Killick, Young (1997) Archaeology and Archaeometry: from casual dating to a meaningful...

7/22/2019 Killick, Young (1997) Archaeology and Archaeometry: from casual dating to a meaningful relationship?

1/7

51 8 REPORTSthe experience of Barry Cunliffe and LeendartLouwe Kooijmans. It proposes to adopt newstrategies in research and other spheres. If any-thing, the approach of the first Programme mayhave been too ambitious, with four majorprojects placing a considerable strain on finan-cia1 and administrative resources. Two major

themes are now being considered throughstudies of the current state of knowledge; these,on wetland settlement and on medieval ruralsettlement, will be published as the basis forresearch programmes to begin in 1998. Furthergeophysical survey and some limited excava-tion are also taking place at Tara.ReferencesBHREATHNACH,E. 1995. Tarn:a select bibliography. Dublin: Dis-covery Programme/Royal Irish Academy. Discovery Pro-gramme Reports 3.EOGAN. G. 1997. The Discovery Programme: initiation,consolidation and development, Negentiende Kroon-Voordracht gehouden voor de Stichting NederlandsMu-seum voor Anthropologie en Pmehistorie. Amsterdam:Netherlands Museum voor Anthropologie en Praehistorie.

NEWMAN,. 1997. Tam: a n archaeological survey. Dublin: Dis-covery Programme and Royal Irish Academy. DiscoveryProgramme Reports 5.WEIR,D. 1995. A palynological study of landscape and agri-cultural development in County Louth from the secondmillennium BC to the first millennium AD: final report,Discovery Programme Reports 2: 77-126.

Archaeology and archaeometry: from casual dating to ameaningful relationship?DAVIDKILLICK& SUZANNE M.M. YOUNG

Most archaeology and anthropology departments are grouped as Humanities or as SocialSciences in university organizations. Where does that place the archaeometrists who

approach the materials with the methods of physical a n d biological sciences? And wheredoes it place the archaeologists themselves- specially when archaeometric studieshave a large place in contract archaeology?The 1981 Brookhaven round table Future Di-rections in Archaeometry saw archaeologistsand archaeometrists engage in pointed criticismof each other (Olin 1982). Frank Holes contri-bution (Finding problems for all the solutions)expressed the feeling of many of the archae-ologists present that much archaeometric re-search served no demonstrable archaeologicalpurpose, while many archaeometrists expressedfrustration with archaeologists ignorance of themethods and limitations of archaeometry.In 1981 here were very few individuals withtraining in both archaeology and in the physi-cal or natural sciences, leading to the lack ofmutual understanding that is evident in theBrookhaven proceedings. The panellists at

Brookhaven were acutely aware of this divi-sion, but could not agree on a remedy. Somewere in favour of training students in both ar-chaeology and archaeometry; others feared thatthis would produce what one speaker calledhalf-baked archaeologists who know a little bitof science ( O h 1982: 71). Sixteen years onthis fear seems to have been unjustified. Sci-entists without archaeological training still playan essential role in the development of tech-niques. But there are now a substantial numberof the brokers for whom Frank Hole called in1981-those with enough archaeological train-ing to spot meaningful research problems, andenough scientific training to pursue them. Agood example of this is the use of 13C/zC atios

* Killick, Department of Anthropology a nd Department of Materials Science & Engineering, University of Arizona,Tucson AZ 85721, USA. Young, Archaeometry Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, Harv ard University,Cambridge MA 02138, USA.Received 30 uly 1996, accepted 22 January 1997, revised 16 June 1997.ANTIQUITY1 (1997): ??-??


