Archaeology Magazine - September/October 1983 - 80

THE
The
the

Artifact

FORUM
and

Laboratory

by Cyril Stanley Smith
is interestingto notice how,during the
lasthalfcenturyor so, the relationshipsbeIt tween differentareas of specialization
have changed.Withallthe emphasison interdisciplinaryactivity,it is sometimesgood to
be remindedthat a deep immersionin one disciplineis necessarybefore an individualcan
make usefulcontributionsat an interface.
Ifthe work of materialsscientistshas been
of any valueto archaeologistsit has been because we are all concerned withobjectsmore
than withverbalrecords- the archaeologist
usingthe externalcharacteristicsto infersomething about human societyand its changing
structureand values,and the materialsscientist usingthe internalmaterialstructureof
the artifactto inferitstechnicalhistory,and,
knowingthe constancyof the underlying
atomicinteractions,then to reconstructwhat
its maker or makers must have done and
experienced.
It has been interestingto see the change in
archaeologyin the lastfewdecades from
a preoccupationwithmonuments,inscriptions
and the finearts to a studyof how people
of all classeslived.Individualswho were politically,
sociallyor intellectuallyeminent
used to be somewhatoveremphasizedby
scholars;along withthe rediscoveredcommon man there is another kind of nonordinarycitizenwho needs attention- the
artisanwho uses specialknowledgeand skills
to produce thingsthat are essentialto the
development,stabilityand integrationof a society.The veryessence of humanityis contained, I think,in the experienceof a person
usinghis or her hands interactingwithmatter
to produce an objectin response to the historicallyevolvedneeds of other people.
It is excitingto studythe microstructureof
a metallicor ceramicobjectand to deduce
how it had been made, whether yesterdayor
many centuriesor millenniaago. It is possibleto go through the same motionsand to
relivethe maker'sphysicalexperience,

80

Archaeology

though not of course to knowwhat was in his
mind. Nevertheless,the craftsman'swork
representsand recordsthe processof intimate
interactionbetweenthe properties of a
livinghuman beingwiththe propertiesof nonlivingmatter:both are changed and new
structuresare generated that represent a balance between patterns of electronson an
atomicscaleand the largerones in the muscles
and brains of the maker.
The principlesof pattern formationare
remarkablysimilarat alllevels- atomic,molecular,cellular,and social.Interactionalone
counts;at everylevelidentifiableunits have a
substructurethat is modifiedby interaction
withthat of an adjacent region to form a new
pattern. Obviously,in usingsuch terminology,I am simplyusingmy metallurgicalmicrostructuresas a kind of metaphor for other
things.What else can anyone do? Scientistsof
all kindsare discoveringthat the principles
of regularorder and symmetrythat they previouslyadmired and sought to findwithin
carefullydefined boundariesare far from the
whole story.Indeed, the misfitof components at a boundary turns out to be quite as
importantas the order withinit.Regularity
is important only because irregularityneeds
some recognizablenorm from which to
depart.
Myown contactwithhistoryand archaeologybegan simplyin an attempt to understand metallurgy.I soon found that most
techniques for the shaping of materials,and
the materialsthemselves,appear firstin
decorativeobjects,not usefulones. Necessityis not the mother of invention;onlyof
improvement(although I agree that in many
culturesceremonialobjectsare often as
necessary as those called useful in ours).
The chemicalcompositionof materials
was the firstaspect to yieldto scientific
measurement.
AsI foundmyselfdrawnmore and more into
the museum environment- usuallyvia
the laboratoryand back door - I became consciousof the great power of the physical
sciencesin providingclues for the archaeologistand anthropologist,but I also became
aware of the limitations.One is reminded of
the bus driverwho told hispassengers,"I have
two bits of newsfor you;first,
that we have made record
time to here; second, that
I don't knowwhere we are."
I believethat the direction
in whichscience is traveling
needs reexamination.
The most admirableprecisionin mathematicsand
physicsis of meaning only
withinboundariesthat are
definedas exactlyas the content. The enormous amount
of understandingthat has
come from mathematical
sciencesince Newton'sday
has necessitateda false
simplicity,the simplicityof
smallthingsor the simplicity

of statisticalaverages,and the young scientist
is taught to deride the seventeenth-century
naturalphilosopher'senjoymentof the diversityof things.Yethe wouldgain, I believe,
were he to become more concerned with
those aspectsof complexassembliesthat have
perforcebeen ignoredduringthe centuries
of triumphantreductionism.
Of course, one should be as exactas
possible,but once regionsof exactnesshave
been established,furtherinterestliesnot in
the extended symmetryof interlockbut in the
dissymmetryat boundaries.The meaningof
a culturecan onlybe seen in a negativesense
by what it excludesas wellas bywhat it
includes,forthe latterisinaccessibleto external
study exceptqualitatively,in both senses
of that word.The internalstructureof a culture
can be measured best by its response to an
external change, in a manner closelyanalogous to the wayin whichthermodynamic
changes occur in a chemical system in response to environmentalchange as expressed
so beautifullyin Le Chatelier'sprinciple.
There seem to be some generalprinciplesof
pattern that governthe interactionof things
at any scale.The structureof matter fromthe
quark to the blackhole, of thought from
the logician'sbasicdichotomyto the most
gloriouspoem, and of societyfromthe relationbetweentwopeople to those between
culturesare all somewhatsimilar- it is the
discontinuitiesthat count. Everythingelse is
statisticaldilution.However,there must be
some materialor conceptualdefinitionof a difference.Ultimatelythis involvesno moreand no less- than the scaleof resolutionof the
means used to detectit.A negativestatement
of exclusionis needed as wellas a positive
statement of what is included.Somethinghas
ended and somethinghas begun,but exactly
whatrequirestime for itsrecognition.
Wewho workin the laboratoryshould become increasinglysensitiveto the broadest
problemsthat concern the archaeologist.Science, I think,must take on more of the color
of art. The gloryof art liesin its abilityto give
real human value to thingsthat are not
knownwithprecisionbut are sensed beyond
the boundary of definiteperception.
One thing I'm sure of- the introductionof
more of the methods of the physicalscientist into archaeologywillnot, as some have
feared, destroythe soul of the subject.Quite
the contrary,it willreinforcethe sense of
the richnessof past human experienceand
in addition,not the least of itsvalues,it will
serve to educate some physicalscientists!
CyrilStanley Smith receivedthe 1983
Pometance Awardof The Archaeological
Instituteof AmericaFor ScientificContributions to Archaeology.These observationsare
based on his acceptance speech. The
Forum willappear as a regularfeature of
ArchaeologyMagazine.
Archaeology Magazine - September/October 1983

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Archaeology Magazine - September/October 1983
