Archaeology is the single most powerful tool toknow, understand, and explain the entire humansaga—from our earliest ancestors to modern socie-ty. Thus, archaeology can and does make substan-tial contributions to modern life. Archaeology hasevolved from the glorified treasure hunting of itsearly days to be a sophisticated social science, withfar-reaching explanations of human behavior. Con-sequently, when professional archaeologists, likeourselves, discuss the profession with the generalpublic, as we attempt in this article, there is somevalue to covering the entire discipline, with itsinherent complexities.

Substantial amounts of archaeological researchare conducted with public support and funding,although, in general, members of the public remainunfamiliar with the process and goals of archaeolo-gy. Yet, to effectively manage and preserveAmerica’s archaeological resources, public involve-ment is critical. To address misconceptions and tounderscore the complexities of archaeology, thisarticle seeks to provide a definition what archaeol-ogy is that is accessible to non-archaeologists.

What Do You Think Archaeology Is?When you hear the word archaeology certain

images probably come to mind. Some people thinkartifacts are archaeology, and that the homes andoffices of archaeologists must be strewn with arrow-head collections and the like. Others think “this isarchaeology” when they stand atop a mound at

Etowah or Ocmulgee. Still others think “archaeol-ogy” when they gaze at “treasures” in museum dis-plays. Actually, none of these truly represents thearchaeologist’s archaeology.

While archaeologists are excited by, interestedin, and curious about artifacts and ancient con-structions, archaeologists seek to understand theinterplay of life, of society, of daily chores, of spe-cial rituals, of social and political power, and ofwhy a community or region was abandoned or set-tled. In this article, we ask you to stop and reflecton the accuracy of the images and ideas you holdabout what archaeology is. Does an archaeologistview the discipline differently?

Archaeology is the Study of…Many archaeologists begin a discussion like this

with a definition: archaeology is the study of the mate-rial remains of our human past. While that definesthe term, it does not fully capture the magnitude ofarchaeological inquiry. Today’s archaeologists canbe very sophisticated in both the questions they askof material remains and the answers they generatewhen they interpret that evidence. In this essay, wedismantle that textbook definition and discuss itone part at a time. We hope this clarifies the defi-nition of “archaeology,” and gives insights into theunderlying concepts of archaeology, including itsmethods and theories.

As an academic discipline, archaeology has aninteresting history. To some scholars, it developed

• 15

Harris and Smith co-direct Archæofacts (http://www.archaeofacts.com), a small, Atlanta-based research groupspecializing in archaeological research and education. They have worked in Georgia archaeology since the 1980s.

What is Archaeology?

How Exploring the Past Enriches the Present

by Jennifer Freer Harris and Charlotte A. Smith

from geology, while to others archaeology is an out-growth of other disciplines, including anthropolo-gy, history, or geography. Still others have arguedthat archaeology stands alone as its own academicdiscipline.

Each archaeologist views the profession with hisor her own theoretical assumptions, often implicit.Here is one of ours: archaeology and archaeologicaltheory are part of anthropology. While specific ques-tions about cultural chronology and detailedreconstructions of the past are within the realm ofarchaeological method, the archaeologist’s overar-ching objective is to define and understand widercultural processes. Generating those explanatorymodels of human behavior is part of anthropology.Not all archaeologists agree that archaeology is a

part of anthropology. Indeed, at the annual meet-ing of the Society for American Archaeology inApril 2001, over 100 archaeologists gathered for anafternoon to debate this issue in an open forum.

Humans and their society, whether it is the pres-ent-day relationship between Kurds and the Iraqigovernment or between the Incas and their envi-ronment 2000 years ago, are within the realm ofanthropological study. Anthropologists examinehuman behavior in all its contexts: geographic andenvironmental, societal, political, economic, andcognitive or cultural. Archaeologists track andexplain change in all of these spheres, at multiplelevels or scales, and over sometimes lengthy peri-ods of time. Thus, archaeology is a tool for con-ducting anthropological research into past soci-

16 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •

Envision a scenario that many archaeologists encounterat least once in their careers: you are introduced as such ina social setting, facing the inevitable reaction of at leastone person: “Ah, you’re a real-life Indiana Jones! Howexciting!”

Your new acquaintances mean well and are enthusiasticabout furthering the conversation, trying to learn moreabout this unusual discipline, the people who work in it,and, most importantly, the artifacts you “dig up.” You tryhard not to bristle at the movie reference and they try notto look disappointed when you tell them that your interestis in human settlement patterns and the information theyprovide. They are openly dismayed to learn that you donot collect artifacts from the field at all. They are disillu-sioned that you do not dig anything, instead you walk overlarge tracts of land looking for signs of previous humanactivity. They are confused to learn that you leave thematerial remains you do encounter right where they are,after noting their characteristics.

