‘A Complex Past’: Theory and Applications

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory (2023) 30:1065–1078 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-023-09630-9 ‘A Complex Past’: Theory and Applications Jan‑Eric Schlicht1 · Aleksandr Diachenko2 Published online: 3 November 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Introduction Providing an explanatory framework for numerous ‘old’ and ‘new’ archaeologi‑ cal issues, complex systems, and complex dynamic behaviour became increasingly prominent talking points in recent archaeological and anthropological discourse. Complexity, as a wider framework, potentially offers the capacity to structure vari‑ ous specified approaches under a more holistic umbrella, a direction which has been demanded by some during the last 20 years (e.g. Bentley & Maschner, 2009; Furholt, 2021; Kristiansen, 2014). Therefore, this framework may prove to be cen‑ tral in the undertaking of integrative efforts between an increasingly specialised and fractured discipline in the future. Aiming for a snapshot of the most current developments in archaeological com‑ plexity studies, we hosted a session entitled ‘Networks of Interaction and Commu‑ nication: Patterns of Emerging Complexity’ at the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in 2020. Papers in this Special Issue resulting from the session cover a wide variety of issues ranging from data aggregation to develop‑ ing methods and explaining complex patterns of the past. We hope that the Special Issue will enrich the conceptual scope among readers both familiar and unfamiliar with the field of complexity research. What is Complexity? As human beings, we are complex systems living in a world consisting of and sur‑ rounded by other complex systems. Complexity is an ongoing story of the organisa‑ tion of matter. We, as human beings, develop complex cultures and technologies. We interact with other humans as well as forming bonds with our surroundings, * Jan‑Eric Schlicht 1 CRC1266 ‑ ‘Scales of Transformation’, Institute of Pre‑ and Protohistoric Archaeology, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany 2 Institute of Archaeology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine 13 Vol.:(0123456789) 1066 J.-E. Schlicht, A. Diachenko objects, and each other. Human lives, lifeways, societies, and ecospheres historically and presently are rooted in relationships of systemic complexity. Connotations matter. Most commonly ‘complexity’ pertains to social complex‑ ity, such as the degrees of hierarchy, inequality, economic power, or social makeup which are discussed in the context of archaeological research (Barton, 2014; cf. Adams, 2001; Carballo et al., 2014; Feinman, 2011), although this does not mean that these two uses are mutually exclusive (e.g. Daems, 2021). However, ‘complex‑ ity’ as a term does not exclusively relate to socio-cultural structures, as it tends to go deeper than that. Specifically in complex systems research and adjacent fields, it entails a variety of perspectives on systemic interaction, scalar, causal, and explan‑ atory issues. While the term may seem reasonably straightforward at first, it is defined with quite some variability in the literature (Ladyman et al., 2013). Defini‑ tions may range from very sparse ones such as an observance showing ‘structure with variations’ (Goldenfeld and Kadanoff, 1999) to the ones that focus more on the behaviour of systems such as sensitivity to initial conditions, a large number of interacting parts, or multiple pathways along which a system can evolve (Whitesides & Ismagilov, 1999). Here, we follow the definition of complex systems as ‘systems that cannot be explained by reduction to their component parts’ used by Bentley and Maschner (2003b), which may be extended to one qualifying complex systems as ‘large net‑ works of components with no central control and simple rules of operation giv[ing] rise to complex collective behaviour, sophisticated information processing, and adaptation via learning or evolution’ provided by Mitchell (2009) and cited by Kohler (2012: 93). Both of these definitions capture the essence, i.e. self-evolving behaviour resulting from the interaction of a system’s component parts, which is known for emergent properties or synergy effects (i.e. an overall effect is greater than a sum of parts). The interaction of component parts in complex systems is nonlinear, which means that the output is not necessarily proportional to the input (cf. a linear relationship obligatorily presumes an output proportional to the input). The output could be disproportionately large or there could be no effect on output at all. These properties put significant limits on the predictability of complex systems’ behaviour. More specifically, an earlier state may lead to multiple later states, each of which is possible to occur. In this sense complex behaviour is unpredictable. As can be seen by these various understandings, ‘complexity’ is not quite as straightforward as one would surmise. However, what most understandings and defi‑ nitions have in common is an epistemological component relating to predictability, contingency, and a full understanding of causal as well as constitutional trajectories (regarding constitutional trajectories, see Sartenaer, 2015). A good way to approach what complexity means in a more general sense is to confront it with complication (cf. Garnsey & McGlade, 2006). A complicated system for example can be defined as a system that has many interacting component parts but is generally understand‑ able through full but also partial knowledge of the entities involved in its function. An illustrative example could be an aeroplane (without pilots), which is conceptu‑ ally easy to define—a thing that flies—as well as systemically closed, as it consists of specific parts that enable it to function. In Arthur’s (2009) terms, an aeroplane is a complex technology because its component parts are also technologies. However, it 13 ‘A Complex Past’: Theory and Applications 1067 represents a complicated system because the output may be derived from the input. Despite consisting of thousands of components, even a layperson could explain how it works, merely through knowledge gained from high-school physics class, namely the effect of aerodynamic lift, facilitated by the shape of its wings in combination with forward propulsion in air. Of course, aeroplane experts can trace every single interaction of every single component part within the system ‘aeroplane’ and can consequently provide a much more elaborate explanation, yet even partial knowl‑ edge of structure is enough to grasp the general function of an aeroplane. On the other side, a complex system harbours certain characteristics which escape full epistemological access. An example of such a system—to stay within the realm of aviation—could be seen, not in the plane itself, but in the engineer‑ ing department(s) which are involved in designing it. The reason for that lies within at least two aspects. These are as follows: (...truncated)