THE CHALLENGE OF ‘TECHNOLOGICAL CHOICES’FOR MATERIALS SCIENCE APPROACHES IN ARCHAEOLOGY*

Recently several anthropological and sociological studies have interpreted technologies as cultural choices that are determined as much by local perceptions and the social context fly any material constraints or purely functional criteria. Using the example of ceramic technology we consider how materials science studies can contribute to and benefit from this understanding of technology as a social construct. Although we acknowledge some potential difficulties, it is our contention that both materials scientists and archaeologists have gained much and have much to gain by cooperating together to study ancient technologies, and that the concept of ‘technological choices’can facilitate a wider consideration of the factors shaping technological developments.     

PROCESSING CLAY FOR POTTERY IN NORTHERN CAMEROON: SOCIAL AND TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS*

For several decades, interpreting technical variations in the physical characteristics of pottery has followed two major trends: the ‘cultural’approach and the ‘behavioural or ‘techno‐functionalist’approach. Using data collected during extensive ethnographic fieldwork, I will consider the relative importance of social and technical requirements in the field of clay processing techniques in the Faro area (northern Cameroon) 1 will show that environmental and techno‐functional constraints cannot explain technical variations, while cultural factors appear determinant. However, faking the discussion one step further, I will show the complexity of the social/cultural mechanism involved in the regional distribution of these techniques.     

DUNG BY PREFERENCE: THE CHOICE OF FUEL AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW ANDEAN POTTERY PRODUCTION IS EMBEDDED WITHIN WIDER TECHNICAL,SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC PRACTICES*

A discussion of how Andean potters acquire and use their fuels is used to demonstrate the ‘embedded’nature of ceramic technology. The most common choice of fuel in the highlands of Peru and Bolivia is animal dung (mainly cow, sheep, and llama). This technological choice is related to wider social and economic practices (particularly in relation to animal husbandry) which has further repercussions that affect other technologies (such as agriculture practices). Such a succession of interrelated activities is not unique to pottery; it is fundamental to all technologies and should be considered within archaeological analysis.     

WHY A KILN? FIRING TECHNOLOGY IN THE SIERRA DE LOS TUXTLAS,VERACRUZ (MEXICO)*

The benefits of one ceramic firing technology over another are not absolute, but depend upon the interaction of multiple environmental, economic and social factors, as well as the specific design of firing facilities. The coexistence of updraft kilns and open firing methods in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico, for over 1700 years provides a case‐in‐point. Evaluation of the performance characteristics of ancient and modern firing technologies in relation to their natural and behavioural contexts offers a more secure basis for understanding this specific historical instance of long‐term polymorphism than explanations based in the generalized technological advantages of kilns or their cross‐cultural association with intensive modes of production.     

Evaluating Community Archaeology in the UK

Abstract

Does community archaeology work? In the UK over the last decade, there has been a boom in projects utilising the popular phrase 'community archaeology'. These projects can take many different forms and have ranged from the public face of research and developer-funded programmes to projects run by museums, archaeological units, universities, and archaeological societies. Community archaeology also encapsulates those projects run by communities themselves or in dialogue between 'professional' and 'amateur' groups and individuals. Many of these projects are driven by a desire for archaeology to meet a range of perceived educational and social values in bringing about knowledge and awareness of the past in the present. These are often claimed as successful outputs of community projects. This paper argues that appropriate criteria and methodologies for evaluating the efficacy of these projects have yet to be designed. What is community archaeology for? Who is it for? And is it effectively meeting its targets? Focusing on the authors' experiences of directing community archaeology projects, together with the ongoing research assessing the efficacy of community archaeology projects in the UK, this paper aims to set out two possible methodologies: one of self-reflexivity, and one of ethnoarchaeological analysis for evaluating what community archaeology actually does for communities themselves.