kryder-Reid directed the Museum Studies Program at IUPUI from 1998–2013 and was instrumental in establishing its M.A. program and creating the Public Scholars of Civic Engagement initiative. She is currently the director of the IU School of Liberal Arts’ Cultural Heritage Research Center. Kuk Swamp: Agriculture and Domestication 4331 K Cross-References ▶ Colonial Encounters, Archaeology of ▶ Heritage Landscapes ▶ Historical Archaeology ▶ International Council of Museums (ICOM) ▶ Landscape Archaeology ▶ Mission Archaeology in North America Further Reading ASHMORE, W. & A.B. KNAPP (ed.) 1999. Archaeologies of landscape. Malden: Blackwell. FELD, S. & K.H. BASSO. (ed.) 1996. Senses of place. Santa Fe: School of American Research. HIRSCH, E. & M. O’HANLON. (ed.) 1995. The anthropology of landscape. Oxford: Clarendon Press. KRYDER-REID, E. 1994. ‘With manly courage’: reading the construction of gender in a nineteenth-century religious community, in E. M. Scott (ed.) ‘Those of little note’: gender, race, and class in historical archaeology: 97–114. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. - 1996. The construction of sanctity: landscape and ritual in a religious community, in R. Yamin & K. Bescherer Metheny (ed.) Landscape archaeology: reading and interpreting the American historical landscape: 228–248. Knoxville (TN): University of Tennessee Press. - 1998. The archaeology of vision in eighteenth-century Chesapeake Gardens, in P. A. Shackel, P. R. Mullins & M. S. Warner (ed.) Annapolis pasts: historical archaeology in Annapolis, Maryland: 268–290. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. - 2007. Sites of power and the power of sight: vision in the California Mission landscapes, in D. Harris & D. Fairchild Ruggles (ed.) Sites unseen: landscape and vision: 181–212. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. - 2010a. Perennially new: Santa Barbara and the origins of the California Mission Garden. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 69: 378–405. - 2010b. Writing the landscape: text as representations of and sources for American landscape design history, in T. O’Malley Keywords in American landscape design. New Haven: Yale University Press in cooperation with the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. KRYDER-REID, E. & D. FAIRCHILD RUGGLES (ed.) 1994. Sight and site: vision in the garden. Special theme issue of the Journal of Garden History 14(1). SWAFFIELD, S. (ed.) 2002. Theory in landscape architecture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Kuk Swamp: Agriculture and Domestication Tim Denham Archaeological Science Programs, School of Archaeology and Anthropology, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia Basic Site Overview The multidisciplinary evidence for Kuk Swamp has established the island of New Guinea to be a place of early and independent agricultural development and plant domestication (Golson 1977; Golson & Hughes 1980; Denham et al. 2003). Kuk Swamp is located at 1,560 m AMSL in present-day Western Highlands Province, Papua New Guinea. The site forms part of extensive wetlands on the floor of the Upper Wahgi valley, which is one of several, large inter-montane valleys that occur along the highland spine of the island (Figs. 1–3). In 1969, during initial drainage of the swamp to establish the Kuk Tea (subsequently agricultural) Research Station, which has now been abandoned, several wooden tools associated with much earlier cultivation of the swamp were dug up. From the early 1970s to the 1990s, Professor Jack Golson of the Australian National University supervised a series of archaeological excavations at Kuk – including my own in 1998 and 1999 – designed to investigate the antiquity of agriculture in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. Similar excavations have occurred at several other wetlands in the highlands from the mid-1960s, but the archaeological sequence at Kuk is the oldest, the most complete, and the best investigated. Evidence of Early Agriculture Late Pleistocene occupation is indicated by a c. 30,000-year-old hearth at Kuk and burning of the lower montane rainforest on the valley floor from at least 20,000 years ago. K K 4332 Kuk Swamp: Agriculture and Domestication Kuk Swamp: Agriculture and Domestication, Fig. 1 Location of Kuk Swamp on a map of Papua New Guinea (showing provincial boundaries) Kuk Swamp: Agriculture and Domestication, Fig. 2 Bases of former mounds used for cultivation dating to c. 7000–6400 cal BP at Kuk Swamp: (left) contour lines and (right) shaded (Denham & Haberle 2008) Kuk Swamp: Agriculture and Domestication 4333 K K Kuk Swamp: Agriculture and Domestication, Fig. 3 Plan of the earliest ditch networks at Kuk Swamp: (upper left) southeast portion of Kuk Swamp showing excavation trenches and inset locations; (upper right) plan of “early” enclosure and (lower) plan of “early” and “late” networks. In this context, “early” ditches date to pre-4350–3980 cal BP, and “late” ditches to pre-2730–2360 cal BP (Denham et al. 2003) K 4334 Although unclear, the pattern of periodic burning and