New Developments in Archaeological Science: A Joint Symposium of the Royal Society and the British Academy, February 1991.

New Developments in Archaeological Science: A Joint Symposium of the Royal Society and the British Academy, February 1991. This symposium volume is wonderfully free of all the short-comingsthat typify the genre. As they have done on several occasions since1969, the Royal Society and the British Academy have invited a small andvery well chosen group of acknowledged leaders in the discipline ofarchaeometry to present and discuss new developments in their specialfields. (I regret that the discussions have not been transcribed andprinted, for they must have been fully as interesting and instructive asthe formal presentations. In addition, if one may judge from the printedaccounts of the 19th century-transactions of the InternationalCongresses of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology, thesediscussions bring to life the characters and idiosyncracies of theparticipants. It does seem a pity that all that will be lost to futurehistorians of archaeology and archaeometry.) So instead of the usual farrago far��ra��go?n. pl. far��ra��goesAn assortment or a medley; a conglomeration: "their special farrago of resentments"William Safire. of too many papers of a wide rangeof merit, we have here a a coherent collection of 13 in-depth accounts.(Two additional contributions, by Craddock on early mining andmetallurgy and by Hare on light isotope analysis, appear only asabstracts, the contents having been published elsewhere.) The nature ofthese accounts also differs from that found in ordinary symposiumpublications: instead of narrowly circumscribed research papers, theseare broadly conceived summaries of recent work by the authors as well asby other scholars that define, in each case, the state of the art --where we are now and where we may be going. The division into sessions is in itself a sort of weather-vane offuture winds. The first group of three papers illustrates the growingtrend towards what may be called holistic archaeology: the study ofprehistoric environments. Baillie assesses the uses of dendrochronology dendrochronology:see dating. dendrochronologyMethod of scientific dating based on the analysis of tree rings. Because the width of annular rings varies with climatic conditions, laboratory analysis of timber core samples allows scientists to for understanding past environmental change; Berglund gives animpressive example of reconstructing the prehistoric landscape ofsouthern Sweden that will certainly become a model in other areas; andCourty demonstrates the potential of soil micromorphology. The sessionon artefact See artifact. studies is almost equally sweeping in scope: Gale &Stos-Gale report on the current state of the British Academy Project onlead isotope studies in the Aegean, and Tite on the impact of electronmicroscopy on ceramic studies. Orton & Tyers' account of thesuccesses and problems of mathematically assessing the number of ceramicobjects from an assemblage of fragments has broad implications on theuses of statistical procedures in archaeology. The only sitespecificcase is the work by Williams-Thorpe & Thorpe leading them to theconclusion that the Stonehenge bluestone bluestone,common name for the blue, crystalline heptahydrate of cupric sulfate called chalcanthite, a minor ore of copper. It also refers to a fine-grained, light to dark colored blue-gray sandstone. was brought to the Salisburyplain by glacial, rather than by human, transport. The two papers in thesession on site survey techniques assess the state of the art of remotesensing (Shennan & Donoghue) and of geophysical prospection(Aspinall), both with a strong emphasis on the important role of dataprocessing for future progress. The division of organic archaeometryinto separate sections on food remains and human remains is somewhatarbitrary: in the former, a broad review by Jones on food webs andecosystems includes consideration of human skeletal and faecal fae��cal?adj. Chiefly BritishVariant of fecal.Adj. 1. faecal - of or relating to feces; "fecal matter"fecal evidence,and in the latter, one by Hedges & Sykes on biomolecular archaeologyincludes plants and small rodents. One must continue to hope for a morerational classification within this rapidly expanding field. There is acomprehensive and valuable account of methods and problems in theanalysis of food remains by Evershed and his group at Liverpool and anassessment of light stable isotope analysis for dietary reconstructionby van der Merwe. Readers may want to turn to Renfrew's concluding 'meetingsummary' first, but are advised to resist the temptation. Pleasuredelayed is pleasure doubled. And, predictably, this is no mere summary.In its three parts, Renfrew first takes a brief glance at the history ofarchaeometry, then bravely predicts future developments, includingseveral of those suggested by the papers, and closes with somecautionary tales of past errors in archaeological science. His point isnot the obvious and churlish churl��ish?adj.1. Of, like, or befitting a churl; boorish or vulgar.2. Having a bad disposition; surly: "as valiant as the lion, churlish as the bear"Shakespeare. one that archaeometry is fallible fal��li��ble?adj.1. Capable of making an error: Humans are only fallible.2. Tending or likely to be erroneous: fallible hypotheses. , but thesubtle and generous one that conformity to Popper's criterion offalsifiability Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being and a demonstrated history of self-correction are themarks of a mature science. This is an enormously valuable collection of important papers. Itdoes not diminish the merits of Pollard's editorship to note, witha twang of envy, that moulding such superior material into a superiorproduct must have been more a pleasure than a chore. CURT W. BECK Vassar College, Poughkeepsie (NY)