Here are my SEM, XRD, and XRF question responses. -Max
Discussion question: (this font is blue and I don't know how to fix it...) What's the difference between analogical reasoning and making relational analogies? Miller discusses formal analogical reasoning and relational analogies but she doesn't provide much of an explanation by way of clear, formal definitions to make clear the difference between the two. Even the names of the two inference strategies both contain the word analogy, and I would have assumed that "analogical" means the same thing as "relational."
Danielle- x-ray and SEM exercises.pdf
Check it out: XRF in action!!
Discussion question: For a certain object under analysis, a potsherd for example, which and how many scientific tests would be necessary to conclusively identify its chemical makeup? Once this has been accomplished, what could potentially be gained from additional microscopic or spectroscopic analyses?
file:11008425 class="mceLinkBracket">
Posted at Feb 04/2010 11:22PM:
kdchin: Discussion Question: According to Miller, there has been a general shift of focus in the archaeological world from things to people. How does technology contribute to or hinder this movement?
Posted at Feb 05/2010 03:07AM:
johnsonp: So throughout the readings, Henderson in particular, and lectures, the topic of techniques that produce chemical makeup has been widely discussed, ranging from quantitative to qualitative results. I guess what I am still unsure of and wondering is in which ways do these results appear? I know that some of the examples show various spectra? Is that true for all compositional readouts and how do they compare to each other? Also, does one test usually take precedence over others, being regarded as "better" or "more accurate", or is it really just depend on which test to use based on a multitude of other factors (i.e. time, material, money, amount of destruction...)? --Peter
Posted at Feb 05/2010 05:37AM:
Alex Smith: As we've seen in the first few classes, the idea of the chaîne opératoire is a large part of archaeological material analysis and technological reproduction. Leroi-Gourhan, who coined the term in the mid twentieth century, saw technology as total social fact (drawing from Mauss), emphasizing the social significance of the technological process over the final product. Is it possible to reconcile the deeply philosophical view of Leroi-Gourhan and material science? Or has the chaîne opératoire become its own entity?
XRD-XRF-SEM-EDS.pdf XRD-XRF-SEM-EDS - Alex Smith.doc
Posted at Feb 05/2010 09:25AM:
nasa: When are destructive analysis techniques justified, and when is information related to the composition (and, potentially, the history) of an artifact more valuable than the artifact itself? -- Nick
Posted at Feb 05/2010 10:25AM:
kbharrin: Katherine Harrington: What types of issues do archaeologists need to consider when they are dealing with different scales of information, from regional data to atomic structure? What should they consider when attempting to generalize about past technologies based on the scientific analysis of a limited number of samples?
Ceramics Discussion Questions (Week 3)
Posted at Feb 11/2010 04:20PM:
Danielle: I found the example Elizabeth showed on Wednesday of the presence of an organic substance in a ceramic material being used to determine firing temperatures to be very interesting. I was wondering if it would be possible to perform tests on such remaining organic tempers themselves to figure out what they are, and maybe provide additional clues to the clay-making process. Perhaps the addition of certain vegetative materials could indicate season of pottery production?
Posted at Feb 11/2010 07:20PM:
max: One of the things that struck me from this week's chapter of Miller's book was the section on "firing chamber" (ephemeral, single chamber, double chamber) use. In particular, she discussed the advantages of double chamber kilns in giving finer control over firing processes. Though despite the advantages, even today, people still use the more "primitive" ephemeral and single chamber kilns. Is this typical? That is, do people often stick with what technology they have regardless of the advantages of new technology? Was this a common phenomenon throughout the past, or is rejection of modern technology a relatively new practice? Is there archaeological evidence for this occurring? In either case, why would craftspeople, and others, not want to upgrade?
Posted at Feb 11/2010 10:47PM:
kdchin: Miller describes several techniques for shaping an object: hand-forming directly from clay lump, hand-forming from slabs, hand-forming from coils, wheel-throwing, use of tournettes, use of molds, paddle techniques, and anvil/rush of air techniques. What were the implications of an artisan's choice of technique? Was the use of turning devices or molds associated with being more technologically advanced and thus characteristic of a more sophisticated civilization? Were hand-forming techniques associated with being more unique and personalized?
