Multiple assessments of local properties,production, and performance in metal objects: an experimental case study from Petra,Jordan

This object-specific case study focuses on cupreous artifacts excavated from the Great Temple complex of Petra, Jordan to demonstrate how the use of compositional X-ray analyses alongside two experimental applications (ImageJ software and nanoindentation) have the potential to generate different and otherwise unobtainable information about archaeological metals. The study highlights the value of using multiple techniques as a means of resolving the ambiguities that tend to arise from interpretations of single-sited measurements on objects and from single-instrumental analyses during studies of production processes and consequent material performance. Employing different techniques on multiple localities within a sample permits the gathering of precise information about the behavior of and interrelationships between variables that affect the objects’ fabrication and use, particularly composition, structure, and hardness properties. The resulting data are interpreted in association with contextual archaeological information from Petra to consider the use-life and potential significance of these objects.     

Making news and making space: Framing Vancouver's Downtown Eastside

How is inner city space represented and by whom? Drawing from an extensive framing analysis of print media portrayals of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside between 1996 and 2008, we offer a detailed assessment of the predominately negative portrayal of the neighbourhood, and the centrality of three frames: medicalization, criminalization, and socialization. Certain social actors are given a privileged position in the media in the representation of the inner city. Outsiders are privileged over insiders, with the neighbourhood constituted as a problematic space and its residents as passive victims. The effect is to further the stigmatization of an already marginalized neighbourhood, and to accentuate the disempowerment of its residents.     

Science and Sense

At the end of the nineteenth century, Ludwig Edinger completed the first comparative survey of the microscopic anatomy of vertebrate brains. He is regarded as the founder of the field of comparative neuroanatomy. Modern commentators have misunderstood him to have espoused an anti-Darwinian linear view of brain evolution, harkening to the metaphysics of the scala naturae. This understanding arises, in part, from an increasingly contested view of nineteenth-century morphology in Germany. Edinger did espouse a progressionist, though not strictly linear, view of forebrain evolution, but his work also provided carefully documented evidence that brain stem structures vary in complexity independently from one another and across species in a manner that is not compatible with linear progress. This led Edinger to reject progressionism for all brain structures other than the forebrain roof, based on reasoning not too dissimilar from those his successors used to dismiss it for the forebrain roof.     

The Neuroscience of Helmholtz and the Theories of Johannes Müller Part 1: Nerve Cell Structure,Vitalism, and the Nerve Impulse

Hermann Helmholtz made monumental contributions to the neural sciences in the second half of the nineteenth century. Among his earliest achievements were experiments that challenged vitalism, microscopic studies on the structure of the nerve cell and its processes, and the first reasonable estimates of the speed of nerve transmission based on physiological experiments. In this, the first of a two-part article, we review Helmholtz's early contributions in biographical context and with reference to Johannes Müller's own thoughts.We reveal how Johannes Müller, considered by many to be the greatest physiologist of the first half of the nineteenth century, helped to launch and shape Helmholtz's career. We also show that Helmholtz was only willing to accept some of his mentor's theories, even though he had great admiration for Müller. The point will be made that Helmholtz owed a great debt to Müller, but even from his student days in Berlin he was an independent thinker with his own agenda, and never his strict disciple.     

Introduction

The eolith debate mirrors the development and demise of evolutionist anthropology in Britain between 1880 and 1940. This paper traces the connections between some of the key protagonists in the controversy, especially those associated with the Pitt-Rivers Museum at Oxford. The evolutionist pre-occupation of early Oxford anthropology with the continuity between archaeology and ethnology is shown to be linked to an interest in the Eolithic controversy, and these concerns persisted into a second generation as evolutionism was marginalized and prehistoric archaeology matured. Although the eolith debate finally floundered in the debris of the “epistemic rupture” between the world of Victorian evolutionism and late twentieth-century anthropology, some of its technical pre-occupations—particularly in relation to what we would now call ethnographic analogies and in terms of the techniques for distinguishing artefacts from geofacts—persist and are very much current issues.