pollard bray 2007
TRANSCRIPT
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 1/15
Annu.
Rev
Anclu-opol. 2007. 36:245-59
First published online as a Review in Advance
on
June 18 2007
Th e
Annuol eview nthropowgy
is
online at
anthro.annualreviews.org
This
article s doi:
10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094354
Copyright
©
2007 by Annual Reviews.
Ali rights reserved
0084 6570107/1021 0245 20.00
Bicycle Made for Two
h
Integration
of
Scientific
Techniques into
rchaeological
Interpretation
A Mark Pallard and Peter Bray
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of rt University of Oxford
Oxford OX 3QY United Kingdom;
email: [email protected]@queens.ox.ac.uk
KeyWords
interdisciplinarity pragmatism cooperation equality materiality
novel methods integration
bstraet
Much
of
the literature on the integration
of
science and archaeol
ogy has tended to focus on mistakes tensions and problems. Many
scholars have also been obsessed with definitions and delineating
the boundaries between varieties
of
archaeologist.
this article we
aim to move away from this by discussing the pragmatic ways tha
progress has been achieved in applying scientific solutions to inter
preting the
pasto
Progress has
not
been dependent
on
overcoming
supposed fundamental differences between the humanities and sci
ences; instead it has been based around cooperationon the vast tracts
of common ground.
This
article highlights key arenas that encour
age this process
of
information flow and discussion: interdisciplinary
field work new scientific techniques new archaeological questions
and education.
What
is increasingly important in archaeology is how
we can encour age researchers to contr ibute to group solutions
o
problems and cross outdated disciplinary boundaries.
245
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 2/15
INTRO U TION
recent years, cooperation between main-
stream archaeology and the natural and phys-
ical sciences has become increasingly rou-
tine and productive (Killick 2005). Although
this interaction has a history going back
more than two centuries (Pollard et al 2007,
p
5), the second half
of
the twentieth cen-
tury was punctuated by papers criticizing the
lack
of
understanding between science and
archaeology (for examples
of
the debate,
see Clarke 1968, p. 635; Wilson 1973; Olin
1982; Thomas 1991; Dunnell 1993). Sorne
(e.g., Hawkes 1968) even saw the encroach-
ment of
science into archaeology
as
signify-
ing the end
of
the civilized
world no
doubt
a manifestation of the rising fear of science
in the early postbomb world,
or
an elegy for
a more stable if somewhat socially stratified
society (one in which science was the servant
to the humanities).Thankfully, these attitudes
and outbursts are becoming increasingly rare.
Rather than reopen the old debate about the
scientific
or
otherwise nature of archaeology,
we aim to analyze the processes by which sci-
entific techniques have been brought into the
archaeological mainstream, highlight sorne
of
the pitfalls to be avoided in the future, and
pointout sorne of the encouragingcurrentde-
velopments.
Progress in integration has encompassed a
remarkable array
of
questions and techniques
and has had its successes and failures.
The
initial position we emphasize
is
that archae-
ology and science cannot be treated
as
two
mutually independent blocs.
we take the
more realistic view that integration
is
a com-
plex, negotiated process, which
is
·not actu-
ally between two estranged camps, we can be-
gin to say something more interesting about
the state of archaeological science. We use the
metaphor ofa bicycle made for two (although,
in
modem
archaeology, it
is
likely to need to
accommodate many more than two );
it
has to
be an equal partnership, with a mutually in-
telligible language
of
communication, agreed
objectives, and equal inputs. Otherwise the
venture
is
doomed.
our view archaeolog-
ical knowledge
is
not created in a finished,
definitive state but refined over iterative cy-
cles of interaction between a number of part-
ners.
How
these interactions begin, proceed,
and are encouraged
or
restricted
is
examined
here.
The
success we initially note has been
achieved over many decades, but of course, a
number of notable failures have also littered
the path. Although we aim to review current
aspects
of
archaeological science, we cannot
do so without exploring how this has been
built on deep foundations.
Running through the history of archaeol-
ogy
is
an emphasis on the importance of in-
tegrating a wide range of influences
From
ail
the social, natural, and physical sciences (key
examples include Chamberlin 1897, Hawkes
1954, Trigger 1984, Wylie 1989).
t
is
of
its
very nature multidisciplinary, and it
is
an in-
teresting challenge to new students to ask
them to go through the scientific
alphabet-
From
architecture to
zoology anp
name one
which has not had sorne impact
on
archaeol-
ogy (poilard 1995). Yet archaeology
is
much
more than a collection ofborrowed tools From
other disciplines. t
is
held together by a cen-
trai distinguishing theme: the complete study
of
human society in the past through an in-
terpretation of its material remains. It seems,
From the vantage point of the early twenty-
first century, unthinkable and irresponsible to
approach this task without an open mind and
a full tool chest.
we
assume, reasonably enough, that ail
knowledge can no longer be encompassed by
a single skull, then the key question is how
can cooperation between individual special-
ists be made to achieve results.
this arti-
cle we move beyond championing a rather
vague notion
of
integration (e.g., Preucel
Hodder
1996,
p Il
and explore the spec-
trum of processes and structures that people
have created to achieve practical results. Per-
haps the overalliesson
is
that we must act to
ease the sharing
of
information rather than
passively extolling the virtues
of
cooperation.
with ail communication, this demands a
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 3/15
mutuai respect and understanding of the vari
ous languages involved. Therefore, the multi
lingual translator not a renaissance person,
but
someone who can fluently move between
disciplines-plays a key role.
noted above, we have tried to avoid the
well-worn debate overwhat counts
as
science,
andwhether archaeology can be considered
as
a science in its own right e.g., Childe 1943,
Poilard 2004). Where science or scientist
is used in the following text we mean a spe
cialist who has spent most
of
his or her train
ing in the physical
or
natural sciences. Simi
larly, archaeologïst
is
used to mean someone
who studies the past
but is
largely unfamil
iar with the detail and language
of
chemistry,
physics, or biology. We do,
of
course, appre
ciate that an increasing nurnber
of
researchers
have emerged over the years to whom these
simple definitions do not apply, and to whom
therefore such barriers are minimal. they
were in the majority in archaeology, then the
business of promoting collaboration would
simply be one limited by the quality of the
research ideas generated because there would
beno significant language barrier between the
artificial diyisions
of
knowledge that we have
created over the centuries.
it is exploring
the practical ways in which specialists from
ail fields however they are named) can be
brought together to understand archaeolog
ical questions better
is
still necessary.
