OBSERVATIONS FROM AN AEGEAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND SCIENCE AS REFLECTED IN THE STUDY OF ANCIENT POTTERY

SARAHVAUGHAN

Introduction

Collaborations between disparate academic disciplines are valued for the multi-dimensional perspectives of their pursuits. Archaeology, in particular, has proved to be unique in the richness of its professional associations, with the Classics, a wide variety of other humanistic fields, and now most prominently with the physical-chemical sciences (i.e. chemistry, physics and earth sciences). It is in its relatively recent and close relationship with these sciences, however, observed in this instance with regard to ceramic studies, where archaeology appears to be most at risk of losing its unique identity to the aura of analytical authority in the dominating presence of science. Studies of archaeological pottery have always reflected the development of archaeology itself, from early periods of antiquarian collecting to the pursuit of chronology by way of typologies, enhanced by the application of increasingly sensitive scientific techniques, whose power can outweigh the value of their contribution to the discipline. Ancient pottery is an artefact most archaeologists must assess at one time or another though, stimulating as it seems the full range of scholarly emotions from delight to despair, and worse. However in many recent studies of ceramic finds, it appears that the swing away from an era of subjective excess may have been simply to another extreme, excess in the name of science.

The personal passion of earlier archaeologists is being replaced by what is widely perceived to be the cold authority of objective analytical data, considered superior to subjective assessments. Having had the opportunity in recent years to focus on a range of issues to do with the study and description of archaeological ceramics, macroscopic, microscopic and chemical in nature, the writer has been in a useful position to observe the evolving and occasionally uncomfortable relationship between archaeology and science. While there can be no doubt of the strong mutual attraction between the two disciplines, nor of the great potential value in their partnership, the capacity for science to dominate an association which appears to be rushing headlong into marriage has given rise to doubts in not a few minds,' though currently it is most unfashionable to express them. In order to comment upon the current state of the relationship between these disciplines, however, it seems useful to begin with a brief review of the origins of the relationship, and in this case, as it has been reflected in the study of archaeological pottery.

' As early as 1951 for Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Archaeology from the Earth (Oxford 1954) 201-14.

KL-WOS: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF I. N. COLDSTREAM: BICS SUPPLEMENT 63

26 1

262 KLADOS: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF J. N. COLDSTREAM

Early Days: Independent Approaches to Archaeological Pottery

Traditional approaches to studying and describing archaeological pottery developed unhampered by the multi-disciplinary demands impressed upon contemporary excavators and analysts. Collecting artefacts of Classical antiquity had its roots in the Renaissance, acquisitional zeal increasing almost in tandem with the eventual expansion of European empires. Against such a political backdrop, criteria of aesthetics and Classical reference underlay the assembly of fine collections of whole pottery vessels which were acquired by efficient, if substantially unsystematic methods. When archaeological excavations began to be undertaken, primarily in the nineteenth century, the finds of excavation were the responsibility (or perhaps more precisely in many cases the property) of a limited number of scholars nurtured in an intel- lectual climate of cultivated subjectivity, and brought to the attention of the world through the words of a very few, but enthusiastic specialists. The ability of these specialists to describe usefully the pottery reflected the full range of human ability to communicate individual perceptions, and the quality of the descriptions varied as widely as the characters who produced them. However, implicit in the drive to acquire (which continued to be a factor in excavation) was the wish to admire. And so the aesthetically- driven selectivity of pottery collections and publications resulted in a highly subjective record of ancient ceramic industries. Plain and coarse utilitarian products languished, or were lost to the dump. And while the ability to acquire antiquities has been severely curtailed since the enforcement of modem export laws, the impulse to admire lingers (lurks some might say) among archaeologists, and remains a com- ponent of many research designs, if truth be told, though again this is an unfashionable scholarly perspective.

By the mid-nineteenth century, the new science of geology was making significant progress in defining antiquity and humankind’s relationship to various periods.’ The need for classification schemes deriving from palaeontological discoveries in the late nineteenth century was paralleled by a trend toward classification of the increasing accumulations of excavated archaeological pottery into typologies, which would reflect linear chronological development (a concept no doubt reinforced by emerging Darwinian principles of ev~lution).~ Thus in the nineteenth century there was an early, if limited, association between archaeology and earth sciences.