They regain some sparkle in their eyes when theyinquire about where you do your fieldwork—some-where exotic, surely, like Egypt or Mesopotamia.

Well, no, you work in the United States. Georgia,actually. In fact, your latest project was in OglethorpeCounty.

All the while, the sparkle is fading from their eyes. Righthere? In their own backyard? There’s nothing excitingabout that!

Or is there?Many people maintain a romantic vision of what

archaeologists do, where they conduct fieldwork, andwhat group of people they try to understand.

Archaeologists do, in fact, take part in an excitingfield, but they experience that exhilaration from the

questions they ask about humankind and the unex-pected answers they discover. They’re excited whenthey discover, not an artifact, but a new way of look-ing at human behavior. That intensity can happenwhether they are investigating prehistoric politicalboundaries in the prehistoric Southeast or working ona remote excavation in the Middle East. An archae-ologist’s questions are about people past, present andfuture, our similarities and our differences.

Why is the myth of the heroic treasure-seeker soharmful? If non-archaeologists conceive of archaeolo-gy as focused on artifacts, they remain unaware of theanthropological investigations that frame the ques-tions archaeologists ask. Often, this can translate intoa lack of concern for funding for archaeologicalpreservation, educational outreach, and research.

If the public does not grasp the serious issuesarchaeologists explore, then why should they take

responsibility for learning more about theirlocal, national and international heritage?

Why should they advocate for strength-ened public policy in regard to planningand development and its devastating

effect on the network of prehistoric sites?Why should they teach their children to respect thepast, the people who lived it, and the materials thatremain from their existence?

It is only when the public sees archaeology for whatit is, a human science; archaeologists for what theyare, knowledgeable researchers; and artifacts for whatthey are, simple tools to understanding the peoplewho made, used, and discarded them, that we all canensure the preservation of our irreplaceable archaeo-logical resources.

Raiders of the Lost Ark: Dispelling a Hollywood Myth

eties. It is a complex and sophisticated tool to besure, with its own set of theoretical structures, buta tool nonetheless.

Because anthropology (and thus archaeology) isa holistic discipline, archaeologists are likely toadopt ideas and techniques from any disciplinethat touches on human life. Indeed, sometimes itcan seem a veritable university is bearing down onan archaeological site! The methods archaeologistsuse to understand the past and all of its complexityare too numerous to list here. However, it is one ofthe strengths of archaeology that it has so success-fully absorbed so many ideas from other kinds ofresearch in both the hard and social sciences.Moreover, archaeologists work in many arenasincluding academic departments, governmentoffices, national and state parks, cultural resourcemanagement firms, museums, and other public andprivate institutions. (For a readable, informativesummary of the above see Dark 1995.)

Archaeology may incorporate aspects of manyother fields of study, but it is not limited by any ofthem. It is not simply art history, nor is it purely sci-entific human ecology, for example. Similarly,archaeology is more than a subjective analysis thatshifts with the changing attitudes and academictrends of the modern world. Archaeologists exam-ine myriad variables to generate a detailed under-standing of the complex creatures we humans are.

What Are Archaeological Data?While the popular conception may be that

archaeologist are only interested in artifacts, thereality is that archaeologists examine several differ-ent kinds of information in their quest to under-stand the past. Ultimately, it is not just the thingsthat are important, but where they were found andwhat else was with them. Careful, systematic field-work allows archaeologists to recover sometimessubtle and ephemeral information from aroundartifacts, providing considerable detail about whatthey call context. Thus, archaeological data includeobjects, like artifacts and bones, but also the settingfor those objects, or their context. Together, objectsand their context form the basis of archaeologicalinterpretation.

Material RemainsMost of the marks that man has left on the face ofthe earth during his two-million year career as a lit-

ter-bugging, meddlesome and occasionally artisticanimal have one aspect in common: they are things,they are not deeds, ideas or words.

—Glynn Isaac (1971:123)As we stated at the beginning of the article,

archaeologists study the material remains of thehuman past. Those material remains are composedof every conceivable substance on earth. If humansused, touched, cooked, ate, built with, modified, orcreated it, then it falls within the bounds of archae-ological inquiry. Material remains are those stereo-

• What is Archaeology? • Harris and Smith • 17

What is Anthropology?

