Under-Representation in Contemporary Archaeology
many forms: it can relate to gender and ethnic diversity, but it can also refer to different types of archaeology, such as academic versus contract, general versus specialist, or to types of research theme, such as ‘big issues’ versus more detailed studies. Issues of under-representation, in various guises, have taxed me through my career in archaeology. That career began as a female, prehistoric ceramics specialist working in UK Contract Archaeology, followed by various university teaching and/or research posts. With a knowledge of both commercial and academic archaeological employment contexts and traditions of enquiry, it seems to me that UK frameworks of archaeological employment, study and research remain retrograde in failing to evenly support the working lives of all archaeologists in equal ways. The spectrums of expertise and research frameworks that archaeology can potentially encompass are not all equally facilitated. Quite simply some approaches, styles of archaeology and skills tend to be more highly valued than others. Dominant modes of research and interpretative frameworks, be they choices of individuals, or relating to projects or institutional traditions, have some role in influencing what is traditionally supported by academic, grant-giving and professional structures. It is important to assess the extent to which such structures have differentially privileged specific forms of research and career trajectories. There has been a tendency to create binary oppositions such as between what might be characterised as focused, ‘big issue’ research that speedily accretes a clear trajectory and perhaps a career of diverse, albeit possibly complimentary pathways, which moves at a more patchy pace. Differing approaches should not be in competition with each other. Questioning prevailing assumptions and maintaining multiple perspectives should both sustain more diverse and nuanced career trajectories and be more accommodating of personal circumstances, diversity of skills, and different ways of ‘doing things’. Likewise, the co-existence of multiple interpretative strands and work traditions maximises the skills and situations of all contributors to archaeology and leads to a richer understanding of the human pasts that they are engaged in understanding. I would hope that these statements are self-evident, but such an ethos necessitates more than just ‘letting things be’. It requires alertness to what and who is underrepresented in the working structures, foci and interpretative frameworks of contemporary archaeology. It aims for a greater richness and diversity in practicing archaeology and in accommodating what archaeology can do. This is the basis of what is briefly touched upon below using only some selected areas of concern. I Forum
Communicating Identity in Iron Age Italic Communities
Recent archaeological work has shown that South Italy was densely occupied at least from the Late Bronze Age, with a marked process of the development of proto-urban centres, accompanied by important technological transformations. The archaeological exploration of indigenous South Italy is a relatively recent phenomenon, thanks to the bias towards the study of Greek colonies. Therefore an assessment of processes taking place in Italic Iron Age communities is well overdue. Communicating Identity explores the many and much varied identities of the Italic peoples of the Iron Age, and how specific objects, places and ideas might have been involved in generating, mediating and communicating these identities. The term identity here covers both the personal identities of the individuals as well and the identities of groups on various levels (political, social, gender, ethnic or religious). A wide range of evidence is discussed including funerary iconography, grave offerings, pottery, vase-painting, coins, spindles and distaffs and the excavation of settlements. The methodologies used here have wider implications. The situation in the northern Black Sea region in particular has often been compared to that of southern Italy and several of the contributions compare and contrast the archaeological evidence of the two regions.
Towards a Formalisation of Justification and Justifiability
We introduce the logic QKD S which is a normal multi-modal logic over finitely many modalities that additionally supports bounded quantification of modalities. An important feature of this logic is that it allows to quantify over the information components of systems and, hence, can be used to derive justifications. We compare the proposed logic with Artemov’s justification logic and also report on a prototypical implementation of a satisfiability solver of this logic and show some examples.