2/7

REPORTS 519to infer prehistoric diet . Radiocarbon scientistshad known since the late 1960s that the bimo-dal distribution of carbon isotope ratios in plantsreflected different mechanisms of photosynthe-sis, but it took an archaeometrist trained in botharchaeology and radiocarbon dating to realizethe implications for the reconstruction of pastdiets and of the spread of crop plants (Vogel &van der Merwe 1977).Archaeology and archaeometry in 1997The integration of archaeometry into archae-ology varies by technique and by region. Theduration of the relationship is clearly a majorfactor. Radiocarbon dating was rejected by manyEuropean archaeologists in the 1950sand 1960s,but few do so now. Archaeometallurgy camein for some harsh criticism at Brookhaven, but,at thirty-something, is now winning acceptanceas a legitimate research specialty in archaeol-ogy. Molecular biology is a more recent arrivaland is still trying to work out a meaningful re-lationship with archaeology.Having overcome their intial reservationsabout each other, archaeologists and archaeo-metrists in some regions have been moving intogether. This process is most advanced in Brit-ain, where some archaeology departments,notably Bradford, Sheffield, Cambridge andNottingham, have chosen to emphasize archaeo-metric research, and have made archaeometrya major focus of their curricula. Funding ofarchaeometric research and development hasbeen moved to the Natural and EnvironmentalResearch Council (NERC).This bestowed formalrecognition upon archaeometry as a legitimatebranch of science and provides NERC-fundeddoctoral research studentships, which areessential for the continuing development ofarchaeometric techniques.With the possible exception of Japan (see be-low) the relationship between archaeometry andarchaeology in the rest of the world has notdeveloped as far as in Britain. In France theseparation of the research units of the CNRSfrom the universities creates problems in trans-ferring new research skills into the educationof archaeologists. In South Afkica, as in Franceand Britain, archaeometry is recognized as a le-gitimate branch of science and is funded accord-ingly. At the University of Cape Town, as atBradford and Sheffield, all archaeology studentsmust take at least a survey course in archaeometq.

The major flaw in the French and South Af-rican systems is lack of continuity. Because fund-ing is awarded to persons rather than projects,research units usually disappear if that indi-vidual retires, dies or accepts a job elsewhere.Archaeometry is even more fragile in nationssuch as Canada, Germany, Israel and Australia,where it enjoys no formal recognition. In Aus-tralia there are few courses taught inarchaeometry but this there has neverthelessbeen a consistent flow of quality archaeometricresearch. Rhys Jones (pers. comm. to SMMY1995) suggests that this reflects the nature ofAustralian archaeology, in which questions ofchronology, palaeoenvironment and provenance- he natural terrain of archaeometry- oomlarge.There are no courses in archaeometry andfew laboratory facilities on the African conti-nent outside South Africa. Under these cir-cumstances it is suprising that much goodinterdisciplinary work has been done. Childs(1994: 9) attributes this very largely to the in-fluence of a few archaeologists, who recognizedthe dependence of African archaeology uponarchaeometry and actively sought collaboration.In Israel, by contrast, archaeometry has had amixed reception. Archaeometry is well inte-grated into prehistoric archaeology, as in re-cent excavations at Kebara and Hayonim caves(Weiner et al. 1995), but archaeologists of theIron Age and later historic periods are gener-ally indifferent to archaeometry (Goldberg1988;J. Gunneweg pers. comm. to SMMY 1995).

InCanada, Germany, Australia and most othernations that do not recognize archaeometry asa legitimate branch of science, most archaeo-metrists outside dating laboratories are renegadescientists or engineers. They get little credit forthis i n their home departments, and are neverreplaced with archaeometrists on retirement (ashas happened at the University of Toronto, oncea major centre of archaeometry).The main conclusion that we draw from thisoverly compressed review is that while it ispossible to do good archaeometric research inmany settings- ome highly structured, someinformal- t is difficult to maintain continuityor to educate the future producers and consum-ers of archaeometry without formal structure.With this in mind we turn to the current rela-tionship between archaeology and archaeometryin the USA, the main focus of our concern.


