Conclusions and evaluation

Abstract

What has been achieved by this experiment in interdisciplinary dialogue on an archaeological site? Archaeologists are so often forced to work in relative isolation as they excavate and analyze, being able to engage in wider debate only in summary conference papers, workshops and the literature. The Templeton project has now been extended for a further three years, with a larger group of scholars and with new forms of more intense collaboration and investigation. But we can for the moment take stock and ask whether the initial phase, reported on in this volume, of sustained interaction by a group of scholars with a set of archaeological data produced any added value for archaeology. And have the different disciplines themselves gained anything from their brush with the archaeological process? In attempting to provide a summary and evaluation of the main conclusions and results I will organize my comments initially in relation to the four questions asked by the project. I will refer to the project participants who produced chapters for this volume, but also to others who contributed to the project listed in Chapter 1 but who did not write chapters.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.