We attempt to explore the several ways in
which science has interactedwith archaeology
by choosing specific themes.
These
themes
are drawn from across the spectrurn of ar
chaeology: interdisciplinaryfield work, the in
troduction of new scientific techniques, the
adoption
of
new analytical tools, the develop
ment ofnew archaeological questions, and ed
ucation. The case studies used are those with
whichwe are personally familiar and therefore
are geographically situated within the British
Isles and Europe. However, just
as
the laws
of
physics and chemistry mercifully) do
not
alter with geography, we believe that the best
practice for bringing together science and ar
chaeology
is
also universal and hope that our
observations can offer useful insights in other
parts of the worldwhere different systems and
structures appertain.
KEY SE
STU I S
Interdisciplinary Field Work
Modern large-scale research excavation and
survey projects are clear examples of science
and archaeology merging to explore specific
questions and geographical areas. fact, a
sign of the cooperation
is
that many of the
techniques employed during these projects
are no longer deemed scientific adjuncts
but
are accepted
as
equal and necessary parts
of
the archaeologïcal process. One good
recent example
of
such an excavation
is
the
Old Scamess Broch project,
on
the Shetland
Islands to the
north
ofScotland, in the United
Kingdom. This project
is
run
as
a parmership
between the Shetland Amenity Trust and
the University of Bradford and
was
designed
specifically not only to investigate the long
continuous sequence of occupation on this
remarkable site, but also to bring to bear the
wide range of scientific expertise available in
Bradford. t integrates geophysical prospec
tion, absolute dating programs, soil organic
analysis, wider field survey, environmental
reconstruction, material specialisms, and
experimental archaeology and reconstruction
as
tools for engaging the many visitors to
the site within a single unified research
design Dockrill
et
al
1995, Dockrill 2002,
Guttmann et
al
2003). Of course this
is
just
one example of how modern archaeologïcal
practice integrates these specialisms, and
manymore could he mentioned, for example,
the Stonehenge Riverside Project Parker
Pearson et
al
2005) and the Çatalhiiyük
project Hodder 2006).
The key point
is
that the practice of hav
ingseveral specialists working in the field dur
ing the excavation
as
equal members of the
team has had a profound influence on the in
tegration of scientific techniques into archae
ological interpretation. Although it seems an
7ffW7JJ onrl1lolreviews.o g • A Bicycle Mode for Two? 7
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 4/15
obvious practice to many researchers today,
it
is
still a relatively recent and crucial de
velopment. The old idea that archaeologists
carry
out
the excavation, and subsequently a
range
of
postexcavation specialists are con
tracted to report
on
the various categories
of
finds,
is
still
not
uncommon.
The
resulting
excavation reports, often with endless poorly
digested specialist reports tucked into the back
on microfiche
or
disk for ease
of
ignoring,
are sadly still with us. Killick (2001,
p.
485)
notes that although metallurgical techniques
had been sporadically (and sometimes exces
sively and uselessly) applied to archaeological
samples for centuries, they had contributed
very little to the actual understanding of ex
tractive metallurgy in prehistory. The change
toward true integration occurred when met
allurgists, chemists, and mineralogists began
to be invited to participate in field survey and
excavation, notably on the
Timna
project in
Israel directed by Rothenberg (1990).
This
collaboration, and many subsequent similar
programs, led to the joint education of both
field archaeologists and laboratory scientists
and the rapid advancement of the field of
archaeometallurgy.
Similarly Linford (2006,
p.
2209) at
tributes sorne
of
the rapid development
of
geophysical prospection to the on-site inter
action of scientists and field archaeologists.
The
principle
of
proton-free precession in the
Earth s magnetic field (packard and Varian
1954) led quickly to the development
of
field
magnetometers including one constructed
by Edward Hall and Martin Aitken at the
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the
History
of
Art at Oxford University. This was
immediately pressed into service
on
a success
fui survey of a large-scale Roman pottery pro
duction site ofWater Newton near Peterbor
ough inMarch 1958 (Aitken 1958). The iden
tification
of
a useful physical phenomenon
combined with a well-defined problem in
the field rapidly brought together science
and archaeology, with no conscious thought
of the potential difficulties of combining
physics with archaeology.
The
importance of
8
oll rd· y
the opportunity to share insight, problems,
and ideas in person while on site cannot be
overemphasized. Its increasingly common
occurrence on
modem
research excavations
can be only
of
great benefit
ta
ail concemed.
ewScientific Areas
The
breaking
of
fresh scientific ground will
often present radical new opportunities to
archaeology and encourage long-lasting inte
gration; however, it
is
rarely a straightforward
process. Undoubtedly the biggest single con
tribution of science ta archaeology has been
the provision of reliable chronologies that
are independent
of
conventional calendrical
or
typological dating. Radiocarbon now pro
vides the vast majority
of
ail scientific dates
used in archaeology after
~
ka
(Taylor
et al. 1992, Taylor Aitken 1997).The initial
development of radiocarbon was greeted with
responses ranging
From
wild enthusiasm to
complete rejection. To quote Taylor (1997,
p.66):
Glyn Daniel equated the discovery
of
the
14C
method
in
the twentieth century with
the discovery of the antiquity of the hu
man species
Grahame Clark pointed to
I4C dating
as
making a world prehistory
possible
Lewis Binford expressed the
view
that the development
of
14C-based
chronologies was responsible for refocus
ing the attention
of
archaeologists
om
chronology building to theory building.
Critical views included those of
Neustepny, who commented (1970,
p.
38),
In
fact, especially in Europe, most archae
ologists did
not
give i t a very favourable
reception. anything, the response
From
the ewWorld was even worse: According
to Taylor (2000,
p.
2 , one archaeologist
(Frederick Johnson) described the arrivai
of
radiocarbon dating
as
the equivalent
of
dropping an atomic bomb
on
archaeology.
The same archaeologist, reviewing annually
the state of American archaeology through
the 1950s,
is
quoted
as
observing frequent
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 5/15
howls
of
protests, often savagely derogatory
(Taylor 2000, p. 2). Sorne archaeologists
were even indignant that radiocarbon dating
might replace old-fashioned, uncontrolled
guessing.
