Method framework version: 2026.1
Published: 12 February 2026 (Europe)
Evidence cut‑off policy: every Profile must declare its own cut‑off date and review date.
What the Profile is
The Archaeological Profile is a standardised way to summarise how an archaeological unit is defined in practice, not by a single date range, but by patterns in the evidence: recurring material traits, repeated practices, spatial distributions, and consistent associations across sites.
In other words, it turns an often implicit judgement (“this assemblage belongs to X”) into an explicit, auditable statement:
- Which evidence domains matter most for recognising the unit?
- How strong is each domain as a diagnostic signal, given what is currently published and accessible?
- How reliable is the underlying dataset?
- How stable is the label in scholarship?
The Profile is designed to be transparent and updatable. It does not claim to capture “identity” directly, and it does not rank cultures by “advancement.” It is a structured snapshot of the current research record.
What we score
A Profile scores evidence domains that archaeologists repeatedly use to define and interpret units:
- Settlement patterns (site types, density, distribution, organisation)
- Built environment (architecture, construction traditions, enclosures)
- Mortuary practices (burials, rites, grave goods, cemetery structure)
- Ceramics (forms, decoration, technology, production traditions)
- Tools & technology (lithics, bone/antler tools, production systems)
- Metallurgy & materials (metal use, production evidence, craft signatures)
- Exchange & connectivity (imports, provenance, networks, distribution)
- Subsistence (archaeobotany, zooarchaeology, isotopes, storage)
- Social differentiation (inequality indicators, central places, elites)
- Taxonomic stability (how consistent the label/definition is across scholars)
These are not “traits a culture must have.” They are channels of evidence through which archaeologists recognise patterns. The Profile asks: How diagnostic is each channel for this unit at this scale, given this evidence base?
Why one Profile works for Cultures, Complexes, Horizons, and Periods
Different archaeological units use different words, but they are built from the same kinds of evidence.
- A Culture is typically treated as a relatively coherent package with recognisable diagnostics within a bounded region and time range.
- A Complex is a broader bundle: shared commonalities across multiple assemblages or culture-groups (breadth matters more than sharp boundaries).
- A Horizon usually expresses wide spread of certain styles/technologies/practices across space; it often scores strongly in interaction/material domains and more weakly in local lifeways (because it isn’t meant to describe them).
- A Period is a chronological container; it can be profiled as a characteristic evidence structure for a time span without implying a single cultural identity.
The Profile applies across all of these because it does not score “peoplehood.” It scores how strongly each evidence system contributes to recognition and interpretation—and that question remains valid at every taxonomic level.
What the score means
Each axis is scored 0–5, using a single rubric across the whole site:
- 0 – no usable evidence currently documented in the dossier
- 1 – very weak/rare traces
- 2 – present but inconsistent or weakly diagnostic
- 3 – clear and recurring; moderately diagnostic
- 4 – strong, widespread, clearly diagnostic
- 5 – defining hallmark; central to identification
A crucial rule: scores measure diagnostic strength, not importance.
A low score may mean the domain is genuinely rare—but it may also mean preservation bias, limited excavation, limited publication, missing specialist studies, or contested attribution.
What scores are based on: V/C/D
To keep scoring analytical (not impressionistic), every axis is tested with V/C/D:
- Visibility (V): Is the evidence clearly documented and accessible (excavation, publication, datasets)?
- Consistency (C): Does the signal recur across multiple sites/contexts within the declared scope?
- Distinctiveness (D): Does it differentiate the unit from neighbours/alternatives, or is it generic?
This prevents a common mistake: confusing “present” with “defining.”
Example logic (simplified):
- A domain can be visible but not distinctive (e.g., common pottery forms widely shared).
- A domain can be distinctive but weakly visible (rare, under-studied evidence).
- High scores require more than presence; they require recurring, differentiating patterns.
Evidence Grade and Notes: the honesty layer
Because archaeology is uneven, every Profile includes:
Evidence Grade (A/B/C)
Think of this as “how much you trust the polygon.”
- A – strong dossier: multiple sites + multiple evidence domains + modern analyses + solid publication base
- B – moderate dossier: enough to score, but uneven (gaps, older excavations, limited specialist work)
- C – limited dossier: few sites, sparse publication, heavy reliance on a single evidence domain, or major attribution disputes
Notes
Notes prevent false precision. They record what the score depends on and what might change it:
- “Subsistence: 0 = no published archaeobotany/zooarchaeology yet (unknown, not absent).”
- “Ceramics diagnostic mainly in the core zone; periphery mixed.”
- “Mortuary evidence uneven; cemetery data concentrated in two localities.”
A Profile without Evidence Grade and Notes can look confident while being fragile. With them, the Profile remains scientifically honest and updatable.
To see how this framework works in practice, explore the full Archaeological Profile of the Starčevo–Körös–Criș complex, where each axis is scored and justified with published evidence.
Versioning and time stamps
Profiles are interpretive snapshots, not eternal facts. Each one must carry:
- Profile version (e.g., 2026.1)
- Evidence cut‑off date (e.g., “Reviewed publications and datasets available up to 31 Dec 2025”)
- Last reviewed (a specific date)
- Optional: Change note (what changed since last version)
This makes Profiles citable and prevents “silent rewrites” when new excavations or analyses appear.
How to read the radar chart
The radar chart is a fingerprint of evidence structure:
- Longer axes indicate domains that are more diagnostic in the current record.
- Shorter axes indicate domains that are weakly documented, inconsistent, or non-distinctive at this scale.
Important reading rules:
- Do not treat the polygon area as a ranking.
- Axis order is fixed (changing it changes the visual impression).
- Compare like with like (Culture vs Culture; Horizon vs Horizon).
- Use Evidence Grade + Notes to interpret uncertainty and bias.
What evidence goes into a Profile
Profiles should be supported by a small editorial dossier (even if not fully published on-page), and they should draw from:
- excavation reports and site publications
- regional surveys/site inventories (especially for Settlement)
- ceramic corpora and typological syntheses
- specialist analyses (archaeobotany, zooarchaeology, isotopes)
- archaeometallurgy and provenance/compositional studies
- mortuary catalogues and burial syntheses
- distributional and comparative studies (especially for Exchange/Horizons)
A Profile is strongest when each axis can point to 1–3 anchor sources and a one-sentence justification in Notes.
While this method moves beyond linear timelines, you can consult the Bulgarian archaeological chronology to understand how different cultures relate in time.
For a deeper discussion of how archaeological names differ across scholars and regions, see our article on discrepancies in archaeological classification.
