PROVENANCE STUDIES IN ARCHAEOLOGY - MORE REFLECTIVE OF 'QUALITY CONTROL' WITHIN A RESOURCESCAPE THAN GEOCHEMISTRY?

Despite the obvious methodological similarities between archaeology and geology, we argue here that the fundamental assumption in scientific provenance studies of inorganic artefacts provides an insufficient basis for the methodology. That assumption is that there is a geochemical link between the source of the raw material and the finished object. Although this is undoubtedly necessary, it is not sufficient. We argue that, particularly for highly processed materials such as metal, glass, or ceramics, an equally (if not more) important factor is the sequence of human activities which are applied to the raw material during processing to become an object. In fact, we suggest that the main requirement for successful provenance work is the existence of sustained and repeatable quality assurance processes during production, carried out within a defined resourcescape. Ironically, this makes provenance studies more relevant to archaeology than does the simple search for sources.

Automated summary

This article argues that the fundamental assumption in scientific provenance studies of inorganic artefacts is insufficient in providing a methodological basis. The assumption, which emphasizes a geochemical link between raw material and finished object, is necessary but not enough. The article suggests that for highly processed materials like metal, glass, or ceramics, the sequence of human activities during processing is equally important. It also states that successful provenance work requires the existence of sustained and repeatable quality assurance processes during production within a defined resourcescape, making it more relevant to archaeology than the simple search for sources.