Archaeological record
The archaeological record is the body of physical (not
Definitions
Scholars have frequently used in textual analogies such as 'record', 'source' and 'archive' to refer to material evidence of the past since at least the 19th century. The term 'archaeological record' probably originated this way, possibly via parallel concepts in
In the first critical review of the concept, philosopher Linda Patrik found that by the 1980s archaeologists conceptualised the term in at least five different ways:[1]
- As a "receptacle" for material deposits[7]
- As material deposits[8]
- As artefacts and objects[9][10]
- As a collection of
- As reports written by archaeologists[13]
Patrik argued that the first three definitions reflected a "physical model" of archaeological evidence, where it is seen as the direct result of physical processes that operated in the past (like the fossil record); in contrast, definitions four and five follow a "textual model", where the archaeological record is seen as encoding cultural information about the past (like historical texts). She highlighted the extent to which archaeologists' understanding of what constituted 'the archaeological record' was dependent on broader currents in archaeological theory, namely, that processual archaeologists were likely to subscribe to a physical model and postprocessual archaeologists a textual model.[1]
Lucas condenses Patrik's list into three distinct definitions of the archaeological record:[5]
- The archaeological record is material culture
- The archaeological record is the material remains of the past
- The archaeological record is the sources used by archaeologists
As material culture
In its broadest sense, the archaeological record can be conceived as the total body of objects made by, used by, or associated with, humanity. This definition encompasses both artefacts (objects made or modified by humans) and 'ecofacts' (natural objects associated with human activity). In this sense, it is equivalent to material culture, and includes not just 'ancient' remains but the physical things associated with contemporary societies.[5]
This definition, which emphasizes the materiality of the archaeological record and aligns archaeology with
As material remains
More conservative definitions specify that the archaeological record consists of the "remains", "traces" or "residues" of past human activity, although the dividing line between 'the past' and 'the present' may not be well-defined. This view is particularly associated with processual archaeology, which saw the archaeological record as the "fossilised" product of physical, cultural and taphonomic processes that happened in the past, and focused on understanding those processes.[5][15]
As sources
The archaeological record can also consist of the written documentation that is presented in scientific journals. It is what
Components
Components of the archaeological record include: artifacts, built structures,
See also
- Geological record
- Cultural resources management and cultural heritage management
- Excavation (archaeology)
- Typology (archaeology)
References
- ^ JSTOR 20170186.
- ISBN 978-0-12-373962-9.
- ^ Lipe, William D. "Conserving the In Situ Archaeological Record". Retrieved April 13, 2012.
- ^ a b c McChesney, Melisa (23 July 2012). "What is the archaeological record and why does it matter?". The Archaeology Channel Blog. Archived from the original on 22 February 2015.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-107-01026-0.
- ISBN 9781138812789.
- S2CID 34438511.
[...] hominid activities, social patterns, and environmental factors, one with another and with the sample and traces which were at the time deposited in the archaeological record.
- S2CID 161145925.
The loss, breakage, and abandonment of implements and facilities at different locations, where groups of variable structure performed different tasks, leaves a "fossil" record of the actual operation of an extinct society.
- ISBN 9780416164800.
[...] the durable objects constituting the archaeological record pottery, metal, obsidian, emery offer only a small part of the possible range of commodities traded. Much evidence for early trade has perished slaves, wine, wood, hides, opium, lichens even [...] make up a considerable repertoire of traded materials which are only rarely recorded archaeologically. The range and volume of trade could thus have been far greater than the record now documents.
- ^ Watson, Patty Jo; LeBlanc, Steven A.; Redman, Charles L. (1971). Explanation in Archeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. p. 22.
Although the humans themselves are long dead, their patterned behavior can be investigated by the hypothetico-deductive method of science because archaeological remains and their spatial interrelationships are empirically observable records of that patterning.
- ISBN 9781138812789.
The aim of this book is therefore to explain how archaeologists order their data to form a record and how they may try to interpret them as concrete embodiments of thoughts.
- ^ Cherry, John F.; Gamble, Clive; Shennan, Stephen, eds. (1978). Sampling in Contemporary British Archaeology. BAR British Series 50. Oxford: Archaeopress. p. 11.
In order to achieve this representative assessment [of the range of surviving archaeological traces] it is first necessary to appreciate the factors which cause variability in cultural systems (e.g., land use potential), and in the archaeological record itself (e.g., selective recovery by field-workers).
- ^ de Laet, Sigfried J. (1957). Archaeology and Its Problems. Translated by Ruth Daniel. New York, NY: Macmillan.
- ISBN 9781107010260– via Google Books.
- ISBN 978-1-107-01026-0.
- .
- ^ "About". The Digital Archaeological Record.
- ^ "The Role of Archaeology". Michigan Historical Museum's Digging Up Controversy Exhibit. Archived from the original on 3 July 2013.
Further reading
- Feder, Kenneth L. (2007). Linking to the Past: A Brief Introduction to Archaeology, Second Edition. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-533117-6.