But studies of ancient pottery reflected the changing perception of archaeology from a natural to a social science, characterized at the turn of the century by humanistic inquiries (e.g. history, philosophy, the Classics and art). Until the mid-twentieth century descriptions of archaeological pottery were governed primarily by the independent passions of the excavators, and the need to create order out of chaos, to create categories of like objects, though the criteria used to define the categories were superficial, inconsistent and often uninformed assessments, whose value was further limited by the highly selective membership of the pottery collections preserved for study publication.

Prior to World War I1 excavations tended to be conducted by those with a strong taste for adventure and discovery, and it was often by sheer force of personality that a dig would find funding and direction. The recent story of the discovery by Sir Ranulph Fiennes of the ancient city of Ubar on the desert trade route for frankincense in western Oman is strongly reminiscent of that era, despite the contributions made by satellite imaging. It was in this early context of the cult of character and highly subjective expertise that the phrase ‘pottery sense’ arose. This poorly-defined, yet tangible and invaluable skill was (and is) embodied in those few fortunate scholars able to distinguish on a dull day in a dimly-lit excavation apotheke between, for example, two undecorated sherds of Middle Minoan IIA and IIB conical cups without notable hesitation (and here the more cynical reader may point to precisely this lack of hesitation as that which has held back the profession at times). ‘Pottery sense’, as observed by the writer, is unique to an individual, and is demonstrably non-transferable. It can, however, be encouraged

For an informative discussion of the early relationship of geology and archaeology, see G. Rapp Jr. and J.A. Gif-

E.H. Gombrich, The Ideas of Progress and their Impact on Art (New York 1971) 72. ford (eds.), Archaeological Geology (New Haven and London 1985) 1-23.

SARAH VAUGHAN : ARCHAEOLOGY AND SCIENCE 263

and developed in an excavator, if large quantities of pottery are handled and assessed over long periods of time. And in the best of hands this sense can be seen to be truly equivalent to a computer’s ability to consider and sort simultaneously large numbers of pottery attributes and related variables.

Unfortunately this ability has been known to be used by its possessors to erect about themselves an aura of unassailable authority, a virtual fortress of opinion against which only the most temerous students might dare fling an aberrant idea. It has been either an inability, or at times an unwillingness, by those blessed with ‘pottery sense’ to articulate for others the specific criteria which coincide to provoke their sometimes pompous-sounding pronouncements. For purposes of publication or teaching, therefore, ‘pottery sense’ has presented a serious liability to the orderly transmission of information. A reaction to this situation has been the attempt by some students of ancient pottery, wielding powerful analytical techniques and statistical procedures, to create large banks of widely accessible and reproducible ceramic data. However, the perception of progress in the concept of completely objective, codified and standardized studies of pottery, should be seen as the chimera it is. In its scientific bias which excludes information inconsistent with codification, this approach is equally inhibiting to an enhanced understanding of the work of ancient potters.

The Romance With Science

As a result of the Second World War advances in analytical procedures in the physical-chemical sciences accrued at a remarkable rate, providing a pioneering post-war generation of scholars with unforeseen and glamorous opportunities for instrumental research applicable to a wide range of academic disciplines, including archaeology. The burgeoning attraction between archaeology and science was not without its tensions and misunderstandings however. With the introduction to archaeology of the rigours of labora- tory procedures and technical terminologies came demands for objectivity and precision in observation of pottery inconsistent with the cultivation of opinion in the absence of articulated criteria. It was the lack of published criteria, on which considerable ceramic judgements were based, which began to lend the work of previous generations the tarnished air of arbitrary pronouncement affected by autocratic, if sometimes gifted amateurs. A few archaeological scholars maintained a dignified but cold response to the enticements of analytical magic. But the majority of archaeologists not only succumbed and opened the door wide to science in their research (even if only under financial or political-intellectual duress), but with the attractive prospect of relatively easy acquisition of impressive amounts and variety of ‘objective’ data (i.e. ‘truths’), they have moved rapidly in the relationship to a point which could be described as cohabitation.

