The Power of Archaeology

Originally written for a Humanities course in September 2018.

“We must acknowledge that within most constructivist approaches complete ‘self-knowledge’ is impossible… but we should strive to understand the power relations within the process as well as we can” (Rose, 1997). Within a work of academic research, there is a large amount of data that has to be sorted through to pick out the relevant details. Without the proper vetting, writers cannot be sure that they are receiving all the relevant data. This process starts with a researcher in and of themselves having to choose where would be the most applicable location to work in which already can cause some bias and can result in skewed information. The second part, keeping decent records of the correct digging methods, is probably the easiest to screw up and was not as important in the early years of archaeology and palaeontology, and leads to the third aspect; in the field or in lab experimentation, with the final part being the ability or attempt to share the knowledge gained with readers. Because of the many corruptible moving pieces in this field research system, researchers cannot fully recognise or acknowledge everything that is not in our control when we choose which data to use.

Along the lines of archaeological research, the most difficult aspect is most often finding where to start and begin digging. With the advent and advancements in GPR (ground penetrating radar) in recent decades aircraft have been more able to pinpoint potential sites with a large aerial sweep by looking at the changes in topography and density of the stuff underneath which could show what the material is made of (Conyers, 1997). In the past though an archaeologist would have to scour written and oral stories and physical maps to potentially discover something. How then would archaeologists choose where to dig? This is how their research makes its most immediate choice that can steer the research in one particular direction. When the researcher chooses an area to dig they have to keep in mind where and how the people would have interacted with the landscape, which in itself takes assumptions with how the researched groups would have seen the world. 

These locations may have been chosen with oral histories taken into account, for example; while working in Gotland the main researcher, Dan Carlson, who had been leading a field school for several years had various trenches dug around the sheep field/farm. While, in the year that I was in attendance, a few of the trenches were within the farm’s ploughed land, the most extensive finds were recovered from outside the barrier because they had not been moved around during the intermediate generations after initial burial. “Indigenous knowledge and geographies and their characteristic attention to process, relationship, fluidity, context, and specificity contrast with more globally dominant developmental, Eurocentric, or Western concerns…” (Howitt, Muller, and Suchet-Pearson, 2009: 358). Because of the influence of the present day’s land boundaries, and the manipulation of the Earth over the centuries, we are limited in the areas that humans can get to and what someone could be allowed to excavate. Many farmers would not allow a researcher to dig up their fields, as it would disrupt their business, or on a larger scale, governmental bodies of countries do not want the land being excavated, on the grounds of religion, land utility, or keeping the past buried. Whatever the reason the power and influence are in the hands of the people running the land today, not the researcher nor the people who may have a connection to what is buried. Recognizing that this can lead to less accurate methods due to the restrictions of an area, which may not be able to expand, is a vital piece of information to impart within a methodology section.

When able to push past this trouble, researchers are able to find their possible site locations and start excavating. In general, there will be large teams of people (both volunteers and other archaeologists) that will be in various stages of knowledge of how to excavate a trench properly, which is why there tend to be instructions and a demonstration on the first day. While the researching archaeologists themselves want to be in every pit it is not possible, and therefore, must trust the other workers to know enough about what and how to dig that they can maintain all possible knowledge from the site as a whole. This is another shift of power to the workers, and while there can be a positive influence from these people, it does create ‘cracks’ in the leaders’ hands-on knowledge and thus leads away from the complete trust readers would have in the writer/ researcher.

In the centimeter-by-centimeter excavation, knowledge gets unburied and sifted through. If an object or feature is found while the worker is in the square there is the opportunity to accurately sketch the layers that it is lying within as well as take accurate photographs of both the hole, the layers, and the artifact including a measuring device (for scaling purposes) and GPS coordinates of the exact location where the item still is. Then the researcher can have the most precise number of data as to where in the timeline that artefact would have come into play, especially concerning the other artefacts or features that are found nearby. If, in the seemingly more likely event when the artefact is small enough to initially remain undetected in the square and is found later in the sifter, the worker stops the downwards progression of their square to sketch and photograph everything just as I stated before, but measurements come from both the lowest and the highest points in the square because, while it was found in between those to point of data, it’s not clear where in between, or what the most accurate GPS point would have been so the point is taken from the square’s center (based on the digression of the measurers’ eyesight and judgment). This must all be recorded within the data write-up on the entire trench so the researcher knows that human error may have been involved in the measurements, though they (hopefully) did the best they could.

