You are on page 1of 17

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11.

For personal use only.

A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientic Techniques into Archaeological Interpretation
A. Mark Pollard and Peter Bray
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3QY, United Kingdom; email:,

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007. 36:24559 First published online as a Review in Advance on June 18, 2007 The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at This articles doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094354 Copyright c 2007 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 0084-6570/07/1021-0245$20.00

Key Words
interdisciplinarity, pragmatism, cooperation, equality, materiality, novel methods, integration

Much of the literature on the integration of science and archaeology has tended to focus on mistakes, tensions, and problems. Many scholars have also been obsessed with denitions and delineating the boundaries between varieties of archaeologist. In this article we aim to move away from this by discussing the pragmatic ways that progress has been achieved in applying scientic solutions to interpreting the past. Progress has not been dependent on overcoming supposed fundamental differences between the humanities and sciences; instead it has been based around cooperation on the vast tracts of common ground. This article highlights key arenas that encourage this process of information ow and discussion: interdisciplinary eld work, new scientic techniques, new archaeological questions, and education. What is increasingly important in archaeology is how we can encourage researchers to contribute to group solutions of problems and cross outdated disciplinary boundaries.


In recent years, cooperation between mainstream archaeology and the natural and physical sciences has become increasingly routine 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 century 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). Some (e.g., Hawkes 1968) even saw the encroachment of science into archaeology as signifying the end of the civilized worldno doubt a manifestation of the rising fear of science in the early postbomb world, or an elegy for a more stable if somewhat socially stratied 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 scientic or otherwise nature of archaeology, we aim to analyze the processes by which scientic techniques have been brought into the archaeological mainstream, highlight some of the pitfalls to be avoided in the future, and point out some of the encouraging current developments. 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 archaeology and science cannot be treated as two mutually independent blocs. If we take the more realistic view that integration is a complex, negotiated process, which is not actually between two estranged camps, we can begin to say something more interesting about the state of archaeological science. We use the metaphor of a bicycle made for two (although, in modern archaeology, it is likely to need to accommodate many more than two!); it has to be an equal partnership, with a mutually intelligible language of communication, agreed objectives, and equal inputs. Otherwise the
246 Pollard

venture is doomed. In our view, archaeological knowledge is not created in a nished, denitive state but rened over iterative cycles of interaction between a number of partners. 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 archaeology is an emphasis on the importance of integrating a wide range of inuences from all the social, natural, and physical sciences (key examples include Chamberlin 1897, Hawkes 1954, Trigger 1984, Wylie 1989). It is of its very nature multidisciplinary, and it is an interesting challenge to new students to ask them to go through the scientic alphabet from architecture to zoologyand name one which has not had some impact on archaeology (Pollard 1995). Yet archaeology is much more than a collection of borrowed tools from other disciplines. It is held together by a central distinguishing theme: the complete study of human society in the past through an interpretation of its material remains. It seems, from the vantage point of the early twentyrst century, unthinkable and irresponsible to approach this task without an open mind and a full tool chest. If we assume, reasonably enough, that all knowledge can no longer be encompassed by a single skull, then the key question is how can cooperation between individual specialists be made to achieve results. In this article we move beyond championing a rather vague notion of integration (e.g., Preucel & Hodder 1996, p. 11) and explore the spectrum of processes and structures that people have created to achieve practical results. Perhaps the overall lesson is that we must act to ease the sharing of information rather than passively extolling the virtues of cooperation. As with all communication, this demands a

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.


mutual respect and understanding of the various languages involved. Therefore, the multilingual translatornot a renaissance person, but someone who can uently move between disciplinesplays a key role. As noted above, we have tried to avoid the well-worn debate over what counts as science, and whether archaeology can be considered as a science in its own right (e.g., Childe 1943, Pollard 2004). Where science or scientist is used in the following text we mean a specialist who has spent most of his or her training in the physical or natural sciences. Similarly, archaeologist is used to mean someone who studies the past but is largely unfamiliar with the detail and language of chemistry, physics, or biology. We do, of course, appreciate that an increasing number of researchers have emerged over the years to whom these simple denitions do not apply, and to whom therefore such barriers are minimal. If 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 be no signicant language barrier between the articial divisions of knowledge that we have created over the centuries. As it is, exploring the practical ways in which specialists from all elds (however they are named) can be brought together to understand archaeological questions better is still necessary. We attempt to explore the several ways in which science has interacted with archaeology by choosing specic themes. These themes are drawn from across the spectrum of archaeology: interdisciplinary eld work, the introduction of new scientic techniques, the adoption of new analytical tools, the development of new archaeological questions, and education. The case studies used are those with which we 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 archaeology is also universal and hope that our

observations can offer useful insights in other parts of the world where different systems and structures appertain.

