You, too, can Peer Review

Being a critical friend to the IAG

A personal view from Jeff Price

What is it that makes archaeology interesting to you? Is it the thought of buried treasure? I know that an old neighbour of mine always asked whether I had found any treasure when returning from a day on an IAG project. With some people that would have been an ironic or satirical question but she was perfectly serious. Finding treasure à la Indiana Jones is a long standing motivation for amateur archaeologists. Alternatively perhaps you, like many of us, are thrilled by the thought that the artefact you hold in your hands was last held by a fellow human being hundreds or thousands of years ago and the instant that you picked up that object you were linked over time to a mysterious being that you wish to know more about. You would be dull indeed not to feel that. But there is a stronger reason than these for the hold that archaeology has over some of us – archaeology is one of the few sciences left in which the amateur can and does make a substantial contribution.

I do not mean that it is at all likely that you or I will devise some instrument using quantum theory or nuclear physics that will revolutionise the methods of dating in archaeology. Of course not. Our lot is to toil at a humbler though no less important level – testing the hypotheses that form the rationale for our work. At Broadwood during the first group excavation I became completely hooked by this aspect of archaeology. Hypotheses were being continually tested and refined and retested as evidence emerged for and against them. Of course at this stage I listened gratefully as those with knowledge formulated and expounded – and I still do today. I am uncomfortably aware that there seem to be no depths to which my ignorance cannot plunge. But…..

As time has passed it has become clearer to me that there are some very unscientific areas in archaeology. That there are feuds and personality clashes and all the other comedies of the human condition in archaeology I accept. I like gossip as much as the next person, so how could I reject them? What I do not accept and cannot accept is a mindset which is far removed from the scientific approach that all archaeologists should employ. To me it is a given that the motto of every archaeologist should be that of the Royal Society itself – "Nullius in verba" which might be loosely translated as "Take nobody's word for it." How can any of us support unverified assertions simply because they come from an authoritative source? How can any of us reject data that contradicts a hypothesis rather than question the hypothesis itself?

The process of science is peer review driven once it moves from the relatively simple classificatory stage and you and I are quite capable of taking part in that process of peer review in archaeology to some degree. Indeed that is one of the joys of the IAG that fellow members should be prepared to challenge statements and question hypotheses without fear of ridicule or being patronised. Just look at the section on the IAG website showing the range of IAG members' contributions to see this process being undertaken in practice. Recent events in climate science have given peer review a bad name. However its role in science is of the greatest importance even though the practice may be only too fallible.

Alas, it is only too common for each of us to fall into the error of seeing "facts" as being right or wrong rather than statements which have a greater or lesser probability of being preferable. If a charcoal sample from inside rectilinear remains gives a C14 date of 3500 BP then there are two possible hypotheses which arise immediately: (1) the remains and the charcoal are contemporary; (2) the charcoal is not contemporary with the site. These then need further testing. What is not acceptable as a matter of scientific practice is to reject either of these hypotheses outright. If you read Anita and Arthur Batty's work on the possible location of "The Hermitage" mentioned in the medieval perambulations you will see a reasoned case for the hypothesis that the site of the Hermitage is coterminous with the scheduled monument at Gauber. The hypothesis may not be true but it cannot be rejected without a similarly reasoned case being made out as to the flaws in the Batty's arguments. But that is the whole point of this essay. You and I are perfectly capable of peer reviewing their arguments and I know that Anita and Arthur would be grateful for having any weaknesses in their arguments demonstrated.

I owe a debt of gratitude to the late Mary Higham. She it was who led the walk on Ireby Fell which led me in turn into membership of the IAG. It therefore saddens me to find that Mary was palpably wrong in making an assertion about a site on the medieval boundary perambulations. (Mary describes a change in geology and vegetation at Bleamoor Crag which does not exist there but which does exist on Wold Fell half a mile to the north east. This means that her identification of Bleamoor Crag with "Kirkstanes" is that much less likely to be true.) However as a good scientist I am sure that she would have approved of being made aware of an error of fact and even more of the fact that her work had intrigued members of the IAG sufficiently to go out and check it on the ground.

Even if the purist theory of taking a critical attitude to IAG projects does not appeal to you there are good practical consequences for undertaking the role of the peer reviewer. Undertaking a critical review draws one deeper into understanding both the methodology and the data which have been used in the study being considered and that ought to improve your own efforts in archaeology. So let me encourage you to set about the work and if you will let me have the results I will see that they are published on our website. This is one part of peer review that I do not agree with – censorship of your work. I guarantee that there will be none of that whilst I am webmanager of the site.



Page last updated Tuesday 16th February 2010

You,too, can Peer Review