I think this is a million-dollar-question. I think You may be interested in the case-study in Malcolm Wiener's paper“Cold Fusion: The Uneasy Alliance of History and Science” and Thera Discussion: “M.H. Wiener’s Reply to the Papers by Manning et al. and Friedrich et al.” and “M.H. Wiener’s Response to the Friedrich et al. and Manning et al. Responses”, in Tree-Rings, Kings, and Old World Archaeology and Environment: Papers Presented in Honor of Peter Ian Kuniholm, 2009. 

Tiziano, thanks for the references.  I am 41 years in archaeometry so that I am familiar with the whole issue. What I actually wanted to ask was "How do  Y O U  see the integration of Archaeology and Archaeometry. I forgot to put the emphasis on YOU, in general of course.

Each of us as scientists or as curators, archaeologists and Art-researchers have had to do with this question over the past 10-40 years.

I am interested what is the personal look at this marriage between Archaeology and Archaeometry, which took once place and cannot be taken apart anymore, because one needs the other. I am interested in the personal account of this collaboration.

Dear Jan,

the beginning of collaboration between scientists and geologists and archaeologists is much eralier than 1954. I suggest to read more about it and you could understand how the center of this research has been moving from Museums to faculties of Sciences, and it is important remember that some archaeologist were also geologist or engineers.

The answer to your question depends on what you consider is the goal of this collaboration: material science or human past history

Greetings

Ignacio

Dear Jan

My personal experience leads me to think that there is a sort of unavoidable misunderstandment between the "two sciences", and particularly so when it comes to the interpretation of each other's result and/or prior information. This has sometimes caused deep misunderstandments by archaeologist on the accuracy of the interpretation of results obtained by quantitative science. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon results is an excellent case study in my opinion and would really like to know what You think about the recent "debate" on the accuracy of R_Combine and other statistical tools to the modelling of reality. My opinion is that there is a long series of misunderstandments which make it really hard to address the real issues. 

sincerely

Tiziano

-this not to say that the two can be divided. As You correctly observed, they need each other. What we can actually do - in my opinion - is try to investigate the ambiguities in the different prior assumptions in each field, and how they relate together. Taking bayesian radiocarbon results for proof of archaeological priors in models is wrong, just as well as ignoring them would be. I think that the main focus is that merging "archaeological" science with "natural" science must imply a complete revision of the relationship between "precision" and "accuracy".

Dear Jan,

for me, archaeology without archaeometry is just guesswork. What could we say, for example, about absolute chronologies without radiocarbon dating (for many areas and periods it is still the most accurate approximation we can get), or of provenieces either of ceramcis, metals or even people without isotope analyses? Or about nutrition, economical systems, climate without all the invaluable contributions by archaeometry? I am working a lot in transdisciplinary projects (see e.g. Benz et al. 2012 or Alt et al. 2013), yet it is crucial that both sides are prepared to consider the ontologies and epistemologies of the different data, the chances but also the limits of interpretation. For example, Bayesian statistics which can be very valuable also have their limitations and if the archaeological data is not considered appropriately they can even false the picture or suggest accuracy, where in fact, the methodology reaches its limits. Yet, the archaeologists also have to know at least the basics of the archaeometrical methods. That's why I think courses in archaeometry should be a must for all students of archaeology, no matter of classical, prehistoric or middle ages. It is just a SINE QUA NON.

So, I think, an intense critical dialogue is necessary in order to gain reasonable interpretations, and archaeometry should be taught as an integral part of archaeology. It's a must!

Best wishes

Marion

Data Methodological implications of new radiocarbon dates from th...

before 1954, you can read

http://hnhp.cnrs.fr/?Dans-l-epaisseur-du-temps

sincerely

It may sound obviuos, but I believe that today you cannot do archaeology without the aid (or, to say it better, without incorporating) "scientific" approaches. Indeed, multidisciplinarity is the key to modern archaeological practices.

As far as archaeometry is concerned, I am familiar with Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. In particular, I tried to use a Bayesian approach to go beyond what is usually done in Sicilian Bronze Age archaeology (i.e., evaluating single radiocarbon dates just eyeballing them in an informal way), rather I attempted to elicit models to be put to work and, more importantly, to be tested in order to explore their likelyhood given the data. What I find relevant in Bayesian radiocarbon chronology is that this approach "forces" scholars to be explicit as to the chronological models they have in mind. In other words, they must have a clear understading of the archaeological contexts at hand.

