This week, my review will explore Mark Pollard and Peter Bray’s 2007 article entitled: A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientific Techniques into Archaeological Interpretation. This annual review article seemed at first like an unorthodox choice. It does not cover a specific region, technique, research question, or theoretical perspective. Instead, it addresses the progress of and potential for integrating scientific methods into archaeology. I selected this article because my research falls squarely into the category of applying a scientific method to an archaeological question. While perusing the Annual Review of Anthropology journal, I did not find any articles that dealt with soil chemistry in archaeology. I hoped that exploring this more general article would help me understand why no geoarchaeological review has been solicited while challenging me to think about my own research differently. I found that even my limited experiences helped me relate to the process of archaeological science discussed in this article. I will assess the aims, structure, content, and style of Pollard and Bray’s review in this blog post.
Aims
Pollard and Bray wanted to avoid reiterating widespread critiques and instead engage with the history and success of collaborations between anthropological archaeology and the sciences (p. 246). Tackling this kind of problem is rather challenging in a review article because it is such a broad topic that it risks quickly becoming theoretical. Pollard and Bray attempted to avoid this by featuring case studies and focusing on the transferable aspects of their expertise in British and European archaeology. I am intrigued by these aims as I have not read a paper with this type of goal before. In part, the paper’s aim of encouraging interdisciplinary study was part of the reason I chose to review this article.
Structure
This paper was organized in a way that paralleled many science publications:
Introduction
- History
- Paper Aims
- Methods
Case Studies
- Fieldwork
- Scientific Instruments
- Research Questions
- Education
General Critiques
Responses to Critiques
This structure, including the sub-headings made the paper easy to follow. The mirroring of the scientific paper organization seemed like a smart choice given the topic. However, I didn’t feel as though the critiques section was fully integrated into the paper. Many of the critiques such as increased specialization and micro-focus of scientific investigations were acknowledged but not directly addressed. This may have been a pitfall of having to cover such a broad topic in a review. I also found that arranging a review in this way minimized the authors’ voices. There was no section that featured the authors’ specific contributions to a scientific approach in archaeology. Structuring the paper in this way gave it an objective feel despite other stylistic choices.
Content
I found the content to be quite eclectic. I often strive to make as many connections as possible in my writing and I admire the broad range of relevant connections Pollard and Bray made. However, for a non-archaeologist or non-anthropologist many of the theoretical references were made without much explanation. This was probably a conscious choice made with an understanding of the audience. However, given the topic, I wonder if adding more context would have been beneficial for those coming from the sciences. However, even given the limited scope I found some points quite interesting.
Pollard and Bray’s reference to encouraging and focusing on encouraging shared language seemed to connect well with this course. The notion of having to learn to communicate differently for different audiences is something that we have reiterated and it is nice to see this re-emphasized in a specific case study. However, I don’t know that this paper managed to depart from anthropological language and references. The emphasis on concepts like materiality, surveying, chronologies, and social theory still staunchly ground this paper in anthropology.
The case study section of this paper also confused me. I would have liked to see more focus on the author’s own experience and contributions and some type of overarching example explored for each of the specified stages. I think selecting one example and riding the metaphorical bicycle through each phase of that example would have created a better narrative arc. As it stands, it is nice to see that multiple examples of good collaboration exist. However, I feel as though each example in this paper is fleeting and cursory.
My final comment on content concerns the presented solutions. The idea that the iterative process produces results is simultaneously comforting and alarming. It is comforting in that all stages of production contribute to the outcome. However, it also feels as though we are doomed to repeat redundant steps and cannot increase efficiency despite being aware of the process. This paper, for all its positivity, seems to re-enforce the status quo. I did not anticipate a review paper that simply affirm what has and is happening. It is interesting to see that one was published.
Style
I found it interesting to read a co-published review article. Seeing the authors find common ground and speak in a unified voice is something I haven’t taken time to consider before. This increased the cohesion and clarity of the piece. However, with a lack of interplay between the authors and an omission of personal research and experience, the authorial voice took on an air of objectivity. I did not particularly like this as I don’t feel as though there is a single process or experience that propels archaeological science. However, it was interesting to see how despite using the first person. The authors were still able to achieve an clear and concise objective voice.
As mentioned above, I would have liked to see a little more narrative structure. The case studies seemed less like examples of individual projects but examples of how projects exhibited a particular stages of scientific collaboration. I wonder if the case study section is one where an author can adopt a less objective, narrative style. By explaining the relevance of a case and exploring it in greater depth, perhaps the monotony of a more objective scientific piece could be broken up. I hope to use this article as a starting point to explore different styles of writing when conveying background content.
Conclusions
Reading this article, I was torn. I was engaged by the positivity and clear language used throughout. Yet, I was left at a loss for how to proceed differently and produce better integrated archaeological science. Despite some content shortcomings, I found it refreshing to find a review article that deals exclusively with practical solutions to a problem that I’ve often found relegated to theoretical debates. This review presents a good example of collaborative writing while still cultivating a single voice. I also hope that others take on methodological and practical challenges in review articles and continue to highlight successes for broader academic audiences. Reviewing this article helped me explore what content, styles, and forms I appreciate in an article while encouraging me to continue to pursue interdisciplinary research.