Anthropology, broadly speaking, is the study ofhuman beings. In North America, anthropology isdivided into four sub-fields: archaeology, culturalanthropology (the study of present-day peoples andsocieties), linguistics (language), and physicalanthropology (human and primate behavior andevolution). Archaeologists looking at ancientremains use theories and models of human behav-ior developed by cultural anthropologists, forinstance, and there is informational give-and-takeamong all four sub-fields.

Anthropology is considered a holistic disciplinebecause it investigates humans from so many differ-ent perspectives. Research techniques borrowedfrom biology, ecology, psychology, history, econom-ics, and politics are all used to examine humans andtheir connections to the world around them. Whileit shares certain aspects with all of these fields,anthropology goes a step further by combiningthem in order to shed light on the totality ofhuman culture and existence. The fields of sociolo-gy and psychology, for example, pertain to mostlyurban, industrialized society, or the general mentalstructures of modern humans. Anthropologyencompasses all peoples, urban and rural, modernand traditional, Western and Non-Western, pastand present.

Archaeology is not always considered a sub-fieldof anthropology. In England archaeology is viewedas related to geology, because in both fields excava-tion is used to discover the sequence, or stratigra-phy, of layers of remains (determining which layeror deposit is older—or below—which others).Other Europeans see archaeology aligned with nei-ther history nor anthropology (Courbin 1988), andoften disagree with the American focus on scientif-ic method. No matter the discipline they ally them-selves with, the archaeologist’s aim is always to bet-ter understand our past.

typical artifacts commonly associated with archae-ology: stone tools, potsherds, exquisite burialgoods, and so on. They include the minusculepollen traces buried in the trash pit of an EarlyArchaic camp, an animal bone with barely visiblebutcher marks from southern France, the templemounds of Mexico, the foundations of a medievalhouse, the vast terraces of some agricultural lands,

and camps along the transportation routes of anearly empire. Archaeological remains can extendacross an entire region or consist of a microscopicfragment of DNA.

Context of Material RemainsSo, in a sense, archaeologists are interested in

artifacts, but that is only a small part of the story.More important than the artifact itself is where itis found and what it is found with—its context.There is much more to be learned from an arrow-head or potsherd when archaeologists know itscontext. They can learn who used these things,how and when they were used, and for what pur-poses. Similarly, an archaeological site is moreinformative placed within its context. It is thenthat archaeologists can see how it fits within a net-work of sites from the same period. Then, archae-ologists can compare that network to those thatcame before and after. In addition to contextdefined by physical space, archaeologists are alsointerested in context as created by culturallydefined spaces.

Context provides the details archaeologists needto reconstruct the past. As you might expect, con-text is directly affected by how material remainsentered the archaeological record, and what hap-pened to them with the passage of time. Clearly,depositional factors (or what happened to remainsafter they were abandoned) and variability inpreservation affect the amount and kinds of infor-mation archaeologists can recover from materialremains. Despite these problems, archaeologists relyon the context of artifacts and material remains tointerpret the past.

The archaeologist’s ability to garner informationfrom material remains also depends on how theyare recovered. Context remains a key. Context isnot only the artifacts’ placement over the land-scape, but the linkages among artifacts, sites, set-tlements, and political regions (Figure 1). Whilepainstaking, thorough excavations are importantfor understanding the where and when of materialremains, the study of the distribution of sites andartifacts across broad areas provides importantbreadth to explanations of large-scale humanactivities. That ability to “zoom out” allows archae-ologists to tackle the difficult task of explainingculture in its entirety, over long periods of time(Figure 2). This “wide-angle lens” ensures that

18 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •

Site Destruction

Sites and other archaeological resources are dis-appearing continuously through looting, vandal-ism, environmental alteration, and modern devel-opment. Even if legislators immediately imple-mented the most extreme measures to protectarchaeological sites, we would still lose hundreds,perhaps thousands, of sites each day across theglobe.

Looters and vandals, although high-profile andnewsworthy, only threaten specific kinds of sites.Those sites are generally large, well-known localesthat hold rare artifacts and attract individuals seek-ing profit in the underground (and illegal) marketfor stolen cultural property. Looting must be cur-tailed and there are specific, targeted laws and pro-cedures in place to limit those activities.

Today archaeological sites face another threatthat is more menacing and dangerous—unre-strained sprawl. Sprawl—dispersed developmentoutside of compact urban and village centers, alonghighways, and in the rural countryside—is respon-sible for the majority of archaeological sites losttoday. There are no criminals to target in this situ-ation. The offenders are lack of planning, an unin-formed public, and meager information concerningthe archaeological resources being impacted.