Posted at Feb 12/2010 01:19AM:
Alex Smith: After reading the Riley et al. chapter and the use of petrography and NAA to disprove a typological connection, I started wondering what exactly is the relationship between typologies and material science? Especially for an artifact like a pot sherd or vessel, are the archaeometric techniques used to circumvent the seemingly subjective typological analysis? Or do they rest on equal footing? As material sciences continue to progress technologically, how might this relationship change (or how has it changed) between hard science and this relatively subjective, yet fundamental archaeological method?
Posted at Feb 12/2010 01:26AM:
johnsonp: Kind of building off of what max posted, when reading about these firing techniques I became increasingly interested in the actual materials used to build these "firing chambers" and the possible different effects they could have on the materials they were firing (i.e. ability to control heat, redox environment...). Are the firing chambers in Egypt (quite an arid environment) drastically different from say those in South American tropical (more wet and humid) cultures? And consequentially, what are the differences in material culture found in these two places and can this possibly be attributed to different environmental conditions and/or firing capacities? Another thing that really stuck out at me were the various egyptian pigment compositions used to create similar colors but on different mediums (primarily calcite for the wooden coffin lid and huntite for tomb walls, both the color white). Are these different compositions used because of their ability to bond to the specific medium? Is it because one may weather better on wood than wall? Are there possible economic concerns involved?
Posted at Feb 12/2010 09:37AM:
nasa: This is somewhat like Alex's question: How effective is the melding of precise, high-tech materials science equipment and statistical methods with the subjective structure of existing work in archaeology? In particular, how has the advance in technology made certain identification tasks easier or more difficult? Is the field disturbed through the application of mechanized identification to artifacts? It seems to me that, except in the cases of extremely small potsherds, it is relatively easy to note differences by hand (or at least under a light microscope) -- so I guess my real question, for the archaeologist, is whether they are excited about the possibilities of more precise identification or distraught over the significant additional effort necessary to show anything about provenance in modern times, now that it is possible to put in that effort and get meaningful results.
Posted at Feb 12/2010 09:45AM:
kbharrin: I also thought the Riley et al. chapter on the diffusion of technological knowledge was quite interesting. I have several questions, both archaeological and technical. For those of you who are more familiar with statistics and NAA than me, do you think that the statistical analyses performed were appropriate? How else could they have analyzed the data? In a more archaeological vein, what would be the next step in this study? How could the authors confirm their postulation that transmission of ceramic knowledge happened either through the movement of individuals involved in ceramic production or through the transmission of ideas through occasional contact between groups? Or must this remain reasonable speculation?
Metals and The Things They Bought (Wilkie and Farnsworth 2005) Discussion Questions (Week 6)
Posted at Mar 03/2010 09:20PM:
max: In the Gordon and Killick reading, the authors describe the superstitions associated with the success or failure of the bloom smelting. What's interesting is that the superstitions had practical consequences (few people around, establishing a clear master smelter to lead the process, smelting far from villages, etc.). I can envision two scenarios that would have created these superstitions. The superstitions could have came first and evolved into practicalities to meet the needs of the smelt OR the practicalities could have come first and snowballed into superstitions as the smelts progressed. Is there any evidence (material or cultural) to suggest either one of these scenarios or others?
Posted at Mar 04/2010 09:37AM:
Danielle: On Metals: During iron production, material reactants (ore, fuel, flux), byproducts (tap, bloom, and furnace slags), and products (bloom and final metal artifact) are produced. To what extent are these different smelting and smithing materials comparable? As chemical composition is being altered, how is the ability to link one material to another affected?
On Wilkie: This chapter cites the fabric traditions of West Africa as a major influence on color and motif choice, thus influencing the selection of ceramics found in Nassau. There is often much overlap in stylistic preferences across products of different materials within cultures. For example, the designs and colors of Iznik ceramics was almost completely determined by the new styles coming from the Ottoman court painters. What other such cross-material stylistic influences exist, and what are the methods by which this information is transferred between different craftsmen?
