6.2. Look the other way – from a branch of archaeology to a root of landscape studies

Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Carl Knappett

Running the full gamut of scholarship from physical science to philosophy, archaeology’s diversity can be a negative rather than a positive—when the same phenomena can attract such different approaches that archaeologists end up talking past one another. Take the example of archaeological landscape analysis: on the one hand, this has produced rich, expressive phenomenological studies, and on the other, detailed palaeoenvironmental reconstructions. These two perspectives are not commonly combined, although when they are archaeology emerges as a solid bridge between the humanities and the environmental sciences (van der Leeuw and Redman 2002; Smith et al. 2012). Take another example: artefact studies—on the one hand, poetic, philosophical musings on anything from fabulous artworks to mundane artefacts, and on the other, neutron activation analysis, X-ray diffraction and petrography employed in characterizing stone and ceramic technologies. There are calls (e.g. Jones 2004; Sillar and Tite 2000) to ‘humanise’ the science (and vice versa would also be fitting), and perhaps in artefact studies the integration of the sciences and humanities has had more success than in landscape studies. It is a difficult balancing act. But those archaeological studies that do find a way to combine both often create more convincing interpretations. Alongside landscape and artefact studies, network analysis is a third exemplar of this tension between scientific and humanistic understandings in archaeology. On the one hand, networks can be used quite formally and quantitatively to analyse interactions in space or, indeed, cultural evolution over time (Henrich and Broesch 2011). This use of networks is quite different from a more qualitative, figurative use, as seen recently in book-length treatments by Irad Malkin (2011) and Ian Hodder (2012). There is a danger of the gap between these different understandings of networks widening, just as the humanistic and scientific understandings of both landscapes and artefacts can sometimes seem incommensurate. I think one can see a certain reticence about being sucked into the ‘scientism’ of networks, what one might even dub ‘networkitis’, along the lines of ‘Darwinitis’ or the tendency for all manner of cultural phenomena to now find ‘explanation’ through evolutionary models, and recently the subject of a stinging critique by Raymond Tallis (2011).


1988 ◽  
Vol 62 (03) ◽  
pp. 411-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin W. Stearn

Stromatoporoids are the principal framebuilding organisms in the patch reef that is part of the reservoir of the Normandville field. The reef is 10 m thick and 1.5 km2in area and demonstrates that stromatoporoids retained their ability to build reefal edifices into Famennian time despite the biotic crisis at the close of Frasnian time. The fauna is dominated by labechiids but includes three non-labechiid species. The most abundant species isStylostroma sinense(Dong) butLabechia palliseriStearn is also common. Both these species are highly variable and are described in terms of multiple phases that occur in a single skeleton. The other species described areClathrostromacf.C. jukkenseYavorsky,Gerronostromasp. (a columnar species), andStromatoporasp. The fauna belongs in Famennian/Strunian assemblage 2 as defined by Stearn et al. (1988).


1967 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 207-244
Author(s):  
R. P. Kraft

(Ed. note:Encouraged by the success of the more informal approach in Christy's presentation, we tried an even more extreme experiment in this session, I-D. In essence, Kraft held the floor continuously all morning, and for the hour and a half afternoon session, serving as a combined Summary-Introductory speaker and a marathon-moderator of a running discussion on the line spectrum of cepheids. There was almost continuous interruption of his presentation; and most points raised from the floor were followed through in detail, no matter how digressive to the main presentation. This approach turned out to be much too extreme. It is wearing on the speaker, and the other members of the symposium feel more like an audience and less like participants in a dissective discussion. Because Kraft presented a compendious collection of empirical information, and, based on it, an exceedingly novel series of suggestions on the cepheid problem, these defects were probably aggravated by the first and alleviated by the second. I am much indebted to Kraft for working with me on a preliminary editing, to try to delete the side-excursions and to retain coherence about the main points. As usual, however, all responsibility for defects in final editing is wholly my own.)