Any discussion of the future of archaeology mustinvolve a large measure of conservation awareness.Most sites, because they are unknown andunrecorded, are vulnerable to even the most well-intentioned individuals. The archaeological com-munity has made great strides in the last thirtyyears creating a process to reverse that trend.Archaeologists often favor survey and inventorywhenever and wherever possible, and preservationover excavation. New laws have strengthened legalprotections for archaeological resources on govern-ment-owned lands, and archaeologists are urgingthe public to consider stewardship of those materi-als on private land a fundamental obligation. Safe-guarding our cultural heritage will only succeedwhen everyone works together.

researchers are able to detect relationships or inter-relatedness among settlements, even if remote.

But what underlies the ability to make those cul-tural interpretations? Archaeologists assume thatthe placement of artifacts, features and settlementsover the landscape is not random, but the result ofhuman decision-making. In short, there are mean-ingful, observable reasons why objects are foundwhere they are. Archaeologists take the fragmentsthat remain from the original social system, piecethem together in a way that represents the pastreality, and then attempt to explain that recon-struction. That process is not as easy as it soundsand there can be pitfalls, as culture is far more thanan oversized jigsaw puzzle.

To avoid misinterpretation, archaeologists try tobe explicit about the process of abstracting fromPotsherds A, B, and C to Explanation Z. The processis complicated and archaeologists continually seekto match their understanding of the past with theartifacts and building remains that they find. Inother words, the archaeologist’s work does not endat excavation; a significant part of archaeologicalresearch seeks to reveal the relationship betweenthe material evidence that remains and the culturethat left it behind. This process means that archae-ologists allocate considerable time after an excava-tion to analyzing artifacts, drawing maps, writingreports, and other post-fieldwork activities.

DocumentsIn addition to material remains and their con-

text, another important source of information forarchaeologists is the documentation generated dur-ing the research process. During the course of aproject, archaeologists produce a mountain of doc-umentation, often including field notes, maps,photographs, artifact analysis sheets, electronicdatabases, and project reports. After over a centuryof archaeological investigations in the US, thebody of information represented by these docu-ments is considerable, and their importance to newand on-going research projects has grown. Indeed,Early Georgia has often published restudies of olddata sets accessed through existing documentation(e.g., Chamblee, Neumann, and Pavao 1998).

How Do Archaeologists Collect Data?Archaeologists examine a huge range of materi-

al remains, coupled with interpretations of how

they were made, used, and discarded, to try tounderstand how people lived, loved, and died inthe past. Archaeologists obtain these materialremains basically using two methods: excavation

• What is Archaeology? • Harris and Smith • 19

Other Ways of Looking at the Past

Archaeologists divide the past into periods, gen-erally identified by different types of artifacts andsettlement patterns, and by different styles of arti-fact decorations. At the same time, archaeologistsrealize that these are modern, artificial ideasimposed on the continuum of the past. The peoplewho lived on those sites and made and used thoseartifacts did not see such breaks in time. It is notsurprising, then, that their descendants conceptual-ize the past differently from archaeologists. NotesRoger C. Echo-Hawk,

Archaeologists frequently say that the sites theyexcavate and artifacts that they recover can “speak”to us across the centuries, and physical anthropolo-gists often think of collections of human skeletalremains as “libraries.” In oral traditions, we canhear echoes of the actual voices of the people whomade those artifacts and who were the original own-ers of those skeletons.…

As a concept, “prehistory” interferes with recog-nition of the validity of the study of oral traditionsbecause it presumes an absence of applicablerecords.… It may be technically correct to apply theterm to periods in time for which no writings exist,but its usage as a taxonomic device emphasizes writ-ten words, while presuming that spoken words havecomparatively little value. (2000:285)Today’s Native Americans think of the past not

in the periods of the archaeologist (e.g., Mississip-pian, Woodland, Archaic), but in terms that havecontinuity with their own cosmology. Indeed,

…Mississippianism should…be viewed as constitut-ing the context for the entire range of characteristicsthat provided, and continues to provide, coherenceto the culture base of the Seminole and Miccosukeeand Creek descendants of the Maskókî peoplestoday. (Wickman 1999:35)Knowing these two lines of evidence—both the

oral tradition and the archaeological interpretationof the past—deepens our understanding of the past.