KEY CASE STUDIES Interdisciplinary Field Work

Modern large-scale research excavation and survey projects are clear examples of science and archaeology merging to explore specic questions and geographical areas. In fact, a sign of the cooperation is that many of the techniques employed during these projects are no longer deemed scientic adjuncts but are accepted as equal and necessary parts of the archaeological process. One good recent example of such an excavation is the Old Scatness Broch project, on the Shetland Islands to the north of Scotland, in the United Kingdom. This project is run as a partnership between the Shetland Amenity Trust and the University of Bradford and was designed specically not only to investigate the long continuous sequence of occupation on this remarkable site, but also to bring to bear the wide range of scientic expertise available in Bradford. It integrates geophysical prospection, absolute dating programs, soil organic analysis, wider eld survey, environmental reconstruction, material specialisms, and experimental archaeology and reconstruction as tools for engaging the many visitors to the site within a single unied research design (Dockrill et al. 1995, Dockrill 2002, Guttmann et al. 2003). Of course this is just one example of how modern archaeological practice integrates these specialisms, and many more could be mentioned, for example, the Stonehenge Riverside Project (Parker Pearson et al. 2005) and the C atalh oyuk project (Hodder 2006). The key point is that the practice of having several specialists working in the eld during the excavation as equal members of the team has had a profound inuence on the integration of scientic techniques into archaeological interpretation. Although it seems an A Bicycle Made for Two? 247

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

obvious practice to many researchers today, it is still a relatively recent and crucial development. The old idea that archaeologists carry out the excavation, and subsequently a range of postexcavation specialists are contracted to report on the various categories of nds, is still not uncommon. The resulting excavation reports, often with endless poorly digested specialist reports tucked into the back on microche 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 excessively and uselessly) applied to archaeological samples for centuries, they had contributed very little to the actual understanding of extractive metallurgy in prehistory. The change toward true integration occurred when metallurgists, chemists, and mineralogists began to be invited to participate in eld 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 eld archaeologists and laboratory scientists and the rapid advancement of the eld of archaeometallurgy. Similarly Linford (2006, p. 2209) attributes some of the rapid development of geophysical prospection to the on-site interaction of scientists and eld archaeologists. The principle of proton-free precession in the Earths magnetic eld (Packard and Varian 1954) led quickly to the development of eld 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 successful survey of a large-scale Roman pottery production site of Water Newton near Peterborough in March 1958 (Aitken 1958). The identication of a useful physical phenomenon combined with a well-dened problem in the eld rapidly brought together science and archaeology, with no conscious thought of the potential difculties of combining physics with archaeology. The importance of
248 Pollard

the opportunity to share insight, problems, and ideas in person while on site cannot be overemphasized. Its increasingly common occurrence on modern research excavations can be only of great benet to all concerned.

New Scientic Areas

The breaking of fresh scientic ground will often present radical new opportunities to archaeology and encourage long-lasting integration; however, it is rarely a straightforward process. Undoubtedly the biggest single contribution of science to archaeology has been the provision of reliable chronologies that are independent of conventional calendrical or typological dating. Radiocarbon now provides the vast majority of all scientic dates used in archaeology after 40 ka bp (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
14 C

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

method in the twentieth century with

the discovery of the antiquity of the human species . . . .Grahame Clark pointed to
14 C

dating as making a world prehistory possible . . . .Lewis Binford expressed the view that the development of 14 C-based chronologies was responsible for refocusing the attention of archaeologists . . . from chronology building to theory building.

Critical views included those of who commented (1970, p. 38), Neustepny, In fact, especially in Europe, most archaeologists did not give it a very favourable reception. If anything, the response from the New World was even worse: According to Taylor (2000, p. 2), one archaeologist (Frederick Johnson) described the arrival 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


Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

howls of protests, often savagely derogatory (Taylor 2000, p. 2). Some archaeologists were even indignant that radiocarbon dating might replace old-fashioned, uncontrolled guessing. The subsequent realization that radiocarbon dates required calibrating was taken by a minority as evidence of the complete futility of such an approach, but it placated many 1970) and was of the critics (e.g., Neustepny hailed as the second radiocarbon revolution. For example, calibrated dates being substantially earlier than uncalibrated dates during the fth millennium bp provided evidence of the impossibility of contact between the Megalith builders of Atlantic Europe and the civilised world of the Myceneans and the Eastern Mediterranean (Renfrew 1970). This, at a stroke, demonstrated the independence of European prehistory and refuted the diffusionist hypothesis of ex oriente lux (e.g., Childe 1957) for the origins of European civilization. Renfrew (1976, p. 53) proclaimed,
the prehistorian could hope to date his nds, 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 optimistic view has been turned on its head. By the late 1980s it had become clear that a single radiocarbon date, unless of the highest possible precision, 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% condence) of 20 years, but most dates have errors 3040 years, which correspond to an uncalibrated real error range of more than 120 years. Once calibrated, therefore, it is highly unlikely that one date will dene an event in the Holocene to better than a century. In some cases this might be useful, but increasingly it is not.

