hayashida, f. bridging the gap between archaeology and the physical science

7/30/2019 Hayashida, F. Bridging the Gap Between Archaeology and the Physical Science

1/5

Hyperfine Interactions 150: 711, 2003.

2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.7

Bridging the Gap between Archaeology andthe Physical Sciences

F. HAYASHIDADepartment of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA

Abstract. The collaboration between archaeologists and representatives of the physical sciences

is often rendered difficult by differing training and expectations, poor mutual understanding, in-

consistent terminologies, and a lack of time and willingness to bridge these gaps. In this paper

some thoughts and suggestions on research design and interpretation in interdisciplinary studies are

brought forth and suggestions towards a fruitful collaboration are made.

Key words: archaeology, typology, archaeometry, analyses of artefacts.

1. Introduction

This paper comments on collaborative research between archaeologists and phys-

ical scientists, particularly in the analysis and interpretation of the technology of

ancient objects. I write as someone who is primarily a field archaeologist though

I have worked closely with scientists in a laboratory setting. This experience has

allowed me to see both the great potential of collaborative work and the occasional

difficulties of communicating across disciplines. Here, I offer some observations

to bridge possible gaps in understanding and make some general suggestions fordesigning interdisciplinary projects. My comments are directed towards physical

scientists who may work with archaeologists from a (confusingly) wide range of

backgrounds, as well as archaeologists who hope to answer research questions

using archaeometric techniques.

2. What do archaeologists do?

Archaeology is the study of the human past through material remains. These re-

mains are systematically recorded and collected from the surface or through ex-

cavation and their characteristics and patterning are used to make interpretations

about the people who left them behind. Beyond this common ground, there is agreat deal of variation in epistemologies, theoretical outlooks, and research prac-

tices at national, institutional, and individual levels. There are differences and

sometimes disagreement over whether archaeology falls within the sciences or

humanities, or whether the goal of research is to understand the particular history

of a region or culture or to compare across regions and cultures in order to make


2/5

8 F. HAYASHIDA

general observations. This variation affects everything from the kinds of research

questions posed, to excavation and recording practices, the sampling of artifacts

for analysis, the kind of logic applied to drawing inferences from the artifacts, and

the language (or jargon) that is used to discuss results (see, for example, [1]).

3. Why study technology?

Not surprisingly, the reasons for archaeological studies of technology also vary.

First, there is a certain appeal in simply knowing how something was made, par-

ticularly when the techniques are complex or difficult to reconstruct. Second, evi-

dence for a particular technology might be used to date an object. Third, patterns or

changes in technology can reflect larger economic, social, or political processes or

events. A detailed discussion of the third point can be found in a recent article by

Sillar and Tite [2]. The authors comment on the current interest in technological

choice the idea that all technologies can be seen as a series of choices (in raw ma-

terials, tools, energy sources, techniques and production sequence) and that these

choices are shaped by both cultural and physical realities. For example, pottery

manufacturing choices are as much tied to cultural practices and ideas about how

pots are made as they are to local ecology and the desired physical attributes of

the pots. There may be many ways to make a sturdy cooking pot given available

materials but the particular clays chosen and the techniques used to form, finish,

and fire the vessels are linked to such diverse factors as the organisation of the

potters, their social identity, the perception of different raw materials and fuels,

and the integration of pottery-making with other activities.

The potential for applying techniques from the physical sciences to the study of

technological choice is obvious. For example, Mssbauer spectroscopy can be used

to reconstruct choices in pottery firing, a key step in the manufacturing process.These choices can then be placed within a larger social context. For example, ad-

ministrators of the Andean Inka Empire recruited artisans from among conquered

groups to make goods, such as pottery, in supervised workshops. These potters

continued to manufacture pots using their own techniques, but they may have been

retrained to fire Inka ceremonial jars with Inka techniques as was revealed through

analyses using Mssbauer spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, and study of thin sec-

tions [3, 4]. The archaeometric analyses complemented the observations made at

excavations of Inka workshops. They provided pieces of the puzzle, not accessible

through other means, of how labour was organised in the imperial provinces.

