Fleming, S. 1979. Themoluminescence Techniques in Archaeology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

———. 1982. “Scientific Measurement in Archaeology.” In Archaeometry: An Australasian Perspective, 7–21. Ed. W. Ambrose and P. Duerden. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.

Jones, R. 1982. “Ions and Eons: Some Thoughts on Archaeological Science and Scientific Archaeology. In Archaeometry: An Australasian Perspective, 22–35. Ed. W. Ambrose and P. Duerden. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.

Marlowe, G. 1999. “Year One: Radiocarbon Dating and American Archaeology, 1947–1948.” American Antiquity 64: 9–32.

Olin, J.S. 1982. “Introduction.” In Future Directions in Archaeometry: A Round Table, 19–22. Ed. J.S. Olin. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Renfrew, C. 1976. Before Civilization: The Radiocarbon Revolution and Prehistoric Europe. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.

———. 1982. “Interfacing Problems in Archaeological Sciences.” In Future Directions in Archaeometry: A Round Table, 93–99. Ed. J.S. Olin. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Roberts, R. G., R. Jones, and M.A. Smith. 1990. “Thermoluminescence Dating of a 50,000-Years-Old Occupation Site in Northern Australia.” Nature 345: 153–156.

Sayre, E., and R. Dodson. 1957. “Neutron Activation Study of Mediterranean Potsherds.” American Journal of Archaeology 61: 35–41

Shepard, A. 1965. “Rio Grande Glaze-Paint Pottery: A Test of Petrographic Analysis.” In Ceramics and Man. Ed. F. Matson. Publications in Anthropology no. 41. New York: Viking Fund.

Young, W., and F. Whitmore. 1957. “Analysis of Oriental Ceramics by Non-destructive Methods.” Far Eastern Ceramic Bulletin 9: 1–27.

Argentina

The Early Nineteenth Century

The quest for knowledge of our past is one of the most universal human preoccupations, but it is not necessarily the first priority of a nation, state, or people. For this reason, in Argentina (as in many other countries) it is difficult to pinpoint the particular moment in time when archaeological inquiry began. Travelers, pioneers, and colonizers left important references and data about this huge South American country beginning in the early sixteenth century when the Spanish first arrived on its shores, looking for a maritime passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. After Argentina gained its independence from Spain in 1816, many of its intellectuals began to be influenced by the great European naturalists of the nineteenth century, not only through their books but also through their visits to the country.

Under this naturalist boom the Argentine government established the Museo Nacional in 1864, which was the foundation of archaeological research there. The museum comprised an archaeological section where researchers such as Burmeister, F.P. Moreno, F. Ameghino, J.B. Ambrosetti, E. Boman, Outes, Casanova, and Gallardo began Argentine archaeology. They were influenced by Charles Darwin, Alexander von Humboldt, and William Wallace and also by the Argentine historical movement known as the Generación de 1880. Scholars such as F. Ameghino, F.P. Moreno, and R. Lista explored Argentina and collected different kinds of scientific information, including archaeological evidence.

The results of this research were initially circulated within a small academic milieu—among the staff at the Museo Nacional and the Sociedad Científica Argentina, for example. It was not until the creation of the Museo de Ciencias Naturales at the Universidad de La Plata (ULP) in 1880 and the Museo Etnográfico at the Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA) in 1904 that archaeology was inserted into the curriculum of some history courses.

This first Argentine archaeology was characterized by a historical perspective and the meticulous description of collected artifacts. Important museum collections were established as a result of different expeditions, and most of the archaeological materials were gathered from exploratory excavations or exposed surfaces. The interpretations of the collections were based on linguistics, ethnography, and ethnohistory, focusing