Joseph Aguilar
Anthropology 600
Week 4 Essay
October 5, 2009
Topic 4- The Archaeological Record
The archaeological record may be defined as the archaeological evidence of the past,
which archaeologists use through various methods, to gain some understanding past
human cultures. This record includes all archaeological evidence, including, but not
limited to the tangible material remains left behind by past peoples. These remains may
be found in a variety of contexts representing a broad span of time and space. Therefore,
archaeologists have attempted to gain a better understanding of the archaeological record
in two important ways. First, archaeologists have attempted to read the archaeological,
first by finding or uncovering it and making sense of it order through both time and
space. Secondly, once archaeologists have made some sense of the order of the
archaeological record they must use that understanding to make inferences on what the
archaeological record actually means.
There has been some debate among scholars as to how the archaeological record
should be studied and those methods argued for, or against, have significant
consequences on how the archaeological record, and ultimately, human culture, is
understood by the archaeologist.
Is the ability for archaeologists to understand the archaeological record limited by the
archaeological record itself, or is it a lack of methodology that is limiting, or neither?
Binford points out that the limitations of the archaeological record “lie in our
methodological naivete, in our lack of principles determining the relevance of
archaeological remains to propositions regarding processes and events of the past”
(Binford 1968: 23). In light of this perceived limitation, methodologies for discerning the
archaeological record have been proposed and debated by professionals in the field, one
such strategy, and the debate that followed, will be discussed in some detail here.
Schiffer had proposed a method for understanding the archaeological record by
focusing on the process of site formation, or the cultural or natural events that form a site
from its creation, up to the time it is viewed by an archaeologist. There are several
factors that affect site formation processes. Specifically, Schiffer examines how the
disposal of refuse through different techniques affects site formation. These are primary
refuse, which is refuse discarded at its location of use. Abandonment refuse, which is
refuse discarded away from its location of use. And defacto refuse, which is that refuse
discarded during the abandonment of a structure.
Schiffer concentrates on the disposal of refuse at a site assumingly because these
disposal processes are what the archaeological record is commonly composed of, he does
however discuss other depositional processes that transform the archaeological record
spatially, quantitatively and as the different items of the record relate to each other.
These processes create an archaeological record that is not related to the past human
behavior and that may transform or distort artifacts as they originally contributed as part
of a cultural system. These processes include ritual deposits in structures, post
abandonment uses of a structure, the use of a site or structure as a secondary refuse
disposal site, post occupational collapse fluvial processes effects on of structures, and
finally other general post occupational disturbances such as burrowing animals which
may disturb sub surface deposits.
By understanding the different processes that affect site formation and the
intricate modifications that a site goes through throughout both its occupation and post
occupation, Schiffer argues that archaeologists can then come to understand the
variability of the archaeological record and begin to make inferences on past cultures and
behaviors.
Binford argued that the transformations or distortions of the archaeological record
are based on an archaeologist’s preconceived notions of what the archaeological record
should represent. He furthers this argument by positing that the archaeological record,
from Schiffers point of view, cannot tell us a thing about the past because it in fact has
been “transformed” and “distorted” and therefore what we view in the archaeological
record is not an actual representation of the past, but a distorted one. He argues tha
Schiffer wishes find assemblages that directly reflect its original contents, frozen at a
single moment of time like, Pompeii. He carries Schiffers notions that assemblages are
subject to a variety of cultural and natural processes which remove or displace some
artifacts and introduce others to an extreme, and assumes that he they cannot be wishes to
view fossilized representations of past activities.
Are the transformations of the archaeological record truly distortions or just the
results of an active system operating on the record? I believe both Binford and Schiffer
want to study the process that affect culture as seen in the archaeological record over time,
and not specific moments that produce some kind of descriptive narrative of the past.
However, given all the transformational processes that the archaeological record sees
before the archaeologist sees it, do the cultures that originally create this record have the
ability to distort the record itself? I believe that in trying to understand the past we must
take into account these processes which affect the way we read archeological record, as
after this discussion has made clear, the archaeological record, just as the cultures and
people who created it, are not static, but leave traces of themselves through various
processes and stages, all of which require an intricate understanding.