Posted at Mar 05/2010 12:07AM:
kdchin: In Adaptation of Technology to Culture and Environment: Bloomery Iron Smelting in America and Africa, Gordon and Killick describe the profound effects the beliefs of the Malawians have upon their production process, namely the roles played by the spirits of their ancestors or malicious sorcerers. Though it seems like these beliefs have hindered the technological advancement of smelting, have they helped in some way to inspire its development? How have other belief systems helped or hurt the development of a technology or society? How much of technology is developed out of science or faith?
Posted at Mar 05/2010 07:51AM:
kbharrin: Metals: Given the increased amount of information it is possible to collect with dedicated excavation techniques like those described in Veldhuijzen and Rehren, do archaeologists who excavate possible metal production sites have an ethical responsibility to approach their work in a similar manner? Even if time, funds, and experts are limited or unavailable? By extension, do archaeologists who encounter evidence of the production of other materials have a similar responsibility?
Wilkie and Farnsworth: How are the authors able to link ceramics with displays of creativity and individualism, social ties, and religion? How dependent are these connections on ethnographic parallels and how valid do you think such an approach is in this case? How could other archaeologists approach similar issues in cases where ethnography might be less valid?
Posted at Mar 05/2010 09:23AM:
Alex Smith: After reading a few posts above and the articles for this week, I have a few more general questions I'd like to ask. Is technology simply a product of culture or vise versa? Are they mutually informing entities? How do technology and production methods socially define people, families, and cities in the present? How do these (especially in terms of metals) define the way we view the past (e.g. Bronze Age, Copper Age, etc.)? What might this say about the first two questions posed above, our own archaeological culture, and any hierarchy placed on technological methodologies and materials?
Wilkie and Farnsworth present a masterful analysis of archaeological finds recovered from the Wylly plantation, expounding cross-cultural material culture analyses through ethnographic and historic data. In what ways might archaeometric testing strengthen some of the authors' arguments? Where might the limitations of such testing lie, especially when referring to cultural or individual connections and associations with materials? In a similar vein, do the authors present objective statistical analyses? Do they function to support ethnographic comparison or are they simply objectively observed characteristics of site loci (and how much bearing might this have on other material testing procedures)? Can we study past populations without an analogous or historic component? Finally, to what extent can behavior or, in a broader sense, culture be quantified?
Posted at Mar 05/2010 10:30AM:
nasa: FYI, there are some more questions from this week here: [link]
Production Processes (Week 10)
Posted at Apr 08/2010 09:27AM:
Danielle: In the reading "Cuneiform Glass Texts" (Shortland 2008), I found the cuneiform tablets themselves to be quite interesting from a materials standpoint. Inscriptions about glass aside, I'm curious about the production of the clay tablets, and the use of ceramics in ancient documentation. Did the manufacture of such tablets take place in the same workshops that were producing ceramic vessels? Who was doing the actual inscription into the clay, and was this the same person who actually made the clay body? Were there different kilns used to fire them? In general, what were the relationships between different objects produced from the same material?
Posted at Apr 08/2010 07:28PM:
max: Smith's article proves the interconnectedness between the development of science and art. The part most shocking to me was Smith's claim that the drive to develop new technology is, fundamentally, a drive to find new, aesthetically pleasing phenomena. He says: "My point is only that the *invention* of a technique has, until recently, been far more likely to occur in an aesthetically sensitive environment than in a practical one."
Smith inserts an interesting (and ambiguous) disclaimer here: "until recently." I would have liked Smith to explain this a bit more. Have we actually made a transition like this? If so, how recently did we transfer from invention of new techniques for aesthetics to invention for practical purpose, and can we actually make a determination of one purpose or another?
