field better known as archaeometry. The term archaeometry, unfortunately, carries many negative connotations. Most archaeologists consider ar chaeometry to be a field populated by physical scientists who are more concerned with the adaptation of scientific methods to the analysis of ar chaeological materials than with the actual use of analytical instrumentation for the development, clarification, and refinement of archaeological theo ries. This may have been true 10 years ago, but the field has changed con siderably since then. It is now archaeologists who are predominately using scientific instru mentation for the examination of artifacts. These individuals chafe at the labeling of their work as archaeometry, believing that these techniques are not adjuncts to the field but additional core methodologies for the analysis of archaeological sites. Many archaeologists are currently attempting to de velop new terms for archaeometry to emphasis the link between their work and archaeology. Archaeological science is the most recent term advanced. This term is unsuitable, however, because archaeology itself is a science (i.e., the development and refinement of theories by the systematic use of analytical techniques). Thus, the term archaeological science does not dis tinguish the use of standard archaeological techniques from scientific in strumentation for the analysis of artifacts to help elucidate the archaeological record. If anything, the use of this term only seems to irritate more archaeologists. As opposed to arguing semantics, it would probably be more beneficial for archaeologists to devote their energies to proving that archaeometry is such an integral part of archaeology that the distinc tion, and the term itself, is meaningless.