The subsequent realization that radiocar
bon dates required calibrating was taken by
a minority
as
evidence
of
the complete futil
ity of such an approach, but it placated many
of
the critics (e.g., Neustepny 1970) and was
hailed
as
the second radiocarbon revolution.
For example, calibrated dates being substan
tially earlier than uncalibrated dates during
the fifth millennium P provided evidence
of
the impossibility
of
contact between the
Me-
galith builders of Atlantic Europe and the
civilised worldof the Myceneans and the
EasternMediterranean (Renfrew 1970).This,
at a stroke, demonstrated the independence
of European prehistory and refuted the dif
fusionist hypothesis of ex oriente lux (e.g.,
Childe 1957) for the origins
of
European civ
ilization. Renfrew (1976,
p
53) proclaimed,
the prehistorian could hope to date his finds,
both accurately and reliably, by a method
that made no archaeological assumptions
whatever
[A]ll
that was needed was a
couple
of
ounces
of
charcoal
and science
would do the rest.
Thirty years later, this optnrusac view has
been turned
on
its head.
By
the late 1980s
it had become clear that a single radiocar
bon date, unIess of the highest possible pre
cision,
is
unlikely to resolve an archaeological
event to much better than a century within
the later Holocene. A
few
laboratories can
produce high precision dates, with a quoted
counting error (one standard deviation, i.e.,
68 confidence)
of±20 years, but most dates
have errors ±30 40 years, which correspond
to an uncalibrated real error range ofmore
than 120 years. Once calibrated, therefore,
it
is
highly unlikely that one date will define an
event in the Holocene to bet ter than a cen
tury.
n
sorne cases this might be useful,
but
increasingly it
is
not.
The result
of
this realizationwas the fourth
radiocarbon revolution [counting the advent
of accelerator mass spectrometry methods
as
the third (Taylor 1997)], which relies explic
itly
on
the associated archaeological evidence,
rather than being independent of it.
This
method involves the use of multiple linked ra
diocarbon dates (e.g., a series
of
dates from an
archaeological sequence related to each other
by stratigraphy) and the subsequent applica
tion
of
Bayesian methods during calibration
(Buck et al 1996).
This
allows prior knowl
edge, such
as
that provided by stratigraphy
(layerAmust be older than layer
B
etc.), to be
combined with the radiocarbon dates during
calibration to constrain the resulting dates.
The outcome
is
usually a series of dates with a
narrower age range than would otherwise be
the case, and it also allows rogue dates to be
identified and eliminated on a transparent and
systematic basis.
This short and partial history
of
radiocar
bon illustrates a number of
points in rela
tion to the integration of scientific methods
into archaeology. The initial responses
of
ar
chaeologists to the newmethodologyspanned
the whole spectrum, from uncritical adula
tion to absolute refusai to accept anything.
Meanwhile the science moved
on
in the way
that ail sciences do: iteratively. This
is
not
a weakness it
is
an immense strength. The
cycles go something like this: Radiocarbon
dates do not match calendrical
dates which
is
wrong? The discovery that the rate of radio
carbon production in the atmosphere
is
not
constant means that sorne form
of
calibration
is
needed. Ergo, uncalibrated dates are wrong.
Single dates when calibrated have too high an
error factor to enable them to answer the more
refined questions being asked
of
chronologies
as a result of the answers already provided by
radiocarbon. Hence methods of combining
dates must be derived.
These
mathematical
models require input from sorne other infor
mation source; therefore, archaeological evi
dence (stratigraphy, typology, etc.) needs to be
included in the analysis, contrary to the initial
expectation. The wheel has therefore turned
7JJ7JnJ auulla/rf1Jiws org •
Bicycle
Made for
Two? 249
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 6/15
full circle, From a dating technique lauded be
cause of its independence of the archaeologi
cal evidence, to a process thatuses ail the avail
able archaeological evidence to produce the
highest possible chronological resolution. -
ter more than SOyears ofiterative progress, we
are now in a position
to
formula te better ques
tions, which cannot yet be answered with ex
isting techniques. The next interaction of re
search will, like the cycles before, weave more
lines of
evidence into its arguments and aid
the process
of
integration across archaeology.
ew
nstruments
an illustration
of
how the use
of
new ana
Iytical equipment
is
integrated with archaeo
logical research, we consider the synchrotron.
There
are a number
of
reasons-for this: First,
the synchrotron
is
a large piece
of
equipment
that no archaeology lab is ever likely ta own,
so access ta it is
of
necessity limited. Second,
it can have multiple uses, and therefore there
is no simple instruction book about how ta
use it, what to use it
for
and what the results
might mean. is therefore, almost the ex
treme example
of
how new instrumentation
needs to be integrated.
A synchrotron
is
a single but very large
instrument capable
of
producing extremely
intense several orders
of
magnitude more
intense than conventional sources and higWy
focused a few tens of microns beams of
radiation covering the whole frequency
range of the electromagnetic spectrum,
From
gamma rays to infrared Pollard et al. 2007,
p.
290 . Thus synchrotron radiation SR is
increasingly used as an energy source for a
wide range
of
analytical techniques. Because
the machines need to be large at Daresbury
in the United Kingdom it
is
a circular tube
of
96-m circumference they are constructed
as
large national
or
multinational facilities.
The
beam
is
constrained within the storage
ring by a number of bending magnets 16
at Daresbury . At each magnet, because the
electron beam
is
deflected accelerated , it
emits an intense beam
of
electromagnetic
5
ollard
my
radiation in a narrow cone tangential to the
electron beam, like a searcWight. SR is thus
tapped off at each magnet and is
fed
into a
large number of experimental stations more
than 30 at Daresbury . At each station, the
part of the electromagnetic spectrum needed
for a particular experiment is selected, and the
station
is
provided with the specialist instru
ments, detectors, and computers needed to
carry
out
that experiment.
Thus
one station
might use X-rays to investigate the structure
of
proteins with a variety
of
specialized X-ray
diffraction devices, whereas another will use
UV light for the spectroscopic investigation
of atoms
or
molecules.
