Archaeology

Archaeology or archeology^[a] 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.^[1][2][3] It is usually considered an independent academic discipline, but may also be classified as part of anthropology (in North America – the four-field approach), history or geography.^[4]

Archaeologists study human

The discipline involves

analysis

of data collected, to learn more about the past. In broad scope, archaeology relies on cross-disciplinary research.

Archaeology developed out of

a lack of public interest, and opposition to the excavation of human remains.

History

First instances of archaeology

In Ancient Mesopotamia, a foundation deposit of the Akkadian Empire ruler Naram-Sin (ruled c. 2200 BCE) was discovered and analysed by king Nabonidus, c. 550 BCE, who is thus known as the first archaeologist.^[12][13][14] Not only did he lead the first excavations which were to find the foundation deposits of the temples of Šamaš the sun god, the warrior goddess Anunitu (both located in Sippar), and the sanctuary that Naram-Sin built to the moon god, located in Harran, but he also had them restored to their former glory.^[12] He was also the first to date an archaeological artifact in his attempt to date Naram-Sin's temple during his search for it.^[15] Even though his estimate was inaccurate by about 1,500 years, it was still a very good one considering the lack of accurate dating technology at the time.^[12][15][13]

Antiquarians

The science of archaeology (from

In

^(p97)

In

.

He noted down his archaeological discoveries in his diary, Commentaria (in six volumes).

Flavio Biondo, an Italian Renaissance humanist historian, created a systematic guide to the ruins and topography of ancient Rome in the early 15th century, for which he has been called an early founder of archaeology.^[25]

Antiquarians of the 16th century, including John Leland and William Camden, conducted surveys of the English countryside, drawing, describing and interpreting the monuments that they encountered.^[26][27]

The

whiche he had gleaned over the years of his travels, entitled Miscellanea eruditae antiquitatis.

Twelfth-century Indian scholar Kalhana's writings involved recording of local traditions, examining manuscripts, inscriptions, coins and architectures, which is described as one of the earliest traces of archaeology. One of his notable work is called Rajatarangini which was completed in c. 1150 and is described as one of the first history books of India.^[28][29][30]

First excavations

One of the first sites to undergo archaeological excavation was Stonehenge and other megalithic monuments in England. John Aubrey (1626–1697) was a pioneer archaeologist who recorded numerous megalithic and other field monuments in southern England. He was also ahead of his time in the analysis of his findings. He attempted to chart the chronological stylistic evolution of handwriting, medieval architecture, costume, and shield-shapes.^[31]

Excavations were also carried out by the Spanish military engineer

, had a big impact throughout Europe.

However, prior to the development of modern techniques, excavations tended to be haphazard; the importance of concepts such as

In the mid-18th century, the German Johann Joachim Winckelmann lived in Rome and devoted himself to the study of Roman antiquities and gradually acquired an unrivalled knowledge of ancient art.^[33] Then, he visited the archaeological excavations being conducted at Pompeii and Herculaneum.^[34] He was one of the founders of scientific archaeology and first applied the categories of style on a large, systematic basis to the history of art^[35] He was one of the first to separate Greek art into periods and time classifications.^[36] Winckelmann has been called both "The prophet and founding hero of modern archaeology"^[37] and the father of the discipline of art history.^[38]

Development of archaeological method

Richard Colt Hoare and William Cunnington

.

The father of archaeological excavation was William Cunnington (1754–1810). He undertook excavations in Wiltshire from around 1798,^[39] funded by Sir Richard Colt Hoare. Cunnington made meticulous recordings of Neolithic and Bronze Age barrows, and the terms he used to categorize and describe them are still used by archaeologists today.^[40] However, it is to be recorded that future U.S. President Thomas Jefferson, also proceeded to do his own excavations in 1784, using the trench method, on several Native American burial mounds in Virginia. His excavations were prompted by the "Moundbuilders" question, however his careful methods allowed him enough insight to admitting that he saw no reason why the ancestors of the present-day Native Americans themselves could not have raised those mounds.^[41]

One of the major achievements of 19th-century archaeology was the development of

began to put the artifacts they had found in chronological order.

A major figure in the development of archaeology into a rigorous science was the army officer and ethnologist, Augustus Pitt Rivers,^[42] who began excavations on his land in England in the 1880s. His approach was highly methodical by the standards of the time, and he is widely regarded as the first scientific archaeologist. He arranged his artifacts by type or "typologically, and within types by date or "chronologically". This style of arrangement, designed to highlight the evolutionary trends in human artifacts, was of enormous significance for the accurate dating of the objects. His most important methodological innovation was his insistence that all artifacts, not just beautiful or unique ones, be collected and catalogued.^[43]

.

systematic excavation in the early 20th century. Pictured, are his excavations at Maiden Castle, Dorset

, in October 1937.

The first stratigraphic excavation to reach wide popularity with public was that of

The next major figure in the development of archaeology was Sir

.

