University of Minnesota

A Partnership

George (Rip) Rapp, Jr., Archaeometry Laboratory, 214 RLB, University of Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota 55812, USA

This paper addresses the partnership between archaeology on one hand and archaeometry (or archaeological science) on the other. Some individuals make a distinction between archaeometry (as the application of physics and chemistry to the solution of archaeological problems) and archaeological science (as the application of geology, biology, botany, and related sciences to archaeological problems). I make no such distinction. Hence, in this paper the application of all natural sciences and technology to archaeology will be termed archaeometry.

The question of partnership is the integration of archaeometry into archaeology, i.e., the inclusion (or exclusion) of the subdiscipline into the main stream. On this point there is an, albeit far from perfect, analogy from geology. Geology became rock science rather than earth science 100 years ago when it excluded atmospheric, ocean, and most of the hydrologic science from its domain. These other earth sciences went their own way and only very recently with questions of environmental pollution and global warming has there been any integration.

This paper presupposes that archaeology is either a discipline in its own (intellectual) right or it is an interdisciplinary amalgam but it is not a mere technique for supplying raw data to behaviorists. Archaeology had its origins in the antiquarian, added the humanistic, then the behavioral components and most recently added archaeometry in its effort to understand and explain ancient lifeways. Few would deny this progression.

This paper further assumes that the following statements are an accurate base on which one can make judgments about possible futures for archaeology:

1. The archaeological record as we know it is vanishing; hence doing archaeology in the 21st century can be expected to be different from doing archaeology in the 20th century.
2. Excavation archaeology is destructive of our vanishing cultural resource base, hence non-destructive methods and analyses must be pursued wherever and whenever possible.
3. In order to explain cultural and social change, archaeologists observe, measure and analyze cultural and environmental remains, hence (as a very minimum) archaeology students must learn to observe, measure, and analyze all the relevant evidence.
4. Archaeology is not a discipline with a single set of related paradigms, but rather is a multidisciplinary amalgam requiring concepts and methodologies from a host of separate disciplines, such as anthropology, ecology, geology, geography, art history, economics, and osteology. One might even suggest that the designation archaeologist requires an adjective or prefix, e.g., classical archaeologist, geoarchaeologist, or anthropological archaeologist.
5. Archaeometry will play an ever increasing role in the analysis and interpretation of archaeological remains.

What and where is archaeometry in 1989? What is its relevance to archaeology? The best known example of the application of physics to archaeology is radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating is a very bad prototype for the relationship of archaeometry to archaeology! An excavator can send a carbon sample to a service lab and (given appropriate collection methods) utilize the results in a straightforward manner. Nearly all of the rest of archaeometry is not congruent with this paradigm. Most relationships require an active partnership.

There are increasing numbers of examples where archaeometrists work alone on the solution of archaeological problems. At the Thera Congress this past September, archaeometrists reported on dating the Minoan eruption of Thera through the analysis of sulfur in ice cores from Greenland. (Greenland ice cores are not the normal provenance of archaeologists.) There will always be information of importance to archaeology forthcoming from archaeometrists working in relative isolation, but I maintain that such cases should and will be only a small percentage of the archaeometric input into archaeology, and that cooperative (i.e., partnership) arrangements will prove to be the most productive.

Early humans not only made artifacts, but they also altered the geomorphic, zoological, and botanical landscapes. This human activity of landscape alteration was as much a part of early culture as religious activities. This has now been recognized, and most archaeological surveys and excavations integrate environmental with all other investigations. Likewise, most archaeometric studies of the provenance of artifact materials are well integrated into basic archaeological investigations.

Other areas of archaeometric research have not been as fully integrated. Today we view technological advancement as the sine qua non of progress (certainly engendering cultural change). Was it not always at least partially so? Although I have done some research on the topic (Rapp 1989), we do not know the times and places ancient craftsmen developed the capability to smelt sulfide ores. Smelting sulfide ores--a complex process--became necessary because the metal smiths were running out of the chemically simpler, but much less abundant, oxide copper ores. Even if we were to uncover ten times the textual material for the second and third millennia BC, it is unlikely that we would be able to answer the question of the origin of sulfide smelting without archaeometry. Yet most of experimental archaeometry (as distinct from artifact analysis) lies well outside the current scope of archaeology (including lack of availability of NSF funding).

These examples should suffice to illustrate what this paper is concerned with. My appeal, to both archaeologists and archaeometrists, is to integrate before archaeometry goes its own way. This separation would weaken both archaeology and archaeometry.

I return now to the future of archaeology. Given the fact that today's archaeology students will do most of their productive work in the 21st century, we should not educate these students to do 20th century archaeology. We should not want to emulate the generals who are now fully prepared to fight the previous war. My central point here is that archaeometry must share directly with other subdisciplines in archaeology the responsibility of defining the scope of archaeology and determining the archaeological curriculum.

Before we turn to the education of "mainstream" archaeologists, let us consider the problem of the graduate education for archaeometrists. Alas, there is no consensus on appropriate paths for those who have one foot in dirt archaeology and one in natural science. There are a few Ph.D. programs that allow this interdisciplinary path. However, there are individuals who maintain that one must first earn not only a narrow natural science Ph.D., but also a solid scholarly reputation in a scientific discipline before trying interdisciplinary research. Parenthetically, there is a limited consensus that it is very difficult to complete the Ph.D. in a social or humanistic field and then move into archaeometric research because natural science generally requires up to six years of sequential learning in basic science and mathematics. This leaves the question of interdisciplinary graduate education still open, as well as the more general need for scientific literacy on the part of all types of archaeologists. Geologists study chemistry and physics as an essential part of their education. Consequently, geologists have long been able to borrow the instruments and techniques designed by chemists and physicists and use them to study the earth. Archaeology needs archaeometry to achieve the same borrowing efficiency to study cultural remains.