Provided that Bayesian underlaying theory and computation can be too deep water for the average archaeologist, it is my impression that the opposition of "traditional" archaeologist against Bayesian radiocarbon chronology may be caused by many factors, like a) average archaeologists are not so used to be explicit in the definition of chronological relationships between contexts; b) chronologies are often built by means of sweep generalizations, analogical reasons, flawed assumptions, and the like.

This is not to say that Bayesian approach goes without critics and pitfalls. But, at least, as I said, it forces you to explicitily put forward and to devise models to be tested. This, in turn, enhances comparability and reproducibility of the analyses and allows further tests of everyone's results to be performed. Something that "traditional" approaches (e.g., chronology by cultural synchroizations) cannot provide.

These are my two cents on the topic.

Dear Gianmarco

I think your points hit it on the nail. The problem within the accuracy of the interpretation of the results of Bayesian radiocarbon analysis lies in the reciprocal misunderstandments on the nature of contexts - the prior information, and on the actual field of application of the analysis implied in the algorithm. For example, the vaste majority of archaeologists has no idea of the assumptions implied in using a function as R_Combine and other tests derived from Ward and Wilson. I myself took some years to properly understand it, notwithstanding the fact that this was one of my main interests. so i guess it is conceivable, and we have to improve reciprocal comprehension through discussion on the issues from scratch - not just taking each other's conclusions as "scientifical truth" or, otherwise "flawed/inappropriate".

Tiziano

To all of you who keep answering the Tiziano quote of " Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates" I suggest to make this into a new question under the patronage of Tiziano.

My question is much more general, having to do with the integration or non-integration of archaeology and archaeometry and I am asking for YOUR experience you undoubtly have had and remember of the past decades.

I will provide some lines in future answers, including whether there was something before 1954. Of course, there was and even earlier than the suggestions by Ignazio and Didier. My question is not a marathon for finding earlier collaborations between Archaeology and science. Those are known and published.

What is less well published is, for a starter, I would say that archaeology is a science in the strict meaning of the word, since it is busy with knowledge, Latin scientia, ithe basis of what we call "Science"

. I do not see archaeometry as a sience, but as an application by scholars in Humanities, nuclear, Optical and biochemical and chemical,  and geological and social domains, which we at the Hebrew University had in mind in the 1970s when archaeometry became officially recognized as part of geology and archaeology fist year student curriculum, which was then taken over by other universities.. 

So, what has your experience been during all these years? 

Sarah, your comment is not entirely true. For decades archaeology was indeed done without scientific methods. The museums are filled with the results. It is, however, since the late 1960s that science became interested in how to tackle some of the archaeological questions and from that moment archaeometry was born. At present, if you want to be an archaeologist you will have to deal with science, as if it were only to make the scientists aware that you have problems of all types of nature that you alone cannot solve, hence archaeometry.

Jan, In my opinion the original archaeological  studies are that one you mentioned in the first of your comment,  and analytical studies just help to solve  some problems that the base studies can't solve them . we shouldn't forget that archaeology is a branch of human science and archaeometry is only are a part of archaeology not all of it ! it's like a tool that can make some problems solve easy . 

Soodabeh, You are right. On the other side I have not claimed the opposite of what you write. For quite some decades archaeology provided lists of excavated objects and architectural finds, which then by comparison to similar finds at other sites could be given a date and/or provenance. However, the archaeologist could be entirely wrong when, for example, a Mycenaean pot was locally imitated at another site. In such a case, workmanship and the style of the pot pointed to Greece whereas there was no technique to prove it or the opposite. Archaeometry, in my case INAA, was able to prove that the DNA of the vessel, its chemical fingerprint obtained from radioactive isotopes proved that the pot was indeed an imitation and not an import from Mycenae. This changed also the concept of trade going on between the Argolid and Israel at that time..

When I developed scientific methods to answer archaeological questions in 1982, I was looking for reliable reproducible results. I wanted to move away from the more subjective typology approach to determining ceramic function. Today, the integration of hard sciences with archaeology is the way to ensure that we can make better  informed interpretations of our archeological finds. As archaeologists we are entrusted with bring to light past life ways.

I think I can relate to that question. I'm finishing my masters degree in the University of Liège, Belgium in Art history and Archaeology, Archaeometry. I'm doing a master's thesis on Metal composition of bronze axes from the Bronze age. 

Archaeometry is a very important part of today's archaeological research. It certainly is a tool that can be used to learn what the eye and logical thinking can't from the objects and information we find. They provide information that we could not have dreamed having a few decades ago.

