Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T19:30:25.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New knowledge versus consensus – a critical note on their relationship based on the debate concerning the use of barrel-vaults in Macedonian tombs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Konstantinos Chilidis
Konstantinos Chilidis*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo, Norway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The association of Tomb II at Vergina, Greece, with Philip II initiated a debate concerning the use of barrel-vaults in Macedonian tombs. The accepted theory at the time held that, since no Macedonian tomb was dated prior to the last quarter of the 4th century BC, Macedonians copied the barrel-vault from the Persians after the military campaign of Alexander the Great in Asia, and therefore Tomb II should be dated to a later period. After an intense dispute, fresh archaeological evidence proved that this theory was false. This article examines the ways we structure knowledge in archaeology from hypothesis to theory that can develop to consensus, and how later consensus exercises a conservative influence on the production of new knowledge. New evidence that contradicts consensual theories is approached with stronger hostility and is confronted with higher demands of confirmation. I suggest that the same amount of scrutiny should be applied to the established theories, which are not unchangeable representations of reality, but conventionally shared property of archaeologists.

L'association de la Tombe II de Vergina (Grèce) avec Philippe II a initié un débat concernant l'usage de voûtes en berceau dans les tombes macédoniennes. La théorie reconnue à l'époque fut que, en présumant qu'aucune tombe macédonienne ne datait plus tôt que le dernier quart du 4e siècle av. JC, les Macédoniens avaient copié la voûte en berceau des Perses après la campagne militaire d'Alexandre le Grand en Asie, et que pour cette raison Tombe II devait dater d'une période ultérieure. Après une controverse intense, de nouvelles preuves archéologiques ont montré que cette théorie était erronée. Nous examinons dans cet article comment, en archéologie, nous structurons les connaissances en partant d'hypothèses pour arriver à une théorie qui peut aboutir à un consensus, et comment plus tard ce consensus exerce une influence conservatrice sur la génération de nouvelles connaissances. Les nouvelles évidences qui contredisent les théories consensuelles sont abordées avec plus d'hostilité et confrontées avec des demandes de confirmation plus intenses. Je propose d'appliquer le même examen aux théories établies, car elles ne sont pas des représentations inchangeables de la réalité, mais un bien conventionnellement partagé par les archéologues.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Die Verknüpfung von Grab II in Vergina (Griechenland) mit Philip II entfachte eine Debatte über die Nutzung von Tonnengewölben in makedonischen Gräbern. Die bislang akzeptierte Theorie besagt, dass – da kein makedonisches Grab vor das letzte Viertel des 4. Jhs. v. Chr. datiert wurde – die Makedonier nach der Militärkampagne Alexanders des Großen Tonnengewölbe von den Persern kopiert hätten und daher Grab II einem späteren Zeitpunkt zugewiesen werden sollte. Nach intensivem Disput konnte diese Theorie durch aktuelle archäologische Daten widerlegt werden. Dieser Aufsatz untersucht die Art und Weise, mit der wir archäologisches Wissen von der Hypothese zu einer Theorie, die einen Konsens erbringen kann, strukturieren und wie nachfolgend dieser Konsens einen konservativen Einfluss auf die Erarbeitung neuen Wissens ausübt. Neuen Hinweisen, die anerkannten Theorien widersprechen, wird mit stärkerer Ablehnung begegnet, und sie werden mit höheren Ansprüchen auf einen Nachweis belegt. Verf. schlägt vor, dass das gleiche Maß an inhaltlicher Überprüfung auch für etablierte Theorien angewendet werden sollte, die keineswegs unveränderliche Abbilder der Realität, sondern auf konventionellem Wege geteiltes Gedankengut der Archäologen sind.