SR can be used for any
of
the analytical
techniques that require electromagnetic radi
ation.
or
example, X-ray diffraction experi
ments carried out using a synchrotron source
are usually described as SXRD and have the
advantage that the X-ray beam is so intense
that the sample need only be exposed to
the beam for a few seconds in contrast ta the
manyhours required byconventional sources
so that the organization
of
fragile structures
which might otherwise be damaged byX-rays
can be determined. Thus the machine is es
pecially suitable for biomolecules. Addition
ally because the beam can be collimated to
a
few
microns, spatial variation in crystallo
graphic organization can be determined, such
as might be caused bymicrobial activity on ar
chaeological bone. Furthermore, because the
collection of data is so rapid, the sample can
be observed in real-timewhile an external fac
tor such as temperature or relative humidity
is changed, thus allowing direct measurement
of
the influence of such parameters on the
sampie structure.
Although the synchrotron has numerous
advantages,
it also has disadvantages, the most
obvious being the cost
of
the instrument and
the consequent high cost
of
access. A hand
fui
of
such instruments exist, principally in
Europe and
North
America, and most coun
tries have access arrangements through their
Research Councils or equivalent to allow
bon fide researchers free access for approved
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 7/15
experiments. Although it may take several
months to schedule a particular experiment
into the required station, and alJ samples have
to be ready to analyze at whatever time this
might be, the intensity of the beamline often
means that huge amounts of data can be col
lected in a short time. For sorne types ofwork,
where synchrotron techniques are an option,
but no t a necessity, there is an obvious cost
benefit analysis to be evaluated, bu t for others,
synchrotron sources provide the only possi
bility of carrying ou t sorne types of analysis.
An
example might be in microanalysis with
high spatial resolution, where only the syn
chrotron can provide sufficientbeam intensity
on a smalJ enough scale to carry ou t the anal
ysis. Another might be in heat-sensitive sam
pies such as proteins, where the synchrotron
can carry out very rapid analyses, because of
the high intensityof the source, before a sam
pie has time to alter.
Synchrotron applications in archaeology
actualJybegan as earlyas 1986(Harbottle et
al
1986,
p
116). This pioneering paper observed
that SR
was
suitable for
very fast, sensitive bulk analyses
of
mate
rials such
as
ceramic and stone, spot (mi
croprobe) analytical capability
.. .
, scanning
applications
. . .
and element speciation
on
a
micro scale.
These applications are ail replacements for
what was at the time existing technology, us
ing primarily the high intensity and smalJ fo
cus to do what could in principle be done
by other instruments for instance, air-path
nondestructive analysis of inorganic artifacts
could equally be done by PIXE (proton
induced X-ray emission: Pollard et
al
2007,
p
116). Perhaps inevitably, therefore, the first
use of a new instrument in archaeology was to
replace what could already be done,
no t
to ex
plore what could
no t
yet be done.
Th e
uses
of
SR in archaeology have been subsequently
documented on adedicatedWebsite at Dares
bury (http://www.srs.ac.uk/srs/). The take
up of SR was no t as rapid as was predicted
by Harbottle et al. apart from a brief report
on the comparative analysis of old coins and
potteries (Brissaud et al 1989), the next sub
stantial paper on SR
of
archaeologïcal mate
rials was again SXRF on a number of Gaulish
coins fromBrittany(Brissaud et al 1990).
The
number of published SR applications in ar
chaeology did no t rise above the level of one
or
two per year until 1
996 ten
years after the
original observation that SRhad something to
offer, which
is
a huge delay in the fast-moving
world
of
analytical science. Since 1996, how
ever, growth has been exponential and totaled
papers in 2006.
Most
of these early applications used
SXRF microanalysis on a variety of materials,
including glass (Schofield et al 1995,Janssens
et al 1996), ink and paper (Mommsen et al
1996), dental calculus (Capasso et al 1995),
and bone (Janssens et al 1998). Th e first
substantial use of SR for non-SXRFworkwas
not
until 1997, when X-ray microdiffraction
was done on metals (Dillmann et
al
1997),
wood (Kuczumow
et al
2000), and Egyptian
cosmetics (Martinetto
et al
2001).
It
was
no t
until 2000 that applications were developed
that truly used the synchrotron to make
observations that were difficult if
no t
im
possible to make using conventional sources:
for example,
SAXS
(amalJ angle X-ray scat
tering) to study the alterations of shape and
size of bone minerai crystals, as a result of
diagenetic and microbial attack (Wess et al
2001, Biller Wess 2006). This work is
significant no t only because it helps elucidate
the mechanisms of bone degradation and
survival, but also because it
is
imperative to
have good quantitative measures of condition
when using the chemistryof bone for isotopic
reconstruction
of
human diet and mobiIity
(PolJard et
al
2007,
p
180).
This
evidence shows that it took
5
years
for scientists and archaeologïsts to identify ap
plications
of SR that genuinely use the tool s
potential to answer questions
of
real archae
ologïcal significance. Fo r the first 5 years,
most applications were essentially using SR
to do something that could be done just as
effectively with a conventional source. Many
'IJ IJJW.amlllal,. views.01g
• BÙycle Made or Two? 25
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 8/15
of these applications, particularly in the early
years, simply used archaeologïcal material as
examples
of
unusual samples for analysis, sim
ply
ta
iIIustrate the power of the technique. In
fact, the SR scientific community has courted
the archaeologïcal and cultural heritage field
very heavily over the past 20 years partly, as
suredly, from a genuine conviction that SRhas
something to offer, but also, one suspects, as a
deliberate attempt
ta
broaden the field of ap
plication
of
SR into the politically sexy area
of
cultural heritage. The relative lack of success
until is a c1ear indication
of
the lack
of communication between the two fields and
shows that, despite the best endeavors ofboth
sides, without the genuine dialogue provided
by good science in partnership with meaning
fuI questions, little of value
is
achieved. Now
that this communication has begun, we can
anticipate a fruitful period
of
the application
of SR techniques in archaeology. The inter
esting question is how could this process have
been sped up?
is
not
just amulti-million-poundpiece of
hardware that can radically alter the relation
ship of science and the pasto A c1ear example
of
this is the impact
of
affordable comput
ing and visual display systems on archaeolog
ical geophysics. A major limiting factor on
the field s development was the need for an
almost impossible combination of powerful
microprocessors and portability, along with
affordability (Linford 2006, p. 2210). Hard-
ware not only enabled the practice
of
complex
geophysics in the field but also persuaded the
consumer in the museum
or
university
of
the
inherent value and utility of the method. The
development of computer displays and illus
tration equipment and software was a pow
erful factor in convincing archaeologïsts that
formerly hand-drawn, and perhaps somewhat
subjective, contours were significant and did
represent sorne form
of
archaeologïcal reality.
w rchaeologïcal uestions
Integrat ion cannot happen in the abstract,
without the focus of a central question.