Archaeology, at its core, is a destructive scientific process for gaining knowledge. The act of unburying a site means that the information, which was there before, cannot be filled in the same way, if not recorded properly all of that information is just gone. A famous example of the obliviousness of people while digging is shown through the early mystery of Pompeii. After it had been initially rediscovered in the 18th century antiquarians, like the military engineer Karl Weber with the ‘haphazard’ digging, were more reckless with their digging strategies than today. While they did record some differences in layers, they had cleared so many areas of the city without a full examination. Then it wasn’t until years later in 1860 when the early archaeologists, specifically the Italian archaeologist Giuseppe Fiorelli, when other parts of the city were uncovered researchers noticed strangely shaped holes in the ash. Fiorelli thought that these were abnormal and poured cement into the holes making casts to examine the shapes (Jashemski, 2018). It was only after those were uncovered that research found that they were the casts of dozens of the bodies of the people who died in place. If that one researcher, and before him, hadn’t had that idea to make casts we never would have realized so much about the history of Pompeii, and we can never know how many people’s final moments of life were lost because the ash shapes were not examined. 

Land surveys are a different and site-saving process, but it is still one that can lead to information down the line. It does not take as much power away from the researchers themselves as excavating does because all that is involved is walking in straight lines back and forth until you can see some artefact or feature of importance that you would then make a record of with photographs, sketches, GPS coordinates, etc. that can be compared to on the GIS maps. This method is beneficial in some ways, but not quite as pinpoint, especially if artefacts are found within a riverbed or just generally downhill, the surface water could have moved it from anywhere upstream. In this instance while the power still lies with those researchers who are participating in the survey, as they have the ability, and responsibility to report on what they find, power also lies with those who would share or hide the records, and then what that information might be used for later.

What is saved versus the larger picture of what is gone is highly variable depending on where and when the researcher and readers alike are looking. As I said, surveys can provide pieces in a large puzzle that can lead to making new more depth discoveries. Surveys are always a first step before digging is done, whether via sight, metal detectors, GPR, SONAR, or aerial surveillance. With the simpler types, environmental factors can play into whether researchers can find anything at all. Even the more technologically advanced types are subject to their own issues. As an example, the same year I worked in Sweden with Dan Carlson, they had done an aerial survey in a nearby cow pasture that was locally known to be extremely bog-like. The photographs the drone came back with had information on a spot in the middle of the marsh that was elevated and seemed to have a slightly higher density than the area surrounding it. Therefore, a small team of fellow archaeologists, including myself, went trudging through the marsh with a long metal pole, a GPS, and an aerial map, to discover if there was anything to find. Archaeologists no longer simply start digging holes with shovels in hopes they will find buried treasure. Nowadays, researchers have the wherewithal to step back from a possible ‘gold mine’ to ask themselves if the current methods are the best that they can be. Another aspect of this is motive versus power, archaeological researchers, tend to be thoughtful people who want to preserve the past and learn as much as possible from it for future generations, and if this motivation is enough to look beyond what we need to know right now and instead imagine what can be learned in the future, it might be better to wait to excavate or experiment to gain as much information as possible from smaller samples. Plus, if many people end up working on a site over time the potential of having a well-rounded and fully explained site from multiple points of context is highly increased.

Experimentation for data extraction is another aspect of research that can be extremely destructive to the objects that we need to research. Luckily these methods have been making progress as well from where they were just a few years ago, but RCD (radiocarbon dating) still takes larger samples than some artefacts can provide therefore new techniques must be used. In a visiting lecturer’s presentation, he shared that he and his students took extremely small pieces of bone off of the main pieces, which were already only around a centimeter long, after being copied and 3D printed for future shape study. After spending days going through and making all of the samples they took all of the pieces, and melted them down with a peptide acid, getting rid of everything but the protein which was then tested in the manner of food science to find out the family, genus, and (in some cases) the species of the organism it had come from. This is a brilliant idea for accurately distinguishing hominids from other animal bones, however; obviously with acid, you must know what is being tested for as a misstep could mean all of the potential data is gone (Higham, 2018).

