that human diversity arose from responses to changing environments. Smith believed that as of 1939, Clark had become a functionalist. From 1972 onward, Clark became heavily involved in the use of newly developed scientific techniques for the analysis of archaeological material. Influenced by German and Scandinavian archaeological models, Clark drew on folklore and ethnography to gain a better understanding of prehistoric modes of subsistence. He nevertheless did not use such analogies uncritically, believing that they were mostly of use when there was a continuous historical link between older and more recent communities and where they both lived in very similar environmental conditions. Clark encountered the development of processual archaeology during the mid-20th century, when his student David L. Clarke became one of its key proponents. The proponents of processualism, then referred to as the "New Archaeology", often rejected what they regarded as the old guard in the profession. Clark stayed out of the theoretical debates between the processualists and adherents of older schools of thought, although in a letter to Coles expressed "distress" at what he saw as students forcing archaeological data to fit their preconceived notions. He rejected the idea that archaeology was a pure science, claiming that this was misguided and "also pathetic". Personal life Physically, Clark was tall and thin, and in his personal life he was intensely private. Fagan described him as "an imposing, remote man who hid his feelings", while presenting "an austere, sometimes forbidding exterior". Coles similarly regarded him as aloof figure, but nevertheless thought that he was "basically a sympathetic and kind man". Clark was awkward around his students, who were often a little afraid of him. His lecture style was regarded as dry and not entertaining. Clark's biographer noted that his teaching was "at best pedestrian", and that he had a "reputation for poorly prepared lectures", rendering him unpopular as a teacher. According to Coles, Clark's lectures "were generally considered to be rather poorly constructed, and he often wandered from the subject in hand". On several cases he was reported to have given the wrong lecture to a class. According to Fagan, Clark had a "competitive personality" and "craved recognition and an international reputation". Although he had many acquaintances within the archaeological community, he had few friendships with other archaeologists; according to Fagan, he was "not necessarily universally beloved". He annoyed colleagues by quickly turning any conversations into a talk about his