Keywords

barrel-vaultconsensusknowledgeMacedoniapeer reviewVerginavoûte en berceauconsensusconnaissancesMacédonieévaluation critique des pairsVerginaTonnengewölbeKonsens, WissenMakedonienPeer reviewVergina
Type
Articles
Information
European Journal of Archaeology , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , 2007 , pp. 75 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Sage Publications 

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

Andreou, S., Fotiadis, M. and Kotsakis, K., 1996. Review of Aegean prehistory V: the Neolithic and Bronze Age of northern Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 100(3):537–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andronikos, M., 1980. O vasilikos tafos tes Verginas kai to provlema tou nekrou. Archaiologika Analekta ex Athainon 12:156–167.Google Scholar
Andronikos, M., 1986. Vergina. Archaiologia kai Istoria. In Mylonas, G. E. (ed.), Filia epe eis Georgion E. Mylonan, dia ta 60 ete tou anaskaphikou tou ergou: 19–37. Athens. Google Scholar
Andronikos, M., 1987. Some reflections on the Macedonian tombs. Annual of the British School at Athens 82:1–16.Google Scholar
Andronikos, M., 1988. Vergina. Anaskafe 1987. To arhaiologiko ergo ste Makedonia kai Thrake 1:81–84.Google Scholar
Andronikos, M., 1989. Vergina: the Royal Tombs and the Ancient City. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon.Google Scholar
Andronikos, M., 1999. To hroniko tes Verginas. Athens: Morfotiko idrima Ethnikes Trapezes.Google Scholar
Anon., 2006a. Editorial: Correction or retraction? Nature 444(7116):123–124.Google Scholar
Anon., 2006b. Editorial: Peer review and fraud. Nature 444(7073):971–972.Google Scholar
Balcer, J.M., 1995. The Persian Conquest of the Greeks. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., 1974. Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., 1985. About Science. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., 1990. Sociological theories of scientific knowledge. In Olby, R.C., Cantor, G.N., Christie, J.R.R. and Hodge, M.J.S. (eds), Companion to the History of Modern Science: 60–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. and Bloor, D., 1982. Relativism, rationalism and sociology of knowledge. In Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (eds), Rationality and Relativism, pp. 21–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barr-Sharrar, B., 1982. Macedonian metal vases in perspective: some observations on context and tradition. In Barr-Sharrar, B. and Borza, E. (eds), Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times: 123–139. Washington DC: National Gallery of Art.Google Scholar
Baumer, L.E. and Weber, U., 1991. Zum Fries des ‘Philippgrabes’ von Vergina. Hefte des architologischen Seminars der Universität Bern 14:27–41.Google Scholar
Binford, L.R., 1987. Data, relativism and archaeological science. Man (New Series) 22:391–404.Google Scholar
Bloor, D., 1991. Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Borza, E.N., 1981. The Macedonian royal tombs at Vergina: some cautionary notes. Archaeological News 10(4):73–87.Google Scholar
Borza, E.N., 1982. The history and archaeology of Macedonia: retrospect and prospect. In Barr-Sharrar, B. and Borza, E. (eds), Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times: 17–30. Washington DC: National Gallery of Art.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 1991. The peculiar history of scientific reason. Sociological Forum 6(1):3–26.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 1996. Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Boyd, T.D., 1978. The arch and the vault in Greek architecture. American Journal of Archaeology 82(1):83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, J.R., 2004. Det greske teater: gamle myter og nye idéer (Del I). Klassisk Forum 1:93–115.Google Scholar
Brown, R.H. and Malone, E.L., 2004. Reason, politics, and the politics of truth: how science is both autonomous and dependent. Sociological Theory 22(1):106–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, M.A., 1996. Finding Philosophy in Social Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Calder, W.M.I., 1981. Diadem and barrel-vault: a note. American Journal of Archaeology 85(3):334–335.Google Scholar