As archaeologists continue to accommodate the changing perspectives of their responsibilities (both to their public as well as to their pottery) traditionally subjective, individualistic, and occasionally highly entertaining descriptions of ancient pottery are inevitably being replaced by more systematic and impersonal ceramic studies. How far the pendulum has swung away from subjective approaches to archaeological research can be measured in the cases where enthusiasm or admiration for any particular artefact unexpectedly overwhelms the scholar. The resulting appraisal is quietly censored, and now primarily reserved for those public occasions where there is an audience which is assured to be either amateur (i.e. academically unconstrained and enthusiastic) or fee-paying. Highly subjective descriptions of pottery are then free to be dusted off and trotted out, dressed in their most delightful prose and becoming mirth. In the absence of such opportunities these entertaining descriptions are occasionally found buried deep within academic texts, though commonly buffered by a profusion of intellectual apologia. The apprehensiveness of these authors is strong testimony to the ascendency of science, and its domination of archaeological perspectives.

In a common reaction to the demands of science, coupled with a common ignorance of ceramic raw materials and principles of pyrotechnology, some excavators tend to increase their grip on stylistic studies, while abdicating responsibility for research on the manufacturing materials and techniques to scientists with access to an impressive array of analytical instruments. One approach employed by

264 K U D O S : ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF J. N. COLDSTREAM

archaeologists unable or unwilling to tackle the increasing scientific demands placed upon the study of pottery, then, is simply to acquire (or pay for) a technical report on the pottery, which is subsequently placed undigested in the rarely explored wilderness of specialist appendices in the back of site publications. In that way the report represents a placatory offering to the cult of science (federal funding agencies and university tenure review boards might be included here as well) without the inherent risk to the excavator of a botched effort at its integration within the text.

It must be said that this trend is also supported by scientists untrained (and often relatively uninterested) in the principles of archaeological research, who simply welcome non-commercial diversions from their routine instrumental tasks. Unfortunately this situation represents the absence of any meaningful relationship, much less a marriage, between two academic disciplines. It resembles more precisely cohabitation by partners who are not particularly familiar, or even friendly at times, and (it must be said) is the epitome of the lack of understanding and communication endemic to all unions destined for disillusion and collapse.

Problems in the Relationship: The Pursuit of Archaeological ‘Truths’ Through Science

It is one of the sadder aspects of this partnership that irrefutable authority through ‘scientific objectivity’ has been perceived by archaeologists to have been the prize attained at the price of intellectual independence. Of course, scientists are not completely faultless either in promoting this perception . The dismay in archaeologists is palpable as they become aware that objective ‘truth’ is only a relative perception even in the physical sciences.

What is emerging through the association of the disciplines is the fact that problems in describing archaeological pottery have stemmed not only from the nature of its many excavators and their historical and cultural complacency with subjectivity, but in large part the problems are also the consequence of the complex (and not always well-defined) nature of the beast itself clays. The application of sophisticated techniques of material science (e.g. ICPS, NAA, XRD, PIXE or electron microscopy) to the study of ceramics has required scholars to refer back (though not always with alacrity) to the raw materials and manufacturing technologies used by ancient craftsmen. The clay materials are notoriously complicated, in their geological origins, composition, and in their potential for alteration (in nature and by craft). In an age when infra-red laser tweezers can manipulate single molecules, one might expect earth scientists to have conquered the categorization of clays. And yet there currently exists no universally agreed system of classification for the whole range of clay minerals. Efforts by experts to reduce them to tidy theoretical categories are diluted in relevance by the practical evidence from the field which finds them frequently as mixed-layer assemblages, or in the process of altering from one type to another, as opposed to discrete mineralogical groups which might correlate with patterns of production as evidenced in groups of archaeological pottery.

In addition, the potential variation in elemental composition within a single clay bed, from one location to another, remains largely unassessed. And, in the absence of petrographic data, two calcareous clays might produce very similar elemental profiles, though the nature of biogenic constituents in one might distinguish it from a non-fossiliferous calcareous clay. And what of two sets of archaeological pottery samples with similar calcareous elemental profiles, where examination by optical microscopy would identify the carbonate in one set as a temper (or as deposited calcite from burial in calcareous soils), distinguishing it from the naturally calcareous nature of the other set? These complex analytical situations are not at all uncommon in the study of ancient pottery, particularly as the valuable complementary role of optical microscopy is excluded by most archaeologists and analysts from the research. This omission may be due to the procedure’s somewhat esoteric image (elemental data in simple numerical form appear much more accessible than petrological reports) and its perceived association with the past, pioneering periods in archaeological science.