Archaeology became a professional activity in the first half of the 20th century, and it became possible to study archaeology as a subject in universities and even schools. By the end of the 20th century nearly all professional archaeologists, at least in developed countries, were graduates. Further adaptation and innovation in archaeology continued in this period, when maritime archaeology and urban archaeology became more prevalent and rescue archaeology was developed as a result of increasing commercial development.^[48]

Purpose

hominin

The purpose of archaeology is to learn more about past societies and the development of the

However, it is not only prehistoric, pre-literate cultures that can be studied using archaeology but historic, literate cultures as well, through the sub-discipline of historical archaeology. For many literate cultures, such as Ancient Greece and Mesopotamia, their surviving records are often incomplete and biased to some extent. In many societies, literacy was restricted to the elite classes, such as the clergy, or the bureaucracy of court or temple. The literacy of aristocrats has sometimes been restricted to deeds and contracts. The interests and world-view of elites are often quite different from the lives and interests of the populace. Writings that were produced by people more representative of the general population were unlikely to find their way into libraries and be preserved there for posterity. Thus, written records tend to reflect the biases, assumptions, cultural values and possibly deceptions of a limited range of individuals, usually a small fraction of the larger population. Hence, written records cannot be trusted as a sole source. The material record may be closer to a fair representation of society, though it is subject to its own biases, such as sampling bias and differential preservation.^[50]

Often, archaeology provides the only means to learn of the existence and behaviors of people of the past. Across the millennia many thousands of cultures and societies and billions of people have come and gone of which there is little or no written record or existing records are misrepresentative or incomplete. Writing as it is known today did not exist in human civilization until the 4th millennium BCE, in a relatively small number of technologically advanced civilizations. In contrast, Homo sapiens has existed for at least 200,000 years, and other species of Homo for millions of years (see Human evolution). These civilizations are, not coincidentally, the best-known; they are open to the inquiry of historians for centuries, while the study of pre-historic cultures has arisen only recently. Within a literate civilization many events and important human practices may not be officially recorded. Any knowledge of the early years of human civilization – the development of agriculture, cult practices of folk religion, the rise of the first cities – must come from archaeology.

In addition to their scientific importance, archaeological remains sometimes have political or cultural significance to descendants of the people who produced them, monetary value to collectors, or strong aesthetic appeal. Many people identify archaeology with the recovery of such aesthetic, religious, political, or economic treasures rather than with the reconstruction of past societies.

This view is often espoused in works of popular fiction, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Mummy, and King Solomon's Mines. When unrealistic subjects are treated more seriously, accusations of pseudoscience are invariably levelled at their proponents (see Pseudoarchaeology). However, these endeavours, real and fictional, are not representative of modern archaeology.

Theory

There is no one approach to archaeological theory that has been adhered to by all archaeologists. When archaeology developed in the late 19th century, the first approach to archaeological theory to be practised was that of

In the 1980s, a new

Archaeological theory now borrows from a wide range of influences, including neo-evolutionary thought,^[68][35] phenomenology, postmodernism, agency theory, cognitive science, structural functionalism, gender-based and feminist archaeology, and systems theory.

Methods

An archaeological investigation usually involves several distinct phases, each of which employs its own variety of methods. Before any practical work can begin, however, a clear objective as to what the archaeologists are looking to achieve must be agreed upon. This done, a site is

Remote sensing

Before actually starting to dig in a location,

is an example of passive remote sensing. Here are two active remote sensing instruments:

• Lidar: Lidar (light detection and ranging) uses a laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) to transmit a light pulse and a receiver with sensitive detectors to measure the backscattered or reflected light. Distance to the object is determined by recording the time between the transmitted and backscattered pulses and using the speed of light to calculate the distance travelled. Lidars can determine atmospheric profiles of aerosols, clouds, and other constituents of the atmosphere.
• Laser altimeter: A laser altimeter uses a lidar (see above) to measure the height of the instrument platform above the surface. By independently knowing the height of the platform with respect to the mean Earth's surface, the topography of the underlying surface can be determined.^[69]

Field survey

The archaeological project then continues (or alternatively, begins) with a field survey. Regional survey is the attempt to systematically locate previously unknown sites in a region. Site survey is the attempt to systematically locate features of interest, such as houses and middens, within a site. Each of these two goals may be accomplished with largely the same methods.

Survey was not widely practised in the early days of archaeology. Cultural historians and prior researchers were usually content with discovering the locations of monumental sites from the local populace, and excavating only the plainly visible features there. Gordon Willey pioneered the technique of regional settlement pattern survey in 1949 in the Viru Valley of coastal Peru,^[70][71] and survey of all levels became prominent with the rise of processual archaeology some years later.^[72]

Survey work has many benefits if performed as a preliminary exercise to, or even in place of, excavation. It requires relatively little time and expense, because it does not require processing large volumes of soil to search out artifacts. (Nevertheless, surveying a large region or site can be expensive, so archaeologists often employ sampling methods.)^[73] As with other forms of non-destructive archaeology, survey avoids ethical issues (of particular concern to descendant peoples) associated with destroying a site through excavation. It is the only way to gather some forms of information, such as settlement patterns and settlement structure. Survey data are commonly assembled into maps, which may show surface features and/or artifact distribution.

