Archaeological record

Last updated

The archaeological record is the body of physical (not written) evidence about the past. It is one of the core concepts in archaeology, [1] the academic discipline concerned with documenting and interpreting the archaeological record. [2] Archaeological theory is used to interpret the archaeological record for a better understanding of human cultures. The archaeological record can consist of the earliest ancient findings as well as contemporary artifacts. Human activity has had a large impact on the archaeological record. Destructive human processes, such as agriculture and land development, may damage or destroy potential archaeological sites. [3] Other threats to the archaeological record include natural phenomena and scavenging. Archaeology can be a destructive science for the finite resources of the archaeological record are lost to excavation. Therefore, archaeologists limit the amount of excavation that they do at each site and keep meticulous records of what is found. The archaeological record is the physical record of human prehistory and history, of why ancient civilizations prospered or failed and why those cultures changed and grew. It is the story of the human world. [4]

Contents

Definitions

Scholars have frequently used in textual analogies such as 'record', 'source' and 'archive' to refer to material evidence of the past since at least the 19th century. The term 'archaeological record' probably originated this way, possibly via parallel concepts in geology (geologic record) or palaeontology (fossil record). [5] The term was used regularly by V. Gordon Childe in the 1950s, [6] and seems to have entered common parlance thereafter. [5]

In the first critical review of the concept, philosopher Linda Patrik found that by the 1980s archaeologists conceptualised the term in at least five different ways: [1]

  1. As a "receptacle" for material deposits [7]
  2. As material deposits [8]
  3. As artefacts and objects [9] [10]
  4. As a collection of samples [11] [12]
  5. As reports written by archaeologists [13]

Patrik argued that the first three definitions reflected a "physical model" of archaeological evidence, where it is seen as the direct result of physical processes that operated in the past (like the fossil record); in contrast, definitions four and five follow a "textual model", where the archaeological record is seen as encoding cultural information about the past (like historical texts). She highlighted the extent to which archaeologists' understanding of what constituted 'the archaeological record' was dependent on broader currents in archaeological theory, namely, that processual archaeologists were likely to subscribe to a physical model and postprocessual archaeologists a textual model. [1]

Lucas condenses Patrik's list into three distinct definitions of the archaeological record: [5]

  1. The archaeological record is material culture
  2. The archaeological record is the material remains of the past
  3. The archaeological record is the sources used by archaeologists

As material culture

In its broadest sense, the archaeological record can be conceived as the total body of objects made by, used by, or associated with, humanity. This definition encompasses both artefacts (objects made or modified by humans) and 'ecofacts' (natural objects associated with human activity). In this sense, it is equivalent to material culture, and includes not just 'ancient' remains but the physical things associated with contemporary societies. [5]

This definition, which emphasizes the materiality of the archaeological record and aligns archaeology with material culture studies and the 'material turn' in cultural anthropology, has become increasingly common with the rise of post-processual archaeology. [14]

As material remains

More conservative definitions specify that the archaeological record consists of the "remains", "traces" or "residues" of past human activity, although the dividing line between 'the past' and 'the present' may not be well-defined. This view is particularly associated with processual archaeology, which saw the archaeological record as the "fossilised" product of physical, cultural and taphonomic processes that happened in the past, and focused on understanding those processes. [5] [15]

As sources

The archaeological record can also consist of the written documentation that is presented in scientific journals. It is what archaeologists have learned from the artifacts they have documented. This spans the entire world; archaeology is the human story that belongs to everyone's past and represents everyone's heritage. [4] This data can be archived and retrieved by archaeologists for research. [16] The mission of an archaeologist is often preservation of the archaeological record. [4] There are different databases which are used to archive and preserve the documentation in addition to the artifacts which serve as archaeological records. One of these databases is The Digital Archaeological Record. The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR) is an international digital repository for the digital records of archaeological investigations. tDAR's use, development, and maintenance are governed by Digital Antiquity, an organization dedicated to ensuring the long-term preservation of irreplaceable archaeological data and to broadening the access to these data. [17] The archaeological record serves as a database for everything archaeology stands for and has become. The material culture associated with archaeological excavations and the scholarly records in academic journals are the physical embodiment of the archaeological record. The ambiguity that is associated with the archaeological record is often due to the lack of examples, but the archaeological record is everything the science of archaeology has found and created.

