COLIN RENFREW
PAU L BAH N
t/ Thames a Hudson ----_
I
writing, the distinction between hìstor.y and prchlstory is a convenient dividing line that sirnply recognizes the If, then, archaeology deals with the past, in what way does it importance of thc written word in the modern world, bnt diffel from historyì In the br-oadest sense, just as alchaeol- in no way denigrates the nscful inforrnation containcd in ogy is an aspect ofanthropology, so too is it a part ofhistoly oral histories. - where we rnean the whole history of hurnankind lrom As will becorle abunclantly clear- in this book, archae- its beginnings over- 3 rnillion years ago. Indeed for more ology can also contribnte a great cleal to the understanding than 99 pe1'ccnt of that hr-rge span of time archaeology - even of thosc pcriods and places wher-e docnments, insc ìp- the study of past matelial culture - is the or.rly slgnificant tions, and other literaly evidence do exist. Quite often, it sonrce of information, if one sets aside physical anthropol- is the archaeologìst who unearths such evidence in the ogy, which focuses on our biological rather lhan cultnral fiLst place. Archaeology is partly the discovery ofthe tleasur.es of'the culture" has a specific and sornewhat different rreanìng, progress. Conventional histolical sou-r-ces begin only with past, pafily the rneticnlons worl< olt the scientific analyst, as explained in Chapter 3.) Anthropology is thus a broad the introcluction of written records alound Jooo BC in parlly the exercise ofthe clcative irnagination. It is toiling discipline - so broad that it is generally broken down into \^,cstern Asia, and much later in most other- par-ts of'the in the sun on an excavation in the cleselts of Centlal Asia, three srnaller disciplines: biological anthropology, cultural world (not rtntil ¡ro 1788 in Australia, for example). A com- Since the aim of archaeology is the unclerstanding of it is working wìth living lnuit in the snows of Alaska. It is anthropology, and alchaeology. rronly drawn distinction is between prehistory - the period hnmankind, ìt is a hr.rmanistic discipÌine, a hnmane stndy. dìving down to Spanish wrecks off the coast of Florida, and Biological anthropology, or physical anthropology as it before written records ancl history in the narlow sense, And since it deals with the human past it is a historical it is investigating the sewers of Roman York. But it is also nsed to be called, concer-ns the study of hum¿rn biological or rneaning the study of the past using written evidence. ln cliscipline. But it differs fiom the stucly of written history thc painstaking task of interpretation so that we collle to physicaì char:acteristics and how they evolvecl. some countries, "plehistory" is now considered a patron- - although it uses written histor:y - in a fundarnental way. jch understand what these things rnean f'or the human stor-y. Culturøl a.nthropology or social anthropology - analyzes izitg and derogatory telm wh implles that written texts The rnaterial the alchaeologist finds does not te1l us directly And it js the conservation of'the wor-ld's cnltural heritage - hrrrnarr culture and society. Two of its branches arc ethnog- are rnore valuable than oral histories, and which classifies what to think. Historical recolds make staternents, offer as \)Øestetn jr-rdgments againsl looting and against careless destruction. raphy lThe str-rdy at fìr'st hand of individual living cultures) their cultures inferior until the alrival of ways opinions, pass (even if those statemeltts and Archaeology, thcn, is both a physical activity out in the and ethnology (which sets ouL to colnpar-e cultures r-rsing of recording information. To archaeology, however, whicl-r judgments themselves need to be interpreted). The objects field, and an intellcctual pursuit in the stucly or labora- ethnoglaphic evjdence to derive general principles abor-rt studies all cultules and periods, whether with or without that archaeologists discover, on the other hand, tell us tory. That is part of its great attraction. The rich rnixtnre hutnan society). nothing directly in themselves . lI is we today who have to of danger and detective wolk has also rnade it the pelfèct Archaeology is the "past tense of cnltural anthropol- make sense of these things. In this t'espect the practlce of vehicle ftrr' fiction writers and fìlm-rnakers, fl'om Agatha ogy." Wheleas cultural anthropologists will often base archaeology is rather like that ofthe scientist. The scientist Christie wilh Murder in Mesopotamiø to Steven Spielberg their conclusions on tire experìence of actually living collects data (evidence), condr-rcts experiments, f'ormulates with lndiana Jones. However-fàr lì-orn reality such portray- within contemporary comnlunities, archaeologists study a hypothesis (a proposìtion to accolrnt for the data), tests als may be, they cap lure the essential truth that archaeology past hr-rrnans and societies primarily thr-ough their material the hypothèsis against mor-e data, and therì in conclusion is an exciting quest the quest for knowledge about our- remains - the buildings, tools, and other altifucts that con- devises a model (a description that seems best to summa- selves and our pàst. stitute what is known as Ihe materísl culture left over from rize the pattern observed in the data). The archaeologist has Br-rt how does archaeology lclate to disciplines such as former societìes. to develop a picture ofthe past, jr-rst as the scientist has to anthropology and history that are also concerned with the Nevertheless, one of'the most challenging tasks for the develop a coherent view ofthe natural wor1d. It is not found hurnan storyl Is archaeology itselfa scìencel And what are archaeologist today is to know how to interpret material ready made. the responsibilities of the archaeologist in today's wor1d, cultnle in human terrns. How were those pots used? Why Archaeolog¡ in short, is a science as well as a human- where the past 1s rnanipr-rlated for political ends and "ethnic a1'e some dwellings round and others squarel Here the ity. That is one of its fascinations as a discipline: it r-eflects cleansing" is accompanled by the deliberate destluction of methods of'ar:chaeology and ethnography overlap. Archae- the ingenuity of the modeln scientist as well as the the cultural heritageì ologists in lecent decades have developed ethnoørchaeology, modern historian. The technical methods of ar..chaeologl- where like ethnographers they live arnong contemporary ca1 science ale the rnost obvious, fi:om l-adiocalbon clating communities, but with the specific purpose of nnderstand- to studies of food residnes in pots. Eqr-rally important are ing how such societies nse material culture - how they scientific methods of analysis, of infelence. Sorne writers Anthlopology at its bloadest is the str-rdy of hurnanity - or-rr rnake their tools and \¡/eapons, why they brrild their settle- have spoken of the need to define a separate "Middle physical characteristics as animals, and our unique non- rnents where they do, and so on. Range Theory," r'eferring to a distinct body of ideas to biological characteristics that we call culture. Culture in Moreover, archaeology has an active role to piay in the bridge the gap between raw alchaeological evidence and this sense includes what the anthropoiogist Edward Tylor field of conservation. Heritage sf¿ldi¿s constitute a devel- *.... ,ô ,ô*t the general obser"vations and conclusions to be derived usefr-rlly summarized in r87r as "knowledge, belief, art, oping fie1d, where it is realized that the world's cultural ".... "J*" fi orn it. That is o1ìe \ /ay of looking at the matter. But we morals, 1aw, custom and any other capabilities and hablts heritage is a diminishi.rg ,:".o,.rr.", and one which holds see no need to make a sirarp distinction between theory acquired by rnan as a member of society." Anthropologists different meanings lor different people. The plesentation and method. Onr aim is to clescrìbe clearly the methods also use the term cnlture in a mor-e restricted sense when of the fìndings of archaeology to the pr,rblic cannot avoid and lechnic¡-res r-rsed by alchaeologists in investigating they refer to the culture ofa particular society, rneaning the difficult political issnes, and the museum curator and the the past. The analytical colrcepts ofthe archaeologist are non-biological characteristics nnique to that society which popularizer today have responsibilities which sorne can be as much a part of tliat battery of approaches as ale the distingr"rish it ftorn other: societies. (An "archaeological seen to have lailed. instrnments in the laboratory.
t;i¡,1¡'¡1ii¡¡¡:,r i¡¡i I r¡rlttt:iir'¡¡ 1,: 1r: i''i,:i ttt ¡t¡ti /\,i¡;"; ¡¡i ,'t,1 It¡li rtLitt, itt¡t¡: I ltL' l\l,titlt L: ,tt¡ti ,/',tt¡¡:, itl /\,t I ll,t('t)li)(i\,
atlocities, ingly used in the investigation of war crimes and Tþst Site, established in r95o as a continental iocation for monument in south Britain, and the failure of the UI( gov- studies whether in Bosnia, West Africa, or lrac1. Actualistic United States weapons testing, is similarly now the subject ernment to do anything effective about the situation over Today archaeology is a broad church, ellcompassing a in archaeology were pioneered in the Garbage Project set of archaeological research and conservation. many decades has brought genelal condemnation. Most rliffer- - nurnber of different "archaeologies" which ate lìevel:- r-rp by William L. Rathje, who studied the t'efi-rse of The archaeology ofthe zoth century even had its looters: serious ofal1, perhaps, is the connivance ofmajor museums theless united by the rnethods and apploaches outlined ellt sectors of the city of Trcson, Arizona, to give insights artifacts raised from the wreck of the Titønichave been sold in the looting ofthe world's archaeological heritage through in this book. We have already highlighted the distinction into the patterns of consumption of the modern utban for large sums to private collectors. And the archaeology the purchase ofillicit and unprovenienced antiquities. The between the archaeology of the long prehistoric period population. Sites such as airfìe1ds and gun emplacements ofthe zrst century had a grim start with the recovery work settlement of the restitution claims made by the Italian and that of historic times. This chronological division is dating from World War Il (t919-45) are no\¡/ preserved as following the catastrophic destruction of the twin towers of government against the Metropolitan Museum of Art in accelìtuated by fulther subdivisions so that archaeologists ancient monuments, as are telecommunication facilities the World Trade Center in New York on rr September 2oor. New York, the Getty Museum in Malibu, and the Cleveland of the specialize in, say, the earliest periods (the Old Stone Age or: flom the era of the Cold War, and surviving fragments Ground Zero, the conserved and protected site where the Musenm of Art and the return to Italy of looted antiquities Paleolithic, before ro,ooo years ago) ol the latel ones (the Berlin Wa1l which once divided East frorn West Germany twin towels once s tood, has taken its place as one of the most raise questions about the integrìty of some museum direc- great civilizations of the Amelicas and China; Egyptology; but which was opened atrd torn down in 1989 The Nevada notable of the commemotative monuments of New York. tors and trustees - well-informed people whom one would the Classical archaeoiogy of Greece and Rome). A rnajor' Archaeology today contintres to develop new specialisms expect to be the gr-rardians and defenders of the past, not development in the last two ol three decades has been and sub-disciplines. Out of the environmental approach participants in the commercial processes which lead to the realization that archaeology has much to contribute widely emphasized at the end of the zoth century bio- its destruction. r i ir i ìr ii ',lt r,ir", ¡' North Ametica i trirj t archaeology has emerged: the study of plants and animals also to the mote recent historic periods. ln .)ttt: t,: ¡,:l'Jit¡ti :¡,t','¡i lt,l other livirrg things) in the human and Australia histolical archaeology - the archaeological (and environment and ì rl study ofcolonial and postcolonial settlelnent - has expanded cliet. So too geoarchaeology the application to alchaeology gr:eatly, as has medieval and post-medieval archaeology 1n of the geological sciences, for the reconstluction of early If our aim is to learn about the human past, there remains Europe. So whether we are speaking of colonìal Jamestowrl ìn environments and the study of lìthic materials. Archaeo- the major issue of what we hope to learn. Traditional the United States, or medieval London, Palis, and Hamburg genetics, the study of the hr-rman past using the techniques approaches tended to regard the objective of archaeology iii Eulope, alchaeology is a prin,e source ofevidence. \ of rnolecular genetics, is a rapidly expanding field. These, mainly as reconstruction: pieclng together the jigsaw. Cutting across these chronological subdivisions are and other emerging areas, such as forensic anthropology, But today it is not enough simply to recteate the material specializations that can contribute to many different archae- \ are the prodr-rct both of developments in the sciences and of cnlture of remote periods, or to complete the picture for. ological periods. Environmental archaeology is one such increasing awareness among archaeologists as to how such more recent ones. field, where archaeologists and specialists from other scr- clevelopments can be exploited in the study of the past. A further obiective has been termed "the reconstruction ences study the human use of plants and animals, and how ofthe lifeways ofthe people responsible for the archaeolog- past societies adapted to the ever-changing envirollment ical remains." We are certainly interested in having a clear Underwater archaeology is another such field, detnand- picture ofhow people lived, and how they exploited their ing great courage as well as skill. In the last 4o years it has Increasingly it is realized that the practice ofarchaeology environment. But we also seek to understand why they lived become a highly sclentific exercise, yielding time capsuÌes r aises many ethical problems, and that the uses of archae- that way why they had those patterns ofbehavior, and how from the past in the form of shipwrecks that shed new light ology, politicaliy and commercially, nearly always r.aise their lifeways and material culture came to take the form on ancient life on land as well as at sea. questions with a moral or ethical dimension (see Chapters they did. We are interested, in short, in expløiningchange. Ethnoarchaeology, too, as we discussed briefly above, is a r4 and ry). It is easy to see that the deliberate destruction This interest in the processes of cultural change came to major specialization in modern alchaeology. We now realize of