Www.WorldHistory.Biz
Login *:
Password *:
     Register

 

19-03-2015, 01:18

Future of Archaeometry

Advances in science and technology over the past half century have given archaeologists access to unique insights into the social and economic development of societies through the identification of trade and exchange, as well as time depth. These advances have been supported by the development of institutional laboratories, the proliferation of journals, societies, and groups covering many different types of archaeometry. In addition to Archaeometry, several other journals and newsletters reporting archaeo-metric research were started including the Journal of Archaeological Science, Geoarchaeology, SAS Bulletin-Newsletter of the Society for Archaeological Sciences, etc.

Although access to methods from the sciences has made it possible for archaeologists to seek answers for questions concerning past human behavior and development, not all applications of these methods over the past half century have produced relevant information. In some instances, archaeometric data may have been published journals, but no corresponding archaeological interpretation was presented, and, at other times, the data may have appeared in the appendix of an archaeological report with little or no comment on the reasons for which the analyses were performed. In most of the archaeometric studies where relevance is lacking, the cause has been due to poor communication between the archaeologists and the scientists. The reasons for performing the analyses were not adequately articulated, and, hence, the product failed to advance the field of archaeological science. In particular, this has been noted by archaeologists such as Robert C. Dunnell who were extremely critical of the proceedings volumes generated from conferences such as the International Archaeometry Symposium, Materials Research Society, and others.

Discord and separatism between archaeologists and scientists have also surfaced, on occasion, in the literature and at conferences when evaluating one another’s contributions. The first step in repairing this situation is recognizing that the objectives of the specialists from different disciplines differ in more than just methodology. When archaeologists formulate a research question, their research objectives are often stated in the context of their archaeological discipline such that data and techniques are treated secondarily to cultural interpretation. On the other hand, scientists will emphasize the techniques and data but may be unfamiliar with the archaeological context. The second step is to encourage joint formulation of research design in order to give direction to the work to be undertaken. The research design must address the logic used in deciding the type(s) of data to be collected. Finally, the products of the research must give all involved parties recognition for their contributions such that the interdisciplinary research can be considered a success.

Archaeometric studies should enhance our understanding of the archaeological record. It is clear that archaeometry depends upon close cooperation between the archaeologists and the scientists, with both learning about each other’s problems and limitations and the exchange of mutual respect. The future of archaeometry depends on the development of people who cross the traditional boundaries of science and archaeology such that they understand the rudiments of the techniques they are using and the purpose for conducting the analyses. Fortunately, some universities have been making progress (e. g., universities in Britain, Turkey, and Peru; the IGERT program at the University of Arizona) by working in this direction. The number of scientists interested in archaeological applications has grown, and the number of archaeologists interested in embracing methods and techniques from other disciplines has also grown. Undoubtedly, the discipline of archaeometry has a very bright future.



 

html-Link
BB-Link