n.a. (1991). Interpreting archaeological science. Archaeol Rev Cambridge 10 (1). Vol 10(1), pp. 4-85.
 Title The title of the publication or report |
Interpreting archaeological science | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Issue The name of the volume or issue |
Archaeol Rev Cambridge 10 (1) | |||||
Series The series the publication or report is included in |
Archaeological Review from Cambridge | |||||
Volume Volume number and part |
10 (1) | |||||
Page Start/End The start and end page numbers. |
4 - 85 | |||||
Biblio Note This is a Bibliographic record only. |
Please note that this is a bibliographic record only, as originally entered into the BIAB database. The ADS have no files for download, and unfortunately cannot advise further on where to access hard copy or digital versions. | |||||
Publication Type The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book |
Journal | |||||
Abstract The abstract describing the content of the publication or report |
`Interpreting archaeological science' by Kathryn Roberts (3--5) introduces the `issue theme' section of the journal. This considers how a more effective dialogue might be set up between those who practice science, and understand its underlying concepts, and those who simply utilise the end products of scientific practice. In the wider perspective this reflects the lack of intra-disciplinary unity. `Analysis and synthesis: compatible activities or separate roles in archaeological science?' by Martin Jones (6--11) suggests that the root causes for any lack of communication lie in current funding practice, training programmes, and specialists' lack of involvement with project formulation. More active collaboration is called for. `Strategies of collaboration: science-based archaeology in the field' by G N Bailey (12--18), isolates technique-, site-, and problem-led strategies, as well as forms of `hybridisation'. It is suggested that successful integration would require international collaboration and funding on a far greater scale than has hitherto been the case. `What is made public by publishing? a synthesist's view of specialist reports' by Susie West (19--26) examines the outcome and implications of current collaborative strategies. It is suggested that articulating the perceived problem may enable those involved to begin articulating a solution. In `Science versus anti-science?' Julian Thomas (27--36) considers the polarisation of scientific empiricism and philosophical criticism within what is ostensibly the same discipline. Whilst recent academic developments have cast archaeology as a science there is no philosophy of archaeological science, making the idea a contradiction in terms. `Interpreting a site: the case for a reassessment of the Knossos Neolithic' by N P Winder (37--52) is followed by `Beyond subsistence: behavioural reconstruction from palaeoethnobotany' by J M Hansen (53--9). Here a wider application of botanical data is called for # integrated with ethnographic, historical and other archaeological information. `Archaeozoology as anthropology?' by Kevin C MacDonald (60--9) considers how cultural processes could be observed through the study of animal bone. Lastly in `Interpreting archaeological science: a discussion with Colin Renfrew and Ian Hodder' Kevin C MacDonald (70--85) chairs a conversation that ultimately calls for increased integration between different areas of the archaeological community. IH | |||||
Year of Publication The year the book, article or report was published |
1991 | |||||
Locations Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published. |
|
|||||
Source Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in. |
BIAB
(The British Archaeological Bibliography (BAB))
|
|||||
Created Date The date the record of the pubication was first entered |
20 Jan 2002 |