opening up of the forest canopy are suggestive of a human contribution to the disturbance signal. Similar anthropic contributions to Late Pleistocene forest disturbance occur in other highland valleys on New Guinea. There is clear evidence for wetland manipulation and exploitation of tuberous plants (including a yam and an aroid) at Kuk around 10000 cal BP. The multidisciplinary evidence is suggestive of vegetation clearance, digging, staking of plants, microtopographic manipulation, and plant exploitation during a short-lived dry period on the wetland margin. The significance of these finds is unclear, although they may indicate foraging activities as opposed to cultivation. From c. 10000–7000 cal BP, there are sparse in situ archaeological remains of former plant exploitation at Kuk. However, palaeoecology and archaeobotany indicate continued human disturbance to the montane rainforest and exploitation of tuberous plants, as well as periodically high frequencies of banana phytoliths, which may indicate planting locally. These signals have been interpreted to represent shifting cultivation within the Kuk catchment (Denham & Haberle 2008). At c. 7,000–6,400 years ago, there is clear evidence for former cultivation at Kuk. The bases of former mounds used for planting are preserved, and these are inferred to have enabled the cultivation of plants with variable edaphic requirements. Different types of archaeobotanical evidence suggest multicropping including bananas (phytoliths) and potentially root crops (starch grain residues). At this time, the montane rainforest was effectively cleared in the Kuk vicinity; these grasslands were maintained by periodic burning and cultivation until the first Australian-based gold prospectors and colonial officer entered the valley in 1933. From c. 4500–4000 cal BP up to the recent past, sequential ditch networks were dug to drain the wetland at Kuk for cultivation. Early ditch networks are of multiple forms, including rectilinear, although the characteristic rectangular or gridded pattern of gardens in the Upper Wahgi valley today originated perhaps less than Kuk Swamp: Agriculture and Domestication 2,000 years ago. It is unclear whether periods of drainage and abandonment documented locally represent spatially variable cultivation of the wetland through time or represent broader-scale responses to climatic, environmental, or social stimuli. Various settlements dating to the last c. 1,000 years have also been mapped and excavated at Kuk. Numerous wooden digging sticks and spades similar to those still being used in 1933 have been found in archaeological contexts at Kuk and other sites in the Upper Wahgi valley. Most are less than 2,500 years old. The oldest wooden agricultural implement is a c. 4,600–4,100-year-old wooden spade reported by Jack Golson and colleagues from an ancient ditch at the Tambul High Altitude Experimental Station in the Upper Kaugel valley. The archaeological evidence at Kuk is old on a world scale and has established New Guinea as one of the few places in the world where agriculture arose from wild-plant gathering and land management practices (Denham 2011). In most other regions of the world, early agricultural development was based on the planting of seed for cereals, legumes, and other crops; for example, consider the planting of wheat and barley in Southwest Asia, rice in southeast China, and maize in Mexico. By contrast, early agriculture in New Guinea, like much practiced today, is based on the vegetative propagation of plant parts, whether a tuber, stem cutting, or sucker. Indeed, people living on New Guinea are considered to have used vegetative practices to domesticate several food crops, which are important across the world today for both subsistence and cash cropping, including bananas (Musa spp.), sugarcane (Saccharum spp.), some taro cultivars (Colocasia esculenta), and some yam species (Dioscorea spp.). Thus, the early farmers of New Guinea – whose activities are documented at Kuk – have given the world a major agricultural legacy. As well as being the most intensively investigated archaeological site in Papua New Guinea, the traditional landholders – the Kawelka – are one of the most intensively studied Indigenous Kynourgiopoulou, Vicky groups in the country. The Kawelka have been instrumental in the inscription of Kuk as Papua New Guinea’s first World Heritage Site (Muke et al. 2007). Ongoing management and preservation of the site for future generations would not be possible without the willingness and support of local Kawelka tribesmen, provincial and national authorities, as well as the sustained efforts of a small group of dedicated professionals, both national and international. Cross-References ▶ Agriculture: Definition and Overview ▶ Agricultural Practices: A Case Study from Papua New Guinea ▶ Bananas: Origins and Development ▶ Niah Caves: Role in Human Evolution ▶ Nkang: Early Evidence for Banana Cultivation on the African Continent ▶ Sugarcane: Origins and Development ▶ Taro: Origins and Development ▶ Vegeculture: General Principles ▶ Yams: Origins and Development References DENHAM, T.P. 2011. Early agriculture and plant domestication in New Guinea and Island Southeast Asia. Current Anthropology 52: S379-95. DENHAM, T.P. & S.G. HABERLE. 