Chalmers, A.F., 1982. What is This Thing Called Science? Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Cicikova, M., 1969. Tombeau tumulaire Thrace du village Kalojanovo, arr. de Sliven (IVe S. AV. E.). Bulletin de l’ Institut Archéologique Bulgare 31:45–55.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.L., 1979. Analytical Archaeologist. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cole, S., 1983. The hierarchy of the sciences? The American Journal of Sociology 89(1):111–139.Google Scholar
Cole, S. and Cole, J.R., 1967. Scientific output and recognition: a study in the operation of the reward system in science. American Sociological Review 32(3):377–390.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, S., Cole, J.R. and Simon, G.A., 1981. Chance and consensus in peer review. Science 214(4523):881–886.Google Scholar
Cole, S., Cole, J.R. and Simon, G.A., 1988. Do journal rejection rates index consen-sus? American Sociological Review 53(1):152–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H.M., 1981. Son of seven sexes: the social deconstruction of a physical phenomenon. Social Studies of Science (Special Issue: Knowledge and contro-versy of modern natural science) 11(1):33–62.Google Scholar
Collins, H.M., 1983. The sociology of scientific knowledge: studies of contemporary science. Annual Review of Sociology 9:265–285.Google Scholar
Collins, R., 1994. Why the social sciences won't become high-consensus, rapid-discovery science. Sociological Forum 9(2):155–177.Google Scholar
Cosmetatos-Phokas, S.P., 1999 (1919). E Makedonia apo ten arhaioteta mehri semera. Katerine: Mati.Google Scholar
Cowan, J.K. (ed.), 2000. Macedonia: the Politics of Identity and Difference. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Danforth, L.M., 1995. The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a Transnational World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daskalakes, A., 1983. The Hellenism of the Ancient Macedonians. Amsterdam: Hakkert.Google Scholar
Despoine, A., 1980. O tafos tes Katerines. Arhaiologika analekta ex Athenon 13(2):198–209.Google Scholar
Drougou, S., 1998. Vergina 1998 - Oi tafoi tou Heuzey. To arhaiologiko ergo ste Makedonia kai Thrake 12:395–402.Google Scholar
Fowler, D.D., 1987. Uses of the past: archaeology in the service of the state. American Antiquity 52(2):229–248.Google Scholar
Fredricksmeyer, E.A., 1981. Again the so-called tomb of Philip II. American Journal of Archaeology 85(3):330–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fredricksmeyer, E.A., 1983. Once more the diadem and barrel-vault at Vergina. American Journal of Archaeology 87(1):99–102.Google Scholar
Fuch, S. S., 1986. The social organization of scientific knowledge. Sociological Theory 4(2):126–142.Google Scholar
Fuch, S. S., 1993. A sociological theory of scientific change. Social Forces 71(4):933–953.Google Scholar
Gibbon, G., 1989. Explanation in Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Giles, J., 2006. Journals submit to scrutiny of their peer-review process. Nature 439(7074):252.Google Scholar
Glørstad, H., 2000. Freedom of speech is always freedom from the speech of oth-ers, or rather control of their silence. On Pierre Bourdieu and archaeology. In Holtorf, C. and Karlsson, H. (eds), Philosophy and Archaeological Practice. Perspectives for the 21st Century: 185–195. Göteborg: Bricoleur Press.Google Scholar
Glørstad, H., 2006. Neolittisk renessanse. Hypoarkeologiske tekster om neolitikum i Sör-Norge. Oslo: Unipub. Oslo Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, P., 1989. The Macedonian connection. In Green, P. (ed.), Classical Bearings. Interpreting Ancient History and Culture: 151–164. London: Thames & Hudson.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilakis, Y., 2007. The Nation and its Ruins. Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, N.G.L., 1978. ‘Philip's tomb’ in historical context. Greek, Roman, and Byzantine studies 19(4):331–350.Google Scholar
Hammond, N.G.L., 1991. The royal tombs at Vergina: evolution and identities. The Annual of the British School at Athens 86:69–82.Google Scholar
Hammond, N.G.L. and Griffith, G.T., 1979. A History of Macedonia 550–336 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hargens, L.L., 1988. Scholarly consensus and journal rejection rates. American Sociological Review 53(1):139–151.Google Scholar
Hargens, L.L. and Kelly-Wilson, L., 1994. Determinants of disciplinary discon-tent. Social Forces 72(4):1177–1195.Google Scholar