archaeological remains, such as the demolition of the define what is known as processual archaeology. processual that we can only r.rnderstand the archaeoiogical record - that Barniyan Buddhas in Afghanistan or the destruction of archaeology moves forward by asking a series ofquestions, the historic is to say, what we find - if we understand in much greater bridge at Mostar in Bosnia, are essentially evil just as any scientifìc study proceeds by defining aims of judged detail how it came about, how it was formed. Formation acts, by most moral standards. Comparable in its study - formulating questions - and then proceedirrg to processes are no\¡r' a focus ofintensive study. It is here that damaging consequences was the deplorable failure of the answer them. ethnoarchaeology has come into its own: the study of living coalition forces that invaded Iraq to safeguard the archaeo- The symbolic and cognitive aspects of societies are also peoples and of their material culture undertaken with the logical treasures and sites ofthat country. But other.issues important areas ernphasized by recent approaches, often aim of improving or-rl understanding of the archaeological ale less obvious. In what circumstances should the exìs- grouped together under the terrn postprocessual or ínter- tence record. For instance, the study ofbutchery practices among of archaeological sites be allowed to impede the pretive archaeology, although the apparent unity of this ptogress living hr,urter-gatherers undertaken by Lewis Binford among ofimportant construction projects, such as new perspective has now diversified into a variety ofcôncerns, loads the Nunamiut Eskimo of Alaska gave him many new ideas or new damsl During the Chinese Cultural Revolu- It is persuasively argued that in the "postmodern' world tion, about the way the archaeological record may have been Chairman Mao coined the slogan "Let the past serve different communities and social groups have their own the present," formed, allowing him to re-evaluate the bone remains of but that was sometimes used as an èxcuse for interests and preoccupations, that each may have its voice the cleliberate animals eaten by vely early humans elsewhere ìn the world destruction of ancient things. and its own distinctive construction of the past, and that in Nor are these studies confined to simpler communities this sense there are many archaeologies. This becomes par- ol small gror-lps. Contemporary material culture has now ticularly clear when one looks at the newly formed nations becorne a focus ofstudy in ils own right. The archaeology of of the Third World where different and sometimes compet- the zrst centnry aheady rartges from the design ofCoca-Coia ing ethnic groups have their own traditions and interests, bottles and beel cans to the forensic pathology increas- and in sotne senses their own archaeologies. again hcre lL 'T'hcl-c re rnany big qr-tesLions that prcoccttpy us today. wìsh Lo havc: answcLs arrd we list tbetn brìelìy of ar-chacology is Wc wirnt Lo trrtderstanc[ Lhc cil-ctlrnstallces in which ottl' coulcl bc lrgr-recl lhrt thc wkrolc philosophy .lflrs Lht: lor Ln in which wc: hurrar ¿rncestor-s fit-sl cnrc:t'gccl. this in Afi'ica ancl impticd in Lhc qut:stiorrs wc ask and only ìr Afì-ir:a, as cr-rtt'ently seet thcl caseì Welrl lhese fi ame thcrn. k>o1<ìrrg fil sI ear-ly hrunans ptr>pct' htttrtet-s ol- tcly scavcngcl-sl Wtrat ParL I r-evie:ws thc: whoìc fìc1cl of-¿rrchri:ology, threc specilìc wcrc Lhc cir-cttnt-qtarrccs irt which oul- owll spccies I/oíxo aL Lhc history of Lhc subjcct, atrcì lht:n asking Lhcy sapirns evolvcdl I tow do wc ex¡rlain thc ctnergcncc: ofPaleo- clucstions: how are rnaletials prclserved, how ale ìì¡hic ar.tì llow did the shifÌ fì'om hunting ancì gathering found, ancl how ¿tr c they cltLtedì scal-ching qr-restions Lo f'arrnìng comc abottt irr wcstern Asia, itl Mcsoatnt'lica, Part Il scts or,rt fi-trthcr ancl tllol-e ¿¡trc1 ¿rboltt ancl jrt other'¡rlrts ol-the wor'1dl Why did this happt:rt in Lhc about sociaì organization, aìrortt envil-otrtlletrL, Lhc way conrsc ol just a lirw t-nillcnnial Ilow do wc cxplain thc: rise subsistence; abouL tcchnology and tradc, and abottL thc:n rsl< what they of' cities. appartntly clttìte ìnclepertdently in cliffcl-errl' parts people thought ancl cotntlttnicated Wc is of the worldl llow nle iclcntiLics florrnccl, both ol individLr- wcre lil The history of archaeology is commonly seen as the history the prehistoric past (before the invention of writing). The of great discoveries: the tomb of Tutankhamun in Egypt, history of archaeology is therefore in the first instance a the lost Maya cities of Mexico, the painted caves of the Old history of ideas, of theory, of ways of looking at the past. Stone Age, such as Lascaux in France, or the remains ofour Next it is a history of deveioping research methods, employ- hurtran ancestors buried deep in the Oldr-rvai Gorge in Tan- ing those ideas and investigating those questions. And only zania. But even- more than that it is the story of how we have thirdly is it a history ofactual discoveries. corne to look with fresh eyes at the material evidence for the We can illustrate the relationship between these aspects human past, and with new methods to aid us in our task. of our knowledge of the past with a simple diagram: It is important to remember that just a century and a half ago, most well-read people in the Western world - whele archaeology as we know it today was first devel- believed that the world had oped - been created only a few Questions/ years earlier (in the year thotrsand 4oo4 ac according to the ldeas/ then-standard interpretation ofthe Bible), and that all that Theory could be known of the remote past had to be gleaned from the surviving pages ofthe earliest historians, notably those ofthe ancient Near East, Egypt, and Greece. There was no âwareness that any kind ofcoherent history ofthe periods before the development ofwriting was possible at all. In the wolds of the Danish scholar Rasmus Nyerup (r759-ßz9l: Everything which has come down to us from heathendom is wrapped in a thick fog; it belongs to a space oftime which we cannot measure. We know that it is older than Christendom, but whether by a couple ofyears or a couple ofcenturies, or even by more than Research a rnillennium, we can do no more than guess. Methods +> ';ïffi:ï; Today we can indeed penetrate that "thick fog" of the remote past. This is not simply because new discoveries are being made all the time. It is because we have learnt to ask some of the ríght questions, ancl have developed some of the In this chapter and in this book it is the development right methods for answering them. The material evidence of of the questions and ideas that we shall emphadize, and the archaeological record has been lying around for a long the application of new research methods. The main thing tirne. \Vhat is new is our awareness that the methods ol to remember is that every view of the past is a product of archaeology can give us information about the past, even its own time: ideas and theories are constantly evolving, and so are methods. When we describe the archaeologi cal research methods of today we are simply speaking of one point on a trajectory a )'i,, i ofevolution. In few decades or even a few years' time these methods wiÌ1 certainly look old-fashioned and out of date. That is the dynamic nature of archaeology as a discipline. ;rrrlir¡L.rily. Ilc tvas also sr-tc.cesslìtl irr phasìrg lìc:lcl rrrontr- Nativc Arrr:riclls. brLL by u urytLric:al ancl vunislrc'cl lacc <>l ¡rcrrls, showitrg thaL, sirtcc R<>rn¡rn roacls <:uL balr-ows, thc MorL¡rdbuilclcr-s. Jcllòr'sorr aclo¡rLccl whaL toclay wc slroLrlcl lirr ncr nrusI be laLcr LLran lhc lltLLcr-. ln tlic sulne pcr iocl, clll a scic:nlifìc lL¡rprouch, tllaL js, lrc lcsLccl iclc:ns abouL tlrc r(r75, tlrc: fìr-sL archucological cxcava[ìon I lumurrs Lltvc always s¡;ct:r,rlatecl lrbout lheir- ltncl trlost discovclccl thc lourrclation stone which had bcen laid sorrrcl rLrorrncl of'thr: New mr>uncls ugainst hlrcl cviclc¡rr:c 1ty cxc:avulìrrg r>nc of tlrr.rri. 1last, 'Tcotihrracan's <>f' clug ìrrto cuìlurt-'s llrvt: lhcir owrt fonnclaLion llryLlrs to cxplairr why 22oo ycars bcfirc. I le lrottsecl L-rtrny of'hìs fìncls ill a kìllcì W¡r-lcl u luntrcl Pymrrrìc1 ol'thc: lljs rrrcthocls wcrrt carcfirl crurugh Lr¡ rllow lrìrr lo r l lir r, ! ,^ù l-lr'lt ñ :.. lt I*t,1 )o,u l; ','t atj I ih ¡'l , ;1., lit I )t' 17 L8- 1798 E 1815-t8ó0 E '1,87.931923:' 1921-1 I 61 1961-2011 ...