Science in Archaeology: A Review Author(s): Patrick E. McGovern, Thomas L. Sever, J. Wilson Myers, Eleanor Emlen Myers, Bruce Bevan, Naomi F. Miller, S. Bottema, Hitomi Hongo, Richard H. Meadow, Peter Ian Kuniholm, S. G. E. Bowman, M. N. Leese, R. E. M. Hedges, Frederick R. Matson, Ian C. Freestone, Sarah J. Vaughan, Julian Henderson, Pamela B. Vandiver, Charles S. Tumosa, Curt W. Beck, Patricia Smith, A. M. Child, A. M. Pollard, Ingolf Thuesen, Catherine Sease Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 99, No. 1 (Jan., 1995), pp. 79-142 Published by: Archaeological Institute of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/506880 Accessed: 16/07/2009 14:57 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Journal of Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org Science in Archaeology: A Review PATRICK E. McGOVERN The inaugural appearance of yet another "news- ometry" had no precise definition (it has yet to be letter" of recent archaeological discoveries, reflect- made an entry in Webster's or the Oxford unabridged ing AJA's historic and ongoing commitment to such dictionary), and that it was too narrowly focused on reviews, is both auspicious and somewhat daunting.' the physical sciences and connoted too great a con- Late 20th-century science-here viewed in its more cern for precise measurements ("-metry"). Archae- narrow sense as the natural sciences-is now mak- ologists might justifiably claim that their measure- ing its share of discoveries in Old World archaeol- ments, if not so precise, are at least better suited to ogy, a field that some consider a rather esoteric pur- cultural interpretation and broader issues of why suit, divorced from the modern world. A review of things developed the way they did, how these devel- this kind might then simply be seen as a long-overdue opments are expressed in the modern world, and response to our headlong plunge into a technolog- whether any predictive value can be attached to such ical present and future. Computers and other "black findings. boxes" are no longer just the province of a few sci- The phrase "archaeological science" has fared entific wizards, but are now part of everyone's life, somewhat better,4 but raises the hackles of both including the archaeologist's, whether we like it or archaeologists (archaeology itself being viewed by not and whether it produces worthwhile results in many as a social science) and natural scientists, who our research or not. Since there is no turning back, do not view this as a well-developed discipline. Since we all need advice on how best to cope with this revo- "Science and Archaeology" is a similarly infelicitous lution and perhaps even come to enjoy it a little more. juxtaposition, I have settled on "Science in Archaeol- Such a review can be as daunting to its author as ogy" as the title for this review. This phrase implies to its readers. How does one launch an endeavor that that science of whatever variety (social, biological, has few if any precedents,2 and which even its prac- physical, etc.) has found its way into archaeology, and titioners cannot decide among themselves what to it is for us to decide whether it is producing worth- call? A roundtable discussion on "Future Directions while results. in Archaeometry,"3 held in conjunction with the This review is not intended, however, to cover every 1981 Archaeometry symposium at Brookhaven Na- scientific approach or application in archaeology, tional Laboratory, highlighted the fact that "archae- but rather, to present a selected range of viewpoints 1 Publication of this review has been made possible in of some of the latest developments is the "Archaeometric part by a generous subvention from the Frederick R. and Clearinghouse"inJFA. C.W. Beck, who assiduously saw this B. Margaret Matson Fund, established specifically to en- review through 26 installments, retired last year, and the courage publication of technological studies in AJA.Fred S. editorial reins have now been passed to J. Henderson of Kleiner and Frederick R. Matson are to be especially Sheffield University.More specialized newslettersare also thanked for first proposing the idea of such a review to published on a regular basis-e.g., La Tinaja,which deals and me, then helping to make it a reality by their sugges- with archaeoceramics and is edited by J.E. Corbin (Box tions, moral support, and, in the case of Fred Matson, con- 13047, SFAStation, Nacogdoches, Texas 75962-3047), and an of his own on tributing essay ceramic ecology. Tracey the series of reviews on archaeometallurgy in the Journal Cullen also provided very thoughtful and practical advice ofMetals, edited by V.C.Pigott (MASCA,University Museum, on and contributors. goals possible University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania For a brief of history archaeological newslettersin AJA, 19104). Rather than duplicate what can already be found see ES.Kleiner, 'Archaeology in Asia Minor/Anatolia,1955- in these and other more eclectic newsletters,this overview 98 1993," AJA (1994) 1-3. attempts to take stock of the "field"and develop guidelines 2 In the United the for States, Society Archaeological for effective researchand discussion among archaeologists Sciences publishes the SASBulletin, which is a very useful and natural scientists. "newsletter"that provides up-to-date information on ad- 3J.S. Olin ed., FutureDirections in Archaeometry:A Round vances in the field, meetings, publications, and funding Table(Washington, D.C. 1982). A series of textbooks on the 4 opportunities. archaeological L. van Zeist,"Archaeometry: The Perspective of an Ad- sciences is also currently being prepared by members of ministrator,"in R.L.Bishop and EW.Lange eds., TheCeramic this in society collaboration with Plenum Press, New York. Legacyof Anna 0 Shepard(Niwot, Colo. 1991) 346-57. Another newsletter that has kept archaeologists abreast 79 American Journal of Archaeology 99 (1995) 79-142 80 PATRICK E. McGOVERN [AJA 99 and examples of how natural science functions within is difficult to obtain, because such research is too an archaeological framework. Future reviews, assum- "interdisciplinary"-it does not fit squarely into any ing that this one is well received, will expand into established discipline. With the all-too-common cut- areas not covered here and, it is hoped, will lead to backs in budgets generally, science in archaeology more fruitful theoretical perspectives on how best will probably continue, for the foreseeable future, to integrate science with archaeology. to be carried out by widely scattered individuals and The terminological debate is largely a symptom the occasional research group, approaching the sub- of how defined poorly and amorphous the "field" ject from various scientific or archaeological perspec- is at present, as well as disillusionment with methods tives. Science in archaeology truly suffers from C.P. or approaches that promised more than they de- Snow's "two culture" split personality.8 It may seem livered. If an academic discipline constitutes an exciting to explore a borderline discipline (where autonomous body of knowledge, with recognized serendipitous discoveries so often occur9) and be- practitioners, places where research is carried out, come a polyglot interpreter of sorts,'0 yet the would- and appropriatejournals, publications, professional be practitioner must be prepared to be misunder- groups, and conferences to disseminate the find- stood and certainly underfunded. then ings,5 the "archaeological sciences" are still very To be fair, the sheer dimensions of possible inter- poorly developed. National, museum, and private actions between archaeology and the natural sci- laboratories6 do exist in the United States, Europe, ences, ranging from the subatomic to the astrophys- and elsewhere, providing a context for specific ap- ical level, preclude any simple definitions and hence of to plications science archaeology, but these facil- a more systematic approach. Some may choose to ities a primarily play support role, either focusing divide up the field by physicochemical techniques their efforts on individual collections and in-house (whether neutron activation analysis, mass spec- or a commercial projects providing service to archae- trometry, or optical microscopy)," others may opt ologists (especially dating and geophysical prospect- for a materials science approach (ceramics, metal- Academic which ing). programs, might serve to foster lurgy, etc.),12 while still others will argue for a gen- research and a tradition of develop scholarship, are eral problem approach (such as establishing trade nonexistent.7 Public and virtually private funding networks, reconstructing palaeodiets, or elucidating 5See ER. Matson, "Archaeological Ceramics and the demonstratethe desirabilityand need of coupling archaeol- Physical Sciences: Problem Definitions and Results,"inJ.S. ogy and naturalsciences.