The simplest survey technique is surface survey. It involves combing an area, usually on foot but sometimes with the use of mechanized transport, to search for features or artifacts visible on the surface. Surface survey cannot detect sites or features that are completely buried under earth, or overgrown with vegetation. Surface survey may also include mini-excavation techniques such as

.

electrical resistivity

of the soil are also widely used. Archaeological features whose electrical resistivity contrasts with that of surrounding soils can be detected and mapped. Some archaeological features (such as those composed of stone or brick) have higher resistivity than typical soils, while others (such as organic deposits or unfired clay) tend to have lower resistivity.

Although some archaeologists consider the use of metal detectors to be tantamount to treasure hunting, others deem them an effective tool in archaeological surveying.^[76] Examples of formal archaeological use of metal detectors include musketball distribution analysis on English Civil War battlefields, metal distribution analysis prior to excavation of a 19th-century ship wreck, and service cable location during evaluation. Metal detectorists have also contributed to archaeology where they have made detailed records of their results and refrained from raising artifacts from their archaeological context. In the UK, metal detectorists have been solicited for involvement in the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

Regional survey in underwater archaeology uses geophysical or remote sensing devices such as marine magnetometer, side-scan sonar, or sub-bottom sonar.^[77]

Excavation

Archaeological excavation existed even when the field was still the domain of amateurs, and it remains the source of the majority of data recovered in most field projects. It can reveal several types of information usually not accessible to survey, such as stratigraphy, three-dimensional structure, and verifiably primary context.

Modern excavation techniques require that the precise locations of objects and features, known as their

of activity. For example, excavation of a site reveals its stratigraphy; if a site was occupied by a succession of distinct cultures, artifacts from more recent cultures will lie above those from more ancient cultures.

Excavation is the most expensive phase of archaeological research, in relative terms. Also, as a destructive process, it carries

to ensure that all features are apparent.

The next task is to form a

context

of each. All this information serves as a permanent record of the now-destroyed archaeology and is used in describing and interpreting the site.

Analysis

Once artifacts and structures have been excavated, or collected from surface surveys, it is necessary to properly study them. This process is known as post-excavation analysis, and is usually the most time-consuming part of an archaeological investigation. It is not uncommon for final excavation reports for major sites to take years to be published.

At a basic level of analysis, artifacts found are cleaned, catalogued and compared to published collections. This comparison process often involves classifying them

.

These techniques frequently provide information that would not otherwise be known, and therefore they contribute greatly to the understanding of a site.

Computational and virtual archaeology

can be applied to large bodies of archaeological 'grey literature'.

Drones

Archaeologists around the world use drones to speed up survey work and protect sites from squatters, builders and miners. In Peru, small drones helped researchers produce three-dimensional models of Peruvian sites instead of the usual flat maps – and in days and weeks instead of months and years.[80]

Drones costing as little as £650 have proven useful. In 2013, drones have flown over at least six Peruvian archaeological sites, including the colonial Andean town Machu Llacta 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) above sea level. The drones continue to have altitude problems in the Andes, leading to plans to make a drone blimp, employing open source software.^[80]

Jeffrey Quilter, an archaeologist with Harvard University said, "You can go up three metres and photograph a room, 300 metres and photograph a site, or you can go up 3,000 metres and photograph the entire valley."^[80]

In September 2014 drones weighing about 5 kg (11 lb) were used for 3D mapping of the above-ground ruins of the Greek city of Aphrodisias. The data are being analysed by the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Vienna.^[81]

Academic sub-disciplines

As with most

Historical archaeology

Historical archaeology is the study of cultures with some form of writing and deals with objects and issues from the past.

In

were being destroyed, emergency archaeological digs took place whenever any part of the line was removed, to further scientific knowledge and reveal details of the line's construction.

Ethnoarchaeology

Ethnoarchaeology is the ethnographic study of living people, designed to aid in our interpretation of the archaeological record.^{[84][85][86][87][88][89]} The approach first gained prominence during the processual movement of the 1960s, and continues to be a vibrant component of post-processual and other current archaeological approaches.^{[68][90][91][92][93]} Early ethnoarchaeological research focused on hunter-gatherer or foraging societies; today ethnoarchaeological research encompasses a much wider range of human behaviour.

Experimental archaeology

, the experimental method gained importance. Experimental techniques remain a crucial component to improving the inferential frameworks for interpreting the archaeological record.

Archaeometry

Cultural resources management

Main article:

Cultural resources management

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (March 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Archaeology can be a subsidiary activity within

.

The application of CRM in the United Kingdom is not limited to government-funded projects. Since 1990, PPG 16^[104] has required planners to consider archaeology as a material consideration in determining applications for new development. As a result, numerous archaeological organizations undertake mitigation work in advance of (or during) construction work in archaeologically sensitive areas, at the developer's expense.

In England, ultimate responsibility of care for the historic environment rests with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport^[105] in association with English Heritage.^[106] In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the same responsibilities lie with Historic Scotland,^[107] Cadw^[108] and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency^[109] respectively.

In France, the Institut national du patrimoine (The National Institute of Cultural Heritage) trains curators specialized in archaeology. Their mission is to enhance the objects discovered. The curator is the link between scientific knowledge, administrative regulations, heritage objects and the public.

