Reaping the rewards: the potential of well designed methodology,a comment on Vardi et al. (Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1716–1724) and Goodale et al. (Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1192–1201)

The recent articles by Vardi et al., “Tracing sickle blade levels of wear and discard patterns: a new sickle gloss quantification method” (Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1716–1724), and Goodale et al., “Sickle blade life-history and the transition to agriculture: an early Neolithic case study from Southwest Asia” (Journal of Archaeological Science 37 (2010) 1192–1201), are two papers that seek to address interesting archaeological questions through the development of new approaches to measuring the duration of stone tool use. Here comment is made on the fashion in which research design and analytic procedures contribute to limit the capabilities of each of the techniques presented. Whilst the authors support the investigation of novel techniques, in order for the results of any use-wear analysis to be accepted as reliable the methods employed must be demonstrably sound.     

HANNIBAL GONE ASTRAY? A CRITICAL COMMENT ON W. C. MAHANEY ET AL.: ‘THE TRAVERSETTE (ITALIA) ROCKFALL: GEOMORPHOLOGICAL INDICATOR OF THE HANNIBALIC INVASION ROUTE’ (ARCHAEOMETRY, 52, 1 [2010] 156–72)

For a long time now, historians have considered the way across the Col de Clapier as the most likely invasion route of Hannibal's army across the Alps. Mahaney et al. challenge this view by introducing a two‐tier rockfall into the discussion, which they believe is mentioned in the ancient texts and has gone unnoticed by modern scholars. Since a deposit of this kind can only be found at the Col de la Traversette—and there alone—Hannibal's crossing of the Alps, so they reason, must have followed this alternative route. However, a critical reassessment of the ancient texts and a closer look at the geomorphological situation clearly show that this interpretation is unwarranted.     

Comments on M. Kuhle and S. Kuhle (2012): ‘Hannibal Gone Astray? A Critical Comment on W. C. Mahaney et al., “The Traversette (Italia) Rockfall: Geomorphological Indicator of the Hannibalic Invasion Route” (Archaeometry, 52, 1 [2010] 156–72)’

The title of Kuhle and Kuhle's (2012) (hereafter K&K 2012) paper in Archaeometry appears to be mostly a tirade against the Traversette Route of Hannibal's Army, as originally favoured by Sir Gavin de Beer—a man possessed of singular scientific experience and near‐singular interest in Carthaginian history—in the mid‐part of the last century. The mere fact that Mahaney et al. (2010a,c) added to de Beer's corpus of evidence that Hannibal followed the southern route appears to have brought K&K (2012) to lodge not only a protest, but one of accusatory tone, stating that Mahaney et al. (2010c) had erroneously misinterpreted historical texts to prove the Col de la Traversette as the Punic Army col of passage into Italia. Aside from the fact that the tone of these allegations rises to a curious level, it is the intention of this discussion to put facts where they belong, rooted in what is known of the Hannibalic Invasion and what is inferred by the prevailing scientific evidence. It is important to note that there is not one preferred route as stated by K&K (2012), but three in fact (see Fig. 1 (a) in Mahaney et al. 2010c), and all have been discussed by a legion of historians (see, e.g., Freshfield 1886, 1899; de Beer 1969; Proctor 1971; Prevas 1998; Mahaney 2008).