Abstract
We thank the editors of JMA for allowing us to make a few closing remarks on the exchange of opinons (Budd et al., Gale and Stos-Gale, Hall, Sayre et al., Muhly, Pernicka) regarding the interpretation of lead isotope data. There are probably few archaeologists with the time or the inclination to follow every twist and turn of the scientific argument in this or in the earlier discussions in Archaeometry 34 (1992) and 35 (1993). Much of the debate has been technical and highly specialised. Nevertheless, a clear impression prevails that something is amiss with one of science-based archaeology's flagship projects and its promise to deliver definitive provenance for metal artefacts. In fact, lead isotope analysis (LIA) has an extremely important role to play in the study of provenance, even if there are local difficulties of interpretation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
