Archaeometry and materiality: materials‐based analysis in theory and practice*

Abstract

Due to the diversity of contemporary archaeology, the aims and approaches of archaeological scientists and archaeological theorists are often at odds. I suggest that this position is problematic, both intellectually and methodologically, as both groups are fundamentally engaged in the same task: an understanding of past societies through the medium of material culture. This paper offers a review of the intellectual positions of both groups, with a brief discussion of the history of archaeological theory and an appraisal of its current trajectory. I will discuss how and why contemporary theoretical perspectives have fundamentally diverged from the perspectives of archaeological scientists and how the recent theoretical emphasis upon materiality offers a rapprochement between theoreticians and archaeological scientists.

Prehistoric copper production and technological reproduction in the Khao Wong Prachan Valley of Central Thailand

“…To the trained practitioner they are an abundant source of information on past metallurgical practice and socioeconomic activity, and should thus receive an anthropologically-enlightened treatment as artefacts, as outlined in Chapter 2 (e.g. Jones 2004, Miller 2007, Taylor 2008). The fi rst task of archaeometallurgical macroanalysis is to determine whether the artefacts found actually relate to metal production or were one of the many materials that can be mistaken as such: rocks, ceramic wasters, vitrifi ed earth etc 1 .…”

Wands in the hand! Or Potter’s powers

“…However, this process is not without problems. he greatest diiculty that has been detected in the course of these years is the dialogue between the archaeological scientist, on one hand, and the archaeological historian or anthropologist, on the other (Jones, 2004). However, this is, in my opinion, a question of perspective rather than a real problem, which is expressed by resorting to the old duality of materiality versus meaning, object versus subject.…”

The Role of Stone in Island Societies in Neolithic Atlantic Europe: Creating Places and Cultural Landscapes

“…As Knappett (2012) remarks, there is a tension between emphasis on the physical aspect of materiality and emphasis on its social aspect, as illustrated in the debate sparked by Ingold's (2007) puzzlement that the discussion of materiality and material culture frequently seemed to have little to say about materials. On the other hand, Jones (2004Jones ( , 2012 suggests that materiality provides an approach that actually links materials science and material culture studies: understanding the physical properties of materials and things facilitates an understanding of their social and cultural construction.…”