![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
After a brief hiatus to find better material, my archeology posts are back with selected excepts from The Archaeology Coursebook by Jim Grant, Sam Gorin and Neil Fleming. This is an introductory text book which should prove useful in writing about archeologocal methods for stargate fic.
Note: You may have noticed the variations in my spelling of 'archeology.' I prefer to use the American spelling, and will generally do so unless quoting a source that doesn't. I'm just too darn lazy for extra letter. ;)
This first section is not about methods, but how modern archeologists approach and perceive excavation.
Excavation-Part One:
(Note: Excerpts from the complete text)
To many people, archaeology simply means excavation. Often their interest in archaeology stems from witnessing an excavation or viewing one on television. Excavation is often the public face of archaeology. It is only when people ‘dig’ deeper into the subject that they are able to recognise the role that excavation plays in the wider nature of the discipline. It has its own methodology, which constantly changes to reflect current thinking and improving technologies. There can never be one set of rules for excavation although there is general agreement on key elements of the process. [...]
Any removal of the accumulated evidence of the past is a finite act. Once disturbed, trowelled, shovelled and bucketed away that material cannot be replaced as it was before the excavator removed it. Hence it has been frequently said that ‘all excavation is destruction’.
Today no one condones excavation as it took place in the nineteenth century: for the pleasure of the excavators and to establish collections of artefacts. In all but those extreme circumstances, where chance discovery of remains demands a prompt response, there should be controlled planning. This should establish the rationale for excavation and formulate a series of questions, which it is hoped, the excavation might answer.
Often the record of a site can be remarkably full if a wide range of reconnaissance methods has been applied and there are sufficient clues about hidden features or structures. In many cases, once the record of such survey activities is carefully housed in an appropriate archive, for example the local SMR, archaeologists leave the physical remains untouched. If, however, a decision is made to excavate, it should be viewed as a very serious step.
While most scientific experiments can be repeated over and over again in the laboratory, archaeological excavation, although scientific in its approach, does not, by its very nature, allow a second chance.
Some excavation procedures, somewhat confusingly referred to as sampling strategies, have been developed to try and ensure that not all the evidence is removed in the primary investigation of a feature or deposit. Nevertheless, in essence, excavation means destruction. However, that ‘destruction’ is minimised if the archaeologist pays appropriate care and attention to the way the excavation is conducted and particularly to the quality of the records kept. This is sometimes referred to as ‘preservation by record’
There are other considerations. A balance must be struck between the desire to protect archaeological remains for future generations and the need to develop the discipline and advance our knowledge through excavation. [...]
Today, excavators are expected to:
• provide justifications for digging a site
• use survey techniques to plan excavation strategies
• adjust to subsequent changes on site
• put a complete recording system is in place
• select and maintain appropriate samples for analysis
• have facilities for all aspects of post-excavation work
• interpret a site from a limited excavation or sample
• ‘publish’ the results of the work so that they are available to other interested parties
• maintain professional standards while working under time and economic constraints.
If this is done then excavation can move beyond the possible results of survey and get to the real core of archaeology – the hard evidence left by previous people of their existence.
The reuse of ceramic containers for drainage purposes in the town walls at Cremona in Italy presents an archaeological dilemma. Should all the vessels be recorded in situ and excavated by hand or treated as fill and a sample of complete and diagnostic pieces kept and the rest discarded?
TYPES OF EXCAVATION
Excavations today usually fall into one of two broad categories depending on the main reason for them: research or rescue.
Research Excavations
These are usually excavations on sites where there is no immediate threat of destruction. The site is selected by archaeologists for its suitability to answer the questions they wish to answer. It can be excavated according to archaeological needs rather than prompted by the threat of development. Research excavation is only undertaken when the perceived benefits to archaeological understanding outweigh the loss of the original site, or part of it, to future generations. Occasionally there may be reexcavation to recover samples which were never collected at the time or to extend the area of a site. [...]
Rescue Excavations
‘Rescue excavation’ was a term coined in the 1960s when much of our archaeological heritage was destroyed by development and road build¬ing. It involved trying to excavate and record as much as possible in the time before the builders began work. Occasionally sites were not discov¬ered until land clearance began. Rapid recording and rushed excavation in these circumstances was often the best that could be done. This was often called ‘salvage archaeology’. [...] The term is used in the USA interchangeably with ‘rescue archaeology’. [...]