Can we attain the integration of archaeometry into mainstream archaeology (including more natural science for nearly all archaeologists) with the current educational structure? Put another (more dramatic) way, how long can archaeology continue in its current mode? With sites vanishing and the cost of thorough excavations and even surveys becoming more and more prohibitive, archaeologists could, unlike geologists, run out of at least prehistoric archaeological remains in less than 100 years. In less than 100 years there will be 20 billion people on the earth. The necessary intensive agriculture will churn and rechurn all but the most inhospitable land. Already, archaeologists are beginning to turn from excavation to survey, from artifact studies to artifact-ecofact relationships, and from materials to models.

In the current university education and research context in the United States, archaeology is mainly incorporated into anthropology or classics departments. I submit that there are very real constraints to the integration of much archaeometry into anthropology or classics departments. In anthropology departments, graduate students must contend with cultural, social, linguistic, and physical anthropology, as well as archaeology. This leads to strength in the behavioral component of archaeology, but undesirable weakness in all other components of modern archaeology. I must add that a few departments (where archaeology tends to dominate the other anthropological specialties) have accomplished some real integration of archaeometry into the curriculum. The Universities of Arizona, Michigan, Washington, and Wisconsin are examples.

In classics departments, archaeology is not only narrowly proscribed, but the requirements in Greek and Latin prevent the student from undertaking significant environmental or technical studies. (And how many classics departments--besides Indiana University--cover the Paleolithic of Greece.) I might add that it is equally hard to get any geoarchaeology into geology departments. All interdisciplinary effort goes against the grain of current university departmental structures. In enumerating some of the problems of archaeometry in anthropology and classics departments, I have not even mentioned the lack of scientific laboratories.

In the integration of more archaeometry into university archaeological education I believe there are several scenarios that will be followed concurrently (we are a pluralistic society):

1. There will be a general continuation of the current structure; inertia guarantees this. Perhaps the curricula will broaden in most institutions.
2. We will establish additional archaeology departments, following in the footsteps of the rest of the modern world and Boston University in the United States.
3. In some universities we will integrate archaeology and archaeometry into interdisciplinary graduate programs such as the Center for Ancient Studies at the University of Minnesota.

In this paper I do not propose a large scale restructuring of university archaeological education in the United States. I do suggest that the establishment of more archaeology departments and formal graduate interdisciplinary programs would facilitate the integration of archaeometry into mainstream archaeology. In my opinion, the most nearly ideal integration of archaeometry into archaeology has been accomplished in the Department of Archaeology at the Postgraduate and Research Institute at Deccan College, Pune, India, where geoarchaeology, zooarchaeology, paleoethnobotany, and archaeological chemistry (all taught by regular faculty with graduate degrees in the natural sciences) are combined with the traditional anthropological archaeology, ethnography, etc. in a truly integrated department.

I am familiar with the arguments in this country concerning where Ph.D. graduates from archaeology departments will teach. This question is real but beyond the scope of this paper.

So far, this paper has stressed problems. On the brighter side, I will shift for a moment to some of the recent very real accomplishments in the integration of archaeometry into archaeology. I will mention three: first, the establishment of the new scientific laboratory at the American School of Classical Studies in Athens; second, the establishment of the chair in scientific archaeology at Harvard; and third, the Pomerance award for scientific contributions to archaeology of the Archaeological Institute of America. However, I must point out that the driving force for each of these came from outside the central archaeological profession, i.e., Malcolm Wiener at the American School in Athens, Landon T. Clay at Harvard, and Leon Pomerance at AIA.

Finally, I want to make the following two proposals to strengthen the partnership (neither is wholly original with me, for example see Wiseman 1989):

1. We need to establish full partnership throughout the planning, execution, interpretation, and publication of each archaeological project. Parenthetically, William McDonald and I, representing archaeology and archaeometry respectively, on the Messenia Expedition and the Nichoria excavation had such a partnership, but this is not the norm. We are all familiar with the many examples of archaeometric analyses of excavated material relegated to a barely referenced appendix. In publishing the Nichoria excavation, we put all of the scientific analyses up front in volume 1 (Rapp and Aschenbrenner 1978) to underpin all later archaeological interpretations. It appears that this has yet to establish a trend.
2. Because graduate education and research will influence, if not direct, the course of archaeology in the coming decades we need to seek solutions to the integration of the humanistic, behavioral, and natural science components of archaeology into something more holistic. The establishment of additional archaeology departments and interdisciplinary graduate programs would help.

George (Rip) Rapp, Jr.
Archaeometry Laboratory, 214 RLB, University of Minnesota, Duluth, Minnesota 55812, USA

Rapp, George, Jr., and S.E. Aschenbrenner (1978). Excavations at Nichoria in Southwestern Greece, Vol. I: Site, Environs, Techniques. University of Minnesota Press, 339 pp.

Rapp, George, Jr. (1989). Determining the Origins of Sulfide Smelting. In Old World Archaeometallurgy, edited by A. Hauptmann, E. Perncka, and G. Wagner, pp. 107-110, The German Mining Museum.

Wiseman, James (1989). Archaeology Today: From the Classroom to the Field and Elsewhere. AJA 93:437-444.