Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, No.

1, 1995

Archaeometry into Archaeology

Robert M. Ehrenreich 1

Future issues of the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory will

contain articles on the use of scientific instrumentation in archaeology, a
field better known as archaeometry. The term archaeometry, unfortunately,
carries many negative connotations. Most archaeologists consider ar-
chaeometry to be a field populated by physical scientists who are more
concerned with the adaptation of scientific methods to the analysis of ar-
chaeological materials than with the actual use of analytical instrumentation
for the development, clarification, and refinement of archaeological theo-
ries. This may have been true 10 years ago, but the field has changed con-
siderably since then.
It is now archaeologists who are predominately using scientific instru-
mentation for the examination of artifacts. These individuals chafe at the
labeling of their work as archaeometry, believing that these techniques are
not adjuncts to the field but additional core methodologies for the analysis
of archaeological sites. Many archaeologists are currently attempting to de-
velop new terms for archaeometry to emphasis the link between their work
and archaeology. Archaeological science is the most recent term advanced.
This term is unsuitable, however, because archaeology itself is a science
(i.e., the development and refinement of theories by the systematic use of
analytical techniques). Thus, the term archaeological science does not dis-
tinguish the use of standard archaeological tedmiques from scientific in-
s t r u m e n t a t i o n for the analysis of artifacts to help elucidate the
archaeological record. If anything, the use of this term only seems to irritate
more archaeologists. As opposed to arguing semantics, it would probably
be more beneficial for archaeologists to devote their energies to proving
that archaeometry is such an integral part of archaeology that the distinc-
tion, and the term itself, is meaningless.

1National Materials Advisory Board, National Research Council, 2101 Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, DC 20418.

1072-5369/95/0300-0~1507.50/00 1995PlenumPublishingCorporation
2 Ehrenreich

Five of the main areas into which archaeometry can be divided are
dating, prospection, artifact-use determination, artifact sourcing, and tech-
nology assessment.
The most familiar and widespread use of scientific instrumentation in
archaeology is for the dating of artifacts either to construct chronologies or
to date sites (Michael and Ralph, 1971; Michels, 1973). Willard Libby's de-
velopment of radiocarbon dating revolutionized the field and led to the rise
of New Archaeology (Libby, 1952; Taylor, 1987; Bowman, 1990). Archae-
ologists were no longer forced to spend countless hours trying to build end-
less artifact typologies but could actually start applying hard dates to artifacts
and sites to build more accurate chronologies and develop new archaeologi-
cal theories. Radiocarbon dating is now such a fundamental part of the ar-
chaeologist's tool-kit that it is difficult for most archaeologists to imagine
what it was like before its discovery. A few of the other methods for dating
artifacts and sites include dendrochronology (BaiUie, 1982; Eckstein et al.,
1984; Baillie, !993), archaeomagnetics (Aitken and Hawley, 1971; Bucha,
1971; Kovachaeva, 1989), thermoluminescence (Aitken, 1985; Huxtable and
Aitken, 1986; Johnson et al., 1986; Feathers, 1993), and obsidian hydration
(Evans and Meggers, 1960; Friedman et aL, 1970; Michels, 1973).
The second most common use of scientific instrumentation in archae-
ology is for the location of features on archaeological sites, or prospection.
It is extremely important that archaeologists initially be able to locate the
main features of a site to optimize excavation strategies. The excavation
of marginal areas or the omission of important features is a waste of time,
energy, and funding. Prospection is also being increasingly used to map
sites to provide greater insight into site layout and organization. A wide
range of instrumentation currently exists that archaeologists can take into
the field. Three of the more common prospection methods are electrore-
sistivity systems (Petkov and Georgiev, 1989), magnetometers (Bevan,
1983), and ground-penetrating radar (Vaughan, 1986).
The third area of the application of analytical techniques to archae-
ology concerns artifact-use determination. The objective in this case is to
determine an artifact's function by the examination of its use-wear mark-
ings, organic residues, and physical characteristics and properties. These
techniques help to clarify site activities, catchment areas, and industrial or-
ganization. The methodologies used include optical microscopy and scan-
ning electron microscopy for the classification of use-wear and cut-marks
(Bonnichsen, 1973; Keeley, !980; Vaughan, 1985; Grace, 1989); molecular
biological and biochemical techniques for the identification of plant and
animal residues (Briuer, 1976; Loy, 1983; Smith and Wilson, 1992), and
materials testing apparatus for the determination of artifact properties and
characteristics (Levi-Sala, 1986; Plisson and Manger, 1988). The materials
Archaeometry into Archaeology