1967 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 177-206
Author(s):  
J. B. Oke ◽  
C. A. Whitney

Pecker:The topic to be considered today is the continuous spectrum of certain stars, whose variability we attribute to a pulsation of some part of their structure. Obviously, this continuous spectrum provides a test of the pulsation theory to the extent that the continuum is completely and accurately observed and that we can analyse it to infer the structure of the star producing it. The continuum is one of the two possible spectral observations; the other is the line spectrum. It is obvious that from studies of the continuum alone, we obtain no direct information on the velocity fields in the star. We obtain information only on the thermodynamic structure of the photospheric layers of these stars–the photospheric layers being defined as those from which the observed continuum directly arises. So the problems arising in a study of the continuum are of two general kinds: completeness of observation, and adequacy of diagnostic interpretation. I will make a few comments on these, then turn the meeting over to Oke and Whitney.


1966 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 337
Author(s):  
W. Iwanowska

A new 24-inch/36-inch//3 Schmidt telescope, made by C. Zeiss, Jena, has been installed since 30 August 1962, at the N. Copernicus University Observatory in Toruń. It is equipped with two objective prisms, used separately, one of crown the other of flint glass, each of 5° refracting angle, giving dispersions of 560Å/mm and 250Å/ mm respectively.


2020 ◽  
Vol 43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Pettit

Abstract Michael Tomasello explains the human sense of obligation by the role it plays in negotiating practices of acting jointly and the commitments they underwrite. He draws in his work on two models of joint action, one from Michael Bratman, the other from Margaret Gilbert. But Bratman's makes the explanation too difficult to succeed, and Gilbert's makes it too easy.


1999 ◽  
Vol 173 ◽  
pp. 249-254
Author(s):  
A.M. Silva ◽  
R.D. Miró

AbstractWe have developed a model for theH2OandOHevolution in a comet outburst, assuming that together with the gas, a distribution of icy grains is ejected. With an initial mass of icy grains of 108kg released, theH2OandOHproductions are increased up to a factor two, and the growth curves change drastically in the first two days. The model is applied to eruptions detected in theOHradio monitorings and fits well with the slow variations in the flux. On the other hand, several events of short duration appear, consisting of a sudden rise ofOHflux, followed by a sudden decay on the second day. These apparent short bursts are frequently found as precursors of a more durable eruption. We suggest that both of them are part of a unique eruption, and that the sudden decay is due to collisions that de-excite theOHmaser, when it reaches the Cometopause region located at 1.35 × 105kmfrom the nucleus.


1975 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 395-407
Author(s):  
S. Henriksen

The first question to be answered, in seeking coordinate systems for geodynamics, is: what is geodynamics? The answer is, of course, that geodynamics is that part of geophysics which is concerned with movements of the Earth, as opposed to geostatics which is the physics of the stationary Earth. But as far as we know, there is no stationary Earth – epur sic monere. So geodynamics is actually coextensive with geophysics, and coordinate systems suitable for the one should be suitable for the other. At the present time, there are not many coordinate systems, if any, that can be identified with a static Earth. Certainly the only coordinate of aeronomic (atmospheric) interest is the height, and this is usually either as geodynamic height or as pressure. In oceanology, the most important coordinate is depth, and this, like heights in the atmosphere, is expressed as metric depth from mean sea level, as geodynamic depth, or as pressure. Only for the earth do we find “static” systems in use, ana even here there is real question as to whether the systems are dynamic or static. So it would seem that our answer to the question, of what kind, of coordinate systems are we seeking, must be that we are looking for the same systems as are used in geophysics, and these systems are dynamic in nature already – that is, their definition involvestime.


1976 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. 577-588
Author(s):  
C. Mégessier ◽  
V. Khokhlova ◽  
T. Ryabchikova

My talk will be on the oblique rotator model which was first proposed by Stibbs (1950), and since received success and further developments. I shall present two different attempts at describing a star according to this model and the first results obtained in the framework of a Russian-French collaboration in order to test the precision of the two methods. The aim is to give the best possible representation of the element distributions on the Ap stellar surfaces. The first method is the mathematical formulation proposed by Deutsch (1958-1970) and applied by Deutsch (1958) to HD 125248, by Pyper (1969) to α2CVn and by Mégessier (1975) to 108 Aqr. The other one was proposed by Khokhlova (1974) and used by her group.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document