3/7

REPORTS20fiscalyear

198619871988198919901991199219931994

fundsdisbursed$

680,358

891,918896,101914,859926,555

1,019,0001,015,338

694,513928,793

grants fordating$

550,538643,974559,256416,337454,970580,170574,301542,600

691,836

dating as% of fundsdisbursed

8 1726 1

what archaeometry can and cannot do; de Atley& Bishop blame academic archaeologists for notmaking archaeometry part of the curriculum,and both they and Sabloff argue that the insti-tutional structure of American universities dis-courages interdisciplinary ventures.

49 Are archaeometrists to blame?68576278

We beg to differ from Dunnell. Proceedings ofarchaeometric symposia [particularly those ofthe Materials Research Society) do contain somepapers that identify no archaeological problem,TABLE1.Funds disbursed 1986-1994 by theannual archaeometry competition of the Anthro-pology Program, National Science Foundation.(Figures calculated by DJK from data supplied byJohn Yellen.) Different totals would result i f welisted grants awarded each year, since manyawards are disbursed over wo or three years.Archaeology and archaeometry in the USADemand for archaeometric services in the USAhas soared since 1981, almost entirely becauseof the growth of Cultural Resource Management(CRM). ederal funding for academic archae-ology [from the National Science Foundation(NSF)and the National Endowment for the Hu-manities) has declined in real dollars since 1981,but has been more than offset by Federal ex-penditures for CRM through the National ParkService, the Forest Service, the Bureau of LandManagement, the Bureau of Reclamation andthe Department of Defense. We have found nonational estimate of annual CRM spending onarchaeometric services, but some indication ofits magnitude may be gleaned from estimates(obtained from sources in CRM) that annualspending on CRM archaeology in Arizona aloneexceeds $30 million, of which at least 25% isspent on archaeometric services. For compari-son, the National Science Foundations entireannual budget for archaeometry averages $1million [TABLE),with perhaps another $1million worth of archaeometric services pur-chased annually by archaeologists with grantsfrom the NSF archaeology programme.Does this mean that the meaningful relation-ship advocated at Brookhaven has come to pass?We think not, as do other recent writers on thissubject [e.g. Sabloff1991;Dunnell1993; de Atley& Bishop 1991; van Zelst 1991). Dunnell casti-gates archaeometrists for irrelevance; van Zelstdenounces archaeologists as unwilling to learn

but most of these-are the bastarud offipring ofscientists who find a brief fling with the past abreak from their usual routine. This is notarchaeometry; in 1997 a scientist must havesome lasting degree of commitment to archae-ology to be called an archaeometrist.The archaeometric community is certainlynot blameless. There are still major problemswith quality control in archaeometry, and chro-nic underfunding of research and developmenthas meant that many methods have never beenproperly evaluated. But in general we think thatarchaeometrists have made a sincere effort toovercome the criticisms levelled at Brookhaven.Summer courses like those of the Center forMaterials Research in Archaeology and Ethnog-raphy (CMRAE) at MIT, and internships at cen-tres such as the Smithsonian InstitutionsConservation Analytical Laboratory and theUniversity of Missouri Research Reactor(MURR)have trained hundreds of young archaeologistsin interdisciplinary research. The Society forArchaeological Sciences has run annual reviewsof selected topics at the Society for AmericanArchaeology meetings. (These are inevitablypoorly attended.) There have also been attemptsto make complex archaeometric echniques moreuser-friendly (e.g. Stuiver & Reimer 1993).What do American archaeologists knowabout archaeometry ?While there are many examples of intelligentapplication of archaeometry to archaeologicalproblems, we agree with van Zelst (1991) thatfar too many American archaeologistsare poorlyinformed about archaeometry. Consider the caseof radiocarbon dating. Both the first and sec-ond interlaboratory radiocarbon calibrationrounds revealed an alarming lack of precisionand accuracy (International Study Group 1982;Scott et al. 1990). In the second of these exer-