Among the goals of CRM are the identification, preservation, and maintenance of

sites on public and private lands, and the removal of culturally valuable materials from areas where they would otherwise be destroyed by human activity, such as proposed construction. This study involves at least a cursory examination to determine whether or not any significant archaeological sites are present in the area affected by the proposed construction. If these do exist, time and money must be allotted for their excavation. If initial survey and/or test excavations indicate the presence of an extraordinarily valuable site, the construction may be prohibited entirely.

Cultural resources management has, however, been criticized. CRM is conducted by private companies that bid for projects by submitting proposals outlining the work to be done and an expected budget. It is not unheard of for the agency responsible for the construction to choose the proposal that asks for the least funding. CRM archaeologists face considerable time pressure, often being forced to complete their work in a fraction of the time that might be allotted for a purely scholarly endeavour. Compounding the time pressure is the vetting process of site reports that are required (in the US) to be submitted by CRM firms to the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). From the SHPO's perspective there is to be no difference between a report submitted by a CRM firm operating under a deadline, and a multi-year academic project. The result is that for a Cultural Resource Management archaeologist to be successful, they must be able to produce academic quality documents at a corporate world pace.

The annual ratio of open academic archaeology positions (inclusive of

has attracted these graduates, and CRM offices are thus increasingly staffed by advance degreed individuals with a track record of producing scholarly articles but who also have extensive CRM field experience.

Protection

The protection of archaeological finds for the public from catastrophes, wars and armed conflicts is increasingly being implemented internationally. This happens on the one hand through international agreements and on the other hand through organizations that monitor or enforce protection. United Nations, UNESCO and Blue Shield International deal with the protection of cultural heritage and thus also archaeological sites. This also applies to the integration of United Nations peacekeeping. Blue Shield International has undertaken various fact-finding missions in recent years to protect archaeological sites during the wars in Libya, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon. The importance of archaeological finds for identity, tourism and sustainable economic growth is repeatedly emphasized internationally.^{[111][112][113][114][115][116]}

The President of Blue Shield International, Karl von Habsburg, said during a cultural property protection mission in Lebanon in April 2019 with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon: "Cultural assets are part of the identity of the people who live in a certain place. If you destroy their culture, you also destroy their identity. Many people are uprooted, often have no prospects anymore and subsequently flee from their homeland."^[117]

Popular views of archaeology

multi-storey car park

, explaining the archaeological discoveries made during the construction of this building

Early archaeology was largely an attempt to uncover spectacular artifacts and features, or to explore vast and mysterious abandoned cities and was mostly done by upper class, scholarly men. This general tendency laid the foundation for the modern popular view of archaeology and archaeologists. Many of the public view archaeology as something only available to a narrow demographic. The job of archaeologist is depicted as a "romantic adventurist occupation".^[118] and as a hobby more than a job in the scientific community. Cinema audiences form a notion of "who archaeologists are, why they do what they do, and how relationships to the past are constituted",^[118] and is often under the impression that all archaeology takes place in a distant and foreign land, only to collect monetarily or spiritually priceless artifacts. The modern depiction of archaeology has incorrectly formed the public's perception of what archaeology is.

Much thorough and productive research has indeed been conducted in dramatic locales such as

Archaeologists are also very much reliant on public support; the question of for whom they are working is often discussed.[120]

Current issues and controversy

Public archaeology

Motivated by a desire to halt looting, curb pseudoarchaeology, and to help preserve archaeological sites through education and fostering public appreciation for the importance of archaeological heritage, archaeologists are mounting public-outreach campaigns.^[121] They seek to stop looting by combatting people who illegally take artifacts from protected sites, and by alerting people who live near archaeological sites of the threat of looting. Common methods of public outreach include press releases, the encouragement of school field trips to sites under excavation by professional archaeologists, and making reports and publications accessible outside of academia.^[122][123] Public appreciation of the significance of archaeology and archaeological sites often leads to improved protection from encroaching development or other threats.

One audience for archaeologists' work is the public. Archaeologists increasingly realize that their work can benefit non-academic and non-archaeological audiences, and that they have a responsibility to educate and inform the public about archaeology. Local heritage awareness is aimed at increasing civic and individual pride through projects such as community excavation projects, and better public presentations of archaeological sites and knowledge.^[

Television programs, web videos and social media can also bring an understanding of underwater archaeology to a broad audience. The Mardi Gras Shipwreck Project[125] integrated a one-hour HD documentary,^[126] short videos for public viewing and video updates during the expedition as part of the educational outreach. Webcasting is also another tool for educational outreach. For one week in 2000 and 2001, live underwater video of the Queen Anne's Revenge Shipwreck Project was webcast to the Internet as a part of the QAR DiveLive^[127] educational program that reached thousands of children around the world.Southerly, C.; Gillman-Bryan, J. (19 February 2009). Diving on the Queen Anne's Revenge. The American Academy of Underwater Sciences. Archived from the original on 19 February 2009. Created and co-produced by Nautilus Productions and Marine Grafics, this project enabled students to talk to scientists and learn about methods and technologies used by the underwater archaeology team.^[128][129]

In the UK, popular archaeology programs such as

training excavations and archaeological holiday tours.^{[citation needed}

]

Archaeologists prize local knowledge and often liaise with local historical and archaeological societies, which is one reason why Community archaeology projects are starting to become more common. Often archaeologists are assisted by the public in the locating of archaeological sites, which professional archaeologists have neither the funding, nor the time to do.