Not surprising then that analytical results often produce discrepancies between typological pottery groups proposed by an archaeologist, and material groups as identified by the analyst. The apparent

SARAH VAUGHAN : ARCHAEOLOGY AND SCIENCE 265

objectivity of analytical results can generate insecurity in those excavators expecting clarity through objective ‘truth’. Anomalous or indefinite scientific results tend to be regarded by such excavators with disillusion or worse, at times with hostile suspicion focused more generally on the presence in archaeol- ogy of science itself. Since there are very few material scientists well-versed in the principles of archaeological thought and traditional pottery manufacture, and who have the requisite time for the field and experimental work needed to complement the laboratory research, the archaeologist has had few options when faced with analytical data inconsistent with archaeological theory:

1. The analytical report is suppressed or placed in a remote appendix not referred to within the main text.

2. The excavator ‘goes off‘ science as a result of confusing and therefore unhelpful analytical data, and, feeling betrayed by the promise of clear objective results, approves no further scientific work.

3. The co-operating archaeologist and scientist devote significant time to discussing the analytical data against the archaeological backdrop in order to consider the value of each point of view within an integrated discussion for the publication.

This latter option, which occurs with depressing irregularity, is the only one allowing for the ephemeral nature of objective ‘truths’ in science, and for real communication to promote understanding and intimacy in the collaborative research. It should also probably be pointed out here that problems are not always absent when analytical results are sufficiently bland or indefinite that they can be made to appear to support existing archaeological thought, though improved sampling (of pots or clays) or additional analyses usually modifies this impression.

Further undermining efforts to standardize studies of archaeological pottery is the accumulating body of field and laboratory data, which strongly suggests the technologies of ceramic manufacture of pottery (particularly prehistoric) are as varied as the individuals, cultures and landscapes which produce the pots, thereby defying attempts at rigid classification or objective quantification. Careful ethnographic work consistently documents the enormous range of inspiration behind the choices of traditional potters, who frequently ignore theoretical rules postulated for their craft by modem practitioners. By extrapolation, then, reconstructing comparable numbers of manufacturing methods for extinct societies, commonly in the absence of documentary or iconographic evidence, would (should?) appear a formidable task. In many instances as well, identification of ceramic attributes remains a matter of judgement. For example, traces of primary and secondary forming techniques can be obliterated by skilled finishing procedures on a pot, and the line between a vessel made by a skilled potter on a fast turntable and one thrown on a slow wheel by a less talented artist is not always easy to perceive, even by experienced analysts. And yet ceramic typologies and related chronologies revolve around such judgements.

Archaeologists wishing to enhance the precision of descriptions of their ceramic finds also have had problems as they find themselves awash in unfamiliar technical terminologies specific to clay science, to the principles of traditional pottery manufacture and to pyrotechnology, to name but a few. In an effort to appear technically informed, excavators may describe grey pottery as ‘reduced’, for example, which can, in fact, be inaccurate as incomplete oxidation and special surface treatments can also produce gray ceramic surfaces and firing horizons in the walls. Scholars describing inclusions in ceramic fabrics as ‘temper’ are even more apt to be in error, unless petrographic, experimental and geological evidence supports the artificial introduction of the constituents to the pottery. Imprecise use of such technical terminology not only significantly detracts from an effort to extend the quality and quantity of ceramic descriptive detail, but seriously inhibits any meaningful integration of the macroscopic observations with data from subsequent laboratory analyses.

This is not to say that the study of pottery does not benefit from some attempts to reduce the degree of subjectivity still prevalent in many published descriptions. A scheme to help systematize the observation of macroscopic material and technological features of samples representative of large and/or

266 KLADOS: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF J. N. COLDSTREAM

well-defined archaeological groups (or unique pieces) of pottery was proposed by the writer, and has been applied for a number of years in the Aegean on a variety of wares or c la~ses .~ The scheme repre- sents no methodological innovation, but rather the useful assembly of selected ceramic attributes found (as a result of previous research) to have been most informative for provenance and characterization research on ancient pottery as studied in sherd form (complementing other studies of whole vessels). Its aim was to maximize both the quantity and quality of data able to be retrieved from sherds, using standards for assessments common to the geological sciences as a way of increasing objectivity and reproducibility in assessment.