4/7

REPORTS 521cises, concluded in 1990,only 7 of the 38 labo-ratories that completed the round were able todemonstrate satisfactory accuracy and preci-sion (Baxter 1990).European archaeologists have been rightlycritical of the lack of quality control in the ra-diocarbon community (e.g. Ottaway 1986; Baillie1990), but American archaeologists have hadalmost nothing to say (Shott 1992 is a rare ex-ception). What other population of consumersin America displays so little concern for thequality of the product that it purchases? Thisis casual dating indeed! Only 4 of the 38 labo-ratories participating in the second study wereAmerican. American archaeologists shouldpressure their laboratories to participate in in-ternational calibration projects and to disclosetheir performance. They should also ask radio-carbon laboratories to produce internal evidenceof quality control, in the form of regular repeatanalyses of samples of known age (e.g. Long1990). The selection of the radiocarbon labo-ratory is the responsibility of the archaeologistalone, and only pressure from consumers willweed out the bad laboratories from the good.Many other examples can be found. Archae-ologists are now eager to undertake studies ofpast diets by chemical or isotopic techniques.Such studies should collect data on a broadspectrum of potential foods before attemptingto interpret chemical data obtained on humanbone (e.g. Keegan& de Niro 1988; Sealy & Sillen1988). Unfortunately, as in provenience stud-ies, it is too often the case that archaeologicalsamples are run without adequate study ofchemical or isotopic variation in potentialsources.The development of rapid methods of chemi-cal analysis has made provenience analysis aroutine part of the archaeological tool-kit, butthese methods are not always well used. Fartoo many recent ceramic provenience studiesrely for their archaeometric component entirelyupon statistical analysis of chemical data. It isoften assumed that distinct clusters in such datarepresent different loci of production, but suchan inference can only be considered secure whenmultiple lines of evidence (chemistry, miner-alogy of inclusions, regional and local geology,form, decoration and paste colour) converge,as in Triadans recent study of the distributionof White Mountain Redware in Arizona (Triadan1997).

These examples (and there are many oth-ers) suggest that many archaeologists are toocomplacent about the quality of archaeometricdata, and do not appreciate the importance ofvariation in natural systems, whether geologi-cal or biological.The influence of CRM on archaeometry inthe U S AAlthough there is much excellent interdisci-plinary work in CRM, there is also also muchabuse of archaeometry in this setting. The mainculprits are inflexible contracts that specify theanalyses to be undertaken even before the siteshave been excavated. This checklist approachto analysis frustrates many CRM archaeologistsof our acquaintance, wastes public and privatefunds, and has driven demand for certain tech-niques beyond the supply of suitably trainedand experienced analysts.For example, demand for the establishedmethods of ceramic petrology and neutron ac-tivation analysis (INAA) far exceeds analyti-cal capacity. But peer pressure or contractualobligations force archaeologists to undertakeceramic provenience studies, and many haveturned to inexperienced analysts or to unproventechniques such as weak acid extraction in-ductively-coupled plasma (ICP) spectrometry(Burton & Simon 1993). Reviewers of the pa-per (including one of the present authors) notedpotentially serious problems with this new tech-nique, but thousands of archaeological samples,most from CRM projects, had already been ana-lysed by this technique before controlled com-parisons of weak-acid ICP data with INAA andthin-section petrography were published (Neffet a l . 1996; Triadan 1997). These studiesconclude that the weak-acid ICP data are in-compatible with those produced by INAA, petro-graphy and with archaeological classificationsby form, decoration and paste. The techniqueis not therefore a reliable means of inferringceramic provenience.CRM archaeology in the USA is a fiercelycompetitive business. There is no time for thecontrolled experiments or for the additionalchecks that academic archaeometrists mightconsider desirable; if these are not specificallyincluded in the Request for Proposals, then theyare not likely to be included in bids submittedby CRM companies. In the American southwest,for example, most CRM projects commission