Archaeological Legacy Institute (ALI), is a registered 501[c] [3] non-profit, media and education corporation registered in Oregon in 1999. ALI founded a website, The Archaeology Channel to support the organization's mission "to nurturing and bringing attention to the human cultural heritage, by using media in the most efficient and effective ways possible."^[132]

There is a considerable international body of research focused on archaeology and public value and tangible benefits of archaeology include^[133] helping to counteract racism, documenting accomplishments of ignored communities, providing time-depth as a response to short-termism of the modern age, and contributing to human ecology, independent evidence base, historic context development and tourism^[134] The delivery of public benefits through archaeology can be summarised as follows: through making a contribution to a shared history,^[135] artistic and cultural treasures, local values, place-making and social cohesion, educational benefits, contribution to science and innovation, health and wellbeing, and added economic value to developers.^[136][130]

Pseudoarchaeology

Main article: Pseudoarchaeology

Pseudoarchaeology is an umbrella term for all activities that falsely claim to be archaeological but in fact violate commonly accepted and scientific archaeological practices. It includes much fictional archaeological work (discussed above), as well as some actual activity. Many non-fiction authors have ignored the scientific methods of processual archaeology, or the specific critiques of it contained in post-processualism.^{[citation needed]}

An example of this type is the writing of

Ancient astronaut theory, is not exclusively Däniken's, nor did the idea originate with him. Works of this nature are usually marked by the renunciation of well-established theories on the basis of limited evidence, and the interpretation of evidence with a preconceived theory in mind.^{[citation needed}

]

Looting

illicit antiquities trade. Smuggling of antiquities abroad to private collectors has caused great cultural and economic damage in many countries whose governments lack the resources and or the will to deter it. Looters damage and destroy archaeological sites, denying future generations information about their ethnic and cultural heritage. Indigenous peoples especially lose access to and control over their 'cultural resources', ultimately denying them the opportunity to know their past.^[138]

In 1937, W. F. Hodge the Director of the

Archaeological Resources Protection Act was in 1992 in the State of Indiana.^[140]

Archaeologists trying to protect artifacts may be placed in danger by looters or locals trying to protect the artifacts from archaeologists who are viewed as looters by the locals.[141]

Some historical archaeology sites are subjected to looting by metal detector hobbyists who search for artifacts using increasingly advanced technology. Efforts are underway among all major Archaeological organizations to increase education and legitimate cooperation between amateurs and professionals in the metal detecting community.^[142]

While most looting is deliberate, accidental looting can occur when amateurs, who are unaware of the importance of Archaeological rigor, collect artifacts from sites and place them into private collections.

Descendant peoples

In the United States, examples such as the case of Kennewick Man have illustrated the tensions between Native Americans and archaeologists, which can be summarized as a conflict between a need to remain respectful toward sacred burial sites and the academic benefit from studying them. For years, American archaeologists dug on Indian burial grounds and other places considered sacred, removing artifacts and human remains to storage facilities for further study. In some cases human remains were not even thoroughly studied but instead archived rather than reburied. Furthermore, Western archaeologists' views of the past often differ from those of tribal peoples. The West views time as linear; for many natives, it is cyclic. From a Western perspective, the past is long-gone; from a native perspective, disturbing the past can have dire consequences in the present.

As a consequence of this, American Indians attempted to prevent archaeological excavation of sites inhabited by their ancestors, while American archaeologists believed that the advancement of scientific knowledge was a valid reason to continue their studies. This contradictory situation was addressed by the

postprocessualism, some archaeologists have begun to actively enlist the assistance of indigenous peoples

likely to be descended from those under study.

Archaeologists have also been obliged to re-examine what constitutes an archaeological site in view of what native peoples believe to constitute sacred space. To many native peoples, natural features such as lakes, mountains or even individual trees have cultural significance. Australian archaeologists especially have explored this issue and attempted to survey these sites to give them some protection from being developed. Such work requires close links and trust between archaeologists and the people they are trying to help and at the same time study.

While this cooperation presents a new set of challenges and hurdles to fieldwork, it has benefits for all parties involved. Tribal elders cooperating with archaeologists can prevent the excavation of areas of sites that they consider sacred, while the archaeologists gain the elders' aid in interpreting their finds. There have also been active efforts to recruit aboriginal peoples directly into the archaeological profession.