ì. I I itt' !,t tt t i¡r,¡', I itt' I lt,,iit¡ tr ,'i ,t,¡ ¡ lt,¡r't,l¡tly scholars such as Daniel Wilson and fohn Lubbock made Egypt and the Near East also held a fascination for ffi systernatic use ofsuch an ethnographic approach. the American lawyer and diplomat fohn Lloyd Stephens And at the same time ethnographers and anthropol- (r8o5-r852), but it was in the New World that he was to make ogists were themselves producing schemes of human his name. His travels in Yucatan, Mexico, with the English piogt"rr. Strongly influenced by Darwins ideas about artist Frederick Cather-wood (r799-t8541, and the superbly ãvolution, the British anthropologist Edward Tylor $832- illustrated books they produced together in the early r84os, ryryl,and his Am revealed for the first time to an enthusiastic public the ruined Æ (i8r8-r88r), both cities of the ancient Maya. Unlike contemporary researchers "#6Þ arguing that hum in North America, who continued to argue for a vanished savagery (Primitiv white race of Molrndbuilders as the architects of the earth- farming) Io civilization (the highest form of society). Mor- worl By the r88os, then, many of the ideas under'lying rnodern archaeology had been developed. But these ideas l,l' .rlri ::t 1t i: t)ttì | themselves took shape against a background of major rgth- rllit trl il r, i r;rtii. ¡,rÌl century discoveries of ancient civilizations in the Old World ii ';:,\il, iii,tti,:,'i, i: ',Ì and the New 'l'he splendors ofancient Egyptian civilization had already becn brought to the attention ofan avid public after Napo- of stone, brass, and iron artifacts within the barrows he These three great conceptual advances - the antíquíty of lcorls military expedition there of r798-r8oo. It was the excavated, but this was first systematically studied when, humønkíníL, Darwiris príncíple of evofurton, and the Three Age discovery by one of his soidiers of the Rosetta Stone that in 1836, the Danish scholar C.J. Thomsen (1788-1865) System - at last offered a framework for studying the past, eventually provided the key to understanding Egyptian published his guidebook to the National Museum of and for asking intelligent cluestions about it. Darwins ideas hier oglyphic writing. Inscribed on the stone were identi Copenhagen. This appeared in English in 1848 with the were influential also in another way. They suggested that cal texts written in both Egyptian and Greek scripts. The title, Guidt to Northørn Archaeology.In it he proposed that human cultures might have evolved in a manner analogous Flenchrnan Jean-François Champollion (r79o-r832) used the collections could be divided into those coming from a to plant and animai species. Soon after r859, British schol- this bilingual inscription to decipher the hieroglyphs in Stone Age, a Bronze Age, and an Iron Age, and this clas- ars such as General Pitt-Rivers (whom we shall meet again t\zz, afler 14 yeaß' work. A similar piece of brilliant evolu- scl.rolarly detection helped sification was soon found useful by scholars throughout below) and f ohn Evans were devising schemes for the unlock the secrets ofcuneiform Europe. Later a division in the Stone Age was established tion of artifact forms which gave rise to the whole method wr.iting, the script used for many languages in ancient between the Paleolithic or Old Stone Age and the Neolithic of "typologl'- the arrangement of artifacts in chronological Mesopotamia. In the l84os the French and British, under or New Stone Age. These terms were less applicable to or developmental sequence - later greatly elaborated by the Paul Emile Botta (r8oz-r87ol and Austen Henry Layard Africa, where bronze was not used south ofthe Sahara, or Swedish scholar Oscar Montelius (r843-r9zi). (t8r7-r894) respectively, had vied with one another using to the Americas, where bronze was less important and iron crnde "excavations" to see which side could obtain from the was not in use before the European conquest. But it was Mesopotamian ruins the "largest number of works of art conceptuaily signifìcant. The Three Age System established wìth the least possible outlay of time and money." Layard the principle that by studying and classifying prehistoric Another important strand in the thought of the time was became famous for his discoveries, which inchrded huge artifacts one could produce a chronological ordering, and the realization that the study by ethnographers of living Assyrian scuiphrres ofwinged bulis, and a great library of say something of the periods in cluestion. Archaeology communities in different parts of the world could be a cull was moving beyond mere speculation about the past, and useful starting point for archaeologists seeking to under- the becoming instead a discipline involving careful excava- stand something of the lifestyles of their own early native (r8r tion and the systematic study of the artifacts unearthed, inhabitants who clearly had comparably simple tools and thal Although superseded by chronometric dating methods (see crafts. For example, contact with indigenous communities sPcnt 20 years copying and studying a 6th-century sc trilin- gual inscription located Chapter 4), the Three Age System remains one of the fun- in North America provided anticluarians and historians on an inaccessible cliflface between Baghdad damental divisions of archaeological materials today. with models for tattooed images of Celts and Britons, and and Tehran before clacking the code ofcuneiform. r;r"r'li rlir' ìrlìrr'l i,,, i, r iir trr l('r rlrl';lr ,ir,.r ,rr ri lrr I'L'r' ' läl Þ[ ffiß i ,i! it, similar hieroglyphic inscriptions at the different sites, which to reconstrllct the remote past. Nevertheless it fell to the next led him to argue fol Maya cultulal unity - but no Champol- generation ofarchaeologists, 1ed by General Pitt-Rivers and lion or Rawlinson was to emerge to decipher the glyphs until William Flindels Petrie, to establish the true basis of modern the r96os (see box, pp.4oz-o3\. field techniques (see box opposite). If the Bible was one of the rnain inspirations behind the It is somewhat ironic that the piecemeal apploach towat.ds search lor lost civilizations in Egypt and the Near East, it was the investigation ofthe past in Europc was to be sulpassed Homer's account of the Ti'ojan Wars in his natrative poern by the cr-eation of the Archaeoiogical Suney of India in r86z because, ¡he lLia.d. that fired the imagination of the Gerrnan banker This body was funded by the Governrnent of India Heinrich Schliemann (r8zz-r89o), and sent him on a cluest in the words of'Lord Canning, the Governor- General, "lt will for the city ofTroy. With remar.kable luck and good iudgment not be to our credit, as an enlightened ruling powe¡ if we he successfully identified it in a series of field campaigns continue to allow such fields of investigation ... to remain at Hissarlik, wester'n Turkey, in tl.re r87os and r88os. Not withont rnote exarnination." ln t9zz, Sit John Marshall content with that achievement, he thert also dug at Mycetrae (1876-1958), the Director Generai ofthe Survey, was lo dis- in Greece and revealed - as he had at Tioy a hitherto cover the last of the great Old World civilizations, that of the unknown prehistoric civilization. Schliemanns methods of Indus. Such was the quality ofhis enorlnous excavations at excavation have been criticized as crttde and cavalier, but few both Bronze Age Moheniodaro (where 8 ha (z acres) of the were ver:y rigorons in his day, and he demonstrated how inter' city were exposed) and historic'Iaxila that his reporls are still pretation of the stratigr:aphy of a mound site could be used uscd today for spatial reanalyses at these sites. Thus, well before the end of the rgth century, rnany of some of the most significant contributions during the the principal features of modeln archaeology had been first halfofthe zoth century. Gordon Childe (r892-r957), establlshed and many of the early civilizations had been a brilliant Australian based in Br:itain, was the leading discovered. Thete now ensued a petiod, which lasted thinl metal weapons, had spread or "diffused" to Europe from The greatest breakthrough came in the field of dating. the Near East by trade or migration of people' With the In ry49 the American chemist Willard Libby (r9o8- much greater range of evidence available to him, Childe r98o) announced his invention of radiocarbon (Cr4) modified this extreme diffusionist approach and argued dating. It was not until well over a decade later that the full that Europe had undergone some indigenous develop- impact of this momentous technical achievement began ment - but he nevertheless attributed the major cultural to be felt (see below), but the implications were clear: here changes to Near Eastern influences. at last archaeologists might have a means of directly deter- In his later books, such as Møn Møkes Hímself þ936), mining the age of undated sites and finds anywhere in the Childe went on to try and answer the much more diffìcult world without recourse to complicated cross-cultural com- question: Why had civilization arisen in the Near Eastl parisons with areas already dated by historical methods Himself influenced by Marxist ideas and the relativeiy (usually written records). recent Marxist revolution in Russia, he proposed that there Thus, traditionall¡ prehistoric Europe had been dated had been a Neolithic Revolution which gave rise to the by virtue ofsupposed contacts with early Greece and hence development of farming, ancl later an Urban Revolution (indirectly) with ancient Egypt, which could itself be dated which led to the first towns and cities. Childe was one of historically. The radiocarbon method now held the pros- the few archaeologists of his generation bold enough to pect of providing a completely independent chronology issue of why things happened address this whole broad for ancient Europe. Chapter 4 discusses dating methods in or changed in the past. Most of his contemporaries were general, and radiocarbon in particular. more concerned with establishing chronologies and cul- The growth in archaeological applications for scientific tural sequences. But after World War II scholars with new techniques was such that by r963 a volume enlitled Scíence ideas began to challenge conventional approaches' populations adapted to their environments we can under- in Archaeology, edited by Don Brothwell and Eric Higgs stand many aspects of ancient society. Collaboration with (r9o8-r976), could be pr"rblished which ran to nearly 6oo new kinds of specialists was essential: specialists who pages, with contributions from 55 experts, not merely could identify animal bones or plant remains in the on dating techniques and plant and animal studies, but One of the most influential new thinkers in North archaeological record to help build up a picture not only of methods for analyzing human remains (see Chapter rr) America was the anthropologist fulian Steward (t9oz- what prehistoric environments were like, but what foods and artifacts (Chapters 8 and 9). t97z). Like Childe he was interested in expiaining cultural prehistoric peoples ate. Clarl(s landmarl< excavation at Artifact studies, for instance, could contribute to an change, but he brought to the question an anthropologisfs Star Carr in northeast Britain in the early r95os demon- understanding of early trade: it proved possible to iden- understanding of how living cultures work' Moreover he strated just how much information could be gleaned from tify the rary materials of certain artifacts and the sources sequences in Europe. Both his methods and the Mid- highlighted the fact that cultures do not interact simply what appeared to be an unpromising site without stone from which they had come through the technique of western Taxonomic System were designed to order the with one another but with the environment as well' The structures and dating to just after the end ofthe Ice Age. trace-element anaiysis (the measurement of elements material: to answer the cluestion: To what period do these study of ways in which adaptation to the environment Careful environmental analysis and recovery of organic present in the material only in very small amounts; see pp. "cul- artifacts datel and also: With which other materials do could cause cultural change Steward christened remains showed that this had been a camp on the edge of 356-6o1. As with many of the new methods, research in they belong? This latter question usually carried with it tural ecology." Perhaps the most direct archaeological a lake, where people had hunted red deer and eaten a wide this field stretched back to the r93os, when the Austrian an assumption which Gordon Childe made explicit: that impact of these ideas can be seen in the work of Gordon variety of wild plant foods. Nor need the insights from archaeologist Richard Pittioni (19o6-1985) had begun to a constantly recurring collection or "assemblage" of arti- Willey (r9r3-zooz), one of Steward's graduate associates, an ecological approach be confined to individual sites or apply trace-element analysis to early copper and bronze prehis- facts (a "culture" in his terminology, or an "aspect" in that who carried oul a pioneering investigation in the Virú groups of sites: in a remarkable work of synthesis, artifacts. Nevertheless it was not until the post-war years of Mcl(ern) could be taken as the material equipment of a Valley, Peru, in the late r94os. This study of r5oo years toríc Europe: the Economic Basís Q95z), Clark provided a that this and a number of other newly developed scientific \ panoramic \,i particular group ofpeople. This approach thus offered the of pre-Columbian occupation involved a combination of view of the varying human adaptations to the techniclues really began to make an impact on archaeology, hope ofanswering, in a very general sense, the question: observations from detailed maps and aerial photographs European landscape over thousands ofyears. and the increasing power of