Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-19T08:04:48.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

We’re All Cultural Historians Now: Revolutions In Understanding Archaeological Theory And Scientific Dating

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2017

Seren Griffiths*
Affiliation:
University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author. Email: SGriffiths7@uclan.ac.uk.

Abstract

Radiocarbon dating has had profound implications for archaeological understanding. These have been identified as various “revolutions,” with the latest—Bayesian chronological statistical analyses of large datasets—hailed as a “revolution in understanding.” This paper argues that the full implications of radiocarbon (14C) data and interpretation on archaeological theory have yet to be recognized, and it suggests that responses in Britain to earlier revolutions in archaeological understanding offer salutary lessons for contemporary archaeological practice. This paper draws on the work of David Clarke and Colin Renfrew to emphasize the importance of critical considerations of the relationships between archaeological theory and scientific method, and to emphasize that seemingly neutral aspects of archaeological thought are highly laden interpretatively, and have significant implications for the kinds of archaeology that we write.

Type
Applications
Copyright
© 2017 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

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.)

Footnotes

Selected Papers from the 8th Radiocarbon & Archaeology Symposium, Edinburgh, UK, 27 June–1 July 2016

References

REFERENCES

Barclay, A. 2000. Spatial histories of the Neolithic: a study of the monuments and material culture of southern Central England [unpublished PhD thesis]. University of Reading, UK.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A. 2009. Rolling out the revolution: using radiocarbon dating in archaeology. Radiocarbon 51(1):123147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L. 1972. Contemporary model building: paradigms and the current state of Palaeolithic research. In: Clarke D, editor. Models in Archaeology. London: Methuen. p 109166.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2008. Radiocarbon dating: revolutions in understanding. Archaeometry 50(2):249275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brophy, K. 2004. The searchers: the quest for causewayed enclosures in the Irish sea area. In: Cummings V, Fowler C, editors. The Neolithic of the Irish Sea. Materiality and Traditions of Practice. Oxford: Oxbow. p 3745.Google Scholar
Childe, V. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Childe, V. 1940. Prehistoric Communities of the British Isles. London: Chambers.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. 1972. Models in Archaeology. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. 1973. Archaeology: the loss of innocence. Antiquity 47:618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, G. 1941. The megalithic colonisation of prehistoric Europe. Antiquity 7:149.Google Scholar
Daniel, G. 1970. Megalithic answers. Antiquity 44:260269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, G. 1981. A Short History of Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.Google Scholar
Daniel, G. 1986. Some Small Harvest: The Memoirs of Glyn Daniel. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Evans, C, Pollard, J, Knight, K. 1999. Life in woods: tree-throws, ‘settlement’ and forest cognition. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18(3):241254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gräslund, B. 1987. The Birth of Prehistoric Chronology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, S. 2011. Chronological modeling of the mesolithic–neolithic transition in the midlands and north of England [unpublished PhD thesis]. Cardiff University. UK.Google Scholar
Griffiths, S. in prep. The hunters of a wise race: the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. Archaeological Journal.Google Scholar
Griffiths, S. 2014a. Points in time. The mesolithic-neolithic transition and the chronology of late rod microliths in Britain. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 33(3):221243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, S. 2014b. A Bayesian radiocarbon chronology of the early Neolithic of Yorkshire and Humberside. The Archaeology Journal 171:229.Google Scholar
Griffiths, S. 2016. Chapter 10. Beside the ocean of time: a chronology of Neolithic burial monuments and houses in Orkney. In: Richards C, Jones R, editors. The Development of Neolithic House Societies in Orkney. Oxford: Windgatherer Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1999. Archaeological Theory. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lamdin-Whymark, H. 2008. The Residue of Ritual Action: Neolithic Deposition Practices in the Middle Thames Valley. Oxford: Archaeopress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubbock, J. 1865. Prehistoric Times as Illustrated by Ancient Remains and the Manners and Customs of Modern Savages. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Lucas, G. 2005. The Archaeology of Time. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lucas, G. 2016. The paradigm concept in archaeology. World Archaeology. DOI: 10.1080/00438243.2016.1252688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montelius, O. 1899. Der Orient und Europa. Stockholm: Konigl. Akademie der schonen Wissenschaften, Geschichte and Alterhumskunde.Google Scholar
Orton, C. 2004. Mathematical modeling. Internet Archaeology 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.15.6.Google Scholar
Patrik, L. 1985. Is there an archaeological record? Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8:2762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggott, S. 1954. Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Piggott, S. 1959. The radio-carbon date from Durrington Walls. Antiquity 33(132):289290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pluciennik, M. 2014. Historical frames of reference for ‘hunter-gatherers’. In: Cummings V, Jordan P, Zvelebil M, editors. The Oxford Handbook of The Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p 5568.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1976. Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1979. Investigations in Orkney. London: Society of Antiquaries.Google Scholar
Sheridan, J. 2010. The Neolithisation of Britain and Ireland: the big picture. In: Finlayson B, Warren G, editors. Landscapes in Transition. Oxford: Oxbow. p 89105.Google Scholar
Sherratt, A. 1979. Problems in European prehistory. In: Hammond N, Isaac G, Chapman R, Sherratt A, Shennan S, editors. Analytical Archaeologist: Collected Papers of David L. Clarke. London: Academic Press. p 192206.Google Scholar
Sherratt, A. 1996. ‘Settlement patterns’ or ‘landscape studies’?. Archaeological Dialogues 3(2):140159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. 1996. Time, Culture and Identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 2007. Mesolithic–Neolithic transitions in Britain: from essence to inhabitation. In: Whittle A, Cummings V, editors. Going Over: The Mesolithic– Neolithic Transition in North-West Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p 423439.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. 2013. The Birth of Neolithic Britain: An Interpretive Account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trigger, B. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, G, Wilson, S. 1978. Procedures for comparing and combining radiocarbon age determinations: a critique. Archaeometry 20:1931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehouse, N, Schulting, R, McClatchie, M, Barratt, P, McLaughlin, T, Bogaard, A, Colledge, S, Marchant, R, Gaffrey, J, Bunting, M. 2014. Neolithic agriculture on the European western frontier: the boom and bust of early farming in Ireland. Journal of Archaeological Science 51:181205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A, Healy, F, Bayliss, A. 2011. Gathering Time. Dating the Early Neolithic Enclosures of Southern Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxbow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wylie, A. 1989. Archaeological cables and tacking: the implications of practice for Bernstein’s ‘Options beyond objectivism and relativism’. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 19:118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar