which began in 1974; MASCA Journal, of the Museum of Applied Science Center for Archaeology at the University of Pennsylvania; Archaeo-Physika; and SAS (Society of Archaeological Sciences) Research Notes, which began in 1977. These publications have extended the term archaeometry from its restricted application to just the hard sciences to include biological sciences, earth sciences, and mathematics.

It is hard to picture archaeology without the use of radiocarbon and other scientific techniques of dating to construct chronologies or physico-chemical techniques to identify the movement of materials in building models of trade or exchange. This is the value of archaeometry to archaeology, and it is reflected in the growing literature on the subject, the increase in the number of institutions undertaking archaeometry, the number of journals dedicated to the topic, and the conferences organized each year to present new advances. But who sets the agenda for archaeometry and what is its future? The answer depends, of course, on the players, who are made up of two sets of professionals: the scientists and the archaeologists.

The interplay between the two sets of players is best seen in the proceedings of a 1981 roundtable forum, sponsored by the Conservation-Analytical Laboratory of the Smithsonian Institution and held in conjunction with the twenty-first Symposium for Archaeometry at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York. The forum was titled “Future Directions in Archaeometry,” with archaeometry defined as “the application and interpretation of natural science data in archaeological and art historical studies” (Olin 1982, 19). This narrow definition of archaeometry reflected the players who set the agenda. The physicists and chemists think of archaeologists as the customers and themselves as providing the service. Archaeometry conferences were thus seen by Renfrew as divided into techniques and run by self-named “archaeometrists”—i.e., physicists or chemists—not archaeologists.

To redress this imbalance, archaeologists have directed the discussion back to the purpose of the discipline and why archaeologists use these techniques—what is the archaeological question asked? Renfrew (1982) puts archaeometry as a subset of the archaeological sciences, which, in turn, are a subset of human history. Indeed, as Rhys Jones (1982) has urged, the research aim of archaeometry must also be the elucidation and testing of archaeological questions.

Thus, a name initially coined for a university journal is now either a discipline representing the interface between the natural and physical sciences and archaeology or a forum for the selling and application of natural and physical science services by self-identified archaeometrists. The future of archaeometry, however, lies in the development of a “new breed” of people who cross the traditional boundaries of archaeology and science.

A major direction for archaeometry lies in both the establishment of archaeometry courses, in which archaeologists are taught the rudiments of the techniques they are using and helping to develop, and the development of archaeometry-based laboratories, in which techniques can be dedicated to solving archaeological questions. Carbon dating, for instance, is an excellent example, for archaeologists must have a comprehensive understanding of how the method works, including the calibrations and other adjustments used (oceanic reservoir effect, etc.), and its limitations and potential. The same applies to the chemical characterization of pottery or obsidian using a multitude of techniques. With agencies such as the U.S. National Science Foundation and the British Science Council providing funding for archaeometric projects, the future of archaeometry lies in archaeology-led projects in which science can provide some of the answers. Any major future advances in archaeometry must lie with developments in archaeological thought and the development of new scientific techniques to answer new archaeological questions.

Glenn Summerhayes

References

Aitken, M.J. 1997. “Luminescence Dating.” In Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science. Vol. 2, Chronometric Dating in Archaeology, 183–216. Ed. R.E. Taylor and M.J. Aitken. New York: Plenum Press.

Dean, J.S. 1997. “Dendrochronology.” In Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science. Vol. 2, Chronometric Dating in Archaeology, 31–64. Ed. R.E. Taylor and M.J. Aitken. New York: Plenum Press.