Oral traditions and the archaeological record bothreveal the workings of these [traceable social] process-es, and both provide important knowledge about theancient past. Archaeology is inherently multidiscipli-nary, so the study of oral literature should exist as onemore realm of legitimate inquiry. (Echo-Hawk2000:288)

20 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •

Figure 1. Space and scale in archaeology. Human activities occur different-sized spaces and at different scales.Archaeologists use methods carefully tailored to understanding human behavior at various scales. Shown here arescales that range from the individual artifact to the global. This is but one example of the ways in which archaeo-logical method and theory intersect with the physical remains of a culture. Please note: the schema above is notmeant to outline a universal trajectory for all cultures, or that all societies develop along the same evolutionary path.

village

village village

village

village

village

hamlethamlethamlet

villagehamletvillage

village

hamlet

village

village hamlet

villagehamlet

hamlet

villagehamletvillage village

village

hamlet

hamlet

village

hamlet

CITYtown

town

hamlet

hamlet

larg

e–sc

ale

com

para

tive

ana

lysi

sre

gion

al su

rvey

exca

vati

on

specificlocation

locale

set oflocales

area

region

macro-region

group ofcommunities

object

features

house

village

politicalregion

continent

global

sp

at

ial

sc

ale

inc

re

as

ing

de

cr

ea

sin

g

archaeologicalmethodmaterial remains

trash pit,in profile

• What is Archaeology? • Harris and Smith • 21

HHHHHHi r i c im

G e o l o g i c t i m e

A momentin time

AfterAAAAAAA

Figure 2. Time and scale in archaeology. Although archaeologists understand linear time, they also seek to under-stand cyclic patterns in human and natural phenomena. At any moment in time, many types of cyclic patterns maybe in play. Most of these are not evident to the people whose lives are enmeshed in those patterns. However, froma viewpoint distant in time and space, archaeologists seek to identify those kinds of patterns. This figure shows threeunits of time, differing in scale and rate of change. These are just three of perhaps infinite scales that might be usedin archaeological or historical analysis. For more on cyclic patterns when analyzing the past, read Braudel’s OnHistory (1980). The three cyclic patterns in this figure do not correspond exactly to Braudel’s three cycles of change.

Geologic time. This is a long-term cycle reflecting environmental and climatic shifts, and changes in human adap-tation that span millennia. Although we live enmeshed in geological time, we tend to be unaware of these slowchanges in our daily lives. Only when they hear of studies of greenhouse warming, for example, do most people real-ize how change on the geologic scale affects their own lives.

Historic time. These patterns reflect changes in social, economic, or political systems—the rise of capitalism orthe Renaissance, for example. Individuals are peripherally cognizant of these changes and their impact on our lives.We know that “society was different during the 1800s,” for example.

Human time. This scale denotes the daily, annual, or generational changes that we all experience: birth, death,social interactions, agricultural seasons, and changes in fads or fashions. We fully experience, and are aware of,human-scale changes during our own lifetimes.

and survey. Often the two are used in combination,which means quite powerful data are generated.

Excavations produce information about howobjects were used in a household, for instance, orthe pattern of special activity areas in a communi-ty (e.g., where trash pits were in a Mississippian vil-

lage). Excavation is a labor-intensive process thatbegins with pre-excavation planning, includingdeveloping a research design that draws on previ-ous research to determine what might be found andhow best to collect that information. After excava-tion, there’s also the cleaning and cataloguing ofartifacts, tabulation, sometimes analysis by special-ists (e.g., zooarchaeologists, palynologists, chemi-cal analysis of ceramic composition), as well as thebig job of producing a report that documents thefield and laboratory work. Many archaeologistsestimate they must budget at least as many staff-hours for laboratory analysis and report writing asthey do for fieldwork—that’s a lot of time!Excavation is also expensive because archaeologistshave an ethical obligation to save all of the arti-facts recovered and the documentation produced(e.g., field notes, maps, analysis forms, databases,photographs) forever.

Survey, or walking across the land systematicallylooking for evidence of previous human activity,provides a different kind of archaeological data.

Sometimes survey archaeologists can examine theground surface directly for artifacts, for instance, ina plowed or fallow field, or along a road cut.Mostly, an archaeologist must create instead small“windows” to see what is buried under leaves orgrass. To do this, they dig small holes, called shov-

el tests, sift the soil through a fine-meshmetal screen to collect all artifacts andexamine the shovel test profile for evi-dence of features. By identifying thesematerial remains, potentially includingtemporally diagnostic objects (ones theyrecognize simply by visual inspection wereused at a certain time), and plotting theirlocations, archaeologists hope to deter-mine how many people lived at a site andwhen they lived there. This basic informa-tion is used extensively in settlement pat-tern studies, and is crucial to understand-ing broad-scale issues of human culturalchange.

