Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:16:13.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Archaeology and archaeometry: from casual dating to a meaningful relationship?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

David Killick  and
Suzanne M.M. Young
David Killick
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology and Department of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson AZ 85721, USA
Suzanne M.M. Young
Affiliation:
Archaeometry Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most archaeology and anthropology departments are grouped as Humanities or as Social Sciences in university organizations. Where does that place the archaeometrists who approach the materials with the methods of physical and biological sciences? And where does it place the archaeologists themselves — especially when archaeometric studies have a large place in contract archaeology?

Type
Reports
Information
Antiquity , Volume 71 , Issue 273 , September 1997 , pp. 518 - 524
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baillie, M.G.L. 1990. Checking back on an assemblage of published radiocarbon dates, Radiocarbon 32: 361–6.Google Scholar
Baxter, M. 1990. Report of the international workshop on intercomparison of radiocarbon laboratories: a summary of the meeting, Radiocarbon 32: 389–91.Google Scholar
Bishop, R.L. & Lange, F.W. (ed.). 1991. The ceramic legacy of Anna O. Shepard. Niwot (CO): University of Colorado Press.Google Scholar
Burton, J.H. & Simon, A.W. 1993. Acid extraction as a simple and inexpensive method for the compositional characterization of archaeological ceramics, American Antiquity 58: 45–59.Google Scholar
Childs, S.T. 1994. Society, culture and technology in Africa: an introduction, in Childs, S.T. (ed.), Society, culture and technology in Africa: 7–14. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Museum. MASCA Papers in Science and Archaeology, Supplement to 11.Google Scholar
De Atley, S. & Bishop, R.L. 1991. Towards an integrated interface for archaeology and archaeometry, in Bishop & Lange: 358–82.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R.C. 1993. Why archaeologists don&t care about archaeometry, Archeomaterials 7: 161–5.Google Scholar
Ezzo, J. 1994a. Zinc as a paleodietary indicator: an issue of theoretical validity in bone-chemistry analysis, American Antiquity 59: 606–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezzo, J. 1994b. Putting the ‘chemistry’ back into archaeological bone chemistry analysis: modelling potential paleodietary indicators, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13; 1–34.Google Scholar
Goldberg, P.G. 1988. The archaeologist as viewed by the geologist, Biblical Archaeologist 51:197–202.Google Scholar
International Study Group. 1982. An inter-laboratory comparison of radiocarbon measurements in tree rings, Nature 298: 619–23.Google Scholar
Keegan, W.F. & De Niro, M.J. 1988. Stable carbon- and nitrogen-isotope ratios of bone collagen used to study coral-reef and terrestrial components of prehistoric Bahamian diets, American Antiquity 53: 320–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, A. 1990. A quality assurance protocol for radiocarbon laboratories, Radiocarbon 32: 393–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, H., Glascock, M.D., Bishop, R.L. & Blackman, M.J. 1996. An assessment of the acid-extraction approach to compositional characterization of archaeological ceramics, American Antiquity 61: 389–404.Google Scholar
Olin, J. (ed.). 1982. Future directions in archaeometry: a roundtable. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Ottaway, B.S. 1986. Is radiocarbon dating obsolescent for archaeologists?, Radiocarbon 28(2A): 732–8.Google Scholar
Sabloff, J. 1991. Towards a future archaeological ceramic science: brief observations from a conference, in Bishop & Lange: 394 400.Google Scholar
Scott, E.M., Aitchison, T.C., Harkness, D.D., Cook, G.T. & Baxter, M.S. 1990. An overview of all three stages of the international radiocarbon comparison, Radiocarbon 32: 309–19.Google Scholar
Sealy, J.C. & Sillen, A. 1988. Sr and Sr/Ca in marine and terrestrial foodwebs in the southwestern Cape, South Africa, Journal of Archaeological Science 15: 425–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, M.j. 1992. Radiocarbon dating as a probabilistic technique: the Childers site and Late Woodland occupation in the Ohio Valley, American Antiquity 57: 202–30.Google Scholar
Sillen, A., Sealy, J.C. & Van DER MERWE, N.J. 1989. Chemistry and paleodietary research: no more easy answers, American Antiquity 54: 504–12.Google Scholar
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P.J. 1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 age calibration program, Radiocarbon 35: 215–30.Google Scholar
Triadan, D. 1997. Ceramic commodities and common containers: production and distribution of White Mountain Red Ware in the Grasshopper region, Arizona. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 61.Google Scholar
Van Der Merwe, N.J., Roosevelt, A. & Vogel, J.C., 1981. Isotopic evidence for subsistence change at Parmana, Venezuela, Nature 292: 536–8.Google Scholar
Van Zelst, L. 1991. Archaeometry: the perspective of an administrator, in Bishop & Lange: 346–57.Google Scholar
Vogel, J.C. & Van Der Merwe, N.J. 1977. Isotopie evidence for early maize cultivation in New York State, American Antiquity 42: 238–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiner, S., Schiegl, S. Goldberg, P. & Bar-YOSEF, O. 1995. Mineral assemblages in Kebabara and Hayonim caves, Israel: excavation strategies, bone preservation, and wood ash remnants, Israel Journal of Chemistry 35: 143–54.Google Scholar
Yellen, J. 1982. Archaeometric-archaeological cooperation: some case studies, in Olin: 88–92.Google Scholar
Yellen, J. 1992. Archaeometry and the National Science Foundation, Society for Archaeological Sciences Bulletin 15(2): 2–4, 16.Google Scholar