252
Pol ord y
The
Ancient Human Occupation of Britain
Project 1 (AHOB 1 has recently shown the
power
of
this simple proposition. By splitting
the past 700,000 years into seven sections,
each of which had a short Iist of key ques
tions, the AHOB 1 project brought together
an impressive range
of
archaeologïsts and sci
entists (Ashton
et
al
2006, Stringer 2006).
This project has led to more than 150 scien
tific papers and gathered together ~ 3 senior
academics from seven institutions and obvi
ously dozens more participants from around
the world. This level
of
participation
c1early
shows what can be achieved with the focus
of
an agreed objective.
The
existence
of
such
a question acts as one catalyst, but, perhaps
more significantly, funding also has catalytic
properties. The funding of interdisciplinary
research projects presents a number
of
well
known challenges to researchers and funding
bodies alike, but this article s focus is not to
discuss such matters because funding issues
are often countryspecific and time dependent.
A publication from this project c1early
demonstrates the way that science and ar
chaeology can and should mesh seamlessly
in modern research. Parfitt et al (2005) re
ports flint artifacts from the
Cromer
Forest
Bed Formation at Pakefield, Suffolk, United
Kingdom. These artifacts are the earliest
unequivocal evidence for human occupa
tion north
of
the Alps and are dated to
P To recover, identify, date, and
put this evidence into a wider archaeologï
cal context participation was required
of
ex
perts in excavation, geology, sediment geo
chemistry, artifact analysis, mammalian fauna,
arnino acid geochronology, palaeomagnetism,
coleoptera, the Palaeolithic, plant macro
fossils, ostracods, forarninifera, and archae
ologïcal illustration and recording. Project
management and editing must also be added
to this Iist. No single investigator could pos
sibly understand completely ail the Iiterature
cited in this one paper. However, the ability to
be broadly aware of the capabilities and limi
tations of other specialisms enables the com
munication that makes such complex work
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 9/15
possible. We argue that this illustrates the role
played byone
or
more multilingual translators
in research projects.
Innovative questions do not just occur
within a managed set
of
funded researchers
or around the side of a trench on a key site.
fact, one
of
the most important future
i-
rections
of
archaeological science has been
heavily influenced by Iiterature originating
within sociology, art analysis, and anthropol-
ogy
These
areas have a long history
of
inves-
tigating objects and their relationships with
human beings. Radical reevaluations of how
people, technology, and things interact have
begun to affect the research designs
of
archae-
ological scientists. Essentially a sustained shift
has recently occurred, away from seeing ob-
jects
as
the inert solutions to human problems,
toward them being active agents within soci-
ety. Formerly within archaeological thought,
there were
c ear
distinctions between people
and things, and
it
was certainly oilly the hu-
mans that were active (Sahlins 1976, p
170):
No object, no thing, has beingor movement
in human society except by the significance
men can.give it.
this scheme, Hawkes (1954, p. 162) was
comfortable splittingthe technological sphere
oflife awayfrom religionand sociallife,which
were more specifically human.
However, a series
of
theoretical shifts have
occurred, to which archaeology has success-
fully begun to adapt (important reviews in-
c ude
DeMarrias et al 2004; Gardner 2004;
Jones 2004, and the resulting discussion in
rch eometry
volume 47, issue ; Dobres
Robb 2005). Old divisions between peo-
ple, structures, and things have begun to be
blurred in the work
of
Bourdieu (1977, 1990)
and Giddens (1979, 1984). this philoso-
phy, people and objects are indivisibly linked
and create each other. Similarly scholars now
argue that objects are active agents within
human societies, and they have power and
influence over
our
daily lives (Appadurai 1986,
Miller 1994, Gell 1998).
This
is
not a move toward a material
determinism; instead it
is
more a move to
a balance where the inherent physical and
chemical properties
of
materials and theu
geographical distribution also have an ac-
tive impact on human culture. Of course,
determining and exploring the properties,
provenance, and Iife history
of
archaeological
artifacts
is
often the specialism of the archaeo-
logical scientist. Therefore, we are beginning
to see fascinating collaborations between the-
orists and scientists to explore the place
of
objects and things in society (Cooney 2002,
Hosler 1993).
That
the division between lab-
oratory science and philosophy
is
becoming
increasingly blurred owing to the posing
of
new questions is one of the most exciting
developments in archaeology over the past
few
years and, incidentally, successfully coun-
ters one of the major criticisms of science in
archaeology: that our knowledge
of
ancient
technology has developed in a social theory
vacuum.
duc tion
The education of the next generation of ar-
chaeologists
is
a key arena in which science
and archaeology can and should be brought
together (pollard 1995, Killick
Young 1997,
Needham 2005). Programs highlighted by
Killick and Young (1997) from the Univer-
sities
of
Bradford and Sheffield in the United
Kingdom are now long established in teach-
ing practical scientific applications ta archae-
ological problems. ormer students of these
courses have gone
on
to establish commercial
archaeologyunits and teach in many academic
settings.
This
maturation
of
taught scien-
tific archaeology greatly aids integration with
archaeological interpretation. Scientific ar-
chaeology education was often available oilly
through dedicated evangelists in univer-
sity science departrnents, for example Arnold
Aspinall s pioneering work in Bradford s
e-
partrnent of Physics (Linford 2006,
p
2210).
Now, at least in the United Kingdom, most
archaeological science
is
practiced and taught
W1JJW annuolreviews 7g • Bicycle Mode Jo
Two?
5
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 10/15
within archaeology deparnnents, with the as
sociated security and continuity this provides.
A leading thinker in the development of
material science within archaeology, Cyril
Stanley Smith, warned
of
the dangers
of
at
tempting to integrate undergraduate teaching
(Smith 1981, p ix :
necannothope tounderstand thenatureof
interaction between impinging areas with
ou t
a
firm
knowledge
of
at least one
of
them
lnterdisciplinary activity is
as
dan
gerous for the undergraduate
as
it is essential
for the professional in any field.
We argue that attitudes within archaeology
have changed dramatically and Smith was be
ing overly cautious about the dangers
of
this
type of education. mentioned above, sci
ence and archaeology are not separate blocs
of
thought that need to be forced together.
