Skip to main content
×
Home

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

  • A. Mark Pollard (a1), Peter J. Bray (a1) and Chris Gosden (a2)
Abstract

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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
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.
Caley E.R. 1948. On the application of chemistry to archaeology. Ohio Journal of Science 48: 114.
Caley E.R. 1949. Klaproth as a pioneer in the chemical investigation of antiquities. Journal of Chemical Education 26: 242-47, 268.
Caley E.R. 1967. The early history of chemistry in the service of archaeology. Journal of Chemical Education 44: 120–23.
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.
Dobres M.-A. 2000. Technology and social agency: outlining a practice framework for archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Gosden C. & Marshall Y.. 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology 31: 169–78.
Harbottle G. 1982. Chemical characterization in archaeology, in Ericson J.E. & Earle T.K. (ed.) Contexts of prehistoric exchange: 1351. New York: Academic Press.
Helm O. 1886. Mycenean amber imported from the Baltic, in Schliemann H. (ed.) Tiryns: 369–72. London: John Murray.
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.
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.
Munn N. 1992. The fame of Gawa. Durham (NC): Duke University Press.
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: 2547.
O'Brien W. 2004. Ross Island. Mining, metal and society in early Ireland (Bronze Age Studies 6). Galway: National University of Ireland.
Pollard A.M. 2013. From bells to cannon-the beginnings of archaeological chemistry in the 18th century. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 32: 333–39.
Pollard A.M. In preparation. Letters from China-a history of the early chemical analyses of archaeological ceramics.
Pollard A.M. & Heron C.. 2008. Archaeological chemistry. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry.
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.
Sahlins M. 1985. Islands of history. Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press.
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.
Wocel J. 1854. Archäologische Parallelen. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Classe (Wien) 11: 716–61.
Woodward A. 2002. Beads and beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British Early Bronze Age. Antiquity 76: 1040–47.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Antiquity
  • ISSN: 0003-598X
  • EISSN: 1745-1744
  • URL: /core/journals/antiquity
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 95 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 326 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.