that can be analyzed include both organics and inorganics, such as lithics,
bone, metal, wood, obsidian, ceramic, and antler.
The fourth area of the application of analytical techniques to archae-
ology concerns artifact sourcing. The objective of artifact sourcing is to
identify the sources of artifacts by the matching of either chemical or min-
eralogical signatures. Such work helps identify culture contact and popu-
lation migrations. Some of the main methodologies that have been used
are petrographic analysis, neutron activation, electron microprobe, lead iso-
tope, X-ray diffraction, X-ray fluorescence, and Pixie. The statistical analy-
sis performed is usually cluster or discriminant analysis, The analytical
techniques can be applied only to inorganic materials, however, such as
ceramics (Arnold et al., 1991; Neff, 1992b), obsidian (Aspinall et al., 1972a;
Williams-Thorpe et al., 1984), glass (Henderson, 1989a), faience (Aspinall
et al., 1972b; Magee, 1993), and sometimes metal (Ehrenreich, 1985; Day-
ton and Dayton, 1986; Northover, 1984; Warner, 1993).
The fifth area of the application of analytical techniques to archaeol-
ogy concerns technological determination and the identification of methods
of manufacture. Many archaeologists still equate this area with the research
previously performed by nonarchaeologists for the sole purpose of con-
structing intricate histories of technology. The archaeologists who now
populate the field, however, do not pursue these studies as ends unto them-
selves but as methods for increasing our understanding of the industrial
organization, craft specialization, and societal structure of earlier cultures
(e.g., Arnold, 1987, 1992; Brumfiel and Earle, 1987; Henderson, 1989b;
Ehrenreich, 1991; Neff, 1992a). The methodologies and materials that can
be used for technological assessments are the same as all the ones listed
above.
Part of the reason archaeologists tend to overlook the importance of
many of the analytical techniques to archaeology is because they confuse
the first two uses (i.e., dating and prospection) with the final three areas
(i.e., artifact-use determination, sourcing, and technology assessment). Dat-
ing and prospection are two areas in which nonarchaeologists predominate.
For instance, many archaeologists simply send their radiocarbon samples
to commercial laboratories and wait for an answer to plug into their re-
search. The final three areas, however, are being expanded by archaeolo-
gists to enhance our understanding of many fundamental aspects of earlier
cultures.
Archaeometric studies should augment our understanding of the ar-
chaeological record and, thus, the technological, economic, and social in-
teractions of earlier societies. Most nonarchaeologists were concerned only
with the effect of technology (e.g., agriculture, ceramics, and metals) on
societies, environments, and populations. Archaeologists now realize that
4 Ehrenreich

the interaction between technology and society is a cyclical, interdependent

process. Nontechnological but socially relevant aspects of societies, such as
ritual and gender beliefs, affect industrial development, organization, and
control, as well as technological processes and typologies. Thus by studying
not only the effects of technology on society but also the effects of society
on technology, a better understanding is obtained of the world models of
earlier cultures. By placing technological development within social devel-
opment, archaeometric studies also permit a clearer picture of the presence
and nature of culture contact and the possibilities of technical diffusion or
parallel development.
The objectives of the archaeometry articles to be included in this jour-
nal are clear and simple: (1) to accelerate the acceptance of new techniques
by educating more archaeologists about the strengths, weaknesses, and
proper applications of these forms of analysis and (2) to demonstrate that
archaeometry is an integral part of archaeology. The articles to be publish-
ed will attempt: to show the relevance of archaeometric techniques through
the use of archaeologically oriented and relevant case studies. The articles
will also be written predominantly by archaeologists who have not only mas-
tered the new techniques but successfully applied them to their own re-
search. Only by the publication of such works will archaeometry be shown
to be an integral part of archaeology.