computers and software, for Who did these artifacts belong tol The answer would be in (see box, pp. 8o-8r), survey at ground level, and excava' Out of this early ecological research has grown the example, has made them indispensable for many aspects dates whole terms of a named people, even if the name for a prehistoric tion and surface potsherd collection to establish for field of environmental and dietary reconstruction ofdata handling. discussed people would be a modern one, not the original name. the hundreds of prehistoric sites identifìed. Willey then in Chapters 6 and 7. Over the past decade developments in biochemistry and (There are now seen to be dangers in this approach, as we plotted the geographical distribution ofthese sites in the molecular genetics have led to the emergence of the new settlement shall discuss in Chapter rz.) valley at different periods - one of the first Thq, disciplines of molecular archaeology and archaeogenetics. But in his great works of synthesis, such as The Døwn of pattern studies in archaeology (see Chapters 3 and 5) - and Sensitive techniclues in the field of organic chemistry are European Cívílizøtion (1925) and The Danube in Prehistory set them against the changing local environmenl. beginning to allow the precise identifìcation oforganic res- (t929), Childe went beyond merely describing and corre- Quite independently of Steward, however, the Brit- idues, while isotopic studies are giving fresh insights into lating the culture sequences and attempted to account for ish archaeologist Grahame Clark (r9o7-r995) developed both diet and nutrition. The study of DNA, both modern their origin. In the late rgth century scholars such as Mon- an ecological approach with even more direct relevance and ancient, has offered novel approaches to the study of telius had lool studying what one might call "tlie subsistence subsystem" in very rnnch these terrns. - In order to fulfi1l these aims, the New Archaeologists The r96os tnarked a tulning point in the development of They also argued that archaeological reasoning should to a large extent turned away fiorn the approaches ofhistory archaeology. By this titne valious dissatisfactions were being be made explicit. Conclusions should be based not sirriply towards those of the sciences. Very similar develop- expressed with the way research in the sr-rbject was beirlg on the personal authorìty of the scholar making the inter- ments wele under way in Britain at the sarne tirnc, r¡,ell conducted. These dissatisfactions were not so much with pretation, but on an explicit fiarnework oflogical argulÌìent. exernplified by thc work of'Davicl L Clarke fy7t976), excavation techniques, or with the newly developed scien- ln this they reiied on curl'ent ideas within the philosophy paltictrlarly in his book Anølytical Archaeology (968), tific aids, but with the way conclusions were drawn from of science, where conclusions, ifthey are to be considered which rcflected tÌre gr.eat willingness of the New Ar.chaeolo- then-r. The filst and tnost obvious point concerned the role valid, mr-rst be open to testing. gists to ernploy more sophisticated qr-rantitative techniqrres, of datìng. The second went beyond this: it focused on the Within the spirit of processual archaeology advocated where possible cornpntcr-aided (computers first became way archaeologists explain lhings, on the procedures used by Willey and Phillips, they sor-rght ro expløin rathei- than available in the r96os lol the storage, organization, and in archaeological reasoning. With the advent ofradiocarbon simply to describe, and to do so, as in all sciences, by seeking analysis of data), and to dra'"v on ideas frorn other disci- dating, dates could in rnarly cases be assigned rapidly, and to make valid generalizations. plines, notably geography. without the long and laborious framework of cross-cultural In doing this they sought to avoid the rather: vagr-re talk of It must be adrnitted that in their- enthusiasrn to seize on cornparisons needed previously. To establlsh a date was no the "influences" of one culture upon atrother, but rather tr-r and utilize a battery of trew techniciues, the New Archae- longel one of the main end products of research. It was still analyze a culture as a systern which could be broken down ologists drew also on a lange of previously unfärniliar irnportant, but it conld now be done much more efïìciently, into subsystems. This 1ed them to study subsistence in its vocabularìes (drawn from systems theor¡ cybernetics, etc.), allowing the archaeologist to go on to ask rnore challenging own right, and technology, and the social subsystern, and which theil critìcs tended to disrniss as jargon. Indeed cluestions than rnetely chronological ones. the ideological subsystem, and trade and demogranhy, and itr lecent years, several critlcs have l.eacted against some The second and perhaps more fttndamental cause for so forth, with much less emphasis on artifâct typology and of those aspirations to be scientific, which they have cat- dissatisfaction with the traditional archaeology was that it classification. In this way they had been partly anticipated egolized as "scientistic" or "functionalist." Much of the never seemed to explain anything, other than in terms of by the ecological approach ofthe r95os, which was already emphasis of early processual archaeology was indeed upor-r rnigrations of peoples and supposed "influences." Already functional or ecological explanation, and it is now possible in t948 the Arnerican archaeologist llalter W. Taylor (r913- to regar.d its first decade as representing a "fi-rnctional-pro- ry97\ had formulated some of these dissatisfäctions in cessuall' phase, which has been followed in recent years by hts A Study oJ'Archaeology. Ile had argued for a "conjunc- a "cognitive-processual" phase, which seeks more actively to tive" approach, in which the ful1 range ofa culture system include the consideration ofsyrnbolic and cognitive aspects would be taken into consideration. And in 1958, Gordon of early socleties into the prograln of research. Many of Wi1ley and Philip Phillips (r9oo-r994) in their Method ønd these points are considered in Chapter rz. But there can Theory in Amer|can Archøeology had argued for a greater be no doubt that archaeology will never be the same again. emphasis on the social aspect, for a broader "processual Most worker s today, even the critics of the early New Archae- interpretation' or study ofthe general processes at work in ology, implicitly recognize its influence when they agree cr.rlture history. They also spoke of"an eventual synthesis in that it is indeed the goal ofarchaeology to explain what hap- a cornmon search for sociocultural causality and 1aw." pened in the past as well as to describe it. Most ofthem agree That was al1 very well, but what would it mean in practicel too that in order to do good archaeology it ls necessary to rnake explicit, and then to examine, our underlying assump- tions. That was what David Clarke rneant when he wrote in a r973 article of"the loss ofinnocence" in archaeology. In the United States the answer was provided, at least in part, by a group of younger archaeologists, 1ed by Lewis Binford $93r-zorrl, who set out to offer a new approach to the problems of archaeological interpretation, which was soon dubbed by its critics and then by its supporters "the New Archaeology." In a series of alticles, and later in The cluestioning approach of the New Archaeology and the an edited