Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:41:54.386Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is there something missing in scientific provenance studies of prehistoric artefacts?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

A. Mark Pollard ,
Peter J. Bray  and
Chris Gosden
A. Mark Pollard
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
Peter J. Bray
Affiliation:
Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
Chris Gosden
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, University of Oxford, 36 Beaumont Street, Oxford OX1 2PG, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Determination of the provenance of material culture by means of chemical analysis has a long and distinguished history in archaeology. The chemical analysis of archaeological objects started in the intellectual ferment of late-eighteenth-century Europe (Caley 1948, 1949, 1967; Pollard 2013), almost as soon as systematic (gravimetric) means of chemical analysis had been devised (Pollard in prep.). Many of the leading scientists of the day, such as Vauquelin, Klaproth, Davy, Faraday and Berzelius, carried out analyses of archaeological objects as part of their interests in the contents of the ‘cabinets of curiosities’ of the day (Pollard&Heron 2008). The subject moved frommere curiosity to systematic and problemorientated study with the work of G¨obel (1842),Wocel (1854), Damour (1865) and Helm (1886), who essentially formulated the idea of ‘provenance studies’—that some chemical characteristic of the geological rawmaterial(s) provides a ‘fingerprint’ which can bemeasured in the finished object, and that if an object from a remote source is identified at a particular place, then it is evidence of some sort of direct or indirect contact and ‘trade’ between the two places.

Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 88 , Issue 340 , 01 June 2014 , pp. 625 - 631
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bray, P.J. & Pollard, A.M.. 2012. A new interpretative approach to the chemistry of copper-alloy objects: source, recycling and technology. Antiquity 86: 853–67.Google Scholar
Caley, E.R. 1948. On the application of chemistry to archaeology. Ohio Journal of Science 48: 1–14.Google Scholar
Caley, E.R. 1949. Klaproth as a pioneer in the chemical investigation of antiquities. Journal of Chemical Education 26: 242-47, 268.Google Scholar
Caley, E.R. 1967. The early history of chemistry in the service of archaeology. Journal of Chemical Education 44: 120–23.Google Scholar
Damour, A. 1865. Sur la composition des haches en pierre trouvées dans les monuments celtiques et chez les tribus sauvages. Comptes Rendues Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences 61: 313-21, 357–68.Google Scholar
Dobres, M.-A. 2000. Technology and social agency: outlining a practice framework for archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Göbel, F. 1842. Ueber den Einfluss der Chemie auf die Ermittelung der Völker der Vorzeit oder Resultate der chemischen Untersuchung metallischer Alterthümer insbesondere der in den Ostseegouvernements vorkommenden, Behuss der Ermittelung der Völker, van welchen sie abstammen. Erlangen: Ferdinand Enke.Google Scholar
Gosden, C. & Marshall, Y.. 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology 31: 169–78.Google Scholar
Harbottle, G. 1982. Chemical characterization in archaeology, in Ericson, J.E. & Earle, T.K. (ed.) Contexts of prehistoric exchange: 13–51. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Helm, O. 1886. Mycenean amber imported from the Baltic, in Schliemann, H. (ed.) Tiryns: 369–72. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. & Lane, P.. 1982. A contextual examination of Neolithic axe distribution in Britain, in Ericson, J.E. & Earle, T.K. (ed.) Contexts of prehistoric exchange: 213–35. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mckerrell, H. & Tylecote, R.F.. 1972. Working of copper-arsenic alloys in the Early Bronze Age and the effect on the determination of provenance. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 38: 209–18.Google Scholar
Munn, N. 1992. The fame of Gawa. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Northover, J.P., O'Brien, W. & Stos, S.. 2001. Lead isotopes and metal circulation in Beaker/Early Bronze Age Ireland. Journal of Irish Archaeology 10: 25–47.Google Scholar
O'Brien, W. 2004. Ross Island. Mining, metal and society in early Ireland (Bronze Age Studies 6). Galway: National University of Ireland.Google Scholar
Pollard, A.M. 2013. From bells to cannon-the beginnings of archaeological chemistry in the 18th century. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32: 333–39.Google Scholar
Pollard, A.M. In preparation. Letters from China-a history of the early chemical analyses of archaeological ceramics.Google Scholar
Pollard, A.M. & Heron, C.. 2008. Archaeological chemistry. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
Rohl, B. & Needham, S.P.. 1998. The circulation of metal in the British Bronze Age: the application of lead isotope analysis (British Museum Occasional Papers 102). London: British Museum.Google Scholar
Sahlins, M. 1985. Islands of history. Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, L. & Pollard, A.M.. 2001. The provenance hypothesis, in Brothwell, D.R. & Pollard, A.M. (ed.) Handbook of archaeological sciences: 507–17. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Wocel, J. 1854. Archäologische Parallelen. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Classe (Wien) 11: 716–61.Google Scholar
Woodward, A. 2002. Beads and beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British Early Bronze Age. Antiquity 76: 1040–47.Google Scholar