Here are some points I was thinking about that might be an argument for or against Smith's seemingly sweeping (possibly unsupported) generalization: In Burger (2004) awhile back, we read about Machu Picchuan metal workers who intentionally experimented with adding unprecedented bismuth to a ritual knife, with the result that the knife was more structurally sound AND that the knife was whiter than normal bronze. Was this bismuth addition to make the knife whiter, to make it stronger, both, or neither? Without a written record (and even with one), it seems difficult that we could ever know for sure.
Considering prehistory, it seems difficult to believe that hunter-gatherers, say around 1Mya, were manufacturing Acheulean tools because they looked nice, but because they could adequately smash in the head of a woolly mammoth.
What about modern scientific research labs? Is energy related research simply driven by the subconscious fact that we want the world to look nice, so we want to preserve it? What about biological research, or physical? Are we striving to find and understand new compounds, materials, phenomena, and the universe in general because they yield pretty pictures and nice figures or for another reason, like genuine curiosity, a need for a career, or a desire to help people? Perhaps this falls later than Smith's vague "recently."
Posted at Apr 09/2010 01:41AM:
peterj: Max, in response to your question, I found the quote and passage as a whole to refer specifically to the experimentation of materials. I don’t think that Smith claims that Acheulean hand axes were created for aesthetic purposes (I too agree that they are quite practical inventions) but that rather the discovery or “invention” of the material, understanding of its properties, and process of working it, were based in aesthetic pursuits. While the term “recently” is definitely hairy, I agree, the way interpreted the article was that there in an innate human instinct for discovery through art and aesthetics, through what pleases us most. I think that while yes many of today’s research pursuits are practically driven, an aspect of aesthetic is also present.
But anyway, my question also deals loosely with Smith’s article. In my opinion, art is intentional. The producer of the piece knows that what they are creating is a work of art and they view and treat it as such. Is there any evidence that ancient cultures are treating these materials like works of art or rather as rather a clear production process? (I guess this is kind of what the whole article was trying to tease out) Smith brings in the concept that the technique for making say a ceramic would be exactly the same often times for a “pretty” and “ugly” one. How much value is there in “art” and production for what is considered “non-functional” or ugly? I know so much of art today seems to be focused are nonconventional beauty and more about a deeper message or statement and I was wondering if ancient examples are relevant as well? For example, I am thinking of say vitrified and sintered ceramics that may not have a functional or even ritual purpose, but may be considered art. Do things like this exist? Does functionality align with art in the ancient world? I guess really this brings in the bigger, and futile question, of what is the idea of art in the ancient world?
Posted at Apr 09/2010 09:01AM:
nasa: I am curious about literature. It seems to me that it has many unique aspects in the area of sources of technical knowledge. First, it is only available in a small number of cultures in any quantity. Second, it is valuable not only because of the information it holds, but also because of the way in which it was produced. The study of literature itself is indeed quite interesting. Third, it has a great degree of interpretation which is necessary in order to create a reasonably accurate image of what was intended. Is this something which other people feel is questionable, and how does the use of literature in weaving an archaeological story differ from using other, "harder" sources of technical knowledge? How has the use of literature improved the understanding of ancient cultures in the ones where it is available? Also, how much can we learning about neighboring/warring cultures from the literature of their peers?
And a far more theoretical question: are we part of the ancient material culture now that we are drawing on details of objects to have information transmitted to us?
Posted at Apr 09/2010 09:13AM:
kdchin: In Smith's article, he describes the unification of art, science, and technology in a single individual. Originally, these disciplines were inseparable; however, as man has expanded his knowledge they have diverged to become their own independent fields. When an object is produced or invented now, how appropriate is it to consider the object as coming from a single field to fulfill a single purpose? When is it more appropriate to see the object as multidisciplinary or multifunctional? And how do we understand the one who created the object? What skills are developed through training in one or more of these fields and what part comes from individual intuition?
Posted at Apr 09/2010 09:35AM:
kbharrin: Regarding definitions, how do you feel about including things like dance, music, rituals, and poetry in the definition of technology? In what ways is this helpful and it what ways is it not? (How) does the way in which the culture under study defined technology matter?
Posted at Apr 09/2010 9:57AM:
Alex: I'm particularly intrigued by the questions posed above concerning aesthetics and practicality. I would ask what exactly are the aesthetic properties of materials? Can aesthetics go beyond an artistic shell, or rather a theoretical perception of a piece as a work of art? In this vein, what is art? Can artistic practices characterize scientific enterprises, production processes, and even the grab bag of post-modern perceptions of everything as art?
Being a huge nerd, I briefly looked up the etymology of the word art in my handy Latin dictionary (from ars, artis). The definition includes: skill, craft, trade, craftsmanship; work of art; invention, device; profession, method, way, manner; artificiality; science, theory, etc. Even when considering common colloquial uses of the word art (often substituted for descriptions of aesthetically pleasing or even utilitarian objects in museums today), what might this say about humanity's perception of the aesthetic, practical, and processual nature of the world (the operational sequence for instance)?
When considering archaeological material and past human societies, how separable or even discernable are aesthetic (and I use this term to mean sensory perceptions of materials) and practical distinctions? Are scientific pursuits from (approximately) the Enlightenment Era onward, especially concerning material sciences and engineering, concerned with understanding the properties that make an object aesthetically distinctive (not just visually but tactilely, olfactorily, auditorily, or gustatorily)? To what degree has scientific pursuit moved beyond this and how might that affect our interpretation of past human societies?
Conservation etc (Week 12)
Posted at Apr 22/2010 04:54PM:
Danielle: In the movie about the Keris Blade, I was a bit skeptical about the craftsman mass-producing swords for tourists being called a "master." Perhaps it does take a certain skill set to be able to produce mediocre blades at an exceptionally high rate, as opposed to exceptional blades at a slow rate. Do you think there is a point at which quality is sacrificed for quantity to such an extent where the products are no longer deemed to be made by a master? Is there evidence of mass-production in the archaeological record? Is it possible to distinguish between a low-quality piece made carefully by an unskilled worker and one made en masse by a master?
Posted at Apr 22/2010 09:06PM:
johnsonp: One of the things I really noticed and understood when viewing the RISD students work with glass was that there was a deep connection with the material. This became apparent when the woman realized that temperatures were not where they should be or even when she controlled the rate at which she applied air. The process is innately linked to the worker. One thing however that I did not notice while viewing her work with glass was any sense of ritual. Many of the movies we have watched and article read stress some point of ritual associated with production processes (especially the Keris blade master one). Have we lost a sense of ritual associated with material production in the "modern" realm? Also, does this at all affect the quality or level of craftsmanship? Is it necessary or not?
Posted at Apr 23/2010 02:06AM:
max: In Scott's Ch. 11, he discusses a variety of patinas which have been preferred throughout history, including several colors, textures, etc. Of note is that Scott mentions that often times, these patinas were induced purposefully to cover the golden bronze, as opposed to allowing the bronze to weather naturally. Likewise, in the movie about the Keris blades, different artisans make blades with different surface textures, weathering, colors, and patterns.
Are there more than aesthetic (e.g. cultural, social, economic?) factors that cause a difference among the preferences of artisans in the same society (possibly an evolution over time)? Is this sort of thing visible in the archaeological record? And how do we distinguish between purposeful patina addition (and other aspects of crafting a good) versus natural weathering and other processes that occur without a conscious effort by the craftsperson?
Posted at Apr 23/2010 08:58AM:
kbharrin: Many of the scientific techniques used in museums seem to be focused on the issue of authentication. Why is this important to us (both archaeologically and socially)? If an object has undergone several stages of production at different time periods, which parts of it are "authentic." What factors do conservators and curators need to consider when deciding how to present such objects?
I am also curious what other people thought about the performative aspects of production in light of our glass demonstration. Her actions may not have been ritualized, but her movements were very practiced and I'd even argue dance-like.