The result of this realization was the fourth radiocarbon revolution [counting the advent of accelerator mass spectrometry methods as the third (Taylor 1997)], which relies explicitly on the associated archaeological evidence, rather than being independent of it. This method involves the use of multiple linked radiocarbon dates (e.g., a series of dates from an archaeological sequence related to each other by stratigraphy) and the subsequent application of Bayesian methods during calibration (Buck et al. 1996). This allows prior knowledge, such as that provided by stratigraphy (layer A must 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 identied and eliminated on a transparent and systematic basis. This short and partial history of radiocarbon illustrates a number of points in relation to the integration of scientic methods into archaeology. The initial responses of archaeologists to the new methodology spanned the whole spectrum, from uncritical adulation to absolute refusal to accept anything. Meanwhile the science moved on in the way that all sciences do: iteratively. This is not a weaknessit is an immense strength. The cycles go something like this: Radiocarbon dates do not match calendrical dateswhich is wrong? The discovery that the rate of radiocarbon production in the atmosphere is not constant means that some 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 rened 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 some other information source; therefore, archaeological evidence (stratigraphy, typology, etc.) needs to be included in the analysis, contrary to the initial expectation. The wheel has therefore turned A Bicycle Made for Two? 249

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

full circle, from a dating technique lauded because of its independence of the archaeological evidence, to a process that uses all the available archaeological evidence to produce the highest possible chronological resolution. After more than 50 years of iterative progress, we are now in a position to formulate better questions, which cannot yet be answered with existing techniques. The next interaction of research will, like the cycles before, weave more lines of evidence into its arguments and aid the process of integration across archaeology.

New Instruments
As an illustration of how the use of new analytical equipment is integrated with archaeological 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 to own, so access to it is of necessity limited. Second, it can have multiple uses, and therefore there is no simple instruction book about how to use it, what to use it for, and what the results might mean. It is, therefore, almost the extreme 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 highly 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 deected (accelerated), it emits an intense beam of electromagnetic
250 Pollard

radiation in a narrow cone tangential to the electron beam, like a searchlight. 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 instruments, 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 radiation. For example, X-ray diffraction experiments 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 to the many hours required by conventional sources) so that the organization of fragile structures which might otherwise be damaged by X-rays can be determined. Thus, the machine is especially suitable for biomolecules. Additionally because the beam can be collimated to a few microns, spatial variation in crystallographic organization can be determined, such as might be caused by microbial activity on archaeological bone. Furthermore, because the collection of data is so rapid, the sample can be observed in real-time while an external factor (such as temperature or relative humidity) is changed, thus allowing direct measurement of the inuence of such parameters on the sample 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 handful of such instruments exist, principally in Europe and North America, and most countries have access arrangements through their Research Councils (or equivalent) to allow bona de researchers free access for approved


Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

experiments. Although it may take several months to schedule a particular experiment into the required station, and all 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 collected in a short time. For some types of work, where synchrotron techniques are an option, but not a necessity, there is an obvious costbenet analysis to be evaluated, but for others, synchrotron sources provide the only possibility of carrying out some types of analysis. An example might be in microanalysis with high spatial resolution, where only the synchrotron can provide sufcient beam intensity on a small enough scale to carry out the analysis. Another might be in heat-sensitive samples such as proteins, where the synchrotron can carry out very rapid analyses, because of the high intensity of the source, before a sample has time to alter. Synchrotron applications in archaeology actually began as early as 1986 (Harbottle et al. 1986, p. 116). This pioneering paper observed that SR was suitable for
very fast, sensitive bulk analyses of materials such as ceramic and stone, spot (microprobe) analytical capability . . . , scanning applications . . . and element speciation on a micro scale.

