What is Archaeology and Why is it Important?

            The question of what is archaeology and why it is important is a question deeply rooted in the practical and methodological concerns of the science. Archaeology has evolved from a science largely interested with the goals of treasure hunting, to a science, which attempts to understand cultures through their material remains. Focusing upon the definition of archaeology as a science this paper shall firstly attempt to define what archaeology is, secondly examine some of the difficulties in archaeological definitions and the problems in interpreting the archaeological record, and thirdly to define why archaeology is important.  Ultimately the goal of this paper is to examine and present an overview of what the nature of archaeology is, by examining some of the basic theoretical and methodological concerns that encompass it as a science, and what those theoretical and methodological concerns have meant toward gleaning an idea of archaeological context, and interpretation of the archaeological record.

            There have been multiple definitions of what archaeology is through the history of the discipline several of these definitions define archaeology as a discipline largely concerned with artifacts, in particular pottery, potshards, and arrow points, or with the excavation of large scale sites such as palaces and ancient pyramids. Alternate definitions define archaeology as the study of antiquity, emphasizing the archaic nature of archaeological remains. By and large however, such definitions are incomplete. Reflecting the historical and theoretical biases of the early stages of archaeology as a discipline. Archaeology has become a science that is no longer the archaic study of antiquity and ancient archaic artifacts; rather it has become a dynamic study focusing upon cultural relevance, cultural context, and the vast overall scheme of a given archaeological picture of a given peoples. How archaeology accomplishes this is by examining in whole, not the gross obvious evidence such as large pots, jewel encrusted shrines, and large temples, but rather, archaeology has come to focus upon smaller scale and less spectacular remains as well. By focusing upon less obvious remains, the science itself has shifted from a study dominated by treasure hunting and half composed (if not wrong) theories of culture, to a science which attempts to understand holistically the context and culture of a given site and the gross overall completeness of a culture.

There are of course obvious difficulties archaeology has had to face in understanding and examining the past, namely the nature of the archaeological record itself. Definitions of archaeology itself are deeply rooted within the methodology of the discipline and the definitions of what an artifact, and even a site is, are still under moderate dispute. These difficulties in definitions based on such rudimentary questions, allude to a problem in understanding the nature of past artifacts and past cultures. Covering the vast span of human history, from the stone age to the present, archaeology has had to encompass not only the small scale and large scale finds and sites, but also the vast problematic nature of what in fact time, the environment and multiple other factors do to artifacts of the past. The archaeological record itself is fluid, and interpretations of it have varied from era to era, and from archaeological paradigm to paradigm. The idea of relevance is also a large issue of interpretation concerning the archaeological record itself. Princely graves, as those described by Laurent Olivier (“The Hochdorf “princely” Grave) may be glorious in their composition, but what about the 100’s of other peasant home sites surrounding a palace? Certainly for such a princely grave to have existed there had to be many peasant and resources used to put such an assemblage together. What of the peasantry? What can that say about a given culture? Is it relevant to look simply at the princely grave as a reflection of the overall culture and ignore the other sites in the surrounding area? Where does this ultimately lead in our understanding of differing cultures? Obviously these are some of the fundamental questions surrounding perhaps only one sight, but in the scheme of the archaeological record where there are potentially an infinite number of sites, leaving such questions unanswered leads to an incomplete understanding of the archaeological record itself and on a more subtle level jeopardizes the archaeological record itself.

The idea of relevant cultural concern, specifically when dealing with such large scale sites as the princely grave, the pyramids of Egypt, even the megalithic heads of Easter Island all relate to a vague but obvious difference between what a given culture wants to obviously tell about itself, and the archaeological concern which looks at not only what a culture wants known but what it does not obviously tell. Obviously such large-scale gravesites, and pyramids had a deep cultural significance, but what of the elements that are not so obvious? Such a now obvious question was the primary concern of archaeologists for centuries, but only became paramount with the introduction of what has been termed the “new archaeology”. The new archaeology is best defined by its key points rather than by a gross definition. Evolving out of an old school of archaeological thought, predominated by ideas of cultural evolution which focused upon the dissimilarities of an assemblage, diffusion, and other theories, the new archaeology had many differences which define it as focusing upon the vast overall scheme of a culture, focusing upon the context and cultural evolution of a given peoples or site. Such a shift in thought, most notably came with the adjoining of archaeology to its sister discipline anthropology. Where as in the past stages of archaeology, archaeology was the “hand maiden” of history, with little anthropological relevance. The new archaeology embraced the ideas of context and added a great deal to the archaeological record, specifically of the unseen aspects of large-scale sites and cultures.

There were several key points that were specifically taken advantage of by the new archaeology. The key points of the new archaeology were: systems thinking, cultural evolution, a scientific approach, an acknowledgement of biases, and the understanding of variability. All of these key points have dramatic significance to the ways in which an archaeological assemblage or site is viewed. Firstly, systems thinking realizes that culture viewed from an archaeological context is not a haphazard assemblage of artifacts, there are obvious systematic processes involved in creation, composition, etc. Secondly, cultural evolution tends to emphasize that all cultures evolved in complexity and origin from some place else, but rather not from the same unifying culture in the beginning[1] of humanity. Thirdly, there was an emphasis on a scientific approach, where objectivity was the basis for theory, not intuition or biases. Fourthly, there was an emphasis on the acknowledgement of biases on the part of archaeologists. The importance of acknowledging biases was based upon the acknowledgement that there are cultural and anthropological biases on the part of researchers past and present which do affect the ways in which research is conducted, and to an extent which determine what is studied. Fifthly, the understanding of variability in archaeology was central. Within nearly any archaeological sites there are numerous sources of variation, such that by focusing upon the similarities of an object, one can chart the possible ways in which a given artifact fell into use or disuse, etc. Among all the key points of the new archaeology, the acknowledgement of variability is of primary importance to a methodological over view of archaeology, and further the concept of archaeological context as a whole.