Hatzopoulos, M.B. and Sakellariou, M.B. (eds), 1982. Makedonia: 4000 hronia ellenikes istorias kai politismou. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon.Google Scholar
Horowitz, I.L., 1962. Consensus, conflict and cooperation: a sociological inven-tory. Social Forces 41(2):177–188.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S., 1996. Beyond epistemology: relativism and engagement in the poli-tics of science. Social Studies of Science 26(2):393–418.Google Scholar
Kelley, J.H. and Hanen, M.P., 1988. Archaeology and the Methodology of Science. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Klapp, O.E., 1957. The concept of consensus and its importance. Sociology and Social Research 41:336–342.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, K., 1995. How superorganisms change: consensus formation and the social ontology of high-energy physics experiments. Social Studies of Science 25(1):119–147.Google Scholar
Kofos, E., 1997. Ethnike kleronomia kai ethnike tautoteta ste Makedonia tou 19ou kai 20ou aiona. In Veremis, T. (ed.), Ethnike taftoteta kai ethnikismos ste neotere Ellada: 199–269. Athens: Morfotiko idryma tes Ethnikes Trapezes.Google Scholar
Kohler, R.E., 1982. From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry. The Making of a Biomedical Discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kotsakis, K., 1998. The past is ours. Images of Greek Macedonia. In Meskell, L. (ed.), Archaeology Under Fire. Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East: 44–67. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kottaiudou, A., 1989. Vergina 1989. Anaskafe sto nekrotefeio sta voreiodytika tes arhaias poles. To arhaiologiko ergo ste Makedonia kai Thrake 3:1–11.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S., 1970a. The logic of discovery or psychology of research? In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: 231–278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T.S., 1970b. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 1987. Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S., 1986. Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L., 1990. The history of science and the philosophy of science. In Olby, R.C., Cantor, G.N., Christie, J.R.R. and Hodge, M.J.S. (eds), Companion to the History of Modern Science: 47–59. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehmann, P.W., 1980. The so-called Tomb of Philip II: a different interpretation. American journal of Archaeology 84(4):527–531.Google Scholar
Lehmann, P.W., 1981. Once again the royal tomb at Vergina. Archaiologika analekta ex athainon 14:134–144.Google Scholar
Lehmann, P.W., 1982. The so-called tomb of Philip II: an addendum. American Journal of Archaeology 86(3):437–442.Google Scholar
Lehrer, K. and Wagner, C., 1981. Rational Consensus in Science and Society: a Philosophical and Mathematical Study. London: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lewis, G.L., 1980. The relationship of conceptual development to consensus: An exploratory analysis of three subfields. Social Studies of Science 10(3):285–308.Google Scholar
Lodahl, J.B. and Gordon, G., 1972. The structure of scientific fields and the functioning of university graduate departments. American Sociological Review 37(2):57–72.Google Scholar
Longino, H.E., 1990. Science as Social Knowledge. Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Markoff, J., 1982. Suggestions for the measurement of consensus. American Sociological Review 47(2):290–298.Google Scholar
Merton, R.K., 1957. Priorities in scientific discovery: a chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review 22(5):635–659.Google Scholar
Miller, S.G., 1978. Excavations at Nemea 1977. Hesperia 47(1):58–88.Google Scholar
Miller, S.G., 1993. The Tomb of Lyson and Kallikles: a Painted Macedonian Tomb. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.Google Scholar
Mulkay, M.J., 1969. Some aspects of cultural growth in the natural sciences. Social Research 36(1):22–52.Google Scholar
Mulkay, M.J., 1974. Conceptual displacement and migration in science: a prefa-tory paper. Social Studies of Science 4(3):205–234.Google Scholar
Mulkay, M.J. and Gilbert, G.N., 1982. Accounting for error: How scientists con-struct their social world when they account for correct and incorrect belief. Sociology 16(2):165–183.Google Scholar