Citation:
Pollard, Mark A. and Peter Bray. 2007. A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientific Techniques into Archaeological Interpretation. Annual Review of Anthropology. 36: 245-259.
I was quite happy to find that this article was pertinent to my research as well. I am in a similar situation as Beatrice that my technique is scientific and I have the challenge of deciding how to integrate this in a meaningful way that applies to archaeology on a whole. I thought Pollard and Bray presented the issue well by discussing the history of science and archaeology meeting and how the debate was formulated after the onset of this integrative excitement. I thought they also did a good job of expressing the reverse side of science’s contribution to archaeology which is: what is or what can be archaeology’s contribution to science? This was the skeleton to their discussion on the matter of inter-disciplinary archaeology. The arc of this, I interpreted as their effort to enlighten their audience on the compatibility between science and archaeology, that they have an equal amount of insight to offer each other and if archaeologists can accept this, we may be able to overcome some of the major problems the discipline is facing such as: what are our projected questions we wished resolved in the next five years.
I appreciating you mentioning the emphasis Polland and Bray place on the problems facing the discipline. Your emphasis actually led me to revisit the exercise we did at the beginning of this course. I actually found that the questions I want to answer: what “anthropogenic impacts” mean and how they affect past experiences, and how hunter-gatherers moved across and interacted with the landscape (among others) could be re-framed using explicitly scientific methodologies and pushing the limits of technology. This was an interesting exercise. Though I don’t claim that my questions are of the foremost interest in anthropology, I wonder what questions others would emphasize and how integral science ,may be in answering them.
Hi Beatrice,
It seems like the two of us have come across similar difficulties in trying to find an article that adequately addressed our research interests within our subfields, and interdisciplinary methods. I am unsure whether or not it was a trend in the mid 2000s, or Annual Reviews in general. Specific contributions are minimally acknowledged aside from footnotes and act as an amuse bouche to stimulate further reading – specific details of research are glossed over to warrant reading the cited article. On the one hand, the Annual Review analyses a vast majority of literature, but only discusses a few in detail, which can be misleading to those unfamiliar with the specific topic. As you noted, this approach also downplays authors’ unique contributions and leads to homogenizing data.
It was pleasant to see that in your review, and the review itself, there is an advocacy for integrated interdisciplinary approaches despite apparent animosity for sociocultural inclusion and narrative style in archaeological writing. The moderate use of jargon from sociocultural anthropology was appreciated from my perspective and lent greater appeal to writing for more than one audience. This is a goal that I believe all annual reviews should strive to achieve, though being mindful of not losing disciplinary rigor – a mediation of discipline specific jargon, and common terminology.
Thanks for your comment. I agree that there is a fine line between loosing disciplinary rigor and writing for a broader audience. Considering it that way, maybe the cursory references may be nice “Easter eggs” for individuals entrenched in the field while not obstructing the outside reader!
I’m also thankful to know that I wasn’t the only one who found perusing annual reviews for specific discussions a little frustrating.
I found your comment interesting on how the authors did not feature their own specific contributions. I wonder what their (and other scholars in different reviews) reasons must have been. Perhaps they preferred writing objectively and appearing almost neutral to certain issues, like you said acknowledging the critiques but not directly addressing them. Do you think the absence of their contributions is related to the lack of narrative structure? They may remain objective in certain bodies of work such as this synthesis which they were asked to compose, but maybe in their other writings on their own projects they may feel more comfortable to write subjectively, or they could simply be making a choice to change their voice based on the type of text. Either way, I suppose we just have to be thankful these researchers are applying some style of structure to their reviews, instead of just spewing out information.
Yeah, I definitely think that the stylistic choice was conscious. Pollard and Bray mention at one point that they want their review to be directly transferable to other cases. However, I worry that not including more personal (albeit slightly more specific) examples didn’t give readers enough credit for being able to make connections.
Hi all – thanks for the good comments here. Perhaps worth a further discussion of the stylistic choices being taken. Beatrice – would you call this a “critical review”…or just a “review”? Is it worth distinguishing the two?
I would say I attempted a critical review. However, perhaps I could have explored what could have been better about this article in more depth? I think it is worth distinguishing the two as a review is simply a summary whereas a critical review takes into account personal perspectives. I think Pollard and Bray also attempted a critical review, suggesting more positive approaches and allowances for iterative developments. However, I believe they could have been more critical by exploring what worked or didn’t work for them in their archaeology.
Ahh- no, I wasn’t criticizing you! I was asking about the article itself. Were the authors developing a particular viewpoint and perspective, or were they simply outlining the state of the field.
Sorry, I’m using somewhat unreliable internet right now. That was only half of my reply! I fleshed out the rest in an edit! Thanks for the comment through. It was useful to think about both my review and the article!