Pollard Bray 2007

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problems and cross outdated disciplinary boundaries.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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

Pollard Bray 2007

Documents

Transcript of Pollard Bray 2007