The body of data accumulated for a group of samples as a result of the application of this system is large, and in statistical terms represents variables of three distinct metrics:

1. Ordinal (typology, fabric group, chronology, degree of fabric compaction and hardness, degree of surface lustre);

2. Categorical (presence-absence variables such as subsurface horizon, polish, burnish, scraping, paring, pre-fired painted decoration, evidence of double firing; multi-valued categorical variables such as site name, firing horizon type, vessel part, parent vessel type);

3. Ratio (wall width, inclusion percentages and sizes).

The matrix formed by the numerical coding of these data can be used initially to produce two-way frequency tables between pairs of variables to ascertain areas of high or significant negative correlation. These correlations are important to the meaningful interpretation of eventual clusters of variable sets, and simultaneous clusters of cases and variables which reflect the complex inter-dependency of ceramic variables responsible for the observable features of the p~ t t e ry .~ Ascribing the origin of a ceramic feature, for example fired hardness, to a single cause, such as firing temperature, is potentially mislead- ing, as the relative hardness of a ceramic body is affected by one or more of the following variables acting in concert: firing temperature, firing time, firing rate, firing atmosphere, clay paste composition, wall compaction, surface finish type and quality. Thus the two-way tests help to identify the relationships and the relative significance of the variables prior to interpretation.

This proposed system for recording certain features of archaeological pottery is by no means exhaustive, and benefits from adaptations appropriate to the body of pottery under consideration. It should also be said that the writer was, at first, sceptical of an approach which aimed at reducing to numerical codes some features of handmade pottery. However, the resulting groups of samples, produced by the application of block clustering (simultaneous association of cases and variables) to the data matrix, were both archaeologically meaningful, and entirely consistent with groups previously postulated by the writer as a result of more subjective assessments.6 However, the requirement to reduce ceramic attributes and variables to numerical codes compatible with computer-aided assessments means, by definition, the omission from the process of consideration and interpretation of the pottery those other

R.E. Jones and S.J. Vaughan, ‘A study of some “Canaanite” jar fragments from Maa-PaZaeokastro by petrographic and chemical analysis’, Appendix IV.2 in V. Karageorghis and M. Demas (eds.), Excavations at Maa-Palaeokustro 1979-1989 (Nicosia 1989) 386-7; S.J. Vaughan, ‘Petrographic analysis of Early Cycladic wares from Akrotiri, Thera’, in D. Hardy et al. (eds.), Thera and the Aegean World III, VoZ. I , Archaeology (London 1990) 470-487; eadem, ‘Macroscopic and microscopic descriptions of archaeological pottery: principles and practicalities, Hydra (forthcoming).

S.J. Vaughan and D. Guppy, ‘Statistics and the archaeological sample’, in C.L.N. Ruggles and S.P.Q. Rahtz (eds.), Computer and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, 1987. BAR International Series 393 (1988) 55-59.

S.J. Vaughan, ‘A fabric analysis of Late Cypriot Base Ring Ware: studies in ceramic technology, petrology, geochemistry and mineralogy’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London 1987) 87-105; Vaughan and Guppy (op. cit. n. 5 ) .

SARAH VAUGHAN : ARCHAEOLOGY AND SCIENCE 267

variables, also significant but incompatible with codification (see below). Thus, while such a system as this promotes consistency of observation by an investigator, in addition to a certain reduction in sub- jectivity by means of reference to established and commonly-accepted geological standards of assessment (i.e. comparator charts for presence percentages and shape, Munsell Soil Colour Chart, hardness tests), it also represents only a partial glimpse of a group of material, which must be studied from many other perspectives.

It would seem that the demand by science to identify, with great accuracy and precision, variables to do with the raw materials and manufacturing processes of ancient pottery is in direct conflict with the nature of the same materials, and with the features of traditional pottery which make its study so interesting to archaeologists: i.e. those features which reflect the human inspiration behind the artefact - those features of human accomplishment reflecting factors inconsistent with codification, such as whimsy, ethnicity, superstition, gender, prejudice, skill, laziness, taste imparted by various clay recipes to pot contents, politics, individual aesthetics, or even novelty or humour. Such factors are cited in ethnographic literature, and in the study of traditional pottery cannot be insignificant. But as they remain non-quantifiable, they are in danger of remaining unconsidered in scientifically-biased reports. Only the confident imaginations of more persuasive archaeological scholars will recognize the significance of their gradual discrediting within the discipline.