Instead, scientific applications within archae
ology are a coherent subject with particular
concerns and techniques.
teaching
is
cen
tered on clear mutual problems, the teach
ing
of
scientific themes to archaeologists
of
ail flavors
is
in fact essential (pollard 1995,
Killick Young 1997).
The
main concern
is
to generate an awareness
of
the broad
scape (Needham 2005,
p
193), rather than
generating confusion or creating ineffectual
jacks-of-all-trades. This phrase sums up one
of our
main concerns, which
is
how to cre
ate a flow of discussions and collaborations
between specialists. At the very least, archae
ologists must aim
ta
become intelligent con
sumers for a wide range of other disciplines.
Education
is
central to allowing experts
ta
ac
tually realize that they can work together on
archaeological problems.
WH T C USES DIFFICULTIES
BRINGING
US
TOGETHER
The examples above, drawn from very differ
ent areas
of
archaeology, show sorne varia
tion in the way that the integration of scien
tific methods into archaeology has happened,
254 ollard
8 Y
but ail
have eventually become successful and
fruitful. Two parodies can be put forward to
illustrate how archaeology and science should
not interact. Although they are fictitious and
overemphasized for effect, the reader
is
likely
to recognize both scenarios.
The
first is the parachutist. Here, scientists
attempt, often from the very best
of
motives,
to apply their expertise within archaeology.
Often they are the purveyors of a single ana
lytical technique, and wish to apply this tech
nique ta the exciting world of archaeology, art
. histary, or heritage science. They can often
be seen on the margins
of
conferences asking
for sorne samples to analyze. Often, however,
they are genuinely trying to be helpful, and
they will ask their local archaeological guru
what might be a good project to address.
The
answercan sometimes reveal one of the funda
mental flaws (and delights ) of archaeology-
the myopic obsession with detail: the pottery
of
a small corner
of
an obscure place in the
period xx20 to xx50 True, this may be fasci
natingto the few peoplewho have ever studied
this material, but it betrays a lack
of
consen
sus aboutwhat are themajor currentquestions
in archaeology. Arguably, the mark of a ma
ture academic discipline is that it
is
possible to
specify collectively what are the most impor
tant questions ta be resolved in the next five
years. Archaeology, at the highest intellectual
level, has
not
yet achieved this and shows lit
de ambition to do so.
This
somewhat anarchic
approach to life is one of archaeology's many
attractions, but politicallyspeaking, when one
is arguing for resources in an institution
or
with a funding body, the lack of coherence
is
perceived as a weakness.
The
second parody might be termed the
blind leading the blind. n this scenario, an
archaeologist learns
of
an analytical technique
developed in another branch of sciencewhich
might have relevance for his or
her
research.
Enthused, s/he adopts the methodology byei
ther collaborating with someone already in
the field (which
is
frankly rare) or acquiring
the relevant technology and applying it them
selves. Although this is often a very fruitful
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 11/15
approach and
is
one means by which the
much-encouraged interdi ciplinary research
can develop, the problem is that, in apply
ing an exogenous technique, the archaeolo
gist may be unfamiliar with the limitations,
constraints or pitfalls of the original. This
research consequently becomes isolated and,
in sorne cases, nonsensical.
short, i t may
be pushed beyond the realistic capabilities
of the method, either deliberately or unwit
tingly. The problem of development in isola
tion from the parent discipline
is
compounded
bythe limitations of current publishingmech
anisms. A number of archaeological journals
are keen, quite rightly, to publish scientific
developments or applications, and a handful
of specialist scientific journals are published
within archaeology. The issue
is
the number
of
people available within archaeology to crit
ically evaluate a newscientific application, one
ofcritical mass. This problem is compounded
by either the unwillingness of scientific spe
cialists to review applications in archaeology
( not my field , too busy or the lack
of awareness of these people of the problems
in analyzing and interpreting archaeological
material.
The
end result can be the publica
tion of material that
is
scientifically unsound,
but which has not been caught by the peer re
view system, resulting in the propagation and
perpetuation of unsound or low-quality sci
entific work in archaeology: the bandwagon
effect.
HOWMIGHT TH
BE
VOIDED RIDING
TH
ICYCLEM DE FOR TWO
Despite the familiarity
of
the models de
scribed above, at least sorne boundaries were
crossed, however badly.And this is the key: the
iterative process of dialogue has been started,
and eventually a useful piece of research may
emerge. There are three fundamental keys to
successfully riding the bicycle. One is a com
mon goal (which in this case
is
an agreed
question), secondly a shared language, and the
third, mutual
respect not
simply personal
respect,which
is
asine qua non but mutual aca
demic respect. A common myth among sci
entists is that it is easier to teach a chemist or
physicist enough archaeology to understand
the issues than
it is
to teach an archaeologist
to understand chemistry or physics.
This
is
simple academic arrogance. Archaeology, al
though a subject
of
endless fascination to the
general public, is a widelymisunderstood aca
demic discipline, even within academia. It is
not about
things these
are merely sources of
evidence.
Nor is
it solely about
excavation-
this is the data-recovery phase ofarchaeologi
cal research (important though this
is
because
the data include contextual evidence crucial to
interpretation).
It is,
as pointed out by Ren
frew and Bahn (1996, p. 17 concerned with
the full range of past human experience, and
this
of
necessity makes it an infinitely com
plex and fascinating subject. At a meeting on
scientific dating in the British Museum sorne
time ago, the technical difficulties associated
withobtaininghigh-quality radiocarbondates
for archaeological research were being dis
cussed at length, largely by radiocarbon spe
cialists. Afrer sorne hours of intricate techni
cal discussion, a patientbut obviously irritated
senior archaeologist stood up and said, Ar
chaeology
is
difficult, too Stunned silence
descended. Clearly this was an aspect that had
been lost sight of in the welter of techni
cal detail.
This
attitude
is not
the basis for
an equal parmership. The bicycle made for
two will
not
go in a straight line under these
circumstances.
The issue of training is important because
training unlocks the linguistic key to genuine
collaboration and allows us to capitalize fully
on new developments elsewhere in the sci
ences and humanities.Archaeological training
must touch on a wide range of other disci
plines because without this there
is
no com
mon language.