These applications are all replacements for what was at the time existing technology, using primarily the high intensity and small focus to do what could in principle be done by other instrumentsfor instance, air-path nondestructive analysis of inorganic artifacts could equally be done by PIXE (protoninduced X-ray emission: Pollard et al. 2007, p. 116). Perhaps inevitably, therefore, the rst use of a new instrument in archaeology was to replace what could already be done, not to explore what could not yet be done. The uses of SR in archaeology have been subsequently documented on a dedicated Web site at Daresbury ( The takeup of SR was not 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 substantial paper on SR of archaeological materials was again SXRF on a number of Gaulish coins from Brittany (Brissaud et al. 1990). The number of published SR applications in archaeology did not rise above the level of one or two per year until 1996ten years after the original observation that SR had something to offer, which is a huge delay in the fast-moving world of analytical science. Since 1996, however, growth has been exponential and totaled 55 papers in 2006. Most of these early applications used SXRF microanalysis on a variety of materials, including glass (Schoeld 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). The rst substantial use of SR for non-SXRF work was 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 not until 2000 that applications were developed that truly used the synchrotron to make observations that were difcult if not impossible to make using conventional sources: for example, SAXS (amall angle X-ray scattering) to study the alterations of shape and size of bone mineral crystals, as a result of diagenetic and microbial attack (Wess et al. 2001, Hiller & Wess 2006). This work is signicant not 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 chemistry of bone for isotopic reconstruction of human diet and mobility (Pollard et al. 2007, p. 180). This evidence shows that it took 15 years for scientists and archaeologists to identify applications of SR that genuinely use the tools potential to answer questions of real archaeological signicance. For the rst 15 years, most applications were essentially using SR to do something that could be done just as effectively with a conventional source. Many A Bicycle Made for Two? 251

of these applications, particularly in the early years, simply used archaeological material as examples of unusual samples for analysis, simply to illustrate the power of the technique. In fact, the SR scientic community has courted the archaeological and cultural heritage eld very heavily over the past 20 years partly, assuredly, from a genuine conviction that SR has something to offer, but also, one suspects, as a deliberate attempt to broaden the eld of application of SR into the politically sexy area of cultural heritage. The relative lack of success until 2000 is a clear indication of the lack of communication between the two elds and shows that, despite the best endeavors of both sides, without the genuine dialogue provided by good science in partnership with meaningful 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 interesting question is how could this process have been sped up? It is not just a multi-million-pound piece of hardware that can radically alter the relationship of science and the past. A clear example of this is the impact of affordable computing and visual display systems on archaeological geophysics. A major limiting factor on the elds development was the need for an almost impossible combination of powerful microprocessors and portability, along with affordability (Linford 2006, p. 2210). Hardware not only enabled the practice of complex geophysics in the eld 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 illustration equipment and software was a powerful factor in convincing archaeologists that formerly hand-drawn, and perhaps somewhat subjective, contours were signicant and did represent some form of archaeological reality.

New Archaeological Questions

Integration cannot happen in the abstract, without the focus of a central question.
252 Pollard

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 list of key questions, the AHOB 1 project brought together an impressive range of archaeologists and scientists (Ashton et al. 2006, Stringer 2006). This project has led to more than 150 scientic papers and gathered together 30 senior academics from seven institutions and obviously dozens more participants from around the world. This level of participation clearly 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 signicantly, funding also has catalytic properties. The funding of interdisciplinary research projects presents a number of wellknown challenges to researchers and funding bodies alike, but this articles focus is not to discuss such matters because funding issues are often country specic and time dependent. A publication from this project clearly demonstrates the way that science and archaeology can and should mesh seamlessly in modern research. Partt et al. (2005) reports int artifacts from the Cromer ForestBed Formation at Pakeeld, Suffolk, United Kingdom. These artifacts are the earliest unequivocal evidence for human occupation north of the Alps and are dated to 700,000 bp. To recover, identify, date, and put this evidence into a wider archaeological context participation was required of experts in excavation, geology, sediment geochemistry, artifact analysis, mammalian fauna, amino acid geochronology, palaeomagnetism, coleoptera, the Palaeolithic, plant macrofossils, ostracods, foraminifera, and archaeological illustration and recording. Project management and editing must also be added to this list. No single investigator could possibly understand completely all the literature cited in this one paper. However, the ability to be broadly aware of the capabilities and limitations of other specialisms enables the communication that makes such complex work

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.


Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

possible. We argue that this illustrates the role played by one 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. In fact, one of the most important future directions of archaeological science has been heavily inuenced by literature originating within sociology, art analysis, and anthropology. These areas have a long history of investigating objects and their relationships with human beings. Radical reevaluations of how people, technology, and things interact have begun to affect the research designs of archaeological scientists. Essentially a sustained shift has recently occurred, away from seeing objects as the inert solutions to human problems, toward them being active agents within society. Formerly within archaeological thought, there were clear distinctions between people and things, and it was certainly only the humans that were active (Sahlins 1976, p. 170):
No object, no thing, has being or movement in human society except by the signicance men can give it.