Nature.com, 2008. URL (accessed December 2008: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/index.html Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., 1999. The need for socially robust knowledge. TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten 8. Jahrgang:12–16.Google Scholar
Orlandos, A.K., 1958. Ta ylika domes ton Arhaion Ellenon kata tous syngrapheis, tas epigraphas kai ta mriemeia. Vivliotheke tes en Athenais Arhaiologikes Etaireias ar. 37, Athens.Google Scholar
Palagia, O., 2000. Hephaistion's pyre and the royal hunt of Alexander. In Bosworth, A.B. and Baynharn, E.J. (eds), Alexander the Great in Fact and Fiction: 167–206. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pandermalis, D. (ed.), 1992. Macedonia: The Historical Profile of Northern Greece. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar
Papathemelis, S., 1987. Omilia tou ypourgou Makedonias - Thrakes. To arhaiologiko ergo ste Makedonia kai Thrake 1:xv–xvi.Google Scholar
Partridge, P.H., 1971. Consent and Consensus. London: Pall Mall Press.Google Scholar
Paspalas, S.A., 2000. On Persian-type furniture in Macedonia: the recognition and transmission of forms. American journal of Archaeology 104(3):531–560.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M., 1963. The potential theory of adsorption. Science 141(3585):1010–1013.Google Scholar
Porter, R., 1990. The history of science and the history of society. In Olby, R.C., Cantor, G.N., Christie, J.R.R. and Hodge, M.J.S. (eds), Companion to the History of Modern Science: 32–46. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Porter, T.M., 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Prestianni Giallombardo, A.M., 1986. Il diadema di Vergina e l'iconografia di Filippo II. Ancient Macedonia IV: 497–509. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1982. Explanation revisited. In Renfrew, C., Rowlands, M.J. and Segraves, B.A. (eds), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: 5–23. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Riley, M.W., Riley, J.W. and Toby, M.L., 1952. The measurement of consensus. Social Forces 31(2):97–106.Google Scholar
Ritter, H.W., 1965. Diadem und Königsherrschaft. München: C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Robertson, M., 1982. Early Greek mosaic. In Barr-Sharrar, B. and Borza, E. (eds), Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times: 241–249. Washington DC: National Gallery of Art.Google Scholar
Rossi, P.H. and Berk, R.A., 1985. Varieties of normative consensus. American Sociological Review 50(3):333–347.Google Scholar
Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C., 1993. Aspects of ancient Macedonian costume. journal of Hellenic Studies 113:122–149.Google Scholar
Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C., 1999. In the shadow of history: the emergence of archaeology. The Annual of the British School at Athens 94:353–367.Google Scholar
Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C., 2003. Makedonis. Thessaloniki: Parateretes.Google Scholar
Saatsoglou-Paliadeli, C., 2004. Vergina. O tafos tou Filippou. E toihografia me to kynegi. Athens: Vivliotheke tes en Athenais Arhaiologikes Etaireias ar. 231.Google Scholar
Scheff, T.J., 1967. Toward a sociological model of consensus. American Sociological Review 32(1):32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scriven, M., 1994. A possible distinction between traditional scientific disciplines and the study of human behavior. In Martin, M. and McIntyre, L.C. (eds), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science: 71–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. and Tilley, C., 1987. Re-constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shapin, S., 1995. Here and everywhere: sociology of scientific knowledge. Annual Review of Sociology 21:289–321.Google Scholar
Shils, E., 1968. The concept of consensus. In Sills, D.L. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences: 260–266. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shinn, T., 2002. The triple helix and new production of knowledge: prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science 32(4):599–614.Google Scholar
Smith, L.D., Best, L.A., Stubbs, D.A., Johnston, J. and Archibald, A.B., 2000. Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: a Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science 30(1):73–94.Google Scholar
Spitzer, S.P., 1964. Consensual states and communicative behavior. Sociometry 27(4):510–515.Google Scholar