Unfortunately, researchers and their workers can only do so much to have the most accurate data possible when it comes to the numbers and data. These are both as factices of the ‘real world’ from a post-positivist approach, rather than the idealist, so looking at the quantitative methods, test hypothesis, large datasets, and representative samples, leads to the explanations from generalizations. With the higher accuracy and information that comes with mapping out sites using GPS to input into the worldwide GIS (geographic information system) program researchers and readers as access to and can, with evidence and credible backing, import new or different data into the recognized system. The act of having all of the information peer-reviewed means that direct power is not only in the hands of the lone archaeologist, making their own maps, and tracing out their own experience, but is a collective and objective reality that we all have a window into, “[n]evertheless, this is the logic that underlies every test of statistical inference. Find something to investigate about some phenomenon in the real world, collect some data, assume that any difference you find is random in nature, see if you find a difference, and see if that difference is so large … it cannot possibly be random. Then infer from that that the difference is therefore real. … [I]mplications about the real world have to be built upon a good and interesting theory, review of relevant literature, the appropriate methodology carried out well” (Janes, 2001: 97). Also within this system are links to the data found on the artefacts themselves, their measurements, and thereby one can decipher patterns through the plots, charts, and graphs that are created after every excavation season.

Analyzing numbers and data within the boundaries of experimentation is critical for unbiased research. Researchers, though, will still have the first say in what they are testing for and why, what they think will come of it, and whether they will share the information even if it doesn’t back their initial claims. Also, can they share the information? The people who are connected to the site have the first right to the information and depending on the location some will want to keep all knowledge found within their own group. While this does rightfully give power back to the respective ‘owners’ it also influences the researchers in where they can and would rather work; nothing much can come from a study that cannot be published and shared. Similar to the mapping GIS software, running data through multiple sources would lead to results that are replicated and confirmed. There are areas that do not have the benefit of years of research work on them, for any number of reasons, and therefore will not have the multiple sources supporting the information and claims that the researcher had made, no matter how thorough the excavation. This then also leads, along with more advanced methods, to the repetition of data analysis in most recent studies. And, finally, we are dependent on which sources we search through in order to build up our research base for continuing work. Peer-reviewed journals are always preferred, and one must always search in the most reputable sources, however, for topics not as widely covered, there may not be a complete picture of data. And just getting published can be difficult depending on politics or other critiques unrelated to the research. This is the final way I have shown that researchers cannot fully control where their data come from.

Researchers must realize and state that they cannot fully recognise or acknowledge everything that is not within their control while choosing which data to use during a research project. This is evident because of the biases of choices and availability from researchers of where they plan to work, the inherently destructive nature of the act of excavation, the less advanced methods employed by past researchers, the possible unreliability of data both old and new if not yet widely replicated, and the very real possibility of information being classified for cultural reasons. “[W]e must recognise and take account of our own position, as well as that of our research participants, and write this into our research practice rather than continue to hanker after some idealised equality between us” (McDowell 1992: 409). Ultimately, without proper follow-through in the experimentation and the data collecting stages the choice of location and all power given to researchers and imparted readers would be for nothing. 

Work Cited

Brannen, Julia. (2009). Mixed methods for novice researchers: Reflections and themes. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3, p.8-12.

Conyers, Lawrence B. and Goodman, Dean. (1997). Ground Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists. Walnut Creek, CA.: Altamira Press.

Janes, Joseph. (2001). The logic of inference. Library Hi Tech, 19, p.96-98.

Jashemski, Wilhelmina Feemster. “Pompeii.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/place/Pompeii.

Higham, Todd. (August, 2018). Lecture. University of Otago.

Kemp, Marian & Kissane, Barry (2010). A five-step framework for interpreting tables and graphs in their contexts. In C. Reading (Ed.), Data and context in statistics education: Towards an evidence-based society. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Teaching Statistics (ICOTS8, July, 2010), Ljubljana, Slovenia. Voorburg, The Netherlands: International Statistical Institute.

McDowell, L., & Sharp, J. P. (1998). A Concise Glossary of Feminist Geography. Hodder & Stoughton. England, K. V.

(1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer, 46(1), 80-89.

Rose, G. (1997) Situating Knowledges: Positionality, Reflexivity and Other Tactics, Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), p. 305-320.