Components

Components of the archaeological record include: artifacts, built structures, human impact on the environment, garbage, stratigraphy, mortuary practices, plant remains, or animal remains. Artifacts from the archaeological record are usually found in the ground, and once dug up, archaeologists put data such as photographs and exact location of the artifact into the archaeological record. Bones are sometimes found and included in the archaeological record. Bones can be from both animals and humans that have died and been preserved. Bone fragments and whole bones can be a part of the archaeological record. Plant and organic material found can also become a part of the archaeological record. Seeds are a common plant material that are found and included in the archaeological record. The seeds that archaeologists find are usually those that were burned during cooking, which helps to preserve them. [18] Features are also part of the archaeological record, and are material culture that usually archaeologists are unable to take and study inside a lab. Features can include burn marks in the ground from fire pits or mounds and other structures constructed long ago. Features can also include mounds or other monuments that have been constructed by other civilizations.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archaeological excavation</span> Exposure, processing and recording of archaeological remains

In archaeology, excavation is the exposure, processing and recording of archaeological remains. An excavation site or "dig" is the area being studied. These locations range from one to several areas at a time during a project and can be conducted over a few weeks to several years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archaeological site</span> Place in which evidence of past activity is preserved

An archaeological site is a place in which evidence of past activity is preserved, and which has been, or may be, investigated using the discipline of archaeology and represents a part of the archaeological record. Sites may range from those with few or no remains visible above ground, to buildings and other structures still in use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Processual archaeology</span> Theoretical paradigm in archaeology

Processual archaeology is a form of archaeological theory that had its beginnings in 1958 with the work of Gordon Willey and Philip Phillips, Method and Theory in American Archaeology, in which the pair stated that "American archaeology is anthropology, or it is nothing", a rephrasing of Frederic William Maitland's comment: "My own belief is that by and by, anthropology will have the choice between being history, and being nothing." The idea implied that the goals of archaeology were, in fact, the goals of anthropology, which were to answer questions about humans and human culture. That was a critique of the former period in archaeology, the cultural-history phase in which archaeologists thought that any information that artifacts contained about past people and past ways of life would be lost once the items became included in the archaeological record. All they felt could be done was to catalogue, describe, and create timelines based on the artifacts.

Post-processual archaeology, which is sometimes alternately referred to as the interpretative archaeologies by its adherents, is a movement in archaeological theory that emphasizes the subjectivity of archaeological interpretations. Despite having a vague series of similarities, post-processualism consists of "very diverse strands of thought coalesced into a loose cluster of traditions". Within the post-processualist movement, a wide variety of theoretical viewpoints have been embraced, including structuralism and Neo-Marxism, as have a variety of different archaeological techniques, such as phenomenology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Artifact (archaeology)</span> Something made by humans and of archaeological interest

An artifact or artefact is a general term for an item made or given shape by humans, such as a tool or a work of art, especially an object of archaeological interest. In archaeology, the word has become a term of particular nuance and is defined as an object recovered by archaeological endeavor, which may be a cultural artifact having cultural interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prehistoric archaeology</span> Archaeological discipline

Prehistoric archaeology is a subfield of archaeology, which deals specifically with artefacts, civilisations and other materials from societies that existed before any form of writing system or historical record. Often the field focuses on ages such as the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age, although it also encompasses periods such as the Neolithic. The study of prehistoric archaeology reflects the cultural concerns of modern society by showing interpretations of time between economic growth and political stability. It is related to other disciplines such as geology, biology, anthropology, historiography and palaeontology, although there are noticeable differences between the subjects they all broadly study to understand; the past, either organic or inorganic or the lives of humans. Prehistoric archaeology is also sometimes termed as anthropological archaeology because of its indirect traces with complex patterns.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Culture-historical archaeology</span> Theoretical paradigm in archaeology

Culture-historical archaeology is an archaeological theory that emphasises defining historical societies into distinct ethnic and cultural groupings according to their material culture.

An archaeological culture is a recurring assemblage of types of artifacts, buildings and monuments from a specific period and region that may constitute the material culture remains of a particular past human society. The connection between these types is an empirical observation, but their interpretation in terms of ethnic or political groups is based on archaeologists' understanding and interpretation and is in many cases subject to long-unresolved debates. The concept of the archaeological culture is fundamental to culture-historical archaeology.