Second Thoughts

Perhaps what the writer is perceiving in the relationship between archaeology and science, particularly with regard to studies of ancient pottery, is a subtle disaffection amongst archaeologists who have begun to feel a certain imbalance in a partnership poised on the brink of marriage. As excavations are increasingly funded (directly or indirectly) by government agencies which underwrite the development of the same analytical techniques applied to archaeological finds, the freedom of the archaeologist to define the direction of the research, indeed the development of the discipline itself, is being proportionately curtailed. Witness the recent rise in the political fortunes of environmental studies in archaeology, a reflection of the current political posturing by governments investing in research on such issues, and the reciprocal demise in interest in funding subjects with less current political punch, such as ceramics. Is it that we really learn more now from snails than from the pots the snails were cooked in? The many new areas of research being opened up in archaeology by science are truly to be applauded, but are they only possible at the expense of others of a more traditional humanistic nature?

How then is a marriage of these two disciplines to be facilitated without diminishing the value of either one? Is a partnership of such divergent disciplines in fact possible without disillusionment, misunderstanding, or continuous financial and intellectual jockeying for position? Let us examine the case for scientific studies of ancient pottery as a convenient microcosm of the issues.

The application of techniques of material science to the study of archaeological pottery has certainly resulted in significant increases in the quantity of the data able to be retrieved from the finds, be they whole vessels or even tiny fragments. But what of the quality of these increased data? As the sensitivity of the analytical instruments increases so it seems does the fascination with our ability simply to probe the pottery on an almost Lilliputian scale. Analysts dwelling for hours at a scanning electron microscope, for example, to discern minute variations in clay particle vitrification within a single potsherd, or to apply layer after layer of sophisticated statistical treatments to chemical data from samples whose number and pedigree create notable discomfort amongst certified statisticians. The power of analytical and statistical techniques seems, at times, to have grown out of proportion to the investigators’ ability to judge the relative significance of the analytical data, or the samples themselves at times.

Common sense (alongside most recognizable passion) with regard to the priorities for study of ancient pottery is being overwhelmed at times by the aura of analytical power. Take vitrification for example. As a ceramic feature it is frequently non-uniform within single vessels, since it is the result of the complex interaction of whole sets of material and technical variables, operative even within extremely

268 KUDOS: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF J. N. COLDSTREAM

small areas. Thus observations of subtle variations in vitrification, or inspections of limited areas of a small number of ceramic samples, or even examinations of samples not representing comparable parts of vessels, can be relatively meaningless for the larger technological questions underlying the research, unless a substantial quantity of samples are submitted for analysis on each occasion to offset such problems (a process which is prohibitive both in time and funding).

And what of the problems created by the common lack of empirical controls in scientific studies of archaeological pottery? In a rare example of such important research the assignment of two samples of the same clay to different statistical clusters on the basis of chemical composition was demonstrated, where the only variable was the refined status of one sample? The implications of this experiment must be disturbing to those relinquishing primary authority for provenance assessments to mathematical processes in the frequent absence of supporting field and experimental work. And what of the depressingly common situation where like is compared with unlike? For example, in an effort to reinforce the suggestion that certain archaeological samples were made at a specific centre (a suggestion arising out of excavated evidence as well as elemental data found to cluster for these samples), the analyst will compare the chemical profile of the samples to those from previous analyses of samples from the same site, hoping for an acceptable chemical compatibility. Too often, however, the analytical data from previous studies represents ceramic samples of significantly different products, either typologically or even chronologically. And in the majority of cases there is no kiln evidence, or even correlative geological studies of clays around the site, to help substantiate pronouncements on provenance. Thus a site can acquire a reputation as a production centre for certain pottery without any corroboration on the ground (clays, kilns) or systematic comparison with local products of comparable type and context.