Whether archaeological researchinvolves doing a survey or conductingexcavation, archaeologists have an ethicalobligation to save all of the artifacts anddocuments produced forever. This isknown as curation, which is a processwhereby archaeological data are organized

sufficiently to insure future scholars have readyaccess to it, and stored in a facility that will insuretheir long-term protection (climate-controlled,secure, fire resistant). While curation is not part ofcollecting archaeological data, it is an importantpart of preserving those data for future generations.

Thus, archaeologists are concerned with detailedinformation about specific locales collectedthrough excavation. But, they are also interested insurvey data that shows how people arranged them-selves across the landscape at any given time (anal-ogous to a census), and how those patterns shiftedthrough time. Archaeologists are unable to obtainthis information, and it is lost forever, when mod-ern land use destroys archaeological sites and theinformation they contain before surveys can beconducted.

The Who, What, Where, When andWhy of Archaeology

In a recent survey commissioned by the Societyfor American Archaeology (Ramos and Duganne

22 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •

Researchers examine the freshly scraped surface at the base of the plow zonefor features at the Raccoon Ridge site east of Atlanta. Left to right: KeithStephenson, John Worth, Dea Mozingo Kennedy, and Pat LoRusso.

2000), members of the public were asked whatcame to mind when they heard the word archaeol-ogy. Thirty-seven percent of the respondentsanswered “digging” in some form (digging artifacts,digging bones, etc.). If there is any message archae-ologists would like to convey to non-archaeolo-gists, it is that archaeology is more than digging.Excavation, trowels, and artifact recovery are toolsthat archaeologists use to systematically compileinformation about past peoples, but they are notthe final objective. Most archaeologists only exca-vate if a site is threatened by destruction, andbefore excavation they write a well-developedresearch design that guides them in obtaining themaximum information from that excavation. Thisis because by its very nature archaeology is destruc-

tive, and there is only one opportunity for excava-tion.

To better understand what archaeologists reallydo, it may be helpful to outline the discipline’s fun-damental goals. Archaeologists perform a three-tiered investigation of the human past by: 1) estab-lishing a timeline or chronology of events; 2)reconstructing past lifeways; and, 3) providingexplanations for patterns of human development(Thomas 1991). These elements build upon eachother, allowing archaeologists to address a varietyof complex questions about human societies.

Asking WhenOne key to discussing the past is an understand-

ing of the sequence of events, in both absolute and

• What is Archaeology? • Harris and Smith • 23

Applying the who, what, when, where, and why questions of archaeology to the SwiftCreek example (for more on Swift Creek, see Bense 1994, and Williams and Elliott 1998).Archaeologists often use the name of an artifact complex to indicate a cultural group—the Swift Creek people, for instance. This is a bit of a misnomer, as such a modern namecould never have been used in the past. Also, the people using the style archaeologistsidentify as Swift Creek may not have seen themselves as a single, integrated group, as theterm “Swift Creek people” implies.

Archaeological Questions

Methods and Techniques Middle Woodland Swift Creek (0–500 AD) Example

When (chronology, timeline)

Dating methods are both relative andabsolute. Cultural periods may bemarked by specific artifact styles, butcan also include entire cultural com-plexes (ceremonial goods, burial prac-tices, presence of agriculture, etc.).

The characteristic marker (or diagnostic artifact) for Swift Creek cul-ture is its complicated-stamped pottery—with distinctive curvilineardesigns such as scrolls, spirals and concentric circles. Archaeologistsbelieve that people making pottery with Swift Creek designs lived forabout 500 years, or perhaps 20 generations or more.

Who, What, Where

Archaeologists plot the locations ofsites with diagnostic artifacts to see thegeographical extent of interactinggroups. Some studies examine minutedetails to assess what people ate, theirburial practices, and other aspects ofdaily life.

From the plotted occurrences of diagnostic Swift Creek pottery, theSwift Creek culture has now been identified across south Georgia andnorthwest Florida. People who used Swift Creek pottery occupied largecamps along floodplains, smaller, temporary camps in upland areas, andthere is some evidence for large shell middens (or trash heaps) incoastal areas.

Why, How

Anthropological and archaeologicaltheories attempt to explain broad pat-terns of cultural change and continuity.Often these models are derived fromstudies of living peoples from distantparts of the globe.

During the Woodland period, which includes Middle Woodland SwiftCreek peoples, archaeologists find a slow shift from hunting, gathering,and fishing, to the first attempts at agriculture. During the Woodlandperiod, archaeologists find evidence for an increase in special ceremo-nial activities that suggest new political stratagems for leadership.These kinds of changes are interpreted using anthropological theoriesof sociocultural change (and are beyond the scope of this article).