Amongst the key differences between the two approaches is the ability of research archaeologists to select sites and also to fully excavate all sites. Rescue archaeology has sometimes resulted in many tiny ‘keyhole’ excavations into parts of sites rather than always revealing large parts of them. [...]
Note: You may have noticed the variations in my spelling of 'archeology.' I prefer to use the American spelling, and will generally do so unless quoting a source that doesn't. I'm just too darn lazy for extra letter. ;)
This first section is not about methods, but how modern archeologists approach and perceive excavation.
Excavation-Part One:
(Note: Excerpts from the complete text)
To many people, archaeology simply means excavation. Often their interest in archaeology stems from witnessing an excavation or viewing one on television. Excavation is often the public face of archaeology. It is only when people ‘dig’ deeper into the subject that they are able to recognise the role that excavation plays in the wider nature of the discipline. It has its own methodology, which constantly changes to reflect current thinking and improving technologies. There can never be one set of rules for excavation although there is general agreement on key elements of the process. [...]
Any removal of the accumulated evidence of the past is a finite act. Once disturbed, trowelled, shovelled and bucketed away that material cannot be replaced as it was before the excavator removed it. Hence it has been frequently said that ‘all excavation is destruction’.
Today no one condones excavation as it took place in the nineteenth century: for the pleasure of the excavators and to establish collections of artefacts. In all but those extreme circumstances, where chance discovery of remains demands a prompt response, there should be controlled planning. This should establish the rationale for excavation and formulate a series of questions, which it is hoped, the excavation might answer.
Often the record of a site can be remarkably full if a wide range of reconnaissance methods has been applied and there are sufficient clues about hidden features or structures. In many cases, once the record of such survey activities is carefully housed in an appropriate archive, for example the local SMR, archaeologists leave the physical remains untouched. If, however, a decision is made to excavate, it should be viewed as a very serious step.
While most scientific experiments can be repeated over and over again in the laboratory, archaeological excavation, although scientific in its approach, does not, by its very nature, allow a second chance.
Some excavation procedures, somewhat confusingly referred to as sampling strategies, have been developed to try and ensure that not all the evidence is removed in the primary investigation of a feature or deposit. Nevertheless, in essence, excavation means destruction. However, that ‘destruction’ is minimised if the archaeologist pays appropriate care and attention to the way the excavation is conducted and particularly to the quality of the records kept. This is sometimes referred to as ‘preservation by record’
There are other considerations. A balance must be struck between the desire to protect archaeological remains for future generations and the need to develop the discipline and advance our knowledge through excavation. [...]
Today, excavators are expected to:
• provide justifications for digging a site
• use survey techniques to plan excavation strategies
• adjust to subsequent changes on site
• put a complete recording system is in place
• select and maintain appropriate samples for analysis
• have facilities for all aspects of post-excavation work
• interpret a site from a limited excavation or sample
• ‘publish’ the results of the work so that they are available to other interested parties
• maintain professional standards while working under time and economic constraints.
If this is done then excavation can move beyond the possible results of survey and get to the real core of archaeology – the hard evidence left by previous people of their existence.
The reuse of ceramic containers for drainage purposes in the town walls at Cremona in Italy presents an archaeological dilemma. Should all the vessels be recorded in situ and excavated by hand or treated as fill and a sample of complete and diagnostic pieces kept and the rest discarded?
TYPES OF EXCAVATION
Excavations today usually fall into one of two broad categories depending on the main reason for them: research or rescue.
Research Excavations
These are usually excavations on sites where there is no immediate threat of destruction. The site is selected by archaeologists for its suitability to answer the questions they wish to answer. It can be excavated according to archaeological needs rather than prompted by the threat of development. Research excavation is only undertaken when the perceived benefits to archaeological understanding outweigh the loss of the original site, or part of it, to future generations. Occasionally there may be reexcavation to recover samples which were never collected at the time or to extend the area of a site. [...]
Rescue Excavations
‘Rescue excavation’ was a term coined in the 1960s when much of our archaeological heritage was destroyed by development and road build¬ing. It involved trying to excavate and record as much as possible in the time before the builders began work. Occasionally sites were not discov¬ered until land clearance began. Rapid recording and rushed excavation in these circumstances was often the best that could be done. This was often called ‘salvage archaeology’. [...] The term is used in the USA interchangeably with ‘rescue archaeology’. [...]
Amongst the key differences between the two approaches is the ability of research archaeologists to select sites and also to fully excavate all sites. Rescue archaeology has sometimes resulted in many tiny ‘keyhole’ excavations into parts of sites rather than always revealing large parts of them. [...]