Star, S.L., 1989. Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Stolzman, J.D., 1974. Edward Shils on consensus: an appreciation and critique. The British Journal of Sociology 25(1):3–14.Google Scholar
Storer, N.W., 1967. The hard sciences and the soft: some sociological observations. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 55(1):75–84.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, R.A., 1973. Vaulting techniques of the Macedonian tombs. Ancient Macedonia II: 473–479. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies.Google Scholar
Tomlinson, R.A., 1987. The architectural context of the Macedonian vaulted tombs. Annual of the British School at Athens 82:305–312.Google Scholar
Triantafyllidou, A., Calloni, M. and Mikrakis, A., 1997. New Greek nationalism. Sociological Research Online 2(1). URL (accessed December 2008: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/1/7.html Google Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 1995. Romanticism, nationalism, and archaeology. In Fawcett, C. and Kohl, P.L. (eds), Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology: 263–279. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 1998. Archaeology and epistemology: dialoguing across the Darwinian chasm. American Journal of Archaeology 102(1):1–34.Google Scholar
Trigger, B.G., 2002. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tripodi, B., 1991. Il fregio della caccia della II Tomba reale di Vergina e le cacce funerarie d' oriente. Dialogues d' histoire ancienne 17:143–209.Google Scholar
Tsimkdou-Aulonite, M., 2002. Excavating a painted Macedonian tomb near Thessaloniki. An astonishing discovery. In Starnatopoulou, M. and Yeroulanou, M. (eds), Excavating Classical Culture: Recent Archaeological Discoveries in Greece: 91–97. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR International Series 1031).Google Scholar
Turner, S., 1991. Social constructionism and social theory. Sociological Theory 9(1):22–33.Google Scholar
Van Reybrouck, D., 2002. Boule's error: on the social context of the scientific knowledge. Antiquity 76(291):158–164.Google Scholar
Venedikov, I., 1998. Thracian royal tombs. In Marazov, I. (ed.), Ancient Gold: the Wealth of the Thracians: 72–83. New York.Google Scholar
Vokotopoulou, J.P. (ed.), 1988. Macedonia from Mycenaean Times to Alexander the Great. Athens: Ministry of Culture.Google Scholar
Vokotopoulou, J.P., 1993. Greek Civilization: Macedonia, Kingdom of Alexander the Great. Athens: Ministry of Culture.Google Scholar
Wagner, C., 1978. Consensus through respect: a model of rational group decision-making. Philosophical Studies 34(4):335–349.Google Scholar
Watson, R.A., 1992. The place of archaeology in science. In Embree, L. (ed.), Metaarchaeology: Reflections by Archaeologists and Philosophers: 255–267. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1992a. The interplay of evidential constraints and political interests: recent archaeological research on gender. American Antiquity 57(1):15–35.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1992b. On ‘heavily decomposing red herrings’: scientific method in archae-ology and the ladening of evidence with theory. In Embree, L. (ed.), Metaarchaeology: Reflections by Archaeologists and Philosophers: 269–288. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1994. Evidential constraints: pragmatic objectivism in archaeology. In Martin, M. and McIntyre, L.C. (eds), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science: 747–765. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, A., 1997. The engendering of archaeology. Refiguring feminist science studies. Osiris 12:80–99.Google Scholar
Yoels, W.C., 1974. The structure of scientific fields and the allocation of editorships on scientific journals: Some observations on the politics of knowledge. The Sociological Quarterly 15(2):264–276.Google Scholar
Ziman, J.M., 1968. Public Knowledge: an Essay Concerning the Social Dimension of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ziman, J.M., 1978. Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H.A. and Merton, R.K., 1971. Patterns of evaluation in science: institutionalisation, structure and functions of the referee system. Minerva 9(1):66–101.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H.A. and Merton, R.K., 1973. Age, aging and age structure in science. In Storer, N. (ed.), The Sociology of Science: 497–559. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar