In essence, the reader is exposed to a history of the refinement of a scientific procedure.
All of the chapters present several examples or practical applications that demonstrate the utility of the technique.
The review you are about to read comes to you courtesy of H-Net -- its reviewers, review editors, and publishing staff.
If you appreciate this service, please consider donating to H-Net so we can continue to provide this service free of charge. Translate this review into As a practicing archaeologist who has been cross trained in several of the physical sciences and taught archaeological field methods and laboratory analyses at the university level, I approached an assessment of this work with great anticipation and, at the same time, hesitant caution.
Interested readers and science-oriented scholars may wish to read all three parts; casual readers will benefit from perusing the first and third sections.
Background, Context, and General Assessment Research conducted by archaeologists, prehistorians, historians of ancient cultures and civilizations, and art historians, among other scholars and scientists, has, in the main, four primary components: 1) description; 2) location, provenance, or provenience; 3) chronology; and 4) explanation, inference, and/or the testing of hypotheses.
Basic textbooks on archaeological method and theory relate that there are two methods of establishing chronology: 1) methods of relative dating (ascertaining the correct order of the events) and 2) absolute or chronometric dating (quantifying the measurement of time in terms of years or other fixed units).