Repatriation

See Repatriation and reburial of human remains

A new trend in the heated controversy between

Maniwaki, Quebec, to inter ancestral human remains and burial goods—some dating back 6,000 years. It was not determined, however, if the remains were directly related to the Algonquin people who now inhabit the region. The remains may be of Iroquoian ancestry, since Iroquoian people inhabited the area before the Algonquin. Moreover, the oldest of these remains might have no relation at all to the Algonquin or Iroquois, and belong to an earlier culture who previously inhabited the area.^{[citation needed}

]

The remains and artifacts, including

Canadian Museum of Civilization's research collection for decades, some since the late 19th century. Elders from various Algonquin communities conferred on an appropriate reburial, eventually deciding on traditional red cedar and birch bark boxes lined with red cedar chips, muskrat and beaver pelts.^{[citation needed}

]

An inconspicuous rock mound marks the reburial site where close to 80 boxes of various sizes are buried. Because of this reburial, no further scientific study is possible. Although negotiations were at times tense between the Kitigan Zibi community and museum, they were able to reach agreement.[143]

African diaspora archaeology

Main article: African diaspora archaeology

African Diaspora Archaeology is an area of study within the subfield of historical archaeology that studies those that have been forcibly transported through the Atlantic Slave Trade, the Trans-Saharan Slave Trade, and the Indian Ocean Slave Trade, as well as their descendants. Although of global relevance, most research has been conducted in the Americas and Africa.^[144][145]

In the United States, Similar to the experience of Native Americans, the history of African diaspora archaeology is one of controversies over Whiteness in archaeology and anthropology, a lack of inclusion of the African descendant community,^[146] and possession of human remains in the collections of universities and museums.^[147] In the 1990s, anthropologist Michael Blakey was the director of research during the New York African Burial Ground Project where he initiated a protocol for collaborating with the African descendant community. In 2011, the Society of Black Archaeologists was created in the United States.^[148] Co-founders Ayana Omilade Flewellen, archaeologist at the University of California, Riverside and Justin Dunnavant, archaeologist and assistant professor of anthropology at the University of California, Los Angeles intend to build a restorative justice-based structure in archaeology. They suggest to define descendants not only in genealogical terms, but also to welcome input of African Americans whose ancestors had a shared historical experience in enslavement.^[149]

The United States Senate unanimously passed a bill^[150] in December 2020 that centers African American cemeteries at risk in South Carolina. The bill is made to better protect historic African burial grounds and can lead to the creation of an African American Burial Grounds Network.^[151] Barbados, eight days after becoming a republic on November 30, 2021, announced plans for the construction of the Newton Enslaved Burial Ground Memorial as well as a museum dedicated to the history of the Atlantic slave trade.^[152] The Ghanaian-British architect David Adjaye is to lead the project that is to commemorate an estimated 570 West Africans buried in unmarked graves at the site of the former Newton sugar plantation.^[152][153] Barbados can be seen as a good example of respectful preservation of an African burial ground. Throughout the Americas however the burial grounds are in danger of being destroyed or human remains are being excavated without the descendant community being involved.^{[154][155][156][157][158]} In 2022, residents on Sint Eustatius, Dutch Caribbean spoke out strongly against what they found were unethical excavations of their ancestors on the Godet African Burial Ground and the Golden Rock African Burial Ground.^[159]

Climate change and archaeology

As anthropogenic climate change affects our environment, projections show that there will be changes in rainfall with increased drought and desertification, increases in intensity and frequency of rainfall, increases in temperature (winter and summer), increases in both the temperature and frequency of heatwaves, rising sea levels, and warmer seas, ocean acidification and changes in oceanic currents. These climate drivers will result in changes to flora and fauna, and changes in ground conditions (both on and below the surface) and so will also affect archaeological deposits and structures, while human responses to the climate crisis will also impact archaeological sites. The archaeologist's knowledge and skills are relevant to supporting society in adapting to a changing climate and a low carbon future.^[160][161] Another effect of higher temperatures has been melting of glaciers and ice patches. This has led to the discovery of artifacts and bodies long buried in the ice, fostering the new field of glacial archaeology.^[162][163]

Archaeological sites can be seen as habitats that support ecosystems and fulfil biodiversity goals.^[164]

See also

• Anthropology – Scientific study of humans, human behavior, and societies
• Archaeobiology
• Archaeogenetics – Application of the techniques of molecular population genetics to the study of the human past
• Archaeology and racism
• Archaeology of religion and ritual
• Area of archaeological potential
• Conservation and restoration of archaeological sites
• Chronological dating – Dating method
• Classical archaeology – Sub-discipline of archaeology
• Disturbance (archaeology) – change to an archaeological site due to events which occurred after the site was laid downPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
• Dump digging – Excavating garbage dumps to find objects of interest
• GIS in archaeology – Aspect of GIS usage
• Glossary of archaeology – Glossary for archaeological terms
• Harris matrix – Method of depicting site stratigraphy
• Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage project – Cultural heritage research initiative
• Nationalism and archaeology
• Palaeoanthropology – Study of ancient humans
• Urban archaeology – Archaeological sub-discipline
• * Zooarchaeology – Archaeological sub-discipline

Lists

• List of archaeological excavations by date
• List of archaeological periods
• List of archaeological sites by country
• List of archaeologists
• List of archaeology awards
• List of paleoethnobotanists

Notes

1. ligature æ.^[166]