2008. Agricultural emergence and transformation in the Upper Wahgi valley during the Holocene: theory, method and practice. The Holocene 18: 499-514. DENHAM, T.P., S.G. HABERLE, C. LENTFER, R. FULLAGAR, J. FIELD, M. THERIN, N. PORCH & B. WINSBOROUGH. 2003. Origins of agriculture at Kuk Swamp in the highlands of New Guinea. Science 301: 189-93. GOLSON, J. 1977. No room at the top: agricultural intensification in the New Guinea highlands, in J. Allen, J. Golson & R. Jones (ed.) Sunda and Sahul: prehistoric studies in Southeast Asia, Melanesia and Australia: 601-38. London: Academic Press. GOLSON, J. & P.J. HUGHES. 1980. The appearance of plant and animal domestication in New Guinea. Journal de la Société des Océanistes 36: 294-303. MUKE, J., T.P. DENHAM & V. GENORUPA. 2007. Nominating and managing a World Heritage Site in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. World Archaeology 39: 324-38. 4335 K Kynourgiopoulou, Vicky Vicky Kynourgiopoulou Arcadia University, Centre for Global Studies Universita’ degli Studi Roma Tre, Rome, Italy Basic Biographical Information Vicky Kynourgiopoulou received her Ph.D. (2004) in Architectural History and Urban Planning at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. She holds an M.A. (1999) in Cultural Heritage Studies from University College London and B.A. (1998) in Archaeology from the University of Southampton, both in the U.K. Major Accomplishments K Dr. Kynourgiopoulou is currently teaching archaeology and cultural heritage studies at Arcadia University, Center of Global Studies in Rome, affiliated with Roma Tre University, Italy. She is a consultant for European Union and UNESCO heritage projects. Her archaeological fieldwork has concentrated on North Africa and the Middle East where she specializes in sustainable tourism development and heritage preservation in underdeveloped and developing countries. She has published in the area of architectural history authenticity and cultural heritage management and conservation. Her current research focuses on the use of cultural patrimony for the creation of identities in times of crisis. Her main research areas are cities that were “crossroads” of civilizations like Rome, Athens, Istanbul, and Pella where she examines the integration, rejection, and/or transformation of identities and their cultural heritage in order to create homogenous urban centers. Her fieldwork also has concentrated on the sustainable development of archaeological sites that can contribute to the economic and social viability of different regions. She is currently researching transnational crime and the looting of antiquities in the Mediterranean in K 4336 times of economic crisis. She was Editor in Chief of Edinburgh Architecture Journal, the research journal of the Department of Architecture at Edinburgh University, and Secretary General of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in Scotland and has created several undergraduate and graduate programs for US and European universities in Rome, Athens, and London. Cross-References ▶ Cultural Heritage Management and Armed Conflict ▶ Sustainability and Cultural Heritage Further Reading HITCHENS, C. 1997. The Elgin Marbles. Should they be returned to Greece? London: Verso. KYNOURGIOPOULOU, V. 2011. National identity interrupted: the mutilation of the Parthenon marbles and the Greek claim for repatriation, in H. Silverman (ed.) Contested cultural heritage: religion, nationalism, erasure and exclusion in a global world: 155–70. New York: Springer. LOUKAKI, A. 2008. Living ruins, value conflicts. Aldershot: Ashgate. YALOURI, E. 2001. The Acropolis: global fame, local claim. Oxford: Berg. Kyrgyzstan: Cultural Heritage Management Aida Abdykanova Department of Anthropology, American University of Central Asia, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan Introduction The Kyrgyz Republic has a very rich and varied cultural heritage which has to be preserved for future generations. State management of cultural heritage is realized by the Kyrgyz Republic Kyrgyzstan: Cultural Heritage Management through the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, local government administrations, and local self-governments. To this effect, the Ministry operates a special department known as the Republican Inspectorate for Registration of Historical and Cultural Heritage. The National Academy of Sciences, research and educational institutions, and museums may conduct research at sites of historical and cultural heritage, and to do expert evaluation of their scientific value. Public organizations and associations, enterprises of different ownership and membership, in cooperation with government agencies and academic institutions, and local authorities have to help in the protection and preservation of historical and cultural heritage, organize and take public control of protection of historical and cultural