REFERENCES CITED

Aitken, M. J. (1985). ThermoluminescenceDating, Academic Press, New York.

Aitken, M. J., and Hawley, H. N. (1971). Archaeomagnetism: evidence for magnetic refraction
in kiln structure. Archaeometry 13: 83-86.
Arnold, D. E., Neff, H., and Bishop, R. L. (1991). Compositional analysis and "sources" of
pottery: an ethnoarchaeological approach. American Anthropologist 93: 70-90.
Arnold, J. E. (1987). Craft Specialization in the Prehistoric Channel Islands, California, Uni-
versity of California Press, Berkeley.
Arnold, J. E. (ed.) (1992). Stone Tool Procurement, Production, and Distribution in California
Prehistoty, Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 2, UCLA Institute of Archae-
ology, Los Angeles.
Aspinall, A., Feather, S. W., and Renfrew, C. (1972a). Neutron activation analysis of aegean
obsidians. Nature 237: 333-334.
Aspinall, A. A., Warren, S. E., Crummett, J. G., and Newton, R. G. (1972b). Neutron acti-
vation of faience beads. Archaeometry 14: 27--40.
Baillie, M. G. L. (1982). Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology, Croom Helm, London.
Baillie, M. G. L. (1993). Archaeological wood in Northern Ireland. Archeomaterials 7(1): 139-
150.
Bevan, G. (1983). Electromagnetics for mapping buried earth features. Journal of Field Ar-
chaeology 10: 47-54.
Bonnichsen, R. (1973). Some operational aspects of human and animal bone alteration. In
Gilbert, B. M. (ed.), Mammalian Osteo-Archaeology: North America, Missouri Archae-
ological Society, St. Louis, pp. 9-24.
Archaeometry into Archaeology

