Affiliation:
1. Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art School of Archaeology 1 South Parks Road Oxford OX1 3TG UK
2. The Department of Asia The British Museum Great Russell St London WC1B 3DG UK
Abstract
SummaryDespite the obvious methodological similarities between archaeology and geology, we argue here that the fundamental assumption in scientific provenance studies of inorganic artefacts provides an insufficient basis for the methodology. That assumption is that there is a geochemical link between the source of the raw material and the finished object. Although this is undoubtedly necessary, it is not sufficient. We argue that, particularly for highly processed materials such as metal, glass, or ceramics, an equally (if not more) important factor is the sequence of human activities which are applied to the raw material during processing to become an object. In fact, we suggest that the main requirement for successful provenance work is the existence of sustained and repeatable quality assurance processes during production, carried out within a defined resourcescape. Ironically, this makes provenance studies more relevant to archaeology than does the simple search for sources.
Subject
Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Archeology,Geography, Planning and Development
Reference27 articles.
1. Ceramic theory and cultural process after 25 years;Arnold D.E.;Ethnoarchaeology: Journal of Archaeological, Ethnographic and Experimental Studies,2011
2. The provenance of Mycenaean amber;Beck C.W.;Yearbook of the American Philosophical Society (Philadelphia),1967
3. Isotope Studies of Ancient Lead
4. Hoarding, recycling and the consumption of prehistoric metalwork: Technological change in western Europe