monuments, and carry out awareness-raising and outreach work among the population. Historical Background The concept of historical and cultural heritage in the Kyrgyz Republic started to introduce from eighteenth to nineteenth centuries in the limits archaeological science of the Russian Empire and later Soviet Union. The history of investigation of archaeological monuments, their preservation, conservation, and documentation can be divided into the following stages: – Accumulation of fragmented information about antiquities (to 1880s) – Starting of classification of archaeological monuments (to 1930s) – Starting of conservation and restoration works (from 1936s to 1980s) The first work on the preservation and restoration of archaeological monuments in the country were carried out within the framework of archaeological research. The Soviet era saw the restoration and conservation of such historical and architectural monuments as the Ak-Beshim Buddhist temples (I, II), Burana Tower (medieval city of Balasagyn), caravanserai Tash-Rabat, Uzgen complex, Buddhist temple of Kyrgyzstan: Cultural Heritage Management Krasnorechenskoe city, and gumbez (mausoleum) of Manas (Kolchenko 2005: 132–3). As a result, most of the restored objects have lost their historical authenticity, but at the same time they were preserved for future generations and can be used as tourist attractions. Key Issues Legal Regulations After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Kyrgyz Republic inherited a strong legal basis for the preservation, conservation, restoration, and use of historical and cultural heritage. Since independence, the Law on Protection and Use of Historical and Cultural Heritage has been extended. This law was adopted by the Jogorku Kenesh (Parliament of KR) in June 29, 1999, with amendments and additions introduced in 2006 (Karymshakova 2010: 29). The law satisfies the fundamental requirements of the UNESCO convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Article 3 of the law defines historical and cultural heritage as all historical and cultural monuments associated with historical events in the life of the people, the development of society and state, and material and spiritual works of art, and having historical, scientific, artistic, or other value. Under Article 4 archaeological monuments are considered as a kind of historical and cultural heritage and viewed as historical and cultural sites, regardless of who owns them. The System of Registration and Documentation According to the state accounting and classification system, archaeological sites are divided into sites of local, national, and international significance. Lists of historical sites of local significance must be approved by local governments on the basis of their presentation by territorial bodies for the protection of sites, in coordination with the state body for the protection of sites. Lists of historical and cultural sites of national significance are established by the Kyrgyz 4337 K government on the basis of reports from the state body for the protection of sites. Sites of international significance are represented by sites which already are sites of national significance and included on the list of sites under UNESCO protection. Lists of historical and cultural sites of international significance are made public by the authority for the protection of monuments according to international standards. On official recommendation following a competent scientific evaluation, a list of sites nominated for inclusion on the World Heritage List will be submitted by the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic to the World Heritage Committee and other international organizations. There is also a category of newly identified sites, a list of sites that is constantly replenished through the discovery and recording of new historical and cultural heritage sites. Before making the list, monuments in this category of sites also are still considered under Article 21 to be under state protection as objects of historical and cultural heritage. There is a separate list of monuments of historical and cultural heritage under threat. Currently, the database of the Republican Inspectorate registers 583 monuments of national significance and 1,269 monuments of local significance. Among them are 335 archaeological monuments. This list was compiled and approved by the Government in the form of resolution (The Resolution of Government of KR on August 20, 2002, No. 568). In reality, however, there are no archaeological monuments which actually distinguished and protected by preservation measures. Most sites, even well-known ones included on the list of monuments of national significance, have been privatized and lie in economic and business zones (Kolchenko 2005: 142). Usually, this happened because most officials simply do not know about the historical and cultural significance of these places. Government Programs Since the 1990s, the Kyrgyz Ministry of Culture and Tourism declared several programs for the protection and preservation of historical and cultural heritage. In 