Most
collaborations falter at
the first step
if
the archaeologist cannot frame
his or her question in the language familiar
to the microbiologist, or whatever specialist
is concerned (and,
of
course, vice versa). This
might be an overambitious aim. Can a student
1JnJlW annllalreviews org
•
Bicycle Made
t
Two? 255
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 12/15
of archaeology with little if any formaI train
ing in the sciences really become a competent
analytical scientist? In our experience, the an
swer, overwhelmingly, is yes, sorne cano ot,
obviously, in the same sense as one who has
had years of formaI training through the con
ventional route. But, by hard work and tar
geted learning, it
is
possible.
Of
course, a lit
tle learning can be a dangerous thing, and one
of the prime requirements of a student who
chooses to follow this path is a keen sense of
self-criticism and the ability to recognize the
limits of one s own knowledge. It used to be
argued, for example, that nobody could seri
ously learn enough geology and chemistry to
become a geochemist, and yet this
is
now a to
tally accepted area of specialism. Th e trick
is
to become competent at the elements
ofboth
geology and chemistry that are relevant to the
DIS LOSURE ST TEMENT
interdisciplinary field. The same must be true
of the archaeological sciences.
This trainin g allows debate to occur at
a meaningful level. As we have argued else
where Bray Pollard 2005), it is the debate
that captures the pasto Communication over
a carefully defined question is the key Inte
gration cannot be defined just by the quantity
of joint papers: comprises discussion, meet
ings, conferences, and negotiation. From this,
agreement on objectives will hopefully arise
and excellent papers will become c1assics but
it is the bringing together of people, whether
over coffee, in a muddy trench,
in
a university
seminar, or around a new expensive analyti
cal
machine, that
is
crucial. It
is
t he process
of actually doing archaeology that most real
istically achieves the integration
of
formerly
separated experts.
The
authors are
not
aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the Qbjectivity of
this review.
LITERATURE
CITED
Aitken MJ. 1958. Magnetic prospecting. 1:
The
Water Newton survey. Archaeometry 1:24 26
Appadurai
ed. 1986.
The
Social
Lift ofThings.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Vniv. Press
Ashton
N
Lewis SG, Stringer C. 2006. Introduction:
The
Palaeolithic occupation
of
Europe.
A tribute to John J Wymer, 1928-2006.].
Quat
Sci 21:421 24
Bourdieu
P 1977. Omline a Theory Practice transI. R Nice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Vniv. Press
Bourdieu P. 1990. The Logic ofPractice transI. R Nice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
BrayPJ, Pollard AM. 2005.
The
underpinnings and consequences
of
the materiality approach-
a comment on Jones 2004. Archaeometry 47: 175-78
Brissaud l, WangJX, Chevallier P. 1989. Synchrotron radiation induced X-ray fluorescence
at
LURE ]
Radioanal
Nue/
Che1ll 131 :399-413
Brissaud l, Chevallier P, Dar denne C, Deschamps
N
Frontier
JP
et
al
1990. Analysis
of
Gaulish coins by proton induced X-ray emission, synchrotron radiation X-ray fluorescence
and neutron activation analysis. Nuclear lnstrum.
Methods
Phys Res B49:305-8
Buck CE, Cavanagh
WG
Litton CD 1996.
The
Bayesian
Approach to
lnterpreting
Archaeological
Data. Chichester, UK: Wiley
Capasso DJT Capasso L, Di Tota G, Jones KW , Tuniz C. 1995. Synchrotron radiation
microprobe analysis
of
human dental calculi from an archaeological site: new possible
perspective on paleonutrition studies lnt ] Osteoarchaeol 5:282 88
Chamberlin TC 1897. The method of multiple working hypotheses.].
Geol 5:837 48
Childe VG. 1943. Archaeology as a science.
Nature
152:23-24 •
256
POII01·d
Bray
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 13/15
Childe VG. 1957. Retrospect.
Antiquity 32:69-74
Clarke DL. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen
Cooney G. 2002. So many shades
of
rock: colour symbolism and Irish stone axeheads. In
Colouring the Past ed. AJones, G MacGregor, pp. 93-107. Oxford: Berg
DeMarrais E, Gosden C, Renfrew C, eds. 2004. Rethinking materiality. In The
Engagement
o Mind with the Maurial World. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Monogr.
DillmannP, PopulusP, FluzinP, ChevallierP, ElkaimE, BerangerG.1997.Microdiffraction
of
synchrotron radiation-identification
of
nonmetallic phases in ancient iron products.
Rev. Metall.-Cahiers d'Informat.
Tech.
94:267-68
Dobres MA, Robb JE. 2005. Doing ageney: introductory remarks on methodology.
Archaeol. Method Theory 12:159-66
Dockrill
S]
2002. Brochs, economy and power. In
In
the Shadow
o
the Brochs: The
Iron Age in
Scotland ed. B Ballin-Smith, Banks, pp. 153-62. Stroud: Tempus
Dockrill SJ BondJM, CrurnmetJ, Heron CP. 1995. Scatness, Shetland: an integrated survey
of
a multiperiod settlement mound.
Archaeol. Prospect.
2: 141-54
Dunnell Re 1993.
Why
archaeologïsts don t care about archaeometry. Archeomaurials
7:
161
65
Gardner
A
2004.
Agency
Uncovered:
Archaeological
Perspectives
on
Social
Agency Power
and Being
Human. London:
UCL
Press
Gell 1998. r t andAgency. n Anthropological
Theory.
Oxford: Clarendon
Giddens A 1979. Central
Problems
in
Social
Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in
Social
Analysis. Houndrnills: Macrnillen
Giddens A 1984. The Constitution o Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press
Guttrnan EBA, Simpson lA, Dockrill S]. 2003. Joined-up archaeology at Old Scatness,
Shetland: thin section analysis of
the site and hinterland.
Environ. Archaeol. 8:
17-31
Harbott le G, Gordon BM, Jones KW. 1986. Use
of
synchrotron radiation in archaeometry.
Nucl. IfZstrllm.
Methods Phys. Res.
B
14:
116-22
HawkesCFe 1954. Archaeologïcal theoryandmethod: sorne suggestions from the OldWorld.
Am. Anthropol.
56:155-68
HawkesJ. 1968. The proper study of mankind. Antiquity 42:255-62
HillerJC, Wess T] 2006. The use
of
small-angle X-ray scattering to study archaeological and
experimentally altered bone. Archaeol. Sci. 33: 560-72
Hodder
1
2006. Çatalhijyük: The
Leopards
Tale: Revealing
the
Mysteries ofTurkey'sAncient
town.
London: Thames and Hudson
Hosler D. 1993.
