Module 3: The Archaeological Imagination I

Reading: Deetz, pp. 1-37, 58-88

This class explains how archaeologists recover information about the past and how they interpret it, a process that I like to call "the archaeological imagination." It focuses on how archaeologists move from archaeological data to reconstructions of culture: how they move from artifacts, ecofacts, and features to inferences about the lifestyles, experiences and worldviews of people in the past.

Archaeological Data

Like prehistoric archaeologists, historical archaeologists analyze sites. A site is any place where traces of human activity are found. Sites can range in size from a single farmstead to entire cities of several square miles. Sites contain:

Artifacts: Objects made, used and discarded by humans (have the class give examples: tools, jars, jewelry, etc.).

Ecofacts: Natural objects whose distribution on a site is the result of human activity (have the class give examples: bones, seeds, charcoal, pollen, etc.).

Features: Associations of artifacts and ecofacts in meaningful spatial relationships (have the class give examples: hearth, burial, privy, Medicine Wheel site, etc). In a sense, a site is just one large feature.

Sites occur in regions, i.e., a geographic area containing interrelated human communities. Often an entire region rather than just a site is the most suitable unit for archaeological study, because sites studied in isolation wouldn't give you a complete picture of all the necessary interactions that kept a lifestyle going.

Deetz, in Chapter 3, supplies an excellent example of how historical archaeologists use artifacts. (But first, ask the class: Did you think that Deetz was most interested in nationalist archaeology, social history, or understanding the processes of global capitalism? It's an interesting question, because there are grounds for arguing any of these three positions. It seems to me that Deetz's main theme is the development of a uniquely American culture, p. 6).

Archaeological Dating

First, historical archaeologists use artifacts to date sites. Why do archaeologists want to date sites? To find out which sets of historical documents apply, to find out the sequence of developments, and to find out how the sequence of local events might be related to events in other parts of the world—this is particularly important for historical archaeology, since particular localities are tied to developments in global capitalism (in Hawaii, for example, areas of irrigated agriculture were abandoned while chiefs ordered the common people to harvest sandalwood for international trade; irrigated agriculture was revived when the sandalwood was exhausted and chiefs ordered commoners to produce an agricultural surplus that could be sold to visiting whaling ships [Kirch et al. 1992]).

In historical archaeology, the dates of historical artifacts are often known very precisely from styles, trademarks, and manufacturing techniques. In historic times, people purchased many of the objects that they used, and rapid change in artifact styles occurred as manufacturers tried to create products that would appeal to consumers (as well as products that would soon look dated, forcing status-conscious consumers to discard the goods that they already owned and buy new goods, a process called "planned obsolescence"). For many varieties of manufactured goods, catalogs exist dating the exact years of manufacture for different styles of china, bottles, gun flints, and other such products. These catalogs are much more precise than C-14 dates, which almost always come with a margin of error of +/- 40 years or more, so historical archaeologists rarely resort to C-14 dating, even though it is the most popular dating technique for prehistoric archaeologists.

What does Deetz do with dating? He establishes three clusters of sites using ceramics: (1) early to mid-eighteenth century, characterized by a preponderance of plain utility earthenwares; (2) mid-seventeenth to late eighteenth centuries, characterized by a broader variety of fancier imported wares and American-made utilitarian wares; and (3) 1776 to the the early nineteenth century, where imported ceramics were absent, replaced by American creamwares and pearlwares.

Archaeological Inference

But dating is not the only thing that archaeologists do with artifacts. They also use artifacts to trace changing lifestyles. What do the different groupings of ceramics tell us about people's lives in the early United States?

Before 1660: Americans depended on England for every need (p. 73). How do we know this? The chemical composition of clays in utilitarian vessels show that they were made in England, of English clay. Americans placed less emphasis on individualism (p. 76). How do we know this? Communal trenchers and containers were used for eating and drinking, a practice that later went out of style. Dairy products were important in the diet (p. 77). How do we know this? Easily cleaned, lead-glazed milk pans, colanders, jars, and crocks used to store milk and cream and produce butter and cheese made up the majority of ceramic vessels. Furthermore, the presence or absence of social inequality could be gauged by studying the numbers of milk pans, colanders, jars, and crocks from one household to the next. And a value system that suppressed individualism, luxury, and inequality might be inferred by the absence of decorated pottery.

1660-1776: The American economy grew. How do we know this? Because ceramics are now being produced locally, using American clays. Vessels for dairy products continue, but they are joined by other vessel forms: ceramic cups, mugs, and bowls. The appearance of individual vessels for eating and drinking suggests an increased emphasis on individualism. A loosening of Puritan morality occurred (p. 82). How do we know? Because the first plates appear, and these were used for display. How do we know? Because the plates are large. elaborately decorated pieces with abrasion on the edges from having been on display, and probate records show that Delftware pieces were placed in parlors.

1776-1825: The Enlightenment comes into full bloom. How do we know this? Because archaeologists recover full sets of dishes, which entail more formal rules of use, individuality, balance, control, and order (p .86). Chamber pots, often decorated with ribald themes, connote more open sexuality and a less puritanical worldview (p. 85). Differences of social class occur as growing commercial production creates gaps between owners and workers, masters and slaves.

Looting

In these examples, inferences about American culture rely upon artifact attributes and spatial context. Attributes are the individual characteristics of the artifacts under study: for example, the chemical composition of the clay, the vessel form, and the amount and type of decoration on the ceramic vessels. Spatial context includes stratigraphy (which indicates cultural stability or change over time), the location of ceramics within buildings, and the distribution of ceramics between buildings, both within the community and between one community and the next.

Please note: if we didn't know the spatial context of these artifacts, it would be very difficult to use them to make any inferences at all about early American culture. Spatial context is lost whenever sites are looted. That is why archaeologists hate looters. It's not just that they want to keep all the nice artifacts for themselves. It's that tremendous amounts of information are lost when sites are looted. So, no looting!!! And friends don't let friends loot. (I've complained to sellers of folk art in Ann Arbor when I saw rag dolls from Peru dressed in fragments of prehistoric cloth—neat, but very destructive! Substitute your own personal looting story).

Background Knowledge

Attributes and context are the sources of evidence for the archaeological inference. But inference also depends on the background knowledge of archaeologists: their familiarity with humans and their cultures; with the operation of markets, social relations, and European philosophy and religion in capitalist cultures; and with the lifeways and values of non-European peoples that interacted with Europeans as the capitalist system expanded (Wylie 1999). The archaeological imagination proceeds by taking what is known or suspected about local conditions and global structures and by establishing ideas about what the archaeological data should look like if these ideas are true. The archaeological imagination works back and forth between interpretation and evidence, between theories and data, gradually building more insightful and interesting reconstructions of past cultures and more elaborate inferences about the lifestyles, experiences, and worldviews of people in the past.