2004 a plan “About Protection K K 4338 and Use of Historical and Cultural Heritage” was approved by the Ministry till 2010. The most recent one, concerning the “Culture of Kyrgyzstan,” was prepared for the period from 2011 to 2013. UNESCO The National Commission for UNESCO in Kyrgyz Republic has a connection with the main office of UNESCO. The Commission prepares a list of monuments for UNESCO and monitors sites which are already under UNESCO protection. The museum complex “SulaimanToo” was the first monument in Kyrgyz Republic to be entered onto the World Heritage List. In 2011, several projects in Osh oblast (one of the regions of the Kyrgyz Republic) were realized under the aegis of UNESCO. The main goal of these projects is to inform local administrations and state bodies about objects of historical and cultural heritage in their districts (Bostonbaeva 2001: 7). Projects for Conservation and Restoration Since independence from the Soviet Union, three projects on conservation of cultural heritage have been completed with funding from different international organizations. These are the Cholpon-Ata Rock Art complex, the Mausoleum of Shah-Fazil, and the complex of the cities of Krasnaya Rechka, Ak-Beshim, and Burana. The restoration and conservation works were realized by the Kyrgyz scientific, research, and project bureau Kyrgyzrestavraziya (nauchnoissledovatelskoe proektnoe byuro). The Kyrgyzrestavraziya is the entity under the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Karymshakova 2010: 29–30). Unfortunately recent expert evaluations of these projects results, both local and international, have not been positive. Problems Despite progress since independence, many problems remain in the protection and preservation of Kyrgyz historical and cultural heritage. Potential solutions to these problems depend on many factors. The first problem is a lack of funding, which affects the organization of research, Kyrgyzstan: Cultural Heritage Management monitoring sites, and other essential matters. Without support from the state, almost all financial problems related to the preservation of cultural heritage have been put onto the shoulders of experts. Their sources of funding include private universities, museums (mostly state historical institutions), private organizations, and grants from international organizations. Recent financing or rather its absence means heritage management efforts fall short in current socioeconomic conditions, as such efforts been traditionally relied on state financial support, which is now offered only on a residual basis. Another problem is the training of specialists in the field of historical and cultural heritage. There is no clear government strategy for training young researchers and specialists. Poor financial support of science in general also strongly impacts upon this issue, as the nation’s young people choose to study what from their point of view are more prospective specialties. As a result, the staff of the Republican Inspectorate for Registration of Historical and Cultural Heritage – the key state agency regulating the issues of conservation – consists of two persons. In the whole country, there are no more than ten archaeologists. The most important problem is the lack of coordination among organizations concerned with the protection and management of cultural heritage (Amanbaeva 2010: 93). Future Directions Despite the availability of government programs designed to create effective mechanisms for management of cultural heritage, the painful process of gradual loss of cultural heritage continues. There is no agreed scheme of work that is based on legal regulations or traditions and which clearly identifies the competencies and responsibilities of each interested party, such as the Institute of History and Cultural Heritage, the Kyrgyzrestavraziya under of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of KR and the National Commission for UNESCO. These three organizations have to collaborate more effectively. Kyrgyzstan: Saving Archaeological Sites Their collaboration must be based on clear regulation of the work so each body understands its role in the larger process. The government cannot solve all these problems alone. Mechanisms to ensure the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations needs radical reform, in a context in which cultural heritage management will at least partially have to justify itself economically. To achieve the change required, government bodies, heritage specialists, tourist agencies, and local people will have unite in an effort to protect our common heritage. When we get the big problems more under control, we will be better able to address the many more minor problems needing attention, such as updating cultural heritage lists, conducting of salvage excavations, and popularizing archaeological monuments among local people and potential tourists, among many others. 