LAUSR

The field of archaeological science has grown to encompass a wide range of analytical techniques over the past 20 years. The application of methods initially developed and grounded in physics, chemistry, biology, and geology have been brought together to fill in the parts of the human story missing from the traditional archaeological record and added nuance to our understanding of the lived experience of people in the past. Michael Tite was the first person to hold a chair in archaeological science in the United Kingdom, a role to which he was appointed at Oxford University in 1989. Writing in 1991, he did not consider archaeological science as a discipline all on its own but rather a meeting ground for collaboration; he emphasized the importance of integration of theory and method in both traditional archaeology and various contributing sciences (1). Throughout the 1990s, but particularly the early 2000s, the number of publications in the area of archaeological science skyrocketed (2). Institutional support increased in the United Kingdom but lagged in North America, as did training for graduate students and innovations in archaeological science techniques (3). This trend has largely continued. By 2015, David Killick wrote of the “awkward adolescence” of archaeological science, citing a rapid pace of growth but noting challenges in funding, quality control, and access (4). Most recently, Kate Britton and Michael Richards commented on the acceptance of archaeological science in mainstream archaeology but cautioned that practitioners need to understand the theory behind the techniques they use to ensure proper application, as well as integrate methodology and complex archaeological research questions (5). In this special feature of PNAS, we recognize several key landmarks in the growth of archaeological science as it continues to move forward as a discipline. We review several developments in the areas of radiometric dating, stable isotope and elemental analysis, and proteomics. We offer insight into the future applications of these methods as analytical techniques continue to be refined and improved. But we agree with our colleagues that multiple challenges remain to be addressed. In order to fully support the scientific community going forward, data management—and particularly data-sharing standards, quality assurance, and reproducibility—are essential. Beyond a matter of protocol, there is an ethical responsibility that data produced from destructive sampling of irreplaceable, archaeological material are disseminated in an accessible format. Ethics of sampling and stakeholder involvement are also essential, and not supplemental, to the continuing growth of this field. The development of anthropology and archaeology throughout the 19th and 20th centuries took place in a colonialist context, through the lens of Western scientific perspectives (e.g., refs. 6 and 7). Although broader archaeological practice has more recently engaged with decolonization and antiracist efforts, challenges remain (8–12). Likewise, colonialism and global economics have recently been shown to produce biases in the study of deep-time biodiversity; paleontology has favored rich countries over poor ones, and continued to practice “parachute science,” sampling poorer countries without including or publishing with local collaborators (13). Archaeological science must be wary of falling into the same patterns of exploitation, especially as the kinds of increasingly sophisticated analytical techniques highlighted in this volume require substantial economic investment, decreasing the likelihood that much of this infrastructure will be broadly available outside of the wealthiest nations and institutions.