{"id":40,"date":"2017-02-07T23:30:25","date_gmt":"2017-02-08T04:30:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/writing-in-archaeology\/?p=40"},"modified":"2017-02-08T03:14:05","modified_gmt":"2017-02-08T08:14:05","slug":"reviewing-the-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/macblog.mcmaster.ca\/writing-in-archaeology\/2017\/02\/07\/reviewing-the-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Reviewing the Review"},"content":{"rendered":"

This week, my review will explore Mark Pollard and Peter Bray\u2019s 2007 article entitled: A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientific Techniques into Archaeological Interpretation<\/em>. 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\u2019s review in this blog post.<\/p>\n

Aims<\/em><\/p>\n

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. \u00a0I am intrigued by these aims as I have not read a paper with this type of goal before. In part, the paper\u2019s aim of encouraging interdisciplinary study was part of the reason I chose to review this article.<\/p>\n

Structure<\/em><\/p>\n

This paper was organized in a way that paralleled many science publications:<\/p>\n

\n

Introduction<\/p>\n