Swift Creek sherd

relative terms (see table above). Archaeologists usemany dating techniques to help them with thistask, including radiocarbon, obsidian hydration,potassium argon dating, and dendrochronology toname a few (see glossary for definitions of these andother terms). For relative dating, archaeologists useseriation and artifact typologies for comparison.These techniques allow archaeologists, with vary-

ing degrees of accuracy, to establish when peopleused a site (the site’s occupation), or when a hoe orcooking pot was manufactured. Once this isknown, the occupation can be placed in a tempo-ral spectrum (or timeline) so that it can be com-pared with those that came before and after. Foreach region of the world, archaeologists can thendevelop a cultural history. At an even larger scale,those regions can be compared, too.

When is a fundamental question asked by archae-ologists. Only by establishing the dates of the useor occupation of a site can archaeologists deter-mine if and how past societies changed. Once thechronology is understood, the long chain of eventsthat constitutes the human past is more completeand the why questions—for instance, why did thesechanges occur? why did the people move away (orwhy did they stay)?—can be addressed.

Reconstructing Past LifewaysAs has been stated many times, archaeologists

are interested in understanding how past peoplelived their lives, and this is done by piecing togeth-er the information provided by artifacts and sites,and their contexts, gathered through excavationand survey. Once assembled and interpreted, thesedata can reveal how people obtained their food andwhat they ate ,where they lived and in what type ofbuildings, how they practiced their religion, whattype of social system they were a part of, and per-haps even who they married.

Most archaeologists agree that an important partof understanding how people lived in the past is aknowledge of the physical environment theyinhabited. After all, the nature of the environmentlargely determines what kinds of food and othermaterials are available for people to use. Somearchaeologists feel that the limitations of the envi-ronment basically make the society the way it is;others think social and economic relationshipsamong individuals and groups are far more impor-tant than the environment in determining how asociety develops.

Asking Why and HowIn the process of explanation, archaeologists

develop more questions than there are archaeolo-gists to answer them. How and why did agriculturetake root in different areas of the world? How andwhy do cities, states, and nations develop? Whathappened to cultures around the globe during the

24 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •

Writing: The Difference between Historyand Prehistory

The development of writing conventionallymarks the shift from prehistory to history in a par-ticular culture. Written documentation is used byarchaeologists to either supplement or trigger theirwork. In turn, archaeology mayconfirm or refute historically-accepted events, depending onthe evidence from the archaeo-logical record. Together histori-ans and archaeologists canpresent a clear, well-roundedview of the past.

Many people think the term“prehistoric” indicates the same time across theglobe. Instead, writing systems developed at differ-

ent periods throughout the world, sothat one geographic area may be“prehistoric” at 1000 BC, whileanother has fully developed historicdocumentation.

Some of the earliest writing datesfrom 3000 BC in Mesopotamia. TheSumerians developed what is called

cuneiform script although it was not a full writingsystem in the modern sense. It was used for docu-menting property ownership, accounting records,and other business transac-tions. The Egyptians devel-oped hieroglyphics about100 years later, perhaps as aresult of a Sumerian stimu-lus. Soon, writing systemswere created on Crete, andin Turkey, Pakistan, andChina. The Greeks devel-oped the first full alphabeticwriting about 800 BC. Inthe New World, the Mayasare credited with the firstsystematic writing at aboutAD 300.

cuneiformsymbolfor ox

Chinesecharacters

Mayahieroglyph

rise of European capitalism? How do politicalalliances affect warfare, trade, and power in theprehistoric Southeast? And how are these large-scale processes linked to the individual who herd-ed cattle, helped settle tribal disputes, and raisedthree children in India a thousand years ago?

Coupled with data from excavations, regionalsurvey is best suited to help answer broad questionsabout human adaptation because it allows us toinvestigate entire political and social systems overthe span of many hundreds, or even thousands, ofyears. To better understand these systems, archae-ologists specialize in many different theoretical andtechnical aspects of cultural studies: rise of chief-doms and states, regional analysis and settlementsystems, subsistence studies and ecology, politicaleconomy and commerce, along with many others.Each of those tackles a dif-ferent aspect of behavior,and yet all of them touchon the central themes ofour shared human trajecto-ry.

A Personal Viewpoint from the AuthorsWe became archaeologists for the same reasons

as many of our colleagues—to add to the body ofknowledge about human activities. Although wedo not deny the fascinations of the discipline,archaeologists are not archaeologists for the thrillof discovery, the romance of excavation, or thebeauty of the artifacts. We investigate how humansinteract with each other and with the world aroundthem. That world includes the influences of poli-tics, society, environment, and religion that impactevery person, no matter when he or she lived anddied. That world also includes other peoples andother cultures. We seek to understand not only ourdifferences, but also our commonalties.