Posted at Apr 23/2010 09:17AM:
kdchin: Patinas are often applied in order to give an object a more ancient appearance, and thus increase its aesthetic or monetary value with age. It seems that at times more respect is given to and greater value is placed on these objects for having appeared to stand the test of time and their ability to provide a direct emotional link with the past. At other times, however, it is desired that objects appear brand new and greater value is placed upon them for their degree of sophistication.
It is rather ironic that I appreciate the very objects my grandmother spends so much time cleaning because of their vintage appearance. How does one reconcile the user’s desire for an object to appear brand new with that of the collector’s for an object to appear aged? Ancient Chinese bronzes are prized for their weathered appearance; however, Ancient Indian temples are constantly refurbished and repainted to ensure the best environment and conditions for their gods. Why at times is value placed on the newness of objects while at others it is placed on its age? And what is the significance of the modern consumer knowingly purchasing imitations of ancient art or paying higher prices to intentionally destroy/erode perfectly good objects?
Posted at Apr 23/2010 09:23AM:
Alex: In Costin's piece, she states that ethnoarchaeological studies are sometimes limited in their utility because the vast majority of modern production concerns "utilitarian goods for general markets". Nevertheless, "socially stratified traditional contexts" can provide insight into past production processes. After viewing the RISD glass blowing, is this an example of an artistic production in a stratified setting (undergrad/grad/faculty) and thus a valuable ethnographic study according to Costin? Is it an independent production or attached production within the context of RISD? Does the control lie with the students or the administration and how might we see that in the material record?
Also, I very much agree with Katherine in her statement above, considering the glass-blowing movements as dance-like. Are production performances always ritualistic? I wonder if there were any other signs of ritualistic behavior in the studio. Examples might include specific clothing worn, music playing in the background, even the implementation of safety items. How far does ritual extend and when does performance become simply utilitarian?
Posted at Apr 23/2010 09:38AM:
nasa: I am curious as to what the different artists think of one another. The traditional Keris maker probably is well respected because he follows tradition, whereas I am not sure about the other two. Rejected/scorned because they are commercial, or praised for the elegant designs? I could go either way. To what degree do social influences change the production processes employed for various crafts? What about the conservation of these crafts? In other words, why isn't the Pantheon covered in a huge glass case (other than logistics)?
Archaeometry (Week 13)
Posted at Apr 25/2010 05:10PM:
Danielle: How should archaeological science fit within the structure of the American university? Right now, it is just a subfield of archaeology, which is typically a subfield of anthropology. It is common to see archaeologists advocating for their own department, but should archaeological scientists be satisfied with operating out of an archaeology department (a step up from anthropology)? To what extent should archaeological science be differentiated from archaeology? Should it develop into its own entity, as archaeology has spawned from anthropology, or should it remain just a tool for archaeologists?
Posted at Apr 25/2010 11:57PM:
max: There is obviously a disconnect between traditional anthropological archaeology and archaeological science (or scientific archaeology), as illustrated by all of the readings this week. This results in archaeological science not yet having a well-defined home in archaeology, anthropology, or the pure sciences. However, the authors -- who are all very prominent archaeologists or archaeometrists -- could not seem to come to a consensus on why exactly archaeologists "don't care about archaeometry," or at the very least aren't interested or impressed by it. Shott argues that there is too much of a focus on method for method's sake rather than on anthropological questions, which turns off traditional archaeologists; Dunnel says that archaeological scientists don't treat archaeology as a science to begin with; Killick and Goldberg blame the education structure and a lack of funding (in N. America, at least); and Pollard contends that archaeological science rarely fits into the theoretical structure of traditional archaeology.
Why can't anyone agree on this? Is it all of these factors that cause this disconnect? None of them? Is this why, even after decades of this argument, no one can seem to find a home for archaeometry because no one can agree on exactly what the problem is and fix it? In any case, what can archaeological scientists, who have almost been portrayed as an invasive species to archaeology, do to alleviate some of these issues and make their field more liked by or accessible to traditional archaeologists? This seems to be pertinent because as possible rising archaeological scientists ourselves, appealing to both physical scientists and traditional archaeologists seems like a challenge that we could face.
