Theory – The Pompeii Premise

Michael Schiffler, student of Lewis Binford, and believer in New Archaeology (or Processional Archaeology as it was now called) felt that a distinction needed to be made in the approaches that the Processional archaeologists were making in regard to how they dealt with the material culture at archaeological sites.  Lewis Binford took exception to this in a follow-up article.  Once more, Schiffler was called upon to reply.  In the end, both seemed to accuse the other of harboring a “Pompeii Premise” in regards to the interpretation of material culture.  The dialogue has led archaeological theorists to question their own assumptions and has left the discipline richer.  This post will address the “Pompeii Premise” and what we “should” be doing when we seek to interpret material culture.

The “Pompeii Premise” simply is that archaeologists have tended to treat their finds as if they are moments frozen in time, similar to the ancient city of Pompeii that was indeed frozen in time when the effects of the volcanic eruption engulfed them.  It is based on two basic assumptions: that items found by archaeologists were laid down by last user at the moment the site was abandoned; and that these items mirror the activities that took place in the architectural places they are now found in.

However, Schiffler pointed out that there are at least eight major processes that can account for items being found where they are:

Items deposited during occupation (aka “primary refuge” – basically garbage)

Other kinds of refuge deposited during abandonment (items thrown down)

De facto refuge at abandonment (items left were they lay – disregarded)

Ritual deposits

Refuge of squatters after abandonment (temporary settlement)

Items thrown in by remaining inhabitants (aka “secondary refuge” – not original to location)

Artifacts from collapse (items that fell into the area from somewhere else)

Cultural or Environmental disturbances that brought items from another site to this one

Schiffler’s basic point was that there are many reasons why an item might be found where it is.  Because of this, we cannot make base assumptions about the item without first determining the possible reasons that item is where it is.  He suggested two methods of evaluation.  First, he said it is necessary to segregate items produced by various formation processes.  Second, the archaeologist needs to assess the degree and (if possible) the nature of any depletions of the de facto refuge.

Because very few sites are completely untouched since abandonment, Binford argued that there were no “Pompeii’s” to discover at all.  That everything has suffered some sort of disturbance over the millennia and to attempt to reconstruct ancient life from objects was impossible (as he rejected the culture history method completely).  He believed that the entropy (transformation in the archaeological record in quality and quantity of evidence over time) was so complete as to make reconstructions impossible.

However, in the end it seemed that Schiffler was talking mostly about events discovered from artifacts (“episodic paradigm”), while Binford was basically only concerned with processes behind events and the production behind the artifact (“processional paradigm”).  To say it another way, Schiffler was interested in history and Binford was interested in anthropology.

As I look at this discussion and combine it with the “life-cycle” of an object (Procurement, Manufacture, Use, Discard, Abandonment) I realize that it is only the last (ie Abandonment) that the archaeologist deals with.  The anthropologist is really interested in the systemic use (behavioral patterns in a system in the past).  The “Pompeii Premise” is really only dealing with the Abandonment phase in this life-cycle.  And in this phase there are various contexts to be considered (Abandonment, Taphonomic, Recovery, Archaeological).

To bring this home, let’s consider a flint knife.  It is just a piece of flint when someone (for it doesn’t make itself a knife) makes a decision to take it (Procurement) and shape it (Manufacture).  That knife is then used (Use) and possibly reworked to continue to make it sharp (Manufacture again).  Eventually it is deemed not worth the effort to rework and is thrown away (Discard).  It is at this stage that many reasons could arise for its rejection.  Was it lost, purposely discarded, dropped, covered in collapse, etc.  But whatever the answer to this CSI-Antiquity question it is part of a system (Systemic).

I wondered if the knife doesn’t, when it is discovered by archaeologists (Archaeological), collected, cleaned, and put on display in a museum or in a cabinet for study, enter into a new system of use?  Or what about monuments like the Pyramids at Giza.  Have they ever had a phase when they were not in someone’s system?  At what point does something become an artifact?

Whatever the answer to these questions, the complexity of life and study thereof was, thankfully, revealed in this discussion of these two scholars.  And no matter where you come down on the reason we do archaeology (history or anthropology) I hope it is clear that there are few “Pompeii’s” that can capture ancient life in a snapshot.  Thus, the work we do of interpreting the finds needs to also allow for a range of possibilities and should begin with a knowledge of what you are trying to discover (event or the processes behind the event).