Lidén and Eriksson ask a question: “Why is it that natural science in the service of archaeology is so provocative or even threatening to some archaeologists?” It is rather telling that they ask this not only of us but of themselves, based on their own personal experiences. This is both a valid question and an interesting way to highlight current issues, and it is also an angle that has more in common with the humanities than with the natural sciences they champion. That is because, while a scientific analysis of this issue (i.e. a quantitative study of terminology and citations) would perhaps add interesting data, it would not provide useful answers. For an assessment of human reasoning, responses and motives we need more qualitative methods. We need the humanities.
[1]
D. Ransohoff,et al.
Sensationalism in the media: when scientists and journalists may be complicit collaborators.
,
2001,
Effective clinical practice : ECP.
[2]
A. Hurlbert,et al.
Biological components of sex differences in color preference
,
2007,
Current Biology.
[3]
Björn Brembs,et al.
Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank
,
2013,
Front. Hum. Neurosci..
[4]
P. Easterbrook,et al.
Publication bias in clinical research
,
1991,
The Lancet.
[5]
M. Balter.
Archaeology. Ancient migrants brought farming way of life to Europe.
,
2012,
Science.