4339 K Further Reading Gosudarstvennaya programma “Kultura Kyrgyzstana” v 2011-2013 gody. Available at: http://www. minculture.gov.kg (accessed 9 October 2011). JANSEN, M. (ed.) 2008. Preservation on Silk Road sites in the upper Chui valley. Navekat (Krasnaya Rechka), Suyab (Ak-Beshim) and Balasagyn (Burana). Final technical. Aachen: Imankulov J. Plan meropriyatii po vypolneniyu polozhenii Zakona Kyrgyzskoi Respubliki “Ob ohrane i ispolzovanii istoriko-kulturnogo naslediya” do 2010 goda ot 21 iyunya 2004 goda No. 455. Polozhenie ob uchete, ohrane, restavrazii i ispolzovanii ob’ektov istoriko-kulturnogo naslediyaot 20 avgusta 2002 goda. No. 455. TOKTOM. Informazionnyi tsentr. Zakonodatelstvo Kyrgyzskoi Respubliki. Available at: http://www.toktom.kg (accessed 9 October 2011). Zakon Kyrgyzskoi Respubliki “Ob ohrane i ispolzovaniiistoriko-kulturnogonaslediya”ot 29 iyunya 1999 goda No. 91. TOKTOM. Informazionnyi tsentr. Zakonodatelstvo Kyrgyzskoi Respubliki. Available at: http://www.toktom.kg (accessed 9 October 2011). K Cross-References ▶ Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites ▶ Cultural Heritage Protection: The Legal Sphere ▶ Kyrgyzstan: Saving Archaeological Sites Kyrgyzstan: Saving Archaeological Sites Kubatbek Tabaldiev Kyrgyzstan-Turkey Manas University, Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan Introduction References AMANBAEVA, B. 2010. Issledovanie i ohrana istorikokulturnogo nasledia v Kyrgyzskoi Respublike: sovremennoe sostoyanie, problem i vozmozhnye puti ih reshenii. Sovechanie regionalnyh spezialistov. Kulturnoe nasledie Tsentralnoi Azii i vklad Yaponii: 91-94. Tashkent. BOSTONBAEVA, N. 2001. Taryhyi zhailaryna bolgon tashboor mamile. Zaman Kyrgyzstan, 27 May, 2011, p. 7. KARYMSHAKOVA, B. 2010. Gosudarstvennye i obshestvennye organizazii, zanimayucshiesya sohraneniem kulturnogo naslediya v Kyrgyzskoi Respublike. Sovechanie regionalnyh spezialistov. Kulturnoe nasledie Tsentralnoi Azii i vklad Yaponii: 29-32. Tashkent. KOLCHENKO, V. 2005. Arheologicheskie pamyatniki Kyrgyzstana v svete Konvenzii ob ohrane vsemirnogo naslediya, in A.Z. Japarov (ed.) Nasledie materialnoi i duhovnoi kultury Kyrgyzstana: 132-45. Bishkek. Archaeological sites play a significant role in the spiritual and intellectual development of any society. This is the case in Kyrgyzstan where there are great many historical and archaeological sites, representing periods from the Stone Age onwards, that contribute to the country’s heritage. However, public perceptions of the past and objects from the past are often seen as “old things” with little connection to contemporary society. There are insufficient laws, organizations, and communication to help protect the country’s cultural patrimony and as a result many sites have been destroyed and many more are in danger of being lost as a result of privatization of national lands, looting, and commercialization of the past. Although progress is K 4340 being made with respect to public understanding and appreciation of the past, organizational infrastructure to help facilitate inventory, site monitoring, conservation, and certification have a long way to go. Key Issues The public perception of archaeological sites in Kyrgyzstan is a significant issue. The perception of archaeological sites as old things and museums as warehouses of old things prevails. In archaeological collections we can see metal objects made by skilled craftsmen 3000 years ago which in many cases cannot be replicated by modern jewelry designers. We can see unique inscriptions on stone written by our ancestors from the Middle Ages that are compromised by commercialization that is more interested in financial value than the importance of these artifacts to our collective heritage. It is not unusual for archaeologists to be asked the monetary worth of a stone sculpture that may originate from an ancestor’s tomb from 50 to 55 generations ago. This is compounded by the fact that when Kyrgyzstan was under a Soviet Republic, the past of the Kyrgyzstan people was overshadowed by other interests that glorified the Great Patriotic War. As a result, monuments to Lenin and sites such as Uzgen and Burana were the priority for the Society for the Protection of Monuments of History and Culture. Today this organization is no longer in existence, and as a result the accounting, preservation, and monitoring of monuments and sites are no longer carried out, and hundreds of monuments have been destroyed in Kyrgyzstan. The fact that a number of medieval fortresses and mounds of nomadic people are in the hands of private owners makes the protection of sites difficult, even though current law requires archaeological research prior to any new construction or building. While the need to protect sites and the specifics of the law have been discussed in the mass media for the past two decades, there is still incomplete information regarding archaeological sites, for instance, Kyrgyzstan: Saving Archaeological Sites those that have been destroyed at places such as hydropower stations, and a lack of information on the existence of underwater archaeology. The picture is not all bleak. Under the influence of quasi-scientists, sites such as the Mausoleum at Manas Gumbez have been examined. Since the late 