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 their geographical distribution also have an active impact on human culture. Of course, determining and exploring the properties, provenance, and life history of archaeological artifacts is often the specialism of the archaeological scientist. Therefore, we are beginning to see fascinating collaborations between theorists and scientists to explore the place of objects and things in society (Cooney 2002, Hosler 1993). That the division between laboratory 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 counters one of the major criticisms of science in archaeology: that our knowledge of ancient technology has developed in a social theory vacuum.

The education of the next generation of archaeologists 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 Universities of Bradford and Shefeld in the United Kingdom are now long established in teaching practical scientic applications to archaeological problems. Former students of these courses have gone on to establish commercial archaeology units and teach in many academic settings. This maturation of taught scientic archaeology greatly aids integration with archaeological interpretation. Scientic archaeology education was often available only through dedicated evangelists in university science departments, for example Arnold Aspinalls pioneering work in Bradfords Department of Physics (Linford 2006, p. 2210). Now, at least in the United Kingdom, most archaeological science is practiced and taught A Bicycle Made for Two? 253

In this scheme, Hawkes (1954, p. 162) was comfortable splitting the technological sphere of life away from religion and social life, which were more specically human. However, a series of theoretical shifts have occurred, to which archaeology has successfully begun to adapt (important reviews include DeMarrias et al. 2004; Gardner 2004; Jones 2004, and the resulting discussion in Archaeometry volume 47, issue 1; Dobres & Robb 2005). Old divisions between people, structures, and things have begun to be blurred in the work of Bourdieu (1977, 1990) and Giddens (1979, 1984). In this philosophy, 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 inuence over our daily lives (Appadurai 1986, Miller 1994, Gell 1998).

within archaeology departments, with the associated security and continuity this provides. A leading thinker in the development of material science within archaeology, Cyril Stanley Smith, warned of the dangers of attempting to integrate undergraduate teaching (Smith 1981, p. ix):
One cannot hope to understand the nature of interaction between impinging areas without a rm knowledge of at least one of

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

them . . . . Interdisciplinary activity is as dangerous for the undergraduate as it is essential for the professional in any eld.

We argue that attitudes within archaeology have changed dramatically and Smith was being overly cautious about the dangers of this type of education. As mentioned above, science and archaeology are not separate blocs of thought that need to be forced together. Instead, scientic applications within archaeology are a coherent subject with particular concerns and techniques. If teaching is centered on clear mutual problems, the teaching of scientic themes to archaeologists of all avors is in fact essential (Pollard 1995, Killick & Young 1997). The main concern is to generate an awareness of the broadscape (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 create a ow of discussions and collaborations between specialists. At the very least, archaeologists must aim to become intelligent consumers for a wide range of other disciplines. Education is central to allowing experts to actually realize that they can work together on archaeological problems.


The examples above, drawn from very different areas of archaeology, show some variation in the way that the integration of scientic methods into archaeology has happened,
254 Pollard

but all have eventually become successful and fruitful. Two parodies can be put forward to illustrate how archaeology and science should not interact. Although they are ctitious and overemphasized for effect, the reader is likely to recognize both scenarios. The rst 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 analytical technique, and wish to apply this technique to the exciting world of archaeology, art history, or heritage science. They can often be seen on the margins of conferences asking for some 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 answer can sometimes reveal one of the fundamental aws (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 fascinating to the few people who have ever studied this material, but it betrays a lack of consensus about what are the major current questions in archaeology. Arguably, the mark of a mature academic discipline is that it is possible to specify collectively what are the most important questions to be resolved in the next ve years. Archaeology, at the highest intellectual level, has not yet achieved this and shows little ambition to do so. This somewhat anarchic approach to life is one of archaeologys many attractions, but politically speaking, 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. In this scenario, an archaeologist learns of an analytical technique developed in another branch of science which might have relevance for his or her research. Enthused, s/he adopts the methodology by either collaborating with someone already in the eld (which is frankly rare) or acquiring the relevant technology and applying it themselves. Although this is often a very fruitful


Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

approach and is one means by which the much-encouraged interdisciplinary research can develop, the problem is that, in applying an exogenous technique, the archaeologist may be unfamiliar with the limitations, constraints or pitfalls of the original. This research consequently becomes isolated and, in some cases, nonsensical. In short, it may be pushed beyond the realistic capabilities of the method, either deliberately or unwittingly. The problem of development in isolation from the parent discipline is compounded by the limitations of current publishing mechanisms. A number of archaeological journals are keen, quite rightly, to publish scientic developments or applications, and a handful of specialist scientic journals are published within archaeology. The issue is the number of people available within archaeology to critically evaluate a new scientic application, one of critical mass. This problem is compounded by either the unwillingness of scientic specialists to review applications in archaeology (not my eld. . ., 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 publication of material that is scientically unsound, but which has not been caught by the peer review system, resulting in the propagation and perpetuation of unsound or low-quality scientic work in archaeology: the bandwagon effect.

