Ufa Archaeological Herald

The article reviews the issue of integrating methods from different sciences into archaeological research. The study assesses how this process influences the scientific practice. The author emphasizes the key aspects of the contemporary approach which provides a more comprehensive analysis of archaeological data. In particular, the research observes such notions as multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity and focuses on their differences and interrelations. The terminology differentiation is based on the degree of integration and the zone of communication in the course of research among different sciences. These criteria apply to all stages from setting the aim to making the conclusion. This study analyses projects with different degrees of discipline integration. The paper determines common and distinctive features in the development of the Russian archeology. The research states that topics in studies tend to branch out rather than delve. This statement is proven by an increasing number of multidisciplinary projects and publications, while the number of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary researches remains exiguous. The article analyses the reasons why interdisciplinary researches in archaeology provoke escalating interest. In particular, the study reviews the requirement to have ultimate comprehensive understanding of human history. The conclusion emphasizes that even though interactions among various disciplines are hampered by differing ontology, epistemology and methodology, interdisciplinary approaches offer groundbreaking opportunities for a deeper analysis. Integration processes influence all stages of research. Specifically, they require significantly more complete and accurate presentation of input data and analysis methods. It is noteworthy that some experts demonstrate apprehension that identity of archeology as a standalone science will be compromised. The author encourages further discussions of the issue within the academic community to develop strategies facilitating integration of different approaches in the archaeological practice. Such strategies should aim at overcoming the crisis of trust to the integration process.

archaeology, natural sciences, multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, methodology

• Grigoriev, S.A., 2024, “Solar and volcanic activity as benchmarks in constructing the absolute chronology of Eurasia”, Ufa Archaeological Herald, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 628–643. (In Russ.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.31833/uav/2024.24.4.041
• Epimakhov, A.V., 2015, “The “Third Paradigm” and Russian Archeology”, YuUrGU Science: proceedings of the 67th Scientific Conference. Sections of social sciences and humanities, YuUrGU, Chelyabinsk, pp. 503–507. (In Russ.)
• Kasavin, I.T., 2010, “Interdisciplinary Research: Towards a Concept and Typology”, Voprosy filosofii, no. 4, pp. 61–73. (In Russ.)
• Klein, L.S., 1995, Archaeological sources. St. Petersburg: FARN, 352 p. (In Russ.)
• Klein, L.S., 2001, Principles of Archeology. St. Petersburg: Belvedere, 152 p. (In Russ.)
• Shchapova, Yu.L., Grinchenko, S.N., Kokorina, Yu.G., 2019, Informatics-cybernetic and mathematical modeling of the archaeological epoch: Logical-conceptual apparat. Informatics and Management, Moscow, 136 p. (In Russ.)
• Ankusheva, P.S., Zazovskaya, E.P., Yuminov, A.M. et al., 2022, ”Radiocarbon Chronology of Bronze Age Mines in the Southern Trans-Urals: First Results”, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, vol. 14, № 218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-022-01681-5
• Arnold, M., 2013, “Interdisciplinary Research (Interdisciplinarity)”, Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, ed. E.G. Carayannis, New York, Springer, pp. 1105–1113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_302
• Arponen, V.P.J., Dörfler, W., Feeser, I. et al., 2019, “Environmental determinism and archaeology. Understanding and evaluating determinism in research design”, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 26 (1), pp. 1–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000059
• Dong, G., Du, L., Liu, R., et al., 2023, “Human-environment interaction systems between regional and continental scales in mid-latitude Eurasia during 6000–3000 years ago”, The Innovation Geoscience, vol. 1 (3), no. 100038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59717/j.xinn-geo.2023.100038
• Fleming, A., 2012, “The future of landscape archaeology”, Landscape Archaeology between Art and Science, eds. S.J. Kluiving, E.B. Guttmann-Bond, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp. 461–470.
• Kerr, S., 2020, “The future of archaeology, interdisciplinarity and global challenges”, Antiquity, vol. 94 (377), pp. 1337–1348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.138
• Kristiansen, K., 2019. “Who is deterministic? On the nature of interdisciplinary research in archaeology”, Archaeological Dialogues, vol. 26 (1), pp. 12–14. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203819000060
• Kristiansen, K., 2022, Archaeology and the Genetic revolution in European Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 92 p. (Elements in the Archaeology of Europe). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781009228701
• Librado, P., Khan, N., Fages, A. et al., 2021, “The origins and spread of domestic horses from the Western Eurasia steppes”, Nature, vol. 598 (7882), pp. 634–640. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04018-9
• Lindstrøm, T.C., 2022, “Multi-, Cross-, Inter-, Transdisciplinarity – Fact or Fiction? Does Archaeology Need a Hand Blender?”, Interdisciplinary Contentions in Archaeology. (Forum Kritische Archäologie 11), pp. 68–79. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-37031
• Marila, M.M., 2019, “Slow science for fast archaeology”, Current Swedish Archaeology, vol. 27 (1), pp. 93–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37718/CSA.2019.05
• Mühlemann, B., Vinner, L., Margaryan, A. et al., 2020, “Diverse variola virus (smallpox) strains were widespread in northern Europe in the Viking Age”, Science, vol. 369, eaaw8977. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw897
• Piaget, J., 1972, “The epistemology of interdisciplinary relationships”, Interdisciplinarity. Problems of teaching and research in universities, eds. Apostel L., Berger G., Briggs A., Michaud G. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Paris, pp. 127–139.
• Powell, W., Barjamovic, G., Pulak, C., 2024, “Copper for the early oxhide ingots traced to the South Urals”, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, vol. 56, no. 104583. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2024.104583
• Prohaska, A., Racimo, F., Schork, A.J. et al., 2019, “Human Disease Variation in the Light of Population Genomics”, Cell, vol. 177 (1), pp. 115–131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.01.052
• Rasmussen, S., Allentoft, M.E., Nielsen, R. et al., 2015, “Early Divergent Strains of Yersinia pestis in Eurasia 5,000 Years Ago”, Cell, vol. 163 (3), pp. 571–582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.10.009
• Reiter, S.S., Staniuk, R., Kolář, J. et al., 2024, “The BIAD Standards: Recommendations for Archaeological Data Publication and Insights from the Big Interdisciplinary Archaeological Database”, Open Archaeology, vol. 10 (1), no. 20240015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2024-0015
• Ribeiro, A., 2022, “Methodological Anarchism against Interdisciplinary Archaeology”, Interdisciplinary Contentions in Archaeology. (Forum Kritische Archäologie 11), pp. 93–105. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/refubium-37031
• Reich, D., Green, R., Kirche, M. et al., 2010, “Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia”, Nature, vol. 468, pp. 1053–1060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09710
• Sørensen, T.F., 2017, “The Two Cultures and a World Apart: Archaeology and Science at a New Crossroads”, Norwegian Archaeological Review, vol. 50 (2), pp. 101–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00293652.2017.1367031
• Wilkin, S., Ventresca Miller, A., Fernandes, R. et al., 2021, “Dairying enabled Early Bronze Age Yamnaya steppe expansions”, Nature, vol. 598 (7882), pp. 629–633. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03798-4