volume, Netu Perspectivøs ín Archøeology $9681, demand ftrr explicit and quantitative procedures 1ed to new Binford and his colleagues argued against the approach that developments in fie1d research, rnany of which built on or tried to use archaeological data to write a kind of"counterfeit coincided with the programs of fieldwork already being history." They maintained that the potential of the archaeo- conducted by archaeologists who wouìd not necessarily logical evidence was much greater than had been realized have thought of themselves as followers of the new school for-the investigation ofsocial and economic aspects ofpast ofthought. societies. Their view of archaeology was more optimistic In the first place, there was a rnuch greater emphasis on than that ofmany oftheir predecessots. field projects with well-defined resealch objectives - projects which set out to answer specific cluestions about the past. has seen crucial theoretical debate between Lewis Binford, rnany ficld archaeologists wcrc relaLively untouched by In the second p1ace, the new insights yielded by the eco- C.l(. Brain, Glynn Isaac $y7t98), and others ovet'the theoretical deb¡rtes, and the processr-ral tradition established logical app;'oach rnade it clear: that satisfactory answet:s to likely hunting and scavenging bchavior ofout ear-ly ances- by the New Archaeology lollcd on, ther-e werc sevcral new many rnajor c¡uestions would only be forthcoming if whole lors (see Clraptels zlnd7l. apploaches, sometirnes collectively termed postplocessual, regions and their environrnents were looked at, rathcr than which dealt with interesting and difficult qucstions. Inflr-r- single sites in isolation. And the thild dcvelopment, very entìal arguments, sotne of thertr lìrst advancecl by lan rnuch linked to the fìr'st and second, was the realization I lodder (excavator: a[ Çatalliöyük; see box on pp. 46-47) and that in older to carry out these objectives effectively, new Research in Afi-ica exernplifies the pushing back of alchae- his stndents, have stressed that thele is no single, correct techniques needed to be introduced of intensive fie1d sr-u.vey ology's flontiers in both time and space. Ihe quest for: way to r-rndertake archaeological infelence, and that the goal and selective excavation, coupled with statistically basecl human origins has been one success story, but so too has of objectivity 1s unattainable. Even the archaeological data sarnpling procedr-rres ancl itnproved lecovery rnethods, been the rediscovely througli archaeology ofthe achieve- arc "theory laclen," and as lnany "readings" ale possible lncluding screening (sieving) of excavated materral. ments and history of the lron Age peoples of Africa, as there are research workers. Bul in theit' ttote extrerÌìe These are the hey elements of modern fielcl research, including the building of Gteat Zinibabwe (box, pp. f'or-m these argurnents have led to charges of "r'e1ativism," Chapter Here we shonld ol¡serve By r97o archaeological knowledge ofthe whole past "anything discussed in detail in 3. a66-67\, leat I lo salvagc what they can about the in advance or a resealch style where goes," and whele the was suff.lciently advanced for . Desmond Clark that theìr widesplead applicatlon has begun to create continent f of tlur [rullclozer or plow. lndeed the tnassive upsr-trge ol' borderlines between alchaeological research and fiction (or for the fìrst tirne a true world discipline: an archaeology one of the leading researchers. to ploduce archaeology, rrluch of it govel nrrìent- science fiction) may be to $9ú-zooz\, tì¡ s sr l vaqc or rescuc difficult defìne. The PrehisLory Meanwhile, in that reaches gcographically light rourrcl the globe, and an the first syntliesis, oJ'AJricø firtrcled, ìns giticn :L rlew impettts lo the alchaeology of our The earlier writings of'Michael Shanks and Chr-istopher Austlalia, alchaeology that reaches back in time to the beginnirtgs of another ec1ual1y little-str-rdied continent, John tou,lrs r¡cl cities - to what in lurope is known as meclieval Tilley, especially theil sor¡ewhat provocative "black" and up the rnodern period. Mulvaney's excavations in the early r96os at l(enniff Cave, "red" human existence and right to or ¡roslrrrctlìcval archleology, and what in the Unitecl books, initially provoked r.eactions of this kind. BuL South Queensland, produced radiocarbon dates proving Si:rl,.s l' n,l , lst'wìtcle rs crllt'tl histol'icrl rlchreology. in their later writings they, and indeed the majority of post- occupation there during the last phase of the lce Age - plocessual archaeologists, have taken a less aggressìve1y thus establishing Australasia as one of the most fruitfi-rl anti-scientific tone, and the ernphasis has instead been Among the pioneers of well-focused project design was legions for new archaeological research 1n the world. urpon the nse ofa variety ofpelsonal and often hurnanistic Robert J. Braidwood (r9o7-zoo3), of the University of Work in Australia highlights two furthel importatrt Thc gr orvLlr of salvage work also leads us to ask: Who today insights to develop a range ofdiffèrent fields and interests, Chicago, whose rnulti-disciplinary team in the r94os and trends in rnodern ar:chaeology: the rise of ethnoarchaeol- actually arc' the sc¿rrchcls in archaeologyl A centur-y ago recognizing the varied perspectives of different social r95os systematically sor-rght or-rt sites in the Iraqi I(urdistan ogy or "Iiving archaeology"; and the increasing worldwide they ri,cre often wealthy individuals, who had the leisute groups, and accepting the consequent "mr-rltivocality" of region that would provide evidence for the origins of agri- discussion about who should control or "own" monulnents to spccrrlatc: about the past, and to undertake excavations. the postmodern world. The epistemological debate seems culture in the Near East (see Chapter 7). Another Atnerican and ìdeas about the past. Or in othcr cases, they were travelel's who had reason to over now, wlth rnuch less rhetolical position-taking and project, headed by Richard MacNeish (r9r8-zoor), did the be r¡r rcrnote places, and used the opportunity to nnder- with the recognition that there is no singÌe ol coherent sarne fol the New World: their research in the r96os in takr: resc:arches in what was effectively their: spare time. postplocessual archaeology, but rather a whole series of' the Tehuacan Valley of Mexico moved oltr r-rnderstanding Forty 1,clr s ago thc searchers in archaeology tended to be interpretive approaches and interests, enriched by the of the long-drawn-out development of maize farrning an From its beginnings the New Archaeology placed great tunjver-siLv scliolars, or the representatives of rnuselrms variety ofintellectual sonrces r-rpon which variolrs scholars immense step forward. emphasis on explanation - in particr-rlar explaining how seckìng to enlar-ge their- collections, or the ernployees of have drawn (see box overleaf). Michael Shanks and Ian If the origins of farrning have been the subject of much the archaeoiogical recold was formed, and what excavated learnccl socicLies and academic institutions (1ike the Egypt Hodder suggested that "interpretive archaeologies" (plural) well-targeted research in recent decades, the rise ofcomplex strLlctures and artifäcts rnight mean in tertns of humatr Explor-lLlìor Society), nearly all of them based in the rnore may be a more positive label than "postprocessual." societies, including civilizations, has been another. In