The most frequent retort by excavators and analysts alike to such remarks is that ‘geological studies are irrelevant since locating the ancient clay beds is impossible’. Indeed the writer would have to agree with the last part of the observation. However, what is not impossible (and very valuable indeed), though not rapid or facile either, is a program of clay prospection around relevant sites which systematically samples clay beds in both horizontal and vertical dimensions representing the variation in raw materials available near the site. These should be properly documented for geological context, and then used in a program of experimental (and possibly simulation) work to produce briquettes most appropriate (and here again optical microscopy is of considerable value) for comparative analyses with the archaeological samples. Such research is not aimed at discovering the precise clay beds used by an ancient potters (if one bed has been lost it is normally possible to trace deposits of comparable clays nearby). Rather such research is a useful method for corroborating the specific type (or types) of raw materials used by the ancient potters. Prepared samples can be analysed to determine whether they are consistent with those in the archaeological samples, and the technological processes which may have been employed in making the ancient vessels can even be revealed in some detail through simulation and repeated analysis.

In the hasty embrace of science by archaeology, then, it would appear that one of the fundamental principles of science, the tenet of empirical controls, appears to have been excluded with only a few notable exceptions.’ For the most part, scientific studies of ancient pottery have relied primarily on data derived from the archaeological samples. The reasons for the exclusion appear to stem from excavators’ desires for answers which are rapid and definite. And as thoughtful geological and experimental research rarely results in simple, much less rapid, ‘truths’, the requirement for such work is perceived by many archaeologists and laboratory analysts alike as a worrying or (perhaps more accurately in some cases) as an annoying extension of enquiries (and therefore funding requirements). In addition such work is

’ V. Kilikoglou, Y. Maniatis and A.P. Grimanis, ‘The effect of purification and firing of clays on trace element provenance studies’, Archaeometry 30:l (1988) 37-46. ’ M.B. Schiffer and M.J. Skibo, ‘Theory and experiment in the study of technological change’, Current Anthropology 28 (1987) 595-622. N. Cuomo di Capri0 and S.J. Vaughan, ‘An experimental study in distinguishing grog (chamotte) from argillaceous inclusions in ceramic thin sections’, Archeomaterials 7: 1 (1993) 21-40.

SARAH VAUGHAN : ARCHAEOLOGY AND SCIENCE 269

primarily achieved through painstaking personal effort, not by impressive state-of-the-art instrumentation taking up disputed space in university physics departments, which also means a less sympathetic hearing for financial support. Its exclusion from most archaeological research designs would appear to be the result of a silent conspiracy of intellectual sloth and political expediency. Unfortunately its exclusion also reinforces the arguments of critics of archaeometry, who describe the science practised in archaeology as 'soft'. In what appears (at least to some scholars) to have been an uncontrolled stampede away from traditional studies of pottery, then, the requirement for safeguards has not been foreseen to protect archaeologists from comparable subjective excesses committed in the name of science.

A Proposal of Marriage

Is archaeology then mired in an overpowering symbiotic relationship with the physical-chemical sciences, or is there a way forward which might ensure a balance in the valuable association of these disciplines? If a sense of urgency is conveyed by the writer, it is due to the frightening rapidity with which investigative technologies are developing which appear to menace the role to be played in archaeology by the less tangible, but limitless power of human imagination. There is a danger of the creation of a vicious academic cycle as a result of the generation of increasingly large and complex bodies of scientific data which will require in turn increased funding to be maintained and treated at competitive levels, resulting in increasing distances (physical as well as intellectual) between analyst and excavator, with the study of artefacts becoming increasingly remote from an awareness of their archaeological contexts. This is precisely the situation Sir Mortimer Wheeler warned against over forty years ago at Oxford, when he reminded scholars in the 1951 Rhind Lectures that 'archaeology is digging up, not things, but people ... archaeology is a science that must be lived, must be "seasoned' with h~manity ' .~ The richness of academic associations with archaeology has been the source of its unique attraction for scholars over the years, an attraction significantly diminished by the domination of any single point of view. lo

It should probably be stated that these comments do not, in any way, constitute a clarion call for a return to the 'acquire and admire' school of archaeology, but by the same token neither should they be construed as an heretical outburst against scientific contributions to the field. Instead these remarks are aimed at restoring to archaeologists a belief in the validity and value of some of the features of the discipline which so distinguish it from science. Passion, for example, is in great danger of extinction in archaeology by scientific disapprobation. The subjective enthusiasms which traditionally draw scholars to the field are those which must sustain them through the most tedious routines of research. And without such sustenance archaeological research becomes as dry and unfulfilling as any purely clerical pursuit.