5/7

522 REPORTSlarge numbers of archaeological pollen analy-ses, yet many skimp on the collection of themodern pollen samples that are needed to in-terpret the prehistoric pollen spectra. Much ofthe data produced cannot be used in compara-tive work because of lack of consistency inanalysis and reporting (Suzanne Fish pers.comm. to DJK 1994).The responsibility for ensuring that archaeo-metric work within CRM projects is not wastedlies squarely with those who write the Requestfor Proposals and with the State Historic Pres-ervation Officers (SHPOs) who must approveCRM research design at the state level. Thosewho set policy for archaeology within the vari-ous Federal agencies should also set uniformstandards for the purchase, quality and report-ing of archaeometric work across the whole spanof Federal archaeology. American archaeologymay have something to learn in this respectfrom Japan, where systematic provision has beenmade for archaeometry within CRM and whereuniform standards are set for analysis and re-porting (Izumi Shimada pers. comm. to DJK1997).W h o sh o ul d p a y for research anddevelopment in archaeometry?Although the growth ofCRM in the United Stateshas fuelled demand for archaeometric tech-niques, CRM contributes lit tle to fundamentalresearch on archaeometric techniques. The onlysignificant source of funding for this in the USAis the annual NSF Archaeometry competition,created in 19841 to provide core funding on a competitivebasis to laboratories supplying archaeo-metric services; and2 to fund research into new techniques.This programme has succeeded in funding awider range of archaeometric research thanbefore (Yellen 1982; 1992), though grants todating laboratories have accounted for betweenhalf and four-fifths of all expenditure in eachyear of the archaeometry competition (TABLE1). Once other core support (mostly for neu-tron activation) is subtracted, the amount leftfor development of all other archaeometric tech-niques has has in recent years averaged around$300,000 per year, or about four to six researchprojects.The lack of funding for research and devel-opment has led to techniques coming into wide

use in archaeology before being properly re-searched. Stable carbon isotope analysis is acase in point. This has been highly succesfulin tracing the adoption of C4 cultigens, suchas corn, into C3 biomes such as eastern NorthAmerica (Vogel & van der Merwe 1977) andthe Amazon (van der Merwe et al. 1981) overthe longue durke. Many archaeologists are try-ing to use it for finer-grained analysis, for ex-ample in trying to infer differences in diet withinsynchronic populations. But it is not yet un-derstood from what components of the diet bonecollagen and bone apatite are formed (Sillen etal. 1989); this is being studied by controlledfeeding of rats and pigs (supported by the NSFArchaeometry). This may seem a long way fromarchaeology - ut is absolutely necessary i fisotopic reconstructions of diet are to be sci-entifically defensible.Inferences about prehistoric diets based uponchemical analysis of archaeological bone areon much shakier ground. Thousands of boneshave been analysed in the last 25 years, butrecent reviews of the nutritional and physiologi-cal l iterature (Ezzo 1994a; 1994b] show that ,except for strontium and barium, there i s littleexperimental evidence that the concentrationof the chemical elements in bone correlates withtheir abundance in the diet.Although other divisions of NSF, suchas earthsciences and cell biology, support fundamen-tal research on techniques, funds to adapt andexpand these for archaeology must usually comefrom the NSF budgets for archaeology andarchaeometry. There is clearly not enoughmoney in this system at present to fund devel-opment of all the techniques that have poten-tial for archaeology. Other Federal agencies arehowever major consumers of archaeometricservices, and i t is clearly in their own self-in-terest to help fund development of archaeo-metric research that is relevant to their owninterests.Archaeometry in the education ofarchaeologistsHow has education changed to reflect the greatlyincreased role of archaeometry within archae-ology ? As noted above, some universities out-side the USA (Bradford, Sheffield, Cape Town)have chosen to offer a concentration in the areaof archaeometry,and require all students to studyit. To our knowledge, only two American uni-


