{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03461021505376344, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00739247311827957, 'mean_word_length': 5.100409836065574, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
ARCHAEOLOGY FOR HISTORIANS

Are ‘historians’ a group of scholars quite distinct from ‘archaeologists’, yet in need of initiation into the latter discipline? L., Professor of Roman History and Archaeology at the University of Kent, has a foot in both camps and were there only scholars like him there would have been no need for the book. Yet, whilst the number of students taking joint honours in Archaeology and Ancient History may outnumber those studying Archaeology alone, those teaching them are mostly separated into archaeology and ancient history staff (p. x). Such divisions are far from minor and administrative. In L.’s own experience, in classics departments colleagues have often ‘regarded the archaeology department and archaeology as “the other” and at times “the enemy”’ – and vice versa (p. 23). This is the result of archaeologists and ancient historians feeling the need to define their discipline as distinct, for example ‘of archaeology as a discipline that need not include the textual record’, subject definition resting on a circular argument (pp. 162–3). These divisions understandably leave students, following common sense rather than the disciplinary doctrine, baffled. Why should relevant textual evidence not feature similarly prominently in an archaeology essay as in ancient history (p. 1)? Where not disregarded, beliefs in the primacy of one’s own evidence over that of the ‘other’ discipline, in terms of significance or reliability, are not uncommon (pp. 1–2, 40–2). One hopes that the book, primarily aimed at ancient historians, notably students, will achieve its aim that ‘the strong assertive boundaries between the two disciplines are pulled apart’ and a hybrid created (p. 163). Having myself observed further entrenchment of disciplinary boundaries since editing a book with a similar aim (Archaeology and Ancient History: Breaking Down the Boundaries [2004]), as well as the odd step towards integration, I am not optimistic. A number of themes are introduced, often with specific case studies, and there is no space here to summarise them all. A particular highlight is the chapter ‘Peopling the Roman Past’. L. makes a persuasive case for how much historians can learn from taking on board human osteoarchaeology, on topics as diverse as average height, health, infanticide and migration. Indeed, the study of human remains is likely to revolutionise our understanding of ancient demography. Recent studies on the potentially high proportion of migrants in Italian and British cemeteries are thought-provoking, though we are only at the start. More samples are required to reveal regional differences in immigration rates and to calibrate the method. The concluding chapter, warning us that it is down to our own initiative to prevent the future from becoming the ‘Post-Archaeology Age’, in a time of funding cuts and risk-averse media offering little effective promotion, is timely and thought-provoking. THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 570