Bowman, S. (1990). Radiocarbon Dating, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Briuer, F. L. (1976). New clues to stone tool function: plant and animal residues. American
Antiquity 41: 478--484.
Brumfiel, E. M., and Earle, T. K. (eds.) (1987). Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Great Britain.
Bucha, V. (1971). A.rchaeomagnetic dating. In Michael, H. N., and Ralph, E. K. (eds.), Dating
Techniques for the Archaeologist, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dayton, J. E., and Dayton, A. (1986). Uses and limitations of lead isotopes in archaeology.
In Olin, J. S., and Blackman, M. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th International Ar-
chaeometry Symposium, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 13-41.
Eckstein, D., Baillie, M. G. L., and Egger, H. (1984). DendrochronologicalDating, Handbooks
for Archaeologists No. 2. European Science Foundation, Strasbourg.
Ehrenreich, R. M. (1985). Trade, Technology, and the Ironworking Community in the Iron Age
of Southern Britain, BAR British Series 144, Oxford.
Ehrenreich, R. M. (ed.) (1991). Metals in Society: Theory Beyond Analysis, MASCA, Philadel-
phia.
Evans, C., and Meggers, B. J. (1960). A new dating method using obsidian: an archaeological
evaluation of the new method. American Antiquity 25(4): 523-537.
Feathers, J. IC (1993). Thermoluminescence dating of pottery from southeastern Missouri and
the problem of radioactive disequilibrium. Archeomaterials 7(1): 3-20.
Friedman, I., Clark, D., and Smith, R. L. (1970). Obsidian dating. In Brothwell, D., and Higgs,
E. (eds.). Science in Archaeology, Praeger, New York.
Grace, R. (1989). Interpreting the Function of Stone Tools: The Quantification and Computeri-
zation of MicrowearAnalysis, BAR International Series 474, Oxford.
Henderson, J. (1989a). The scientific analysis of ancient glass and its archaeological interpre-
tation. In Henderson, J. (ed.), Scientific Analysis in Archaeology, Oxford University Com-
mittee for Archaeology, Monograph No. 19, Oxford, pp. 30-62.
Henderson, J. (ed.) (1989b). Scientific Analysis in Archaeology, Oxford University Committee
for Archaeology, Monograph No. 19, Oxford.
Huxtabel, J., and Aitken, M. J. (1986). Dating of European flint by thermoluminescence. In
Olin, J. S., and Blackman, M. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th lnternationalArchaeometry
Symposium, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 465-472.
Johnson, R. A., Stipp, J. J., and Tamers, M. A. (1986). Archaeological sherd dating: com-
parison of thermoluminescence dates with radiocarbon dates by beta counting and accel-
erator techniques. Radiocarbon 28: 719-725.
Keeley, L. H. (1980). Experimental Determinations of Stone Tools: A MicrowearAnalysis, Chi-
cago University Press, Chicago.
Kovacheva, M. (1989). Archaeomagnetic studies as a dating tool and some considerations on
the archaeomagnetic methodology. In Maniatis, Y. (ed.), Archaeometry, Elsevier, New
York, pp. 35--44.
Levi-Sala, I. (1986). Experimental replication of post-depositional surface modifications on
flint. In Owen, R. L., and Unrath, G. (eds.), Early Man News, Vol. 9/10/11, Part 1, Tu-
bingen, Germany, pp. 103-110.
Libby, W. F. (1952). Radiocarbon Datin~ Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Loy, T. H. (1983). Prehistoric blood residues: detection on tool surfaces and identification of
species of origin. Science 220: 1269-1271.
Magee, R. W. (1993). Faience beads of the Irish Bronze Age. Archeomaterials 7(1): 115-125.
Michael, H. N., and Ralph, E. IC (eds.) (1971). Dating Techniquesfor the Archaeologist, MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Michels, J. W. (1973). Dating Methods in Archaeology, Seminar Press, New York.
Neff, H. (1992a). Ceramics and evolution. In Schiffer, M. B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York, pp. 141-193.
Neff, H. (ed.) (1992b). Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, Prehistory
Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
6 Ehrenreich

Northover, P. (1984). Iron Age bronze metallurgy in central southern Britain. In Cunliffe, B.,
and Miles, D. ( eds.), Aspects of the Iron Age in Central Southern Britain, Oxford University
Committee for Archaeology No. 2, Oxford, pp. 126--145.
Petkov, A. T., and Georgiev, M. I. (1989). Automatic and electromechanical equipment for
electrical prospecting. In Maniatis, Y. (ed.), Archaeometry, Elsevier, New York, pp. 365-
374.
Plisson, H., and Mauger, M. (1988). Chemical and mechanical alteration of microwear pol-
ishes: an experimental approach. Helinium 28(1): 3-16.
Smith, P. R., and Wilson, M. T. (1992). Blood residues on ancient tool surfaces: a cautionary
note. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 237-242.
Taylor, R. E. (1987). Radiocarbon Dating: An Archaeological Perspective, Academic Press, New
York.
Vaughan, C. J. (1986). Ground-penetrating radar surveys used in archaeological investigations.
Geophysics 51(3): 595-604.
Vaughan, P. C. (1985). Use-WearAna!ysis of Flaked Stone Tools, University of Arizona Press,
Tucson, Arizona.
Warner, R. B. (1993). Irish prehistoric goldwork: a provisional analysis. Archeomaterials 7(1):
101-113.
Williams-Thorpe, O., Warren, S. E., and Nandris, J. G. (1984). The distribution and prove-
nance of archaeological obsidian in central and eastern Europe. Journal of Archaeological
Science 11: 183-212.