1980s, when funding for archaeological sites was eliminated, some studies have been conducted but only in association with anniversary celebrations. However, state support of archaeological activity associated with these jubilee events was curtailed at a time when Kyrgyzstan was celebrating its 2,200th anniversary (in 2003). Nowadays, although the Ministry of Culture and Information has a small department, they are not able to work on the in situ conservation of monuments and their certification. That is why today in Kyrgyzstan we propose to employ best practices as utilized by other countries to organize a special permanent service of archaeological protection in Kyrgyzstan in an effort to save our heritage before it is too late. We propose that it be similar to the Ministry of Emergency. This Ministry of Emergency should consist of professional staff that would continue the monitoring of archaeological sites and objects begun in the mid-1980s. This would include carrying out work on the identification, certification, and registration of all archaeological sites within the country. Sites would receive full documentation, and their condition evaluated, and some sites given legal protection under a “site passport” scheme. It must be recognized that even with the help of outside organizations such as UNESCO in conjunction with town leaders, archaeologists, regional administrators, agriculturalists, inspectors, administrators, school historians, and others, it may not be possible to save all the crumbling archaeological sites. But it is critical that we make an effort to establish strong working relationships to help identify and effectively manage archaeological sites and to convey the importance of our heritage to current and future generations. It is possible that if sites are taken care of by this generation, our heritage will help contribute to the spiritual and intellectual development Kyrgyzstan: Saving Archaeological Sites of future generations. This is effectively taking place in other countries around the world, providing examples of how this can be done in Kyrgyzstan. Based on current archaeological field experience in Kyrgyzstan, the protection of sites may well be assisted by individuals in local villages where commissioners and lovers of antiquities work together to protect the past, including the establishment of school museums. However, such museums often lack trained personnel and are often neglected or destroyed after the retirement of the organizer. Museums would be significantly enhanced by programs of study that provide education and training in how to preserve and respect sites in the region. The activities of such programs could also include specialized archaeological training and the production of manuals, handbooks, and books on local history. In particular, publications directed at young people are essential, to help establish culturalhistorical values for contemporary times – such works should tell interesting stories of the nation’s past to facilitate interest and help students understand the importance of preserving the sites of their ancestors. Alongside these measures, the creation of exhibitions, public lectures in the field, publication of scientific and popular literature, and albums of site types, especially in the Kyrgyz language for local residents, would contribute towards a public understanding of the importance of heritage. This would go a long way in protecting sites that are currently being destroyed and would build on interest among local school teachers and residents, witnessed by the authors during our archaeological research. Many enjoy the achievements of our ancestors together with archaeologists. In this regard we try to enhance the experience of our work with local people to preserve the historical heritage and raise awareness. The protection of sites from the ravages of time and vandalism is an urgent task in Kyrgyzstan today, and embedding an understanding of the importance of these sites is fundamental. It is very important for us that we employ professional contacts, such as those established with Indiana University and personally with 4341 K Professor K. Anne Pyburn since 2004, in the field of preservation and the establishment of local museums. Her experience in communicating the need for archaeological observation to local communities and presenting heritage in a museum context has been especially significant for Kyrgyzstan. Future Directions Conclusion and Recommendations Since the funding for archaeological sites was stopped in the late 1980s, many sites are under the threat of destruction. This has been compounded by the disbanding of the Society for the Protection of Monuments of History and Culture and the dismissal of regional inspectors and managers of heritage, resulting in a lack of monitoring and preservation of sites and artifacts. Adding to this situation is the fact that many sites and monuments are on private land and not available to archaeological inquiry. Consequently, valuable artifacts are sold within the context of an illicit archaeology, which of course is not