The
Sound and Colour o Power:
The
Sacred Metallurgical Technology o Ancient
West
Mexico.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT Press
JanssensK, AertsA, VinczeL, AdamsF, YangC, etaI. 1996. Corrosion phenomena in electron,
proton and synchrotron X-ray microprobe analysis ofRoman glass from Qumran,Jordan.
Nucl.
Instrum.
Methods
B
109/110:690-95
Janssens K, Vincze L, Vekemans B Williams
CT
RadtkeM, et al 1998.
The
nondestructive
deterrnination
ofREE
in fossilized boneusing synchrotron radiation inducedK-lineX-ray
rnicrofiuorescence analysis. Fresenius
Analy. Chem. 363 :413-20
Jones A 2004. Archaeometry and materiality: materials-based analysis in theory and practice.
Archaeometry 46:327-38
Killick D. 2001. Science, speculation and the origins of extractive metallurgy. In Handbook o
Archaeological Sciences ed. DR Brothwell, AM Pollard, pp. 483-92. Chichester: Wiley
Killick D. 2005. Comments
IV:
Is there really a chasm between archaeologïcal theory and
archaeologïcal science? Archaeomtery 47:185-89
7JJ7JnJJ.Ollll110h-roÙ WS.O,'g
•
A Bicycle Made for
Two? 257
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 14/15
Killick D Young SMM. 1997. Archaeology and archaeometry: from casual dating
ta
a mean
ingful relationship? Antiquity 71:518 24
Kuczumow
A
Chevallier P Dillmann P Wajnberg P Rudas M 2000. Investigation
of
petrified wood by synchrotron X-ray fluorescence and diffraction methods.
Speetrochimica
Acta B55:1623-33
Linford
N
2006. The application
of
geophysical methods
ta
archaeological prospection.
Rep
Progr
Phys 69:2205 57
Martinetto P Anne M Dooryhée E Drakopoulos M Dubus M
et
al 2001. Synchrotron
X-ray microbeam studies
of
ancient Egyptian make-up. Nue/ Instrum. Methods Phys Res
B 181:744-48
Miller D. 1994. Artefacts and the meaning
of
things. In
Companion Encyclopaedia
of
Anthropology:
Humanity Culture and
Social
Lift ed. T Ingold pp.396-419. London: Routledge
Mommsen H Beier
Th
Dittmann
H
Heimermann D Hein A et
al
1996. X-ray fluorescence
analysis on
inks
and papers
of
incunabula with synchrotron radiation. Archaeometry
38:
347
57
Needham S 2005. Comments VI: rationalizing materiality. Archaeometry
71:
192-95
Neustepny E 1970. A new epoch in radiocarbon dating. Antiquity
44:38 45
Olin]
1982. Future Directions in
Archaeometry:
A Roundtable Washington DC: Smithson. Inst.
Press
Packard M Varian
R
1954. Free nuclear induction
in
the Earth s magnetic field. Phys
Rev
93:941
Parfitt SA Barendregt RW Breda M Candy I Collins
MJ
et
al
2005. The earliest record
ofhuman activity in northern Europe. Nature
438:1008 12
Parker Pearson M Poilard
Tilley C Thomas
Richards C Welh;m
K
2005.
The
Stonehenge Riverside
project
interim report 2005.
http://www shef ac uklarchaeology/
researchlstonehenge
Pollard AM. 1995.
Why
teach Heisenberg to archaeologists? Antiquity 69:242 47
Pollard
AM
2004. Putting infinity up on trial: a consideration
of
the role
of
scientific thinking
in future archaeologies. In A
Companion
to
Archaeology
ed.
J
Bintliff pp. 380-96. Oxford:
Blackwell
Pollard M Batt C Stern
B
Young SMM. 2007. Analytical Chevtistry
in Archaeology
Cambridge
UK: Cambridge Vniv. Press
Preucel
R
Hodder
I
1996. Communicating present pasts prologue. In Contemporary Archae-
ology in Theory ed. R Preucel l Hodder pp. 3-20. London: Blackwell
Renfrew
AC
1970. The tree-ring calibration
of
radiocarbon: an archaeological evaluation.
Proc Prehist Soc 36:280 311
Renfrew C. 1976. Before Civilization. The
Radiocarbon
Revolution and Prehistoric
Europe
Harmondsworth: Penguin
Renfrew C Bahn P. 1996.
Archaeology: Theories
Methods
Practice
London: Thames and
Hudson. 2nd ed.
Rothenberg
B
ed. 1990. The Ancient Metallurgy of
Copper
London: Inst. Archaeo-Metallurg.
Stud. Vniv. Coll. London
Sahlins M. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason Chicago: Vniv. Chicago Press
Schofield PF Cressey G Wren Howard
P
Henderson CMB. 1995. Origin of colour in iron
and manganese containing glasses investigated by synchrotron radiation. Glass Technol
36:89-94
Smith CS. 1981. The Search for Structure. London: MIT Press
Stringer C. 2006.
Homo
Britannicus: The
Ineredible
Story ofHuman Lift in Britain. London: Allen
Lane
58 Pol ard Hmy
7/23/2019 Pollard Bray 2007
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/pollard-bray-2007 15/15
Taylor RE. 1997. Radiocarbon dating.
Chronometrie Dating
in Archaeology ed. RE Taylor,
M] Aitken, pp. 65-96. New York: Plenum
Taylor RE. 2000. The contribution of radiocarbon dating to ew World archaeology.
dio-
carbon 42:1 21
Taylor RE, Aitken M], eds. 1997. Chronometrie Dating in Archaeology. New York: Plenum
Taylor RE, Long A Kra RS, eds. 1992. diocarbon after Four Decades: Interdiseiplinary
Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag
Thomas]
1991. Science versus antiscience? Archaeolog.
Rev. Cambridge
10:27-37
Trigger BG. 1984. Archaeology at the crossroads: What s new? Annll. Rev. Anthropol.
13:275-
300
Wess T] Drakopoulos M, SnigirevA Wouters] Paris
0 et al
2001. The use of small-angle
X-ray diffraction studies for the analysis of structural features in archaeological samples.
Archaeometry
43:117 29
Wilson DG 1973. open letter to archaeologists.
Antiqllity
47:264 68
Wylie A 1989. Archaeology cables and tacking: the implications of practice for Bernstein s
Options beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Philos. Soc. Sei. 19:1 18