6/7

REPORTS 523versities (Southern Methodist University andBoston University) require all graduate studentsin archaeology to take at least a survey coursein archaeometq. At least a dozen other Americanuniversities offer such a course, but it is notmandatory. Our experience with survey courseson archaeometry at the University of Arizonaand at Harvard University has been that fewerthan one in ten archaeology graduate s tudentselect to take it.We believe that a course that concentrateson making archaeologists educated consumersof archaeometry should be required of all ar-chaeologists.Almost all archaeological projectsnow include an archaeometric component, butthe supply of experienced archaeometrists hasnot increased in proportion to the demand fortheir services. Increasingly archaeologists wil lbe forced to commission analyses on a fee-for-service basis from remote laboratories, and todealwith problems of experimental design, sam-pling and interpretation on their own. Archae-ologists also have to be able to assess the useof archaeometry in archaeological literature.It is obviously preferable to work with anexperienced archaeometrist, which brings usto the problem of the acute shortage of trainedarchaeometrists in the USA. The time has comefor one or more universities to introduce a gradu-ate degree in archaeometrytarchaeological sci-ence. The appropriate model for this is theprogramme at the University of Bradford, wherestudents are put through a curriculum that in-tegrates archaeological and archaeometric train-ing.

ReferencesBAILLIE,.G.L. 1990. Checking back on an assemblage of pub-lished radiocarbon dates, Radiocarbon 32: 361-6.BAXTER, . 1990. Report of the international workshop onintercomparison of radiocarbon laboratories: a summaryof the meeting, Radiocarbon 32:389-91.BISHOP,R.L. & EW. LANCE (ed.). 1991. The ceramic legacy ofAnno 0. Shepurd. Niwot (CO): University of ColoradoPress.BURTON,.H. & A.W. SIMON. 1993. Acid extraction as a simpleand inexpensive method for the compositional charac-terization of archaeological ceramics, American Antiq-uity 58: 45-59.CHILDS, .T. 1994. Society, culture and technology in Africa:an introduction, in S.T. Childs (ed.), Society, culture ondtechnology in Africa: 7-14. Philade lphia (PA): Univer-sity of Pennsylvania Museum. MASCA Papers in Scienceand Archaeology, Supplement to 11.DE ATLEY,. R.L. BISHOP.1991. Towards an integrated inte r-face for archaeology and archaeometry, in Bishop & Lange:358-82.

Conclusion and recommendationsWe conclude that some progress has been madesince Brookhaven, but that archaeology andarchaeometry are still poorly integrated. Thetwo fields are best (though not perfectly) in-tegrated in Britain; the USA lags a long waybehind. We believe that the major problems hin-dering the closer union of the two fields inAmerica are the lack of attention paid to archaeo-metry in the education of archaeologists andarchaeometrists, and the indequate funding ofresearch on archaeometric technique and de-velopment.Our recommendations for the USA are:1 that all archaeology students should takeat least a survey course in archaeometry;2 that urgent measures be taken to increasethe numbers of t rained archaeometrists,and to identify and support key centresfor archaeometric services; and3 that additional funds for research and de-velopment of archaeometric techniques beraised by harvesting a small portion ofcurrent CRM archaeology spending byFederal agencies.Acknowledgements. An early draft of this paper was pre-sented to the conference Scie ncein Archaeology at HarvardUniversity in October 1994.We are most grateful to JeffDean, Paul and Suzanne Fish, Jan Gunneweg, Rhys Jones,Teresita Majewski, Julie Stein, Sarah Vaughan, MichaelWayman an d Jo hn Yellen fo r information. We also thankJeff Altschul, David Kingery, Mark Polla rd, Jeff Rcid , GarthSampson,Michael Schiffer, Steve Shackley, Izurni Shim adaand Michael Tite for useful comment on earlier drafts. Noneof these individuals necessarily endorse an y of the opin-ions expressed in this paper.

