*1.1. Cooperation between Scientific and Humanities Disciplines*

The relationship that links the interdisciplinary field of archaeometry with the concept of sustainability, as well as the way these two fields cooperate, alerted authorities and institutions of the public and private sector.

Archaeometry, or archaeological sciences, is the application of natural sciences to solving archaeological or cultural heritage problems. This interdisciplinary subject combines many disciplines such as physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, mathematics, geophysics, geology, biology, informatics, etc. The main objective of the archaeological sciences is the comprehension of past societies through the study of natural sciences and new technologies of material culture [1,2]. By using the latest

technological achievements in a combined and flexible manner, archaeometry is capable of detecting and extracting hidden information from heritage objects, which may comprise evidence that can determine the object's origin, construction period or technique, etc. The strategy consists of the use of technological achievements through areas of science, and the creation of innovative models, protocols, and web platforms, as well as, given direct or indirect options to legacy, the enhancement of cultural values and the creation of ecosystems and cultural heritage services. Hence, the cooperation between scientific and historic disciplines is now prevalent, only beginning in the 1960s, due to what seemed to be a lack of mutual understanding. This allowed bridging the gap between the fields of physics and chemistry on the one side and the needs and problems of archaeologists or historians on the other.

Archaeology today is an extremely diverse discipline, encompassing interest groups, which focus on distinct periods, regions, theoretical perspectives, and methodological techniques. Although this diversity is a positive development, bringing to light problematic issues due to miscommunication from different components of the discipline [3,4], or the development of epistemological arguments to coin progress perplex the archaeological–archaeometrical connection, and each new term is triggered by archaeological theorists and archaeological scientists [5,6].

At any rate, archaeometry applies a wide range of scientific techniques for the study of both heritage objects and historic/prehistoric events. Such techniques are based on basic principles and phenomena of physics (e.g., radioactivity, electricity and magnetism, atomic theory, electromagnetic radiation), chemistry (e.g., diffusion, reactions, melting, affinities), geology (e.g., geomorphology, sedimentology, petrology), geophysics (e.g., paleoclimate, geomagnetic field, atmosphere), astronomy (e.g., solar system, celestial mechanics), and mathematics (e.g., algorithms, statistics). The important contribution of archaeometry to cultural heritage and archaeology for most of the years of recent developments remained known either to a few open-minded archaeologists or to a narrow group of academia.

Eventually, understanding of the usefulness of cultural tourism and the valorization of cultural heritage assets, supported by United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and European Union (EU) projects placed archaeometry as one of the top priorities for sustainability on national and regional levels [7–9]. However, when overcoming the past theoretical approaches using archaeological dialogues, one should consider the perpetually accredited scientifically holistic approach involving theory and practice, covering processual and post-processual approaches for the ever-developing archaeology (PASHA). This approach was designed to account for new diversity and virtual reconstruction in the field, integrating micro and macro perspectives from human life stories (bio-archaeology, ancient a-DNA, and isotopes) to their larger social, cultural, and environmental framework (travels, interaction, networks, major genetic shifts, paleoclimates, and paleoenvironments). This, in turn, led to the introduction of new scientific branches emerging from science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), as well as the addition of arts (STEAM) [10,11] and, more recently, the addition of culture (STEMAC) [12]. The evolution of scientific techniques opens new doors for cultural and archaeological evolution [13–15], the details of which are outlined here in Sections 2 and 3.

Today, humanities and archaeology, in particular, need to engage in discussing the implications of the expanding frontier of knowledge, ranging from archaeo-genetics to the diet and mobility of individuals, incorporating demography and sustainability in the long-term. We can now revisit museums and archaeological sites and select materials in order to reconstruct the whole life stories of individuals, in addition to their diet, mobility, and close family stories, as well as their larger genetic family stories from prehistory until the present. Sedimentological and geoarchaeological data can be used to reconstruct the ancient environment. Thus, a new door is now open to previously hidden knowledge, which will once again reduce the amount of qualified guessing, thereby refining and redefining theory and interpretation. Moreover, these new techniques bring archaeology much closer to public awareness.

All these new methodologies allow the development of a new strategy for connecting our more complete knowledge to a sustainable level for present society, with economic, political, and social implications. The present paper focuses on archaeometry's role in cultural heritage sustainability and development. Hence, the triptych of archaeometry, added value, and sustainability is approached for the first time. At this point in time, one can take note of Oscar Wilde verse of the 19th century, "nowadays, people know the price of everything and the value of nothing" (from *The Portrait of Dorian Gray*).

Sustainable development is a balance between society, the environment, and the economy, which, in turn, interact and/or grow with specific groups of people, companies, and stakeholders, for whom archaeometry can play a significant yet neglected role (Figure 1). Thus, the objectives and working policy of the present paper address sustainable development through the lens of archaeometry.

**Figure 1.** The holistic approach of sustainable development to the environment, the economy, and society, where archaeometry is encompassed and potentially may emerge from within the proper handling of each named agent.

The novel development of cultural tourism due to archaeometric contribution implies by-product growth in the field of cultural heritage such as public names, bilingualism, protection and care of local culture and traditions [15]. The realization of current methods presumes disseminating archaeometric knowledge by:


Therefore, heritage sites, especially when properly documented with scientific methods, are important cultural attractions in the World, with adults visiting a site, participation of children due to family and school visits, inbound tourism, and especially international tourists, thus extending economic benefit beyond the discovered archaeological sites and cultural heritage monuments [16,17]. Having said that above, the present article is a first-time written concept, fully documented, and detailed in cases, to cover this wide interdisciplinary field. As such, and, due to the diversified nature of the journal, the reader (s), owe to be fully aware and the text must be digestive, to serve its purpose.

#### *1.2. Sustainability of Cultural Heritage through New Technologies: A Critical Evaluation*

Under the trend of technological progress, the methods used for interpretation, documentation and promotion of cultural heritage have evolved significantly over the last decades [18]. Modern technology and the digital revolution have fundamentally altered the way in which cultural images and applications are produced, distributed and accessed. The evolving field of using information and communication technology (ICT) for the benefit of cultural heritage has produced in a short period of time a wide range of applications for scholarly research, public information and marketing as well as management of cultural sites. It has also provided new tools for cultural heritage preservation, as well as access, interaction, and knowledge-sharing. In terms of documentation and interpretation, in particular, the contribution of sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, earth sciences, mathematics, statistics, and computing are regularly used to enlighten specific questions in regard to the archaeological data. This multidisciplinary field engulfs the discipline of Archaeometry, which is a combination of archaeology by ultimate aim (*αρχαoν*) and natural science by approach (*μετρ* ´ *oν*), thus introducing a new scope to the solution of questions [19]. Archaeometry techniques can document and communicate ancient artifacts, places and practices faster, in greater detail and with better perception amongst a broader public than ever before.

The archaeological work, which is by nature costly in time and money, is assisted by efficient methods which, in most cases, require a small amount of equipment and less labor expenses (For more information about non-intrusive archaeological survey techniques see Imogen Burrelli "What are non-intrusive archaeological survey techniques, and how they are used to archaeological advantages during excavations" in The Post Hole, Issue 36, March/April 2014, p. 8–13.). This is in accordance with the provisions of the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Valletta-Convention, Article 3), which states that non-destructive investigation methods should be applied wherever possible (the European Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised) replaced and updated the original London Convention of 1969. It reflected the change in the nature of threats to the various types of archaeological heritage It established a pool of new basic legal standards for Europe, to be met by national policies for the protection of archaeological assets as sources of scientific and documentary evidence, in line with the principles of integrated conservation.).

Within UNESCO (The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) whose main objective is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through educational, scientific, and cultural reforms in order to increase universal respect for law and human rights along with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the United Nations Charter http://www.unesco.org.) the specialized cultural agency of the United Nations, systematic efforts are made to ensure that all countries benefit from scientific and technological progress and innovation. This approach is in consistence with the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Within this framework the Organization promotes ICT that address specific challenges for the preservation of cultural properties, such as the impact of climate change and natural hazards. The 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions recognizes that the protection, promotion and maintenance of cultural diversity are an essential requirement for sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations and therefore promotes the use of new technologies and encourages partnerships to enhance information sharing and cultural understanding. In addition to the various investigations that have been carried out to date, the Parties to the 2005 Convention are gradually including digital applications in their quadrennial periodic reports, as they move forward in drafting operational guidelines exclusively focused on this topic.

The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) [20] on the other hand, which is the competent professional network that works for the conservation and protection of cultural heritage sites around the world, as well as the official technical consultant to UNESCO, is also promoting the use of modern technologies such as digital image processing, digital orthophoto production, terrestrial laser scanning, and 3D model processing in order to fully document the existing architectural heritage. Therefore, in case a monument is destroyed or damaged, and in order for the cultural managers to reconstruct, at least digitally, it is necessary for a full scanning project to have taken place beforehand. Although the subject of an actual reconstruction is still debatable among scholars the perspective of being able to retrieve, with the use of modern technology, data concerning a ruined or extant monument with the use of modern technology is undoubtedly worthwhile. The introduction of digital technology in the field of preservation and documentation of monuments has engaged extensive conversation on principles of reconstruction of cultural heritage and has contributed in somewhat shifting the overall negative position towards it. According to the Burra Charter (Australia), reconstruction can only be accomplished when a site is incomplete through damage or alteration, and enough evidence exists to reproduce the earlier state of the fabric of the monument. Here is where ICT come into the picture. The information system generated by digital photogrammetry and geographical information systems (GIS) leads to the efficient use of data, in a cost-efficient way, which is very valuable for saving cultural properties. The loss of many monuments due to armed conflicts raging across Syria, Iraq, and other countries in the Middle East has spurred the international scientific community and many cultural organizations to apply all available technologies, such as 3D scans, drones, lid methodology, and satellites. Even individuals were encouraged to post photographs of monuments and sites before destruction, thus providing valuable tools to prevent the possible permanent loss of data for cultural heritage.

The application of ICT definitely has an impact on several aspects of heritage preservation and enhancement management policies. In earlier years, both UNESCO and ICOMOS were generally opposed to reconstructions, following the provisions of the Venice Charter, with very few exceptions (for example the reconstruction of the historic center of Warsaw in 1980s and the Mostar Bridge). The theoretical framework for adopting new technologies and archaeometry in the field of culture protection and preservation has been formally introduced within ICOMOS with the approval of the Interpretation and Presentation of the Cultural Heritage Sites Charter, also known as Ename, which was the first international text ratified by ICOMOS to recognize the importance of using virtual reconstructions in the field of archaeological heritage. Among others, in Article 4.2 it recommends that *"Visual reconstructions, whether by artists, architects, or computer modelers, should be based upon detailed and systematic analysis of environmental, archaeological, architectural, and historical data, including analysis of written, oral and iconographic sources, and photography. The information sources on which such visual renderings are based should be clearly documented and alternative reconstructions based on the same evidence, when available, should be provided for comparison"*. Through this text archaeometry became officially the prime collaborator of cultural sciences.

Furthermore, a special Committee has been established, within ICOMOS, the International Scientific Committee on Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Sites, with the task to study the evolving technologies and techniques of data interpretation and presentation, to evaluate their potential to enrich contemporary scientific discourse and to focus on the experiential dimension of visits to cultural heritage sites, particularly by means of various media and methods of public communication.

In 2009, the London Charter on the Computer-based Visualization of Cultural Heritage was signed and approved and until today it constitutes the most important document of the international community in the field of cultural heritage and new technologies.

The Charter of Krakow (2000, Article 5) on the Principles for the Conservation and Restoration of Built Heritage, included for the first time, as Article 5, a specific recommendation for the use of new technologies in the field of archaeological heritage: "*In the protection and public presentation of archaeological sites, the use of modern technologies, databanks, information systems and virtual presentation techniques should be promoted*". This addition, unprecedented in other previous charters, marks an important turning point in the use of information technology as a tool in the regular work of conservation and presentation of archaeological heritage. Consequently, it should be considered as an important milestone in the history of virtual archaeology, leading through these new tools to the sustainability of cultural resources.

Several issues regarding the implementation of modern technologies to assist archaeological research have been thoroughly examined and evaluated by experts and cultural organizations, in an effort, to draw an effective framework with respect to the cultural heritage ethics. Under this perspective, for example, the European Archaeological Council (EAC), realizing the new possibilities that digital technologies are opening up for the promotion and presentation of archaeological research and investigation, EAC has organized in 2016, on the occasion of its annual meeting, a conference titled "Digital Futures: Archaeology in Europe" with the scope to explore developments in digital technologies and to consider how they may become embedded in general archaeological policy and practice over the next few years. The economic growth from new technologies implemented via the archaeometry applications in cultural heritage is at high stake if properly managed and becomes a new way to sustainable Development. Additionally, culture is *"a drive and a catalyst of sustainable development" (UNESCO).*