Despite the familiarity of the models described above, at least some 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 common goal (which in this case is an agreed question), secondly a shared language, and the third, mutual respectnot simply personal

respect, which is a sine qua non, but mutual academic respect. A common myth among scientists 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, although a subject of endless fascination to the general public, is a widely misunderstood academic discipline, even within academia. It is not about thingsthese are merely sources of evidence. Nor is it solely about excavation this is the data-recovery phase of archaeological research (important though this is because the data include contextual evidence crucial to interpretation). It is, as pointed out by Renfrew and Bahn (1996, p. 17) concerned with the full range of past human experience, and this of necessity makes it an innitely complex and fascinating subject. At a meeting on scientic dating in the British Museum some time ago, the technical difculties associated with obtaining high-quality radiocarbon dates for archaeological research were being discussed at length, largely by radiocarbon specialists. After some hours of intricate technical discussion, a patient but obviously irritated senior archaeologist stood up and said, Archaeology is difcult, too! Stunned silence descended. Clearly this was an aspect that had been lost sight of in the welter of technical detail. This attitude is not the basis for an equal partnership. 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 sciences and humanities. Archaeological training must touch on a wide range of other disciplines because without this there is no common language. Most collaborations falter at the rst 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 A Bicycle Made for Two? 255

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

of archaeology with little if any formal training in the sciences really become a competent analytical scientist? In our experience, the answer, overwhelmingly, is yes, some can. Not, obviously, in the same sense as one who has had years of formal training through the conventional route. But, by hard work and targeted learning, it is possible. Of course, a little 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 ones own knowledge. It used to be argued, for example, that nobody could seriously learn enough geology and chemistry to become a geochemist, and yet this is now a totally accepted area of specialism. The trick is to become competent at the elements of both geology and chemistry that are relevant to the

interdisciplinary eld. The same must be true of the archaeological sciences. This training allows debate to occur at a meaningful level. As we have argued elsewhere (Bray & Pollard 2005), it is the debate that captures the past. Communication over a carefully dened question is the key. Integration cannot be dened just by the quantity of joint papers: It comprises discussion, meetings, conferences, and negotiation. From this, agreement on objectives will hopefully arise and excellent papers will become classics, but it is the bringing together of people, whether over coffee, in a muddy trench, in a university seminar, or around a new expensive analytical machine, that is crucial. It is the process of actually doing archaeology that most realistically achieves the integration of formerly separated experts.

The authors are not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

Aitken MJ. 1958. Magnetic prospecting. I: The Water Newton survey. Archaeometry 1:2426 Appadurai A, ed. 1986. The Social Life of Things. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Ashton N, Lewis SG, Stringer C. 2006. Introduction: The Palaeolithic occupation of Europe. A tribute to John J Wymer, 19282006. J. Quat. Sci. 21:42124 Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, transl. R Nice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Bourdieu P. 1990. The Logic of Practice, transl. R Nice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press Bray PJ, Pollard AM. 2005. The underpinnings and consequences of the materiality approach a comment on Jones 2004. Archaeometry 47:17578 Brissaud I, Wang JX, Chevallier P. 1989. Synchrotron radiation induced X-ray uorescence at LURE. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 131:399413 Brissaud I, Chevallier P, Dardenne C, Deschamps N, Frontier JP, et al. 1990. Analysis of Gaulish coins by proton induced X-ray emission, synchrotron radiation X-ray uorescence and neutron activation analysis. Nuclear Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B49:3058 Buck CE, Cavanagh WG, Litton CD. 1996. The Bayesian Approach to Interpreting 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. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 5:28288 Chamberlin TC. 1897. The method of multiple working hypotheses. J. Geol. 5:83748 Childe VG. 1943. Archaeology as a science. Nature 152:2324
256 Pollard