References

Bibliography

• Aldenderfer, M.S.; Maschner, H.D.G., eds. (1996). Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Ascher, R. (1961). "Analogy in archaeological interpretation". Southwestern Journal of Anthropology. 17 (4). University of New Mexico: 317–25.
  S2CID 153939299
  .
• Ascher, R. (1961). "Experimental Archeology". American Anthropologist. 63 (4): 793–816.
  doi:10.1525/aa.1961.63.4.02a00070
  .
• Billman, B.R.; Feinman, G. (1999). Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas — Fifty Years Since Virú. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
• Binford, L. (1962). "Archaeology as Anthropology". American Antiquity. 28 (4). Society for American Archaeology: 217–25.
  S2CID 162242910
  .
• Denning, K. (2004). "The Storm of Progress' and Archaeology for an Online Public". Internet Archaeology. 15.
• Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1999). The Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  OCLC 223427870
  .
• Fash, William (2001). "Archaeology". In David L. Carrasco (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 25–35.
  OCLC 82141470. Archived
  from the original on 9 August 2020. Retrieved 22 July 2020.
• Flannery, K.V. (1967). "Culture History v. Culture Process: A Debate in American archaeology". Scientific American. 217 (2): 119–22.
  doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0867-119
  .
• Flannery, K.V. (1982). "The Golden Marshalltown: A Parable for the Archaeology of the 1980s". American Anthropologist. 84 (2): 265–278.
  doi:10.1525/aa.1982.84.2.02a00010
  .
• Fraser, Julius Thomas; Francis C. Haber (1986). Time, Science, and Society in China and the West. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
• Glascock, M.D.; Neff, H.; Stryker, K.S. & Johnson, T.N. (1994). "Sourcing archaeological obsidian by an abbreviated NAA procedure". Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry. 180 (1): 29–35.
  S2CID 97455573
  .
• Gifford-Gonzalez, D.P.; Damrosch, D.B.; Damrosch, D.R.; Pryor, J. & Thunen, R.L. (1985). "The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical Dispersal". American Antiquity. 50 (4): 803–818.
  S2CID 163218164
  .
• Gladfelter, B.G. (1977). "Geoarchaeology: The Geomorphologist and Archaeology". American Antiquity. 42 (4). Society for American Archaeology: 519–538.
  S2CID 163453920
  .
• Gould, R. (1971a). "The Archaeologist as Ethnographer: A Case from the Western Desert of Australia". World Archaeology. 3 (2): 143–177.
  doi:10.1080/00438243.1969.9979499
  .
• Gould, R.; Koster, D.A. & Sontz, A.H.L. (1971b). "The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of Australia". American Antiquity. 36 (2): 149–169.
  S2CID 163617121
  .
• Gould, R.; Yellen, J. (1987). "Man the hunted: Determinants of household spacing in desert and tropical foraging societies". Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 6 (1): 77.
  doi:10.1016/0278-4165(87)90017-1. Archived
  from the original on 4 June 2020. Retrieved 3 June 2020.
• Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E.L.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana (2010). Cultural Anthropology: The human challenge (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.
  ISBN 978-0-495-81082-7
  .
• Hinshaw, J. (2000). Ethnobotanical and Archaeobotanical Relationships: A Yuman case study. Salinas: Coyote Press. pp. 3–7, 38–45.
• Hodder, I. (1982). Symbols in Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Hodder, I. (1985). "Post-processual archaeology". In Schiffer, M.B. (ed.). Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. New York: Academic Press.
• Hodder, I., ed. (1987). The Archaeology of Contextual Meaning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Hodder, I. (1990). "Style as historical quality". In Hastorf, M. (ed.). The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hodder, I. (1991). "Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role". American Antiquity. 56 (1). Society for American Archaeology: 7–18.
  S2CID 163936790
  .
• Hodder, I. (1992). Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London, UK: Routeldge.
• Kuznar, L, ed. (2001). Ethnoarchaeology of Andean South America. Ann Arbor, MI: International Monographs in Prehistory.
• Miller, D.; Tilley, C. (1984). "Ideology, power, and prehistory: An introduction". In Miller, D.; Tilley, C. (eds.). Ideology, Power, and Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  OCLC 241599209
  .
• Miller, D.; Rowlands, M.; Tilley, C., eds. (1989). Dominion and Resistance. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Ogundele, S.O. (2005). "Ethnoarchaeology of domestic space and spatial behaviour among the Tiv and Ungwai of central Nigeria". African Archaeological Review. 22 (1): 25–54.
  S2CID 145452535
  .
• doi:10.1177/14634990122228638 (inactive 11 February 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of February 2024 (link
  )
• Renfrew, C.; Bahn, P.G. (1991). Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
  OCLC 185808200
  .
• Saraydar, S.; Shimada, I. (1971). "A Quantitative Comparison of Efficiency Between A Stone Axe and A Steel Axe". American Antiquity. 36 (2): 216–217.
  S2CID 163927190
  .
• Saraydar, S.C.; Shimada, I. (1973). "Experimental archaeology: A new outlook". American Antiquity. 38 (3): 344–350.
  S2CID 163223665
  .
• Sellet, F.; Greaves, R. & Yu, P.-L. (2006). Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
• Shanks, M.; Tilley, C. (1987). Reconstructing Archaeology. New York: Cambridge university Press.
• Shanks, M.; Tilley, C. (1988). Social Theory and Archaeology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
  OCLC 16465065
  .
• Shanks, M. (1991). "Some recent approaches to style and social reconstruction in classical archaeology". Archaeological Review from Cambridge. 10: 164–174.
• Shanks, M. (1993). "Style and the design of a perfume jar from an Archaic Greek city state". Journal of European Archaeology. 1 (1): 77–106.
  doi:10.1179/096576693800731190
  .
• Shott, M.J.; Sillitoe, P. (2005). "Use life and curation in New Guinea experimental used flakes". Journal of Archaeological Science. 32 (5): 653–663.
  doi:10.1016/j.jas.2004.11.012
  .
• Tassie, G J.; Owens, L.S. (2010). Standards of Archaeological Excavations: A Fieldguide to the Methology, Recording Techniques and Conventions. London: GHP.
  ISBN 978-1-906137-17-5
  .
• Taylor, W.W. (1948). A Study of Archaeology. Menasha: American Anthropological Association.
  OCLC 9714935
  .
• Tilley, Christopher, ed. (1993). Interpretive Archaeology. Oxford, UK: Berg.
  OCLC 185494001
  .
• Trigger, B.G. (1989). A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Watters, M.R. (1992). Principles of Geoarchaeology: A North American Perspective. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
• Watters, M.R. (2000). "Alluvial stratigraphy and geoarchaeology in the American Southwest". Geoarchaeology. 15 (6): 537–557.
  doi:10.1002/1520-6548(200008)15:6<537::AID-GEA5>3.0.CO;2-E
  .
• Willey, G.R. (1953). Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Perú. Washington, DC.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
• Willey, G. (1968). Settlement Archaeology. Palo Alto, CA: National Press.
• Wylie, A. (1985). "The reaction against analogy". In Schiffer, Michael B. (ed.). Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. pp. 63–111.
• Yellen, J.; Harpending, H. (1972). "Hunter-Gatherer Populations and Archaeological Inference". World Archaeology. 4 (2): 244–253.
  PMID 16468220
  .
• Yellen, J. (1977). Archaeological Approaches to the Present. New York: Academic Press.
  OCLC 2911020
  .

