 |
|
|
|
|
|
John P. Hale Department
of Anthropology Ball
State University Define Historical Archaeology, PleaseIf the definition of historical archaeology is rather vague, it is only because the definition of archaeology is rather vague. In the first half of this paper, I explore several definitions of archaeology, and evaluate them. In the second half, I evaluate several definitions of historical archaeology, and evaluate them. Lastly, I create my own definition of historical archaeology, incorporating the best bits of the other definitions. It is rather interesting that Russell J. Barker (1994), the author of Doing Historical Archaeology, defines archaeology as “what archaeologists do” (1). It is interesting because then, by definition, archaeology must be the art of drinking beer! Archaeologists spend far more time doing that than any other activity, except perhaps grousing about so-and-so’s latest paper topic (that he/she/they stole from me/him/her/them!) or gossiping about the goings on in the department (or was that the cultural anthropologists; who would, no doubt, attribute it to professional curiosity?). But in all seriousness, the definition of archaeology is rather elusive. Definitions of Archaeology If “archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing” then archaeology must share its goals with anthropology (Willey and Phillips 1958:2). And I believe it does. According to Binford (1962), the aims of anthropology are to strive to “explicate and explain the total range of physical and cultural similarities and differences characteristic of the entire spatial-temporal span of man’s existence” (218). Archaeology’s role, then, is to explicate and explain that which came prior to the development of the discipline of anthropology, since the present is clearly the purview of cultural anthropologists. Therefore, we can define archaeology as “the study of past societies for the purpose of explicating and explaining the total range of physical and cultural similarities and differences.” While Binford may have been a demigod within archaeology, I don’t think a definition of archaeology from his perspective really captures the heart of the discipline. For the same reasons, I don’t think any of those archaeologists that view archaeology strictly from a scientific perspective really define it well either. Brian Fagan (1994) defines archaeology as “a specific form of anthropology studying extinct human societies using material remains.” He goes on to state that “the objectives of archaeology are to construct culture history, reconstruct past lifeways, and study culture process” (256). Obviously, Fagan is in line with Binford in regarding archaeology as a science, since the first chapter of his book Archaeology: A Brief Introduction is called “The Birth of a Science.” Though I will not here debate whether archaeology is a science or not, I do not entirely agree with Fagan’s definition. First, he limits archaeology to the study of “extinct” human societies. To define a society as extinct requires frequently arbitrary delineation between societies. Most societies do not have clear beginnings or endings. Even in the case of warfare, unless the aggressed population is completely exterminated, their society may survive in any number of forms. It would be extremely difficult to mark the end of the Roman Empire, for example. Does Roman civilization include the reign of the Holy Roman Empire or does it not? Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn (1996) provide a much simpler definition in their text Archaeology: Theories, Method, and Practice. They define archaeology simply as “the past tense of anthropology” (11). Simple and elegant, however open-ended. They do elaborate a bit in their glossary, which reads, “a subdiscipline of anthropology involving the study of the human past through its material remains” (539). Like Fagan, Renfrew and Bahn agree that archaeology is a part of anthropology, however they do not provide much more. Another point of agreement in both definitions, and indeed in all definitions of archaeology, is the study of material remains. In their text Archaeological Laboratory Methods, Mark Sutton and Brooke Arkush (1998) give an extended definition of archaeology: The study of prehistoric and early historical cultures and processes of cultural adaptation and change, relying mostly upon the material remains associated with those societies. The major goals of archaeology include reconstructing long sequences of human culture (culture history), reconstructing past lifeways, studying cultural processes (documenting/understanding cultural change and stability), and understanding how the archaeological record is formed (367). Sutton and Arkush’s detailed definition has several important points. First, it recognizes the importance of observed data by including culture history as a part of the definition. By doing so they acknowledge that while culture history is not the primary objective of archaeology, it is an important step in the process. Similarly, they recognize that to understand past societies, we have to go beyond a simple description and understand why the society operated as it did. This understanding of cultural processes is what makes archaeology a part of anthropology and not simply a historical discipline. They recognize that the material remains are not the only source of information available to the archaeologist, and thus open up the field to new innovations, such as ethnoarchaeology. Lastly, they also recognize the importance of knowledge about the processes involved in forming the archaeological record, which I take to mean not only the cultural aspects of the formation, but of the natural, geological processes also at work. The only problem I have with Sutton and Arkush’s definition is that it is long. I think Vince Gaffney (1995) provides the most complete, yet most succinct definitions of archaeology: “the study of past societies in their entirety, from the analysis of their cultural and environmental remains, and through the inferences which may be legitimately deduced from such remains” (371-2). The key words in Gaffney’s definition, I think, are that archaeologists “study past societies in their entirety” and that the inferences drawn must be “legitimate.” To