Posted at Apr 26/2010 08:52AM:
johnsonp: Archeometry is obviously a multi-disciplinary field across both the Humanities and Sciences. One of the things I have noticed both in person and in the articles is an issue with space and resources. Not only is archaeology moving away from anthropology, as Danielle stated, but the different subfields that range from archaeometry to paleobotany also require a variety of tools, instruments, and other resources. How can institutions, and specifically universities, create spaces to accommodate these interactions and provide for these endeavors? Even at Brown it seems like we have to fight for space and time in the Engineering complex. As the subfield grows, will those tools move maybe to a middle ground and be more equally shared or will archaeology departments start investing in their own labs?
Also, as we have seen in our readings, archaeometry doesn't always seem to be the best avenue to approach research questions and is often carried out poorly. As this subfield continues to grow, will archaeometry be pursued for the wrong reasons, when possibly these often expensive techniques are not all useful to answer certain research questions. And as archaeologists continue to specialize, and departments begin to teach more specific, less broad ranged information, will archaeological scientists only do research their field or will they be forced to utilize more "traditional" anthropological skills as well?
Posted at Apr 26/2010 08:52AM:
johnsonp: Archeometry is obviously a multi-disciplinary field across both the Humanities and Sciences. One of the things I have noticed both in person and in the articles is an issue with space and resources. Not only is archaeology moving away from anthropology, as Danielle stated, but the different subfields that range from archaeometry to paleobotany also require a variety of tools, instruments, and other resources. How can institutions, and specifically universities, create spaces to accommodate these interactions and provide for these endeavors? Even at Brown it seems like we have to fight for space and time in the Engineering complex. As the subfield grows, will those tools move maybe to a middle ground and be more equally shared or will archaeology departments start investing in their own labs?
Also, as we have seen in our readings, archaeometry doesn't always seem to be the best avenue to approach research questions and is often carried out poorly. As this subfield continues to grow, will archaeometry be pursued for the wrong reasons, when possibly these often expensive techniques are not all useful to answer certain research questions. And as archaeologists continue to specialize, and departments begin to teach more specific, less broad ranged information, will archaeological scientists only do research their field or will they be forced to utilize more "traditional" anthropological skills as well?
Posted at Apr 26/2010 09:23AM:
Due: Short of an institutional overhaul, how exactly can archaeometry be integrated into the modern academic structure of anthropological archaeology in the United States? As Killick and Goldberg have outlined, the hurdles necessary to successfully produce archaeologists trained in the sciences are numerous. It is worth noting that both David Killick comes from the University of Arizona, mentioned in their article, while Paul Goldberg hails from Boston University, the only archaeology department in the United States. Are they speaking from a privileged vantage point? Should the United States academic structure emulate our European counterparts and is this feasible given the handful of independent or semi-independent archaeological institutions in place? Do joint appointments complicate the bureaucratic, inter-departmental red tape to an endless degree? Also, can every archaeometrist expect such a joint appointment? In both a practical and methodological sense, what might be the value of an archaeology grounded in anthropology? Finally, is increased specialization the death toll for a humanistic and socially situated archaeological study or is this rectified through extensive anthropological training?
Posted at Apr 26/2010 10:07AM:
nasa: Is it dangerous/risky (for the sake of stability) to enable high tech experimentation without understanding (not just in archaeology; most of science is this way as well)? In which ways are archaeological scientists necessarily understanding science? Culture?
Also, most hard sciences are completely obsessed with never stating a false conclusion (or else being able to blame false conclusions on insufficient evidence). Is this true of archaelogical science as well? I ask because there seems to be some aspects of objectivity, but also significant cultural interpretation present.
Posted at Apr 26/2010 07:09PM:
kdchin: We actually talked about it quite a bit today, but my question was how should one go about acquiring the knowledge and training to become an archaeologist? What compromises need to be made between depth and breadth when considering how and where to specialize? And if one were to independently concentrate or redesign the concentration requirements, what would the curriculum look like?