Further reading

Main articles: Bibliography of anthropology and Table of years in archaeology

• Hodder, Ian; Shanks, Michael; Alexandri, Alexandar; Buchili, Victor; Carman, John; Last, Jonathan; Lucas, Gavin (2008). "Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past". Routledge. London. Archived from the original on 16 August 2021. Retrieved 18 June 2019.
• Olsen, Bjørnar; Shanks, Michael; Webmoor, Timothy; Witmore, Christopher (2012). Archaeology: The Discipline of Things. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
  ISBN 978-0-520-95400-7. Archived
  from the original on 17 August 2021. Retrieved 18 June 2019.
• Rathje, William; Shanks, Michael; Witmore, Christoper (2013). Archaeology in the Making. London: Routledge.
  ISBN 978-0-415-63480-9. Archived
  from the original on 19 August 2021. Retrieved 18 June 2019.
• Shanks, Michael (1992). Experiencing the Past: On the Character of Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.
  ISBN 0-203-97363-1. Archived
  from the original on 17 August 2021. Retrieved 18 June 2019.
• Archaeology (magazine)
• ISBN 0-202-33022-2
• Glyn Daniel – A Short History of Archaeology (1991)
• Kevin Greene – Introduction to Archaeology (1983)
• Thomas Hester, Harry Shafer, and
  Kenneth L. Feder
  – Field Methods in Archaeology 7th edition (1997)
• Ian Hodder & Scott Hutson – "Reading the Past" 3rd. edition (2003)
• Hutchings Rich, La Salle Marina (2014). "Teaching Anti-Colonial Archaeology". Archaeologies. 10 (1): 27–69.
  S2CID 154800430
  .
• International Journal of South American Archaeology - IJSA (magazine)
• Internet Archaeology, e-journal
• C.U. Larsen - Sites and Monuments (1992)
• Adrian Praetzellis – Death by Theory, AltaMira Press (2000).
  ISBN 978-0-7425-0359-5
• Colin Renfrew & Paul Bahn – Archaeology: theories, methods and practice, 2nd edition (1996)
• Smekalova, T.N.; Voss O.; & Smekalov S.L. (2008). "Magnetic Surveying in Archaeology. More than 10 years of using the Overhauser GSM-19 gradiometer". Wormianum.
• David Hurst Thomas – Archaeology, 3rd. ed. (1998)
• Robert J. Sharer & Wendy Ashmore – Archaeology: Discovering our Past 2nd edition (1993)
• Bruce Trigger – "A History of Archaeological Thought" 2nd. edition (2007)
• Alison Wylie – Thinking From Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology, University of California Press, Berkeley CA, 2002

External links

Library resources about
Archaeology

---

• Resources in your library
• Resources in other libraries

• Works related to Archaeology at Wikisource

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Archaeology.

Wikiquote has quotations related to Archaeology.

Wikibooks has more on the topic of: Archaeology

Wikivoyage has a travel guide for Archaeological sites.

• Fasti Online – an online database of archaeological sites
• The Archaeology Data Service – Open access online archive for UK and global archaeology
• World Archaeology News – weekly update from BBC Radio archaeologist, Win Scutt
• The Archaeology Channel