4. Archaeometry and archaeological research design

Beyond purely methodological or descriptive studies, the usefulness of any ar-

chaeometric analysis depends on its fit with the overall research design. One persis-

tent problem is that the integration of archaeometric analyses and archaeological

research questions is often poor or lacking [59]. Often, this is the fault of ar-


3/5

ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES 9

chaeologists who treat the analytical work as a service, rather than as part of an

interdisciplinary, cooperative research endeavour. Ideally, collaboration and the

exchange of ideas take place from the beginning of the project, long before heading

out into the field. Rather than incorporating archaeometric analyses as an after-

thought, it is preferable to discuss the research questions and goals beforehand,

and to work together to identify appropriate methods and to devise a sampling

scheme. Grant proposal budgets should include adequate funding to support the

analyses as well as meetings between collaborators and visits to the field (for the

physical scientist) and lab (for the archaeologist).

On the part of the archaeologist, successful collaboration requires providing

as much background information (such as maps, publications, and photographs)

as possible. Terms, particularly systems of classification or typology, need to be

clearly explained. For any given region, artifacts are classified based on charac-

teristics such as material, shape, decoration, or colour. These classifications are

thought to represent different groups of people and periods of time. The delineation

of types is based on the observation that styles come in, have a period of use orpopularity, then go out. Just as it is possible to identify cars or clothing from dif-

ferent places and times based on their material, technology, and appearance, these

same criteria can be used to classify artifacts. In some cases, the types are based

on general observations; in others, types are identified through statistical analyses

of artifact attributes. Type names may include physical characteristics (e.g., thin

orange pottery) geographic place names (the site where the type was first defined,

a nearby river, the name of the region), the period or people to whom they are

attributed, or a combination of these features (e.g., Godin III Painted Buff). Spe-

cialists working in a region may have particular naming conventions, but these are

not universal. To an outsider, type names are meaningless. Thus the archaeologist

is responsible for clearly explaining the classification and its significance, sincesampling schemes are often based on testing ideas about the production, use or

distribution of particular types.

At present, it is unusual for the physical scientist to participate in the fieldwork

or for the archaeologist to work in the analysts lab, but this arrangement has ob-

vious benefits. First, it greatly facilitates communication, as discussion and e-mail

messages can only give a partial picture of the work done at both ends. Second,

the physical scientist in the field can see the full range of artifacts (not just the

bits that arrive at the lab) and more importantly their contexts, advise on object

sampling, and identify conditions (such as potential sources of contamination)

which might affect the analyses. The scientist can also help plan and supervise

any experimental work done in the field [10]. An archaeologist working in the

lab learns how the different analytical techniques work, provides instant feedbackwhen there are questions about particular samples, or patterns or anomalies in the

results, and (as my colleagues gently remind me) comes to appreciate the amount

of work involved in sample preparation and analysis and in the interpretation of

results. An additional benefit of close interaction in field and lab is that it sparks


4/5

10 F. HAYASHIDA

the kind of spontaneous, creative brain storming that improves or refines a project

in progress and inspires new directions for research.

Improved training in the archaeological sciences will also help ensure the pro-

ductive linkage of fieldwork and laboratory analyses [5, 7, 9, 11, 12]. One promis-

ing development is the creation of departments or concentrations within depart-

ments in archaeological science that emphasise both archaeology and the analyt-

ical techniques (e.g., the University of Bradford). Internships or fellowships at

archaeological science facilities (such as the Missouri University Research Re-

actor or the Conservation Analytical Laboratory at the Smithsonian Institution)

provide first-hand experience for the archaeologist (generally graduate students

or recent Ph.D.s) in the analysts lab. Killick and Young suggest that a course

that concentrates on making archaeologists educated consumers of archaeometry

should be required of all archaeologists [8]. Ideally, such a course would not

simply introduce different techniques but would also demonstrate their integra-

tion into research designs that investigate well-framed archaeological questions.

Who could teach these courses? Either the (rare) individual with strong back-grounds in the natural or physical sciences and archaeology, or a pair or team of

instructors in these fields. For schools in the United States that lack large science

programs, a new initiative at MIT aims to introduce archaeological science into

undergraduate curricula by providing training for faculty from liberal arts colleges

.

5. Summary

Archaeometric studies have great potential to deepen our understanding of ancient

technologies and their social contexts. This potential can only be realised through

close collaboration between archaeologists and physical scientists that requires dis-

cussion and the exchange of ideas throughout the research process, from proposal

writing through fieldwork, sample selection, analyses, and write-up. Together with

improved education and training, efforts towards truly integrated research designs

will go far to bridge the gap in archaeological science.

References

1. Hodder, I. and Preucel, R., Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, Blackwell Publishers,

Oxford, 1996.

2. Sillar, B. and Tite, M. S., The Challenge of Technological Choices for Materials Science

Approaches to Archaeology, Archaeometry 42(1) (2000), 220.

3. Hayashida, F., Style, Technology, and Administered Production: The Manufacture of Inka

Pottery in the Leche Valley, Peru, Latin American Antiquity 10(4) (1999), 337352.

4. Hayashida, F., Husler, W., Riederer, J. and Wagner, U., Technology and Organisation of Inka

Pottery Production in the Leche Valley. Part II: Study of Fired Vessels, In: U. Wagner (ed.),

Mssbauer Spectroscopy in Archaeology, Hyp. Interact. 150 topical issue, Vol. II, 2003.


5/5

ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES 11

5. De Atley, S. and Bishop, R. L., Towards an Integrated Interface for Archaeology and Ar-

chaeometry, In: R. L. Bishop and F. W. Lange (eds.), The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard,

University of Colorado Press, Niwot, Colorado, 1991, pp. 358382.

6. Dunnell, R. C., Why Archaeologists Dont Care about Archaeometry, Archaeomaterials 7

(1993), 161165.7. Jones, R. F. J., Questions, Answers and the Consumer in Archaeological Sciences, In: E. A.

Slater and J. O. Tate (eds.), Science and Archaeology Glasgow 1987: Proceedings of a Con-

ference on the Application of Scientific Techniques in Archaeology, Glasgow, September 1987,

BAR British Series 196(i), British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, 1987, pp. 17.

8. Killick, D. and Young, S. M. M., Archaeology and Archaeometry: From Casual Dating to a

Meaningful Relationship?, Antiquity 71 (1997), 518524.

9. Van Zelst, L., Archaeometry: The Perspective of an Administrator, In: R. L. Bishop and F. W.

Lange (eds.), The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, University of Colorado Press, Niwot,

Colorado, 1991, pp. 346357.

10. Shimada, I., Chang, V., Wagner, U., Gebhard, R., Neff, H., Glascock, M. D. and Killick, D.,

Formative Ceramic Kilns and Production in Batn Grande, North Coast of Peru, In: I. Shimada

(ed.), Andean Ceramics: Technology, Organization and Approaches. MASCA Research Papers

in Science and Archaeology, Supplement to Vol. 15, University of Pennsylvania Museum of

Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, 1998, pp. 2361.

11. Crown, P. L., Appraising the Legacy: A Thematic Synthesis, In: R. L. Bishop and F. W.

Lange (eds.), The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard, University of Colorado Press, Niwot,

Colorado, 1991, pp. 383393.

12. Pollard, A. M. and Heron, C., Archaeological Chemistry, The Royal Society of Chemistry,

Cambridge, 1996, pp. 104148.

hayashida, f. bridging the gap between archaeology and the physical science

Documents