Environmental archaeology is a sub-field of archaeology which emerged in 1970s and is the science of reconstructing the relationships between past societies and the environments they lived in. The field represents an archaeological-palaeoecological approach to studying the palaeoenvironment through the methods of human palaeoecology. Reconstructing past environments and past peoples' relationships and interactions with the landscapes they inhabited provides archaeologists with insights into the origin and evolution of anthropogenic environments, and prehistoric adaptations and economic practices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Material culture</span> Physical aspect of culture in the objects and architecture that surround people

Material culture is the aspect of culture grounded in the physical objects and architecture that surround people. It includes the usage, consumption, creation, and trade of objects as well as the behaviors, norms, and rituals that the objects create or take part in. Some scholars also include other intangible phenomena that include sound, smell and events, while some even consider language and media as part of it. The term is most commonly used in archaeological and anthropological studies, to define material or artifacts as they are understood in relation to specific cultural and historic contexts, communities, and belief systems. Material culture can be described as any object that humans use to survive, define social relationships, represent facets of identity, or benefit peoples' state of mind, social, or economic standing. Material culture is contrasting to symbolic culture, which includes nonmaterial symbols, beliefs, and social constructs.

Cognitive archaeology is a theoretical perspective in archaeology that focuses on the ancient mind. It is divided into two main groups: evolutionary cognitive archaeology (ECA), which seeks to understand human cognitive evolution from the material record, and ideational cognitive archaeology (ICA), which focuses on the symbolic structures discernable in or inferable from past material culture.

Archaeological theory refers to the various intellectual frameworks through which archaeologists interpret archaeological data. Archaeological theory functions as the application of philosophy of science to archaeology, and is occasionally referred to as philosophy of archaeology. There is no one singular theory of archaeology, but many, with different archaeologists believing that information should be interpreted in different ways. Throughout the history of the discipline, various trends of support for certain archaeological theories have emerged, peaked, and in some cases died out. Different archaeological theories differ on what the goals of the discipline are and how they can be achieved.

Archaeological ethics refers to the moral issues raised through the study of the material past. It is a branch of the philosophy of archaeology. This article will touch on human remains, the preservation and laws protecting remains and cultural items, issues around the globe, as well as preservation and ethnoarchaeology.

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to archaeology:

Timothy R. Pauketat is an American archaeologist, director of the Illinois State Archaeological Survey, the Illinois State Archaeologist, and professor of anthropology and medieval studies at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. He is known for his historical theories and his investigations at Cahokia, the major center of precolonial Mississippian culture in the American Bottom region of Illinois near St. Louis, Missouri.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archaeology</span> Study of human activity via material culture

Archaeology or archeology is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. The archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts, sites, and cultural landscapes. Archaeology can be considered both a social science and a branch of the humanities. It is usually considered an independent academic discipline, but may also be classified as part of anthropology, history or geography.

Marxist archaeology is an archaeological theory that interprets archaeological information within the framework of Marxism. Although neither Karl Marx nor Friedrich Engels described how archaeology could be understood in a Marxist conception of history, the archaeological theory was developed by Soviet archaeologists in the Soviet Union during the early twentieth century. Marxist archaeology quickly became the dominant archaeological theory within the Soviet Union, and subsequently spread and was adopted by archaeologists in other countries. In particular, in the United Kingdom, where the theory was propagated by an influential archaeologist V. Gordon Childe. With the rise of post-processual archaeology in the 1980s and 1990s, forms of Marxist archaeology were once more popularised amongst the archaeological community.

There are two main approaches currently used to analyze archaeological remains from an evolutionary perspective: evolutionary archaeology and behavioral ecology. The former assumes that cultural change observed in the archaeological record can be best explained by the direct action of natural selection and other Darwinian processes on heritable variation in artifacts and behavior. The latter assumes that cultural and behavioral change results from phenotypic adaptations to varying social and ecological environments. 

This page is a glossary of archaeology, the study of the human past from material remains.

