Dirt Archaeology: Where Does the Archaeological Record Really Begin?
While many people associate archaeology with the study of ancient cultures, anthropologists hold the perspective that all cultures are equally important to the archaeological record, and that older finds are not necessarily more important nor significant than newer ones.
In “the Field”
One of the more rewarding aspects of archaeological fieldwork is the constant infusion of new blood joining the crew: undergrads and grads coming to “the field” for the first time. Newbies always bring fresh attitudes, the latest technology, and hot-out-of-the-journals scientific perspectives. But no matter how “book” prepared new archaeos may be, there are certain realities of the field that their methods classes never seems to cover. Realities separating the ideal from reality. And this is reflected in the one question that always comes up early in the game: “Well, where does the archaeological record really begin?” Translation: How deep do we have to dig to get to the really important stuff?
Archaeo 101
During a recent dig at Oxford, Mississippi, in the US, my crew was sent to conduct Phase I shovel testing of a documented Choctaw Indian habitation mound hidden deep in the backwoods. (Phase I entails visual surveying of the surface terrain, collection and documentation of any visible artifacts, and periodic digging in a grid-like pattern with special attention to soil changes below the surface.) When we arrived at the coordinates, we discovered a sizable mound covered with the remnants of what was obviously a sustained contemporary habitation–apparently dating to the 1930s.
The Record
Although no roads or overgrown paths were visible (neither on-site or on the topographical maps), there were several 1930s automobiles, a number of collapsed brick walls from at least two substantial shelters, and what appeared to be the tale-tell signs of a moonshine distilling operation. Bottles and copper vats lay strewn for hundreds of meters–virtually obscuring the mound. A look of dismay could be seen on several young faces. “What do we do about all of this junk?” one said, having clearly envisioned a much different scenario after learning we were excavating an Indian mound. “Do you guys ever use rakes?” another asked, suggesting the logic of just shoving the surface material aside. “Well . . . how can we get down to the archaeological record with all this trash here?” another posed, obviously perplexed as to process.
Anthropological Perspective
From the anthropological perspective, every culture is as significant as another. And archaeologically speaking, more recent layers of the fossil record are often more revealing than deeper ones. But the reality that it is only our professional, subjective arrogance that places greater value on the pre-historic–or archaic–than culture of a decade ago, isn‘t covered in Archaeo 101. And while our work at Oxford was easily put into perspective for our newbies (with the surface occupation documented and bagged just as if it were 3000 years old), it seems we all need the occasional reminder that beyond the romance of our own imaginations, every culture is as valid and significant to the advancement of society as any other. While archaeology certainly needs experts on every culture of every period, we need more who acknowledge that every culture–regardless of where it may lie in the timeline–has contributed to the bigger, cultural picture. After all, we’ll want archaeos of the future to keep our material culture in perspective–and not just sweep us aside to get to the important stuff!