Childe VG. 1957. Retrospect. Antiquity 32:6974 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. A Jones, G MacGregor, pp. 93107. Oxford: Berg DeMarrais E, Gosden C, Renfrew C, eds. 2004. Rethinking materiality. In The Engagement of Mind with the Material World. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Monogr. Dillmann P, Populus P, Fluzin P, Chevallier P, Elkaim E, Beranger G. 1997. Microdiffraction of synchrotron radiationidentication of nonmetallic phases in ancient iron products. Rev. Metall.-Cahiers dInformat. Tech. 94:26768 Dobres MA, Robb JE. 2005. Doing agency: introductory remarks on methodology. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 12:15966 Dockrill SJ. 2002. Brochs, economy and power. In In the Shadow of the Brochs: The Iron Age in Scotland, ed. B Ballin-Smith, I Banks, pp. 15362. Stroud: Tempus Dockrill SJ, Bond JM, Crummet J, Heron CP. 1995. Scatness, Shetland: an integrated survey of a multiperiod settlement mound. Archaeol. Prospect. 2:14154 Dunnell RC. 1993. Why archaeologists dont care about archaeometry. Archeomaterials 7:161 65 Gardner A. 2004. Agency Uncovered: Archaeological Perspectives on Social Agency, Power and Being Human. London: UCL Press Gell A. 1998. Art and Agency. An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Giddens A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Houndmills: Macmillen Giddens A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press Guttman EBA, Simpson IA, Dockrill SJ. 2003. Joined-up archaeology at Old Scatness, Shetland: thin section analysis of the site and hinterland. Environ. Archaeol. 8:1731 Harbottle G, Gordon BM, Jones KW. 1986. Use of synchrotron radiation in archaeometry. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B14:11622 Hawkes CFC. 1954. Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the Old World. Am. Anthropol. 56:15568 Hawkes J. 1968. The proper study of mankind. Antiquity 42:25562 Hiller JC, Wess TJ. 2006. The use of small-angle X-ray scattering to study archaeological and experimentally altered bone. J. Archaeol. Sci. 33:56072 Hodder I. 2006. C atalh oyuk: The Leopards Tale: Revealing the Mysteries of Turkeys Ancient town. London: Thames and Hudson Hosler D. 1993. The Sound and Colour of Power: The Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Janssens K, Aerts A, Vincze L, Adams F, Yang C, et al. 1996. Corrosion phenomena in electron, proton and synchrotron X-ray microprobe analysis of Roman glass from Qumran, Jordan. Nucl. Instrum. Methods B 109/110:69095 Janssens K, Vincze L, Vekemans B, Williams CT, Radtke M, et al. 1998. The nondestructive determination of REE in fossilized bone using synchrotron radiation induced K-line X-ray microuorescence analysis. Fresenius J. Analy. Chem. 363:41320 Jones A. 2004. Archaeometry and materiality: materials-based analysis in theory and practice. Archaeometry 46:32738 Killick D. 2001. Science, speculation and the origins of extractive metallurgy. In Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, ed. DR Brothwell, AM Pollard, pp. 48392. Chichester: Wiley Killick D. 2005. Comments IV: Is there really a chasm between archaeological theory and archaeological science? Archaeomtery 47:18589 A Bicycle Made for Two? 257

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

Killick D, Young SMM. 1997. Archaeology and archaeometry: from casual dating to a meaningful relationship? Antiquity 71:51824 Kuczumow A, Chevallier P, Dillmann P, Wajnberg P, Rudas M, 2000. Investigation of petried wood by synchrotron X-ray uorescence and diffraction methods. Spectrochimica Acta B55:162333 Linford N. 2006. The application of geophysical methods to archaeological prospection. Rep. Progr. Phys. 69:220557 Martinetto P, Anne M, Dooryh ee E, Drakopoulos M, Dubus M, et al. 2001. Synchrotron X-ray microbeam studies of ancient Egyptian make-up. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B 181:74448 Miller D. 1994. Artefacts and the meaning of things. In Companion Encyclopaedia of Anthropology: Humanity, Culture and Social Life, ed. T Ingold, pp. 396419. London: Routledge Mommsen H, Beier Th, Dittmann H, Heimermann D, Hein A, et al. 1996. X-ray uorescence analysis on inks and papers of incunabula with synchrotron radiation. Archaeometry 38:347 57 Needham S. 2005. Comments VI: rationalizing materiality. Archaeometry 71:19295 E. 1970. A new epoch in radiocarbon dating. Antiquity 44:3845 Neustepny Olin J. 1982. Future Directions in Archaeometry: A Roundtable. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press Packard M, Varian R. 1954. Free nuclear induction in the Earths magnetic eld. Phys. Rev. 93:941 Partt SA, Barendregt RW, Breda M, Candy I, Collins MJ, et al. 2005. The earliest record of human activity in northern Europe. Nature 438:100812 Parker Pearson M, Pollard J, Tilley C, Thomas J, Richards C, Welham K. 2005. The Stonehenge Riverside project interim report 2005. research/stonehenge Pollard AM. 1995. Why teach Heisenberg to archaeologists? Antiquity 69:24247 Pollard AM. 2004. Putting innity up on trial: a consideration of the role of scientic thinking in future archaeologies. In A Companion to Archaeology, ed. J Bintliff, pp. 38096. Oxford: Blackwell Pollard M, Batt C, Stern B, Young SMM. 2007. Analytical Chemistry in Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Preucel R, Hodder I. 1996. Communicating present pasts, prologue. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, ed. R Preucel, I Hodder, pp. 320. London: Blackwell Renfrew AC. 1970. The tree-ring calibration of radiocarbon: an archaeological evaluation. Proc. Prehist. Soc. 36:280311 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., Univ. Coll. London Sahlins M. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press Schoeld PF, Cressey G, Wren Howard P, Henderson CMB. 1995. Origin of colour in iron and manganese containing glasses investigated by synchrotron radiation. Glass Technol. 36:8994 Smith CS. 1981. The Search for Structure. London: MIT Press Stringer C. 2006. Homo Britannicus: The Incredible Story of Human Life in Britain. London: Allen Lane
258 Pollard