par behavior. It came to be realized that one of the most plospcr oLr s capitals of Europe and the United States. One of the strengths of the inter:pt.etive approach is 'Ioclay ticular, two American field projects have been outstandingly effective ways of addressing srtch questions would be to rrrost countries in the world have their own gov- to bring into central focus the actions and thoughts of successful: one in Mesopotarnia led by Robert Adarns (with study the matelial cnlture and behaviol of living societies. ernmelrt archaeological or historical selvices. The scope of. individuals in the past, which is also the goal of cogni- rnuch use ofaerial photoglaphy as well as field sulvey), and Ethnographic observation itselfwas nothing new - anthro- cun'enI public archaeology is reviewed in Chapters r4 and tive archaeology (see Chapter rz). But it goes beyorrd the the other in lhe Va1ley of Oaxaca, Mexico, 1ed by l(ent Flan- poiogists had studied the Native Americans and Australian r5. But it is worth noting here that today a "searcher'" (i.e. a methodological individualisrn of the latter, arguing that in pr..ofèssional ar nery and f oyce Marcus (see Chapter 13). Aborigines since the rgth century. What was new was lhc chaeologist) is ntore lil The history ofalchaeology ìs boLh 'ì-hc thc history ofideas r96os rnarked a tumitrg pojnt in at-chaeology, ancl and ways of looking at thc past, and the histor.y of dissatisfàction with the classifìcator.y-histor.ical appr.oach employing those ideas and investigating questions. lecl to thc bilth of-thc New Archaeology. Also known as pì occssual archacology, its advocates sought to explain Humans have aJways speculated about thcir past, the past r.athcr than simply describe it. 'Io do this, New but it was -fhontas ltot until 1784 that Jeffcrson under- Archaeologists largely turnecl away from historical took thc first scielttifìc cxcavation in the history ol' approaches in favor of'scicnce. alchaeology. The drsciplinc of archaeology becarne firmly established in the rgth centr-rr.y when threc PosLrnodernist thìnking in the r98os and r99os led to great advanccs, Thc rclics of past human activity are all around us. Sotne arid envit'onrnents have corne remarkable textiles, baskets, rrarnely the acccptancc of'thc antiquity the developrnenl of intelpretive or postprocessual of humankincl, of-thcir wcre dellberate constructions, built to last, lilte the and other remains that often perish cornpletely. And by the concept of evolr_rtion, and the devcl- archacology. Advocates believcd that there is no singlc r nt Fgypt, the Great Wall of China, or the opment of the Thr-ee Age D't ir r i irlj; ternples contrast, from wetlands, whether the swamps of Flor.ida or Systern, olfeled a fl.amework correct way to undcrtake archacological ìnference ancl for str-rdying i.i ¡,i,,, ',,,,r'rerica and India. Others, like the remains of the lake villages of Switzerland, fulther organic rernalns are and asking intelligent questions about that objcctivity in lesear.ch is ìnrpossiblc. Intcrpr.etive thc past. ih. ir,i,ry,, irrigation systems of Mexico ancl Belize, are the being recovered, this tinie preserved not by the absence of archaeologies place empÌtasis on the varied perspec- visibk, r:elics of activities whose aitn was not primarily to moisture, but by its abundant plesence to the exclusion ofair. tives ol'different social gr-oups, ar.guing that not impresr; Lhe observer, but which still cornmand respect Extremes of temperatr-rrc and of humidity have preserved cveryorìe expcrienccs the past ìn the same way. today íirr Lhc scale of the enterprise they document. rnuch. So too have natural disasters. The volcanic err-rption Mcrsi ol the remains of archaeology are far more modest, that destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum (box, pp. z4-z5l is ln the post-colonial world, ar:chaeology plays a signifi- 'l'hey hou,cvr', are the discarded refuse from the daily the most farnous of them, but there have been others, such cant role in the establishmcnt of national and ethnic activitic'r of human existence: the food remains, the bits as the eruption ofthe llopango volcano in El Salvador in the identity, and lìefitage tourism is a profitable business. ofbrolcerr pottery, the fractured stone tools, the debris that znd centr-rry no, which buried land surfaces and settlement everyllrr:rc is formed as people go about their daily lives. remains in a large part of the southern Maya ar.ea. Itr tlr.is chapter we define the basic archaeological terms, Our knowledge of the ear'ly liuman past is dependent brie{ì¡,:;r-tr.vcy the scope of the surviving evidence and look in this way on the human activities and natural processes variety of ways at tlic 11r ctrt in which it has been presewed for that have formed the archaeological record, and on those us. Iir>Lrr the lrozen soil ofthe Russian steppes, for instance, further processes that determine, over long periods oftime, havc r:oLnc the wonderful finds of Pazyryk, those great what is left and what is gone for ever. Today we can hope to chirfilirLs;' burials where wood and textiles and skins are recover much of what is left, and to learn fiom it by asking splenrlirlly preserved. From the dry caves of Peru and other the right questions in the right way. Undoubtully one of the main concerns of the archaeologist provide evidence to help us answer all the key questiorrs ltoi is the slrrcly of 'l ørtífacts - objects used, modified, ot -àde just technological ones - addressed in this book. A single clay by peo¡rle. But, as the work of Grahame Clark and other vessel or pot can be the subject ofseveral lines ofinquir¡ ìihe pioneers of the ecological approach has demonstrated clay may be tested to produce a date for the vessel and thns (Chaptcr. r), there is a whole category of non-artifàctual perhaps a date for the location where it was fbund (Chapter 4), orgoúc and environmental ,,eco- remains - sometimes called and tested to find the source ofthe clay and thus give çvidence for the range and contacts ofthe group that made the vessel (Chapters 5 and 9). Pictorial decolation on the pofs sur-face rnay be used in a typological sequence (Chapter 3), and tell us something about ancient beliefs, particularly if it shows gods or other figures (Chapter ro). And analysis ofthe vessels shape and any food or other residnes fbund in it can yield infor.ma- tion about the pofs use, perhaps in cooking, as well as abont ancient diet (Chapter 7). Some researchers broaden the meaning of the terrn "arti- facf' to include all humanly modified conlponents of a site['lrygorrc: lrgcs clevtloltccL ìn scvcral carly tivì- alìc sLuclìes ol' sotne olt lhesc ttlotlutnctlts, wiLlt ltccttl'atc It.f i.rsotls Ihc bcginnirrg of thc crrc[ of- thc calcgorir:s, such as bcll bar-tow, rvìrjch arc sLill irr us<,krclay li Pltase. lizlLions, wht'rc s<.ho1ar-s ltncl cvcn I'rrlc:rs collcctcc[ allcl pìans whic:h lrc slill usefirl bday. StLrkeley rnd hjs co1- ¡x'cLLlativc Nonc ol'thcsc cxcavaLions, howcvcr, cLìcl ltuclr Lo aclvarrc.c l.ltrt thest: nlonLllrrcnls I n Lirne pcoplc werc spr:r:rrlaLìng that Llre Lhc cn.rscr ol'krrowlcclgc: cìisLant stucliecl oLrjccls fì orrr lhc: ¡rasL Naborriclus, ìasL rtative ì<ìrtg ìr:agues succcssfirlly demonsLl-atecl Jcff'crsoris about lhc pasL, sìncc Lhcir 1ry gianls or clevjls, as suggcsted lrrrnclrccls ol uncx¡rlained rnolLrrcls known east ol'lhc: in Lcr was slill wi Llri rr lhe biblit:al l'ì amcwor l<, iclr of'llabylon (r.cignt:cl 555 g9 rì(:), took a l