I assert that archaeometry is a tool for archaeology. We like saying in Liège that "there are no Archaeometrists, only archaeologists and physicists/chemists who work hand in hand". A also assert in my thesis that analysis and any invasive study should have an archaeological problematic associated with it. We like to say "analysis for analysis is not worth any time and effort".

I relate to what you were saying about mycenean ceramics : the analysis were undertook to understand where the ceramics came from, how they were produced. It therefore relates to an archaeological problematic that, in this case, can only be properly solved using archaeometrical techniques.

Archaeometry according to me also induces better communication skills aswell. You have to know perfectly what you need as an information for the analyst to properly perform the analysis. It also forces archaeologists to learn more about "hard sciences" techniques and we ultimately learn a lot that we wouldn't have otherwise.

What I love about archaeometry aswell is that archaeology is more and more considered a science from a public point of view when it sees it associated with "hard sciences". For them, unfortunatetly, our science is not 'sciency' enough. When they hear that we work with geologists, physicists and chemists, a lot reconsider and think of archaeology as something else than "people digging stuff up". And since we work (or at least I), for the community, that's a huge benefit I believe.

I do agree with you, dear Julien Biver, that archaeometry is a tool for archaeology.

Julien, You basically agree with what I have said. Archaeology today is impossible without also applying the analytical techniques in what you call 'hard science' (also the last two words have been debated repeatedly).

Nevertheless, the archaeology is important because it is largely based on typological studies and archaeological methods which have and will have their own merits.

On the other hand, archaeometry is no science, but a conglomerate of scientific techniques applied to archaeology, art and geology. But someone who is continuously doing this type of research can, in my mind, be called an archaeometrist, since the term originally (early 1950s) indicated "someone who performs measurements in archaeology in the broadest sense'.

As stated elsewhere, in my case, archaeometry was an 'outlier' in the 1970s when we started it at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem to apply INAA on all types of archaeological pottery, obsidian and basalt flows, whereas after fierce fights and being stubborn we eventually made archaeometry to trans-disciplinary research that I have done since the past 16 years together with 157 scientists (Nuclear, Optic and Biological as well as Humanistic)  from all over and published in four books on my website http://micro5.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msjan/books.html

So, I am happy that Liege University continues this branch of research.

It's good to see people including archaeometry without a doubt in their reasearch, thanks for the response.

Liège will keep being a very interesting place to learn. If any student see this, he might want to check out the university's website about archaeology. 

Here in Italy, we prefere the term of "Sciences applied to Cultural Heritage", University courses on these topics (including physical methodologies, such as C14 dating, XRF, Raman Scattering, IR fluorescence and many other, as well as statistics, paleo-botanics, anthropolgy, etc) are held in many Italian Universities both at degree and PhD level. Of course a Doctor in Sciences applied to Cultural Heritage is not an archaeologist, however he is a professional whose presence in any archeological mission is precious. For myself, I am an astronomer and I joined a number of archaeological mission when professional archeologists asked me if it was possible to confirm or deny on a physical base if the hypothesis of an astronomical meaning in some artifacts was acceptable. But I just measure angles and make astronomical computation, giving a statistical evaluation of the hypothesis they suggested. I will never try to make an hypothesis on an archeaological artifact by myself, since I have not a professional knowledge on the cuture that produced the artifact.

Dear Vito,

Your (Italy's) nomenclature of "Sciences applied to CH" or the more generic term of Archaeometry are both understood in the CH circles. The names are less important than their contents.

During our archaeometric research over the past 41 years, science has provided answers to archaeological questions in the domain of dating, provenance and the identification of materials. We used nuclear as well as optical technologies (INAA and Synchrotron) and as a result we were able to dismiss some archaeological hypotheses as well as that we formulated some new archaeological hypotheses based on data sets obtained in Sciences.

I think that it is this type of collaboration between Humanities and Science that has progressed tremendously over the past decade, in spite of its difficult start in the 1970s. Thanks for your comment, though.

In my opinion, archaeometry is an applied archaeology just as we have applied biology, biotechnology etc. With archaeometry, archaeoloical study of soil types, minerals, thin sectioning, etc. can be more effectively used to predict or make inferences on human impact of a particular cultural group.

Dear Jacinta,

With due respect, archeometry is NOT an applied archaeology, but an applied type of  science to archaeology. The "science" can be any of the existing scientific analytical techniques , which exist in all nuclear, optical and biological domains.Thanks for the answer