Research Projects in the Department of Archaeology

Archaeological data is often biased and incomplete. This is a well-known issue for most archaeologists. Although studies of specific sites and small regions can have this into account, the effect of this problem increases exponentially as archaeologists expand their chronological and geographic frame, and try to answer questions related to general dynamics and broad human processes.

EHSCAN is a Horizon-MSCA-2022-PF scheme Fellowship Funded by UKRI and hosted by the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge. 

The last decades have witnessed marked achievements of STEM in understanding the remains of humans, animals, and plants from the past by analyzing different materials, both inorganic and organic. These developments have opened-up the great potential for increasing our understanding of cultural heritage, and hence for developing better strategies for its protection and management.

The Mapping Africa’s Endangered Archaeological Sites and Monuments (MAEASaM) project, funded by Arcadia charitable foundation, is documenting and compiling a trans-national inventory of Africa’s rich archaeological heritage, including many previously unidentified sites and monuments. Particular emphasis is being given to mapping and recording sites under threat, whether from urban growth, conflict, sea-level change or infrastructure development, among other adverse impacts.

The Mapping Archaeological Heritage in South Asia (MAHSA) project, now in its Phase 2, will continue to document the endangered archaeology and cultural heritage of the Indus River Basin and the surrounding areas and publish this information in an Open Access Arches geospatial database. Over the course of Phase 2, the project will expand its scope to include the Ganges River Basin, Baluchistan and the coastal areas of India and Pakistan.

Stone tool artefacts represent the only continuous material record from early hominins across a period of three million years. Lithics provide information about early human technological adaptations and innovations, and in turn, understanding these technologies allows insights into early human behaviour. This assessment is based on the fact that lithic artefacts reflect (un-)conscious decision-making. Tool design, for instance, is characterised by the selection of the raw material and choices about overall tool morphology, edge retouch, and other factors.

Human evolution is a central research area in biology and anthropology and has a history of research going back more than 150 years. For most of that time, evidence has come from digging up fossils and archaeological remains. Research in human evolution has been transformed by the impact of genomics and the development of ancient DNA methodologies, producing new insights into past demography, dispersal and admixture patterns, social behaviour, selection, disease history, and more.

How did the biomechanics and ergonomics of the human hand influence the use and production of Palaeolithic stone tools? Traditionally, stone tools have been analyzed for their morphological properties and technological characteristics to infer the cognitive and social evolution of early hominins and modern humans. However, the role of musculoskeletal aspects in the effective use of these tools has been largely overlooked, resulting in an incomplete understanding of Palaeolithic technologies.

Cambridge is home to world-leading researchers across archaeological science, technical art history and heritage science, based at Department of Archaeology, the Fitzwilliam Museum, and the Hamilton Kerr Institute, among others. There are multiple synergies across these institutions in terms of research methodologies, goals and ambitions in the field of technical and scientific investigation of works of art and archaeological objects.

The transition from Oldowan to Acheulean technologies are hypothesised to be concomitant with advances in cognition and behaviour. However, the nature of these shifts, and their cultural and evolutionary implications are poorly defined and understood. While extensive literature exists on these technologies, significant differences in research methods and traditions make comparative and comprehensive analyses problematic.