DUNNELL,.C. 1993. Why archaeologists dont care aboutarchaeometry, Archeomaterials 7:161-5.Ezzfl, J. 1994a. Zinc as a paleodietary indicator: an issue oftheoretical validity in bone-chemistry analysis, Ameri-can Antiquity59: 606-21.1994b. Putting the chemistryback into archaeological bonechemistry analysis: modelling potential paleodietary in-dicators, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13: 1-34.GOLDBEKC;,.G. 1988. The archaeologist as viewed by the geo-logist , BibIical Archaeologist 51: 197-202.INTERNATIONALTUDY ROUP. 1982. An interlaboratory com-parison of radiocarbon measurements in tree rings, Nature298: 61S-23.KEEGAN,W.F. & M.J. DE NIRO.1988. Stable carbon- and nitro-gen-isotope ratios of bone collagen used to study coral-reef and terrestrial components of prehistoric Bahamiandiets, American Antiquity 53: 320-36.LONG.A. 1990. A quality assurance protocol for radiocarbonlaboratories. Radiocarbon 32: 393-7.


7/7

524 REPORTSNEFF,H.,M.D.GLASCOCK,R.L. ISHOP&M. J. BLACKMAN.996.A n assessment of the acid-extraction approach to com-positional characterization of archaeological ceramics,American Antiquity 61: 38 94 04 .OLIN, . (ed.). 1982. Future directions in archoeornetry: aroundtable. Washington (DC): Smithsonian InstitutionPress.OTTAWAY,.S . 1986.1s radiocarbon dating obsolescent for ar-

chaeologists?, Radiocarbon 28(2A]: 732-8.SABLOFP,. 1991. Towards a future archaeological ceramic sci--ence: brief observations from a conference, in Bishop &Lange: 394 400 .SCOTT , E.M., T.C. AITCIIISON, .D .HARKNESS,.T. COOK & M.S.BAXTER.1990. A n overview of all three stages of the in-ternational radiocarhon comparison, Radiocarbon 32: 30%19 .SI'ALY, J.C. & A. SILLEN.988. Sr and SrlCa in marine and ter-restrial foodwebs in the southwestern Cape, South Af-rica, lournal of Archaeological Science 15: 425-38.SHOTT, M.J. 1992. Radiocarbon dating as a probabilistic tech-nique: the Childers site and Late Woodland occupationin the Ohio Valley, Americon Antiquity 57: 202-30.SILLEN, ,. J.C. SEALY N.1. VAN D E R MERWE. 989. Chemistry

and paleodietary research: no more easy answers, Ameri-can Antiquity 54: 504-12.

STUIVER,. & P.J. RFJMER.1993. Extended ''C data base andrevised CALlB 3.0 age calibration program, Radiocarbon35: 215-30.TRIADAN,. 1997. Ceramic commodifies and common con-tainers: production and distribution of White MountainRed Ware in the Grasshopper region, Arizona. Tucson(AZ): University of Arizona Press. Anthropological Pa-pers of the University of Arizona 61 .VANDER MERWE,N. J . ,. ROOSEVEEI'& J.C. VOGEL. 1981. Isotopicevidence for subsistence change at Parmana, Venezuela,Nature 292: 536-8.VIYN ZELST, . 1991. Archaeometry: the perspective of an ad-ministrator, in Bishop & Langc: 346-57.VOGEL, J.C. & N.J. VAN DER MERWE. 977. Isotopic evidence forearly maize cu ltivation in New York State, Americon An-tiquity 42: 238-42.

Mineral assemblages in Kebabara and Hayonini caves,Israel: excavation strategies, bone preservation, and woodash remnants, Israel Journal of Chemistry 35: 143-54.YELLEN,. 1982. Archacometric-archaeological cooperation: somecase studies, i n Olin : 88-92.1992. Archaeometry and the National Science Foundation,Societyfor Archaeological Sciences Bulletin 15[2): 2-4,16.

WEINER, s., s. SCHIEGL, p. GOLDRERG 0 . BAR-YOSEF. 1995.

Killick, Young (1997) Archaeology and Archaeometry: from casual dating to a meaningful...

Documents

Transcript of Killick, Young (1997) Archaeology and Archaeometry: from casual dating to a meaningful...