archaeology at all. Given the current circumstance for archaeology in Kyrgyzstan, there are number of areas of work that will improve the situation. The following is a proposed list of actions: • Save the archaeological sites by means of creating a mobile, technically upgraded, archaeological service with legal authority. • Regenerate the regional departments of historical, archaeological, and cultural services. • Renew the passports of archaeological sites, giving them legal protection. • Set aside reserved land (historical reservations) for objects of heritage. • Use broadly and actively the punitive law against violators of legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic “On protection and use of historical and cultural heritage” with new additions. • Formulate and define the article of criminal law in order to ban treasure hunting in the area of archaeological sites and the trade in archaeological and numismatic K K 4342 artifacts, for instance, in antique shops. Place a ban on the advertisement and promotion in the media of illegal treasure hunting. Introduce criminal liability for violation of this law. • Include the problem of preservation of historical and cultural heritage in plans for urgent actions of the Council of National Security, Ministry of Interior, the Prosecutor’s Office, Customs Service, and State Register of the Kyrgyz Republic. • Increase the advocacy for the preservation of sites and monuments among students and public communities. We believe that it is important to establish a fund or association which will contribute to the preservation and study of archaeological sites. This should effectively facilitate the following tasks: • Support and assist public and professional groups in their efforts to save and protect archaeological sites in the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic. • Implement the state orders for the preservation and study of archaeological sites. • Provide assistance for archaeologists in registration of archaeological sites and legalize the archaeological passports of monuments of the Kyrgyz Republic. • Fund and organize urgent archaeological research into monuments which are under threat of destruction and archaeological sites which are in dangerous or unstable zones. • Investigate archaeological sites located in areas of construction, mining or industrial processing. • Organize joint international archaeological expeditions to explore archaeological sites, which are under threat of destruction and disappearance. • Help archaeologists, conservators, and local authorities in the preservation and study of material objects, including the production of written records and conservation where needed. • Develop field studies of ethnographic collections for the sake of preservation of ethno- Kyrgyzstan: Saving Archaeological Sites • • • • • • • • • • • • archaeological materials, local creativity, and intangible heritage. Support and organize ethno-archaeological and interdisciplinary expeditions and research. Assist in the training of scientists in Kyrgyzstan in archaeology, ethnography, epigraphy, restoration, and conservation. Assist in the creation of community museums and school museums. Organize joint seminars and activities around archaeological sites with the participation of local experts and professionals from abroad. Facilitate access to archaeological sites which are in private territories. Promote the protection of the archaeological heritage of the Kyrgyz Republic and the proper protection of archaeological works. Prepare guidance documents and publications in the field of archaeological heritage in the areas of construction and design work. Support the educational, scientific, and educational activities in secondary schools and universities. Create albums, maps, and handbooks on archaeological sites in Kyrgyzstan. Publish the materials related to the archaeological heritage and the results of their research in the areas of building, design, and construction. Prepare an archaeological map of all of the regions, districts, and counties of the Kyrgyz Republic, with details of all known archaeological sites. Prepare special archaeological expositions and visual guides on local history for all schools of Kyrgyzstan. Cross-References ▶ Cultural Heritage and the Public ▶ Cultural Heritage Management Quality Control and Assurance ▶ Cultural Heritage Outreach Kyrgyzstan: Saving Archaeological Sites ▶ Environmental Assessment in Cultural Heritage Management ▶ Experiencing Cultural Heritage ▶ Heritage and Higher Education ▶ Heritage and Public Policy ▶ Heritage Areas ▶ Heritage Museums and the Public ▶ Heritage Research and Visitor Planning ▶ Heritage Valuation: Paradigm Shifts ▶ Heritage: History and Context ▶ Heritage: Public Perceptions ▶ Intangible Cultural Heritage 4343 K ▶ Marketing Heritage ▶ Tangible Heritage in Archaeology ▶ UNESCO (1972) and Malta (1992) Conventions ▶ Vandalism and Looting: Destruction, Preservation, and the Theft of the Past Further Reading TABALDIEV, K. 2012. Ancient monuments of the Tien Shan. Bishkek: University of Central Asia. K