Archaeology uses knowledge and techniques from many different academic disciplines, but one approach that has been particularly successful from the onset of archaeological science as a discipline is the assimilation and further development of isotopic analysis. Questions about diet and subsistence, migration, the natural environment, and the use, transport and exchange of raw materials and finished goods have all been investigated using mass spectrometry. Isotope ratio measurements in archaeology began with the investigation of inorganic materials, particularly metals and vitreous materials, but more recently archaeological chemistry has seen mostly biogeochemical tools applied to human and other organic remains.

In inorganic materials analysis, just about every element of the periodic table has been used at some time to compare the typical composition of resource materials with that of archaeological artefacts. Depending on the nature of the materials analysed, multi‐method provenance studies will often combine, for example, petrography and mineralogy with chemical techniques such as element and isotope ratio analysis. Elements and isotopic systems are chosen for their occurrence as major or trace element in the material under study, and the nature of the geological–mineralogical information they provide. Where the first applications of isotope ratio measurements were focused on lead, oxygen and then strontium, the last decade or so has seen the adaptation of new systems for archaeological research that use (but which are not exclusive to) neodymium, copper, tin, antimony and boron.

In the analysis of organic materials, mostly human, animal and plant remains, and biomolecular components of residues in and on archaeological materials are examined. Best known are carbon and nitrogen isotopic analysis of bulk collagen in bone to estimate dietary patterns, to indicate the trophic level or to identify species. More recently, compound‐specific isotopic compositions of a range of biochemical components, such as amino acids, are being looked at. Other applications include oxygen isotope ratios to indicate (bio‐averaged) water intake, also acting as a proxy for temperature/precipitation and thus the climate of a region; and strontium isotopes, which are almost routinely used to track mobility of people and animals.

Techniques are adapted quickly from the bio‐ and geosciences. New instrumentation continually makes new approaches possible, first for specialists and subsequently for archaeologists more widely. In this way, previously difficult‐to‐measure isotopic variations can be investigated, and eventually applied to archaeological research. The evolution from bulk analysis to high‐resolution phase separation at very low detection limits has likewise allowed compound‐specific analysis, while developments in (semi‐)non‐destructive sampling have made the investigation of rare and precious objects possible. Micro‐sampling has also improved the spatial and thus (often) temporal resolution of the analysis of materials, making short‐term studies possible within one individual or sample. This can then be balanced with longue durée studies, selecting different archaeological individuals, materials or contexts.

Next to improving hardware, approaches to the nature of the data obtained and the treatment of (large) data sets have also experienced a paradigm shift. As boundaries are pushed for which part of the periodic table is used at which detection limit, it is being reassessed what old protocols and databases really can show. Many data sets could do with a thorough reinterpretation in terms of wider archaeological questions, for example, discussions about lead isotopes and their use in the reconstruction of pyrotechnology being a prime example. Unconventional data‐processing and data‐mining, and advanced statistical methods are often suggested for this purpose. However, the very nature of the material looked at is also sometimes put into question, as there may be doubt about whether the sample analysed can really answer the question asked. Both an optimistic view on what isotope ratio measurements can contribute to archaeology as well as some pessimism towards their practical and theoretical limitations can be observed in the papers presented in this special issue. What is certain is that isotopic analysis in archaeology can remain a key tool and an area of study for decades to come.

考古学使用来自许多不同学科的知识和技术，但是从考古学作为一门学科开始就特别成功的一种方法是对同位素分析的吸收和进一步发展。有关饮食和生计，迁移，自然环境以及原材料和制成品的使用，运输和交换的问题均已通过质谱法进行了调查。考古学中同位素比的测量始于对无机材料，特别是金属和玻璃质材料的研究，但近来考古化学发现，大多数生物地球化学工具已应用于人类和其他有机遗骸。

在无机材料分析中，元素周期表中的几乎每个元素都在一段时间内用于比较资源材料的典型组成和考古文物。根据所分析材料的性质，多方法物源研究通常会将岩相学和矿物学与化学技术（例如元素和同位素比分析）相结合。选择元素和同位素系统是因为它们作为被研究材料中的主要元素或微量元素而发生，以及它们提供的地质-矿物学信息的性质。在同位素比率测量的最初应用集中于铅，氧气然后是锶的情况下，过去十年左右的时间里，使用（但不限于）钕的考古学新系统得到了改编，

在分析有机材料时，主要是人类，动物和植物的遗骸，并检查了考古材料中及其上的残留物的生物分子成分。最著名的是对骨骼中胶原蛋白的碳和氮同位素分析，以估计饮食模式，指示营养水平或鉴定物种。最近，人们正在研究多种生化成分（例如氨基酸）的化合物特异性同位素组成。其他应用包括氧同位素比，以指示（生物平均）水的摄入量，还可以代替温度/降水，从而代替该地区的气候；和锶同位素，它们几乎通常用于跟踪人和动物的活动。

技术可以根据生物和地球科学快速调整。新仪器不断使新方法成为可能，首先是对专家而言，然后是更广泛的考古学家。这样，可以研究以前难以测量的同位素变化，并将其最终应用于考古研究。从大量分析到极低检出限的高分辨率相分离的发展，同样允许进行化合物特异性分析，而（半）无损采样的发展使稀有和珍贵物体的研究成为可能。微量采样还提高了材料分析的空间分辨率，从而（通常）改善了时间分辨率，从而使在一个人或一个样品中进行短期研究成为可能。这样就可以与durée贵族平衡研究，选择不同的考古个体，材料或背景。

除了改进硬件之外，获取数据的性质和处理（大）数据集的方法也经历了范式转变。随着对元素周期表的哪个部分在哪个检测极限上使用的限制不断提高，正在重新评估旧协议和数据库真正可以显示什么。许多数据集可以对更广泛的考古问题进行彻底的重新解释，例如，有关铅同位素及其在热解技术改造中的使用的讨论就是一个很好的例子。为此，通常建议使用非常规的数据处理和数据挖掘以及先进的统计方法。但是，有时也会质疑所查看材料的本质，因为可能怀疑所分析的样本是否能够真正回答所提出的问题。在本期特刊中所发表的论文中，无论是对什么同位素比率测量值都可以对考古学有所帮助的乐观观点，以及对它们的实践和理论局限性都抱有悲观态度。可以肯定的是，考古学中的同位素分析仍将是未来几十年的关键工具和研究领域。