Behavioural archaeology is an archaeological theory that expands upon the nature and aims of archaeology in regards to human behaviour and material culture. The theory was first published in 1975 by American archaeologist Michael B. Schiffer and his colleagues J. Jefferson Reid, and William L. Rathje. The theory proposes four strategies that answer questions about past, and present cultural behaviour. It is also a means for archaeologists to observe human behaviour and the archaeological consequences that follow.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Patrik, Linda E. (1985). "Is There an Archaeological Record?". Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. 8: 27–62. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-003108-5.50007-5. ISBN   9780120031085. JSTOR   20170186.
  2. Hardesty, Donald L. (2008). "Goals of Archaeology, Overview". In Deborah M. Pearsall (ed.). Encyclopedia of Archaeology. pp. 1414–1416. doi:10.1016/B978-012373962-9.00121-7. ISBN   978-0-12-373962-9.
  3. Lipe, William D. "Conserving the In Situ Archaeological Record" . Retrieved April 13, 2012.
  4. 1 2 3 McChesney, Melisa (23 July 2012). "What is the archaeological record and why does it matter?". The Archaeology Channel Blog. Archived from the original on 22 February 2015.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Lucas, Gavin (2012). "The Trouble with Theory". Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN   978-1-107-01026-0.
  6. Childe, V. Gordon (1956). Piecing Together the Past: The Interpretation of Archaeological Data. London: Routledge. ISBN   9781138812789.
  7. Clarke, David (1973). "Archaeology: the loss of innocence". Antiquity. 47 (185): 16. doi:10.1017/S0003598X0003461X. ISSN   1745-1744. S2CID   34438511. [...] hominid activities, social patterns, and environmental factors, one with another and with the sample and traces which were at the time deposited in the archaeological record.
  8. Binford, Lewis R. (1964). "A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design". American Antiquity. 29 (4): 425–441. doi:10.2307/277978. JSTOR   277978. S2CID   161145925. The loss, breakage, and abandonment of implements and facilities at different locations, where groups of variable structure performed different tasks, leaves a "fossil" record of the actual operation of an extinct society.
  9. Renfrew, Colin (1972). The Emergence of Civilisation: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium B.C. London: Methuen. p. 441. ISBN   9780416164800. [...] the durable objects constituting the archaeological record pottery, metal, obsidian, emery offer only a small part of the possible range of commodities traded. Much evidence for early trade has perished slaves, wine, wood, hides, opium, lichens even [...] make up a considerable repertoire of traded materials which are only rarely recorded archaeologically. The range and volume of trade could thus have been far greater than the record now documents.
  10. Watson, Patty Jo; LeBlanc, Steven A.; Redman, Charles L. (1971). Explanation in Archeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. p. 22. Although the humans themselves are long dead, their patterned behavior can be investigated by the hypothetico-deductive method of science because archaeological remains and their spatial interrelationships are empirically observable records of that patterning.
  11. Childe, V. Gordon (1956). Piecing Together the Past: The Interpretation of Archaeological Data. London: Routledge. p. 1. ISBN   9781138812789. The aim of this book is therefore to explain how archaeologists order their data to form a record and how they may try to interpret them as concrete embodiments of thoughts.
  12. Cherry, John F.; Gamble, Clive; Shennan, Stephen, eds. (1978). Sampling in Contemporary British Archaeology. BAR British Series 50. Oxford: Archaeopress. p. 11. In order to achieve this representative assessment [of the range of surviving archaeological traces] it is first necessary to appreciate the factors which cause variability in cultural systems (e.g., land use potential), and in the archaeological record itself (e.g., selective recovery by field-workers).
  13. de Laet, Sigfried J. (1957). Archaeology and Its Problems. Translated by Ruth Daniel. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  14. Lucas, Gavin (2012-02-06). "Materialized culture". Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 124–168. ISBN   9781107010260 via Google Books.
  15. Lucas, Gavin (2012). "Formation Theory". Understanding the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 74–123. ISBN   978-1-107-01026-0.
  16. Marwick, Ben; Birch, Suzanne E. Pilaar (5 April 2018). "A Standard for the Scholarly Citation of Archaeological Data as an Incentive to Data Sharing". Advances in Archaeological Practice. 6 (2): 125–143. doi: 10.1017/aap.2018.3 .
  17. "About". The Digital Archaeological Record.
  18. "The Role of Archaeology". Michigan Historical Museum's Digging Up Controversy Exhibit. Archived from the original on 3 July 2013.

Further reading