Michael Schiffer in his works, “Archaeological and Systemic Context”, and “Toward the Identification of Formation Processes”, outlined much of the problems with dealing with archaeological context, in that he uncovered many of the difficulties in understanding an archaeological assemblage. Firstly, it must be pointed out that a given archaeological site is not captured within time and space as a miniature Pompeii (untouched), rather it is capture in a constant, “sedimentary” matrix of movement and environmental processes which shift and alter archaeological remains. Secondly, Schiffer pointed out that while these remains are constantly moving within a “sedimentary” matrix of environmental processes, the cultural context must also be examined. Namely, while examining a site it is obvious that cultural processes (such as pottery manufacture) were not haphazardly assigned to multiple rooms that varied from day to day, rather cultural processes were assigned to possibly one or two areas and the remains from such processes were assigned to one or two areas. For example in the case of flint knapping there might be one place where the knapping occurred and another where the debitage was disposed of with as little variability as possible. The acknowledgement of this fundamental process within archaeology represents an acknowledgement of the cultural basis of behavior. Within the work of Schiffer, it is emphasized that the way an artifact circulates through a given culture is through a spatial and cultural matrix, in that the matrix of culture is what decides when an artifact shall fall into use or disuse, when it shall be recycled and other alternate archaeological conclusions. There are of course multiple sources to variation within any given archaeological context and assemblage, but in understanding such variation, a basic acknowledgement of the over all cultural context, the environment processes (sedimentation, patination, erosion, etc), all have aided in a dynamic understanding of cultural effects beyond the range of arrow heads, potshards, and pottery.

The ultimate question of what the archaeological record tells us about archaeology and the assemblages it studies falls into the line of speculation. There are multiple sources of variation within any archaeological assemblage, and in effect it is time and the environment itself, which decide what ancient lithic or piece of pottery will survive into the future. Similarly, cultures are not unique in and of themselves, in many cases a culture will interact with other cultures and assume certain cultural processes/traits based on that interaction. Thusly, the archaeological record changes by its vary nature in regards to the cultures it studies; but its interpretation has changed through out the history of the discipline of archaeology, ultimately leading to basic questions of why archaeology is important.

The importance of archaeology lay within its dynamic ability to account for change through time by examining the cultural and archaeological context of a given site or of the archaeological record itself.  Unlike history, archaeology does not merely record dates, names, and events of political, economic or social importance, rather archaeology accounts for the peasantry, the way they lived, what the subsistence patterns of a people were like, and the possible work and motivations culturally, that went into many of the megalithic structures such as the pyramids of Giza, or the “princely grave” of Olivier’s. It is perhaps one of archaeologies largest strengths that in the time span of its existence it has been able to uncover some of the many past life ways of cultures, which perhaps led to their extinction or diffusion into the modern day. History, which largely supplies its accounts via written records, does not have (on it’s own) the advantage of archaeology in gleaning an understanding of the past when no written records are present. Consider if without archaeological account, the demise of the Aztec empire was merely retold by written records, how biased the interpretation would be. Similarly, imagine an anthropology without archaeology, where cultural assumptions and research were based on a diffusionist or alternate view of culture, where only limitedly were the aspects of what a culture did and did not want known about itself in the past and materially were able to sift through. The major importance of archaeology lay within its dynamic ability to change, in that it serves as an objective view of the archaeological/historical record of the past and present. Interconnected to other disciplines in an intimate way, the entire basis for doing archaeology lay not in it’s ability to treasure hunt, but in its ability to account for change and the potential reasons for change in a rational and scientific manner. Of course the way in which archaeology has interpreted the past has changed through time and shall continue to change. Ultimately the importance of archaeology has always been in its ability to change through time in its interpretations and views, and it is ultimately such a unique ability which crafts it’s potential to be used in the future, and to live on as a unique interpretive science.

Works Cited

Johnson, Matthew. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishing: Massachusetts, 1999.

Schiffer, Michael B. “Archaeological and Systemic Context.” American Antiquity 37: 156-165.

Schiffer Michael B. “Toward the identification of Formation Processes.” American Antiquity 48: 675 – 706.

Olivier, Laurent “The Hochdorf ‘Princely’ Grave and the Uqestion of the Nature of Archaeological Funerary Assemblages.” In ‘Time” and Archaeology, 1999, pg. 109 – 138.

Notes

Note:  If you are reading this paper and intend to plagarize it  in any degree you are fooling no one, and in the end only screwing yourself over by not reading, researching, and understanding some very interesting information and people. This paper is  the sole copyright of me, Jennifer. I have spent a great deal of time working on this  papers so please do me a favor and don't plagarize or copy it.

Back to Jennifer's Anthropology Homepage