As archaeology is a process of careful discovery, it is accomplished by means of a range of skills and techniques, by judgements and imagination.'' Implicit within the process of discovery, however, is the appreciation of human achievements and failures. The quality of a scholar's eventual interpretation of archaeological and scientific evidence depends still, in no small part, on that scholar's capacity to be affected, or even amused by the finds from societies long vanished. Is this not the reason why scholarly discussions of pottery which are both amusing and informative (such as any of those of Coldstream one might care to cite for example) open windows on the past through which analysts rarely peer?

Any successful marriage must be a continual process of growth and negotiation based on good communication and mutual respect, with passion present in variable amounts. The potential would seem to exist for a balanced and productive marriage between archaeology and the physical-chemical sciences,

Wheeler (op. cit. n. 1) v. lo M. Shanks, Experiencing the Past: On the Character of Archaeology (London and New York 1992) 163-79. I ' C. Renfrew and P. Bahn, Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice (London 1991) 9-10.

270 KLADOS: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF J. N. COLDSTREAM

but it would also seem to be unlikely to be achieved until archaeologists have recovered a measure of comfort and confidence in themselves with reference to all the dimensions of their unique discipline.

Of primary importance in the recovery of balance is the need to be reminded that scientific (and statistical) techniques are simply more sensitive and powerful tools available to the archaeologist seeking to reconstruct ancient cultures, to be used selectively, and with adaptations appropriate for the discipline, alongside other tools such as the trowel and the pen. And it may help to be reminded that the authority of analytical results resides not in the sensitivity of their measurement, but in their relative significance to the research, as interpreted by archaeologists and analysts considering the finds within the holistic context of the excavation. The excitement of being able to penetrate ancient artefacts to the extent of viewing individual particles of their various materials will remain palpable, Lilliputian-scale voyages of discovery taking place within laboratories in tandem to those on a larger scale taking place in the field. The capacity for increased microscopic focus will be enhanced at alarmingly regular intervals, but the responsibility for pulling the focus back to the larger questions in archaeology remains with the scholars initiating, and ultimately interpreting the work. Grahame Clark was alert to the potential erosion of the archaeologist’s role in a partnership with science, reminding colleagues (in both disciplines no doubt) that ‘the correct interpretation of (scientific) data ... still depends on the genius, perspicacity and breadth of sympathy of the investigator’.’*

On a more pragmatic note, the balance in the relationship between archaeology and the physical- chemical sciences will need to be underwritten in real terms, and the value of undertaking complex and complementary studies will need financial recognition, so that research designs will have adequate resources for frequent, face-to-face communication between collaborators, and for correlative field and experimental research to augment the authority desired by archaeologists from the application of scien- tific techniques to the study of ancient artefacts. The problems of communication inherent between practitioners of these disciplines have not been unforeseen by responsible scholars,13 or academic bodies, such as the Science and Engineering Research Council, Science-Based Archaeology Committee in the UK. But although strong recommendations were put forward by senior members of this council (and others) ten years ago to promote the training of scholars in both archaeology and various sciences (potentially the most effective enhancement of communication between academic disciplines), there has been an unfortunate dearth of professional support for the few pioneering scholars who followed this innovative lead.I4

Finally, a public re-affirmation of the value of the traditional attractions of archaeology (detection, discovery, imagination, passion, travel, the value of subjective expertise, humour, the capacity to admire and appreciate human accomplishment) seems essential for its survival as a unique discipline, and for its ability to involve good scholars from a broad academic range in the humanities and sciences. Courage will be required for the rediscovery of these dimensions of the discipline, as it will have to be undertaken in the face of intimidating analytical power (instrumental and political) reinforced by the current intellectual preoccupation with information transcribable in numerical code.

’* In foreword to D. Brothwell and E. Higgs, Science in Archaeology (2nd ed., Bristol 1969) 19. l3 W.A. McDonald in preface to N.C. Wilkie and W.D.E. Coulson (eds.), Contributions to Aegean Archaeology: Studies in Honor of William A. McDonald (Minneapolis 1985) xiv-xvii. l4 E.M. Jope, ‘Preface’, in J. Henderson (ed.), Scientific Analysis in Archaeology and its Interpretation (Oxford 1989) xi-xv.