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.


Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

Taylor RE. 1997. Radiocarbon dating. In Chronometric Dating in Archaeology, ed. RE Taylor, MJ Aitken, pp. 6596. New York: Plenum Taylor RE. 2000. The contribution of radiocarbon dating to New World archaeology. Radiocarbon 42:121 Taylor RE, Aitken MJ, eds. 1997. Chronometric Dating in Archaeology. New York: Plenum Taylor RE, Long A, Kra RS, eds. 1992. Radiocarbon after Four Decades: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag Thomas J. 1991. Science versus antiscience? Archaeolog. Rev. Cambridge 10:2737 Trigger BG. 1984. Archaeology at the crossroads: Whats new? Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 13:275 300 Wess TJ, Drakopoulos M, Snigirev A, Wouters J, Paris O, et al. 2001. The use of small-angle X-ray diffraction studies for the analysis of structural features in archaeological samples. Archaeometry 43:11729 Wilson DG. 1973. An open letter to archaeologists. Antiquity 47:26468 Wylie A. 1989. Archaeology cables and tacking: the implications of practice for Bernsteins Options beyond Objectivism and Relativism. Philos. Soc. Sci. 19:118 A Bicycle Made for Two?


Annual Review of Anthropology

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

Volume 36, 2007

Prefatory Chapter Overview: Sixty Years in Anthropology Fredrik Barth p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1 Archaeology The Archaeology of Religious Ritual Lars Fogelin p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 55 atalhyk in the Context of the Middle Eastern Neolithic Ian Hodder p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 105 The Archaeology of Sudan and Nubia David N. Edwards p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 211 A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientic Techniques into Archaeological Interpretation A. Mark Pollard and Peter Bray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 245 Biological Anthropology Evolutionary Medicine Wenda R. Trevathan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139 Genomic Comparisons of Humans and Chimpanzees Ajit Varki and David L. Nelson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191 Geometric Morphometrics Dennis E. Slice p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 261 Genetic Basis of Physical Fitness Hugh Montgomery and Latif Safari p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 391 Linguistics and Communicative Practices Sociophonetics Jennifer Hay and Katie Drager p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 89


Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis Jack Sidnell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 229 Semiotic Anthropology Elizabeth Mertz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 337 Sociocultural Anthropology Queer Studies in the House of Anthropology Tom Boellstorff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 17
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2007.36:245-259. Downloaded from by Middle East Technical University on 11/28/11. For personal use only.

Gender and Technology Francesca Bray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 37 The Anthropology of Organized Labor in the United States E. Paul Durrenberger p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 73 Embattled Ranchers, Endangered Species, and Urban Sprawl: The Political Ecology of the New American West Thomas E. Sheridan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121 Anthropology and Militarism Hugh Gusterson p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 155 The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate Raymond Hames p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 177 The Genetic Reinscription of Race Nadia Abu El-Haj p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 283 Community Forestry in Theory and Practice: Where Are We Now? Susan Charnley and Melissa R. Poe p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 301 Legacies of Derrida: Anthropology Rosalind C. Morris p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 355 Indexes Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 2836 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 407 Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 2836 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 410 Errata An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at