We have focused much of this article on the sub-jects of spatial and temporal scale in human lifeand culture. We think that it is important to rein-force that point to clarify a misunderstandingabout what it is we do. From our conversationswith non-archaeologists, we know that many peo-ple envision our work as at a particular site (theGreat Pyramids), or conclude that we focus on aparticular people (the Hopi), or time (ancientGreece). One strength of archaeology lies in itsability to pool and compare data from thousands of

years of human adaptation, entire social systems,and the cultural dynamics of one civilization afteranother. The archaeologist’s power to decipherhuman behavior stems from the ability to adjustthe scale of study to the types of questions asked.

Studying the Human PastArchaeologists use time, space and information

gleaned from artifacts, sites, and their contexts toexplore the human past. Of course, archaeology isnot unique in shedding light on past humanevents; history gives us volumes of detailed recordsspanning centuries. Instead, the essence, the neces-sity, of archaeology lies in its ability to reveal theentire human record. Accordingly, archaeologistsinclude both the recent and distant past in theirinvestigations as, contrary to public perception,

archaeological research isnot limited to the study ofpre-literate societies, orprehistory.

Many, though not all,North American archaeol-ogists interpret the past

from an understanding of human behavior derivedin large part from anthropological studies and the-ories. Thus, they seek to understand how peoplehave lived not only at the small scale of the indi-vidual household, but also at the broad scale ofmultiple communities and regions. Archaeologistsalso look at the past not as a single point in time,but they seek to understand change and variation,or even continuity, over time.

Archaeology can be narrowly defined to beabout specific individuals in particular locations ata certain time in history, but this is not the profes-sion’s ultimate objective. Archaeologists are, in theend, examining general patterns of human behav-ior. Archaeologists use painstaking methods andtechniques to uncover the building blocks of theparticular—for instance, an individual’s dailyactivities, and the household and community inwhich these activities took place. But those piecesalone cannot explain the whole—a culture, a soci-ety, how humans behave.

We can use film as an analogy. One frame of filmshows a moment in time, out of context and shorton narrative—a snapshot. Run a series of framestogether and it shows a sequence of events andpresents a more meaningful experience—a movie.

• What is Archaeology? • Harris and Smith • 25

If history never repeats itself, and the unex-pected always happens, how incapable mustMan be of learning from experience!.

—attributed to George Bernard Shaw

Archaeologists will never find the entire filmintact, but they can splice together enough framesto follow the unfolding story of humankind.

Over a generation ago, Grahame Clark (1957:261), a British archaeologist, wrote that in order tostimulate a consciousness of world history

…the unit of history has to be expanded from theparochial to the universal, from the history ofnation or civilization to that of the world.

Archaeology is ideally situated to meet those uni-versal criteria, both in time and space.

To understand history and archaeology is toexplore our past, to ponder our future, and toenrich our perception of the present. This aware-ness informs us about ourselves as human beings,and opens doors to understanding other cultures,other places, and other times.

References CitedBense, Judith A.

1994 Archaeology of the Southeastern United States:Paleoindian to World War I. Cambridge UniversityPress, New York.

Braudel, Fernand1980 [1969] On History. Translated by SarahMatthews. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Chamblee, John F., Thomas Neumann, and Barnet Pavao1998 Archival Salvage of the Plant Hammond Site.

Early Georgia 26(2).Clark, Grahame

1957 Archaeology and Society: Reconstructing the Prehis-toric Past. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Courbin, Paul1988 What is Archaeology? An Essay on the Nature of

Archaeological Research. Translated by Paul Bahn.University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Dark, K.R.1995 Theoretical Archaeology. Cornell University Press,

Ithaca.Echo-Hawk, Roger C.

2000 Ancient History in the New World: IntegratingOral Traditions and the Archaeological Record inDeep Time. American Antiquity 65:267–290.

Isaac, Glynn1971 Whither Archaeology? Antiquity 25:123–129.

Ramos, Maria and David Duganne2000 Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about

Archaeology. Society for American Archaeology,Washington, DC.

Thomas, David Hurst1991 Archaeology: Down to Earth. Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich, Fort Worth.Wickman, Patricia Riles

1999 The Tree That Bends: Discourse, Power, and theSurvival of the Maskókî People. University of AlabamaPress, Tuscaloosa.

Williams, Mark, and Daniel T. Elliott (editors)1998 A World Engraved: Archaeology of the Swift Creek

Culture. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

26 • Early Georgia • volume 29, number 1 •