study a society in its entirety suggests to me that all approaches are acceptable. Gaffney is saying that there is room for processualists and post-processualists, and both add value. But whatever approach is selected, it must demonstrate careful and judicious practice; it must be legitimate. By this I think Gaffney means that proper scientific method must be applied, and that each proposition must be carefully evaluated and critically reviewed both by the researcher and by his or her colleagues. Historical Archaeology Definitions Now that I have established what can be considered an acceptable definition for archaeology, how would a definition for historical archaeology differ? To answer that question, I must pose another: what is different about historical archaeology that it requires a different definition? According to James Deetz (1996), a popular definition of historical archaeology is, “The archaeology of the spread of European cultures throughout the world since the fifteenth century, and their impact on and interaction with the cultures of indigenous peoples” (5). While not Deetz’s own definition of historical archaeology, he makes the important point that it reflects the global nature of an historical archaeological perspective. Prehistoric studies are, by and large, localized. Deetz states that only after the first European sailing ships began exploring the greater world did the shift occur to large-scale interaction between cultures. What this requires of the archaeologist is a greater awareness of the larger picture. While I see Deetz’s point, I think that the definition is lacking in many ways. Primarily, the global perspective expressed is far from all encompassing, and ignores the exploration and expansion of the Chinese or the Russians, both literate societies that are extraordinarily important when considering the Eastern Hemisphere. Deetz’s (1996) own definition is much better: “historical archaeology studies the cultural remains of literate societies that were capable of recording their own histories” (5). As he points out, it contrasts historical archaeology with prehistoric by defining the literate aspect of the society in question. This important point is truly the delineation between historical and prehistoric. When studying historical periods, the archaeologist has a source of information that the prehistorian does not, documentation. The problem with Deetz’s definition, however, is that not all societies that fall within the historical period are capable of recording their own histories, but are legitimate areas of study that do have supporting documentation. For example, the African cultures from which slaves were culled. While they could not record their own histories, documentation survives that tell where groups of slaves were collected, and from whom. We can learn much about the attitudes of slavers towards African groups and of African groups towards one another through the historical record. Archaeologists working in Eastern Africa thus have a source of information regarding their preliterate subjects through the records kept by the slavers. Another clear example is the study of Native Americans through the journals of French traders and Jesuit missionaries. They provide invaluable information about preliterate Indian society and material culture that can and has been used to great advantage. A notable example is Janet Spector’s (1993) What This Awl Means. This is the strong point of the other first definition offered by Deetz: it notes the influence of the expansion of European peoples on native populations. So it is not that the society being investigated was literate, but merely that it was in contact with a literate society that recorded events regarding it. I think this important relationship between the documentation and events is expressed in Ivor Noël Hume’s (1969) definition of historical archaeology: “the study of the material remains of both the remote and recent past in relationship to documentary history and the stratigraphy of the ground in which they are found” (12). The important elements of Hume’s definition are that it includes both the recent and remote past, encompassing both “classical” archaeology and the archaeology of North America. Secondly, it maintains the focus on material culture, which differentiates archaeology from history. Lastly, it does not specify that the culture being investigated be literate, only that there is documentary evidence to which the archaeological record can be compared. Lastly, Renfrew and Bahn (1996) provide a very succinct definition worth considering. It states that historical archaeology is “the archaeological study of historically documented cultures” (542). This definition is acceptable, of course, only if a definition of archaeology is accepted. Like Hume’s definition, however, it has the advantage of including all societies — whether they have recorded their own history or not — about which something is recorded. Conclusions Of the definitions for archaeology in general, I prefer Gaffney’s. For definitions of historical archaeology, I prefer Hume’s. Both definitions, I think, are broad enough to cover all of the practice of archaeology, but narrow enough to identify the discipline and differentiate from either sociology or history. If I had to construct my own definition of historical archaeology, I would draw heavily on the wording of both definitions. I feel that the only thing that is lacking in Hume’s definition is something describing the interpretive nature of archaeology, however, I believe his purpose was simply to differentiate from prehistoric archaeology. I think my definition would read: Historical archaeology — The study and interpretation of the material remains, both environmental and cultural, of societies in the remote and recent past, and the relationship between those remains and documentary history, towards a goal of understanding the society in its entirety including the cultural processes at work within and without the society. References Cited Barker, Russel, J. Binford, Lewis R. Deetz, James Fagan, Brian M. Gaffney, V. and M. van Leusen Hume, Ivor Noël Renfrew, Colin and Paul Bahn Spector, Janet Sutton, Mark Q. and Brooke S. Arkush Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips |
