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).

Archaeological Photography – Blind Speed

How fast can the shutter on a camera actually move?  There is a limit to how fast blind can open and shut physically.  There are ways around this, which is what camera manufacturing companies have worked out.  However, the photographer must keep this in mind when taking high speed photographs because the light must flash at the precise split second that the shutter is open or the light is useless.

Photographers early on realized that the light from burning magnesium allowed them to cut exposure times exponentially.  Prior to flash powder, subjects had to remain motionless for lengthy periods in order for the photograph to be clear and crisp.  However, intense light helped to make the exposure clear faster and (although very dangerous) this was much preferable then hoping the subject, camera, etc didn’t move.

When I was a boy, I can remember flash cubes.  It was an innovation on cameras that allowed the flash to be changed “automatically”.  A cube with a flash on each side was attached to the top of the camera body.  When the film was wound the cube would spin.  Fantastic!  Eventually batteries allowed cameras to have an internal flash (which is what we are used to today).

However, regardless of where the flash comes from, it must be timed with the shutter opening or the light is wasted.  To help visualize this picture in your mind what actually happens when you press the button to take the photo: the mirror flips up, the aperture stops down, the first shutter/blind opens, and the second blind follows.  The time between the first and second blind is the exposure.

Because of simple physics, the blind cannot move any faster than about 1000^th of a second (normally indicated by a red number or X.  However, blinds are often mounted vertically now instead of horizontally because it can travel just a little faster that way.  But regardless of the speed of the camera there is a time when the blind cannot travel any faster.  To combat this and allow faster speeds, camera manufacturing companies have “solved” this by allowing the second blind to follow the first blind before the first blind finishes its trip across.  This results in a narrow (rectangular) slit of exposure that travels across film instead of getting exposed all at once. 

This is important because the flash (light being much faster) must be timed to sync with the opening of that slit or the flash is wasted.  Most cameras allow this to happen automatically with a simple connection wire and an adjustment on the camera marked with a M/Fp and a X.  The M or Fp marking allows for delayed flash; the X marking syncs the flash with the shutter.

The M/Fp marking (it differs depending on camera manufacturer) is a useful setting for dynamic photographs.  Perhaps you have seen pictures of people moving where the exposure was long enough to allow for a purposeful blurring of motion.  A delayed flash at the end of the exposure captures a crisp subject on top of that blurred movement (coming just before the second blind closes).  A cool effect.

It also is good to remember that the lighting you see through the camera while focusing is not the amount of light that will enter the camera when it is stopped down to the aperture when the photo is taken.   Using a light meter is helpful to ensure that the correct lighting is used.  We also have been trained to take three photos of each object increasing and decreasing the shutter speed by twice and by half to ensure that the correct exposure of light is captured.

Egyptian Objects – Religious Perception

The second class (in a series of three) on interpreting objects looked at how we interpret objects from a religious perspective (the first was on the artistic interpretation and the third on linguistic interpretation).  Since my background is in religious studies, I immediately felt very comfortable discussing this.  As I read the required readings in preparation for class, I was able to evaluate them and had something concrete to contribute in class.  This post will review a few of the key points from our discussion and end with my evaluation.

Jan Assmann is considered “the theologian of Egyptology”.  One of the readings (and the most insightful) was his work on Mnemohistory (or the history of memory).  This approach allows him to study an ancient text and not make any value judgments on it based on actual history.  It allows him to study a text as it was remembered.  He takes this approach as a way of approaching a topic he calls, “the Moses Distinction” (basically Egypt verse Israel – the idea that Israel is good and Egypt is bad).  This “Moses Distinction” affects us today in how we look at Egyptian objects.

He claims that three major world religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) are all founded on the idea of monotheism (ie only one God) which naturally pits them against all other religions.  He points out that polytheistic ancient societies happily integrated gods from other civilizations without much problem (a process he calls “translation”).  It was the monotheistic idea that makes translation impossible.

Further, this led to an anti-Egyptian sentiment among the followers of monotheism because the God of Moses was the only and all others were a lie.  Thus, idolatry became associated with forgetting and regressing, while monotheism was remembering and progressing.  Israel was truth and Egypt was false.  This led, he concludes, to a distinctive “Egyptophobic” image of Egypt in the Bible.  This is reflected in the way societies today look back at ancient Egyptian religious objects.  He then went on to talk about other people from Josephus to Sigmund Freud and how they remembered Moses and Egypt and used their memories to deconstruct the ancient text in an attempt to get at the “truth” behind it.

Fundamentally, I like Assmann’s approach to studying texts (whether on objects, walls, or some sort of writing material).  Memory is the only sort of history that we have.  Our experiences skew everything we write, everything we remember, and everything we convey (whether that be in a story we tell to a journal entry before we sleep to a history we teach to an object we make).  The same is true for the ancient writers and artisans.  I think there is true value in looking at texts as they convey a memory and learn from them in that way.  Judging the text on whether we believe the history within is “true” or “false” before we study the text is bad science (because we make a judgment of validity before testing).

However, I believe that Assmann’s conclusions regarding his “Moses Distinction” is wrong for two reasons.  The most fundamental reason I believe he has got it wrong is that he starts from the wrong perspective.  I am not sure how much of the Pentateuch Assmann has actually studied.  Some of his statements showed a real lack in familiarity with the text he was dealing with.  For example, chronologically he places Moses after Akhenaton, which is not where the text places Moses.  If you are going to study a text as a memory, you have to study the text and not what other people think or say about the text.  Also, he claims that idolatry was the greatest sin among ancient Israel.  This is also an error.  Idolatry was a sin but not the greatest.  It was one among ten.  Each was equal.  This is an easily demonstratable theological perspective.  But this one error in theology led him to his next conclusion which was that Israel was anti-Egypt, which is not provable anywhere in Scripture.  And the list continues.

The second error I believe Assmann makes is in his attempt to deconstruct history by use of memory.  One of the greatest sins of the study of history (whether that be of text, art, religion, chronology, or events) in my opinion is the attempt to deconstruct what we have with the purpose at “discovering” the “true” history behind it.  It makes no difference what Josephus or Freud, or anyone else thinks about the text.  How they remember it doesn’t affect the text.  All that can do is demonstrate the preconceptions each of those people had when approaching the text for study. 

The text came before the remembering of these people (who lived after).  Therefore, nothing they can “remember” affects it.  To illustrate this in another way, how my daughter remembers my wedding doesn’t affect the actual wedding, not just because she wasn’t alive at the time (which should be just a basic question of logic) but also because the wedding is finished.  If you want to learn more about the wedding you have to approach someone who was there.  Even then, no matter if you are able to get every single one of those 350+ guests to relate the event to you, you will never get at the actual event (because, everyone perceives things differently).  In other words, there is no “true” event to get at.  There is no “one” way to tell about the event.  There are millions.  And my daughter’s memory is going to be skewed by what she has heard from me and the pictures she has seen.  Chronologically, it is an error to seek origins from people who had nothing to do with the text’s writing and lived long after the author was dead.

How bold we think we are as scholars, and how clever, that we actually think it is possible to deconstruct a text to discover the “truth” behind it!  How absurd.  This is only compounded by the utter lack of material to work with.

Objects with religious natures had a purpose.  We should try to understand that purpose and not try to get at any psychological reasons for its existence.  Much of the problem of “New” Archaeological thought that still persists today, is the effort to play the psychologist with the ancient people.  I am not sure that this can be done and neither do I think we are trained for it.

I suggest that we understand ourselves and our preconceptions, we study the texts/objects for what they are and what they say, and we try to distinguish between what we bring the study with what the object is (whether that is artistically, religiously, or textually).

Apocalypto

I just returned from an evening with the Meso-American archaeological group who had a film showing – Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto.  They were mostly specialists in Mayan archaeology and so were interested in how this ancient civilization was portrayed.  This post will share some of my impressions of the film (from an “outsiders” view – being an Egyptian archaeologist) and also give some of their, more expert, opinions.

For those who have never watched it, Apocalypto, is not for the faint of heart.  It is a “thrilling” story of a young tribal prince in the Mayan jungle who is taken captive in a brutal attack by another tribe.  He is ripped apart (very violently) from his family (his wife, who is very pregnant, and his young son he manages to hide in a well only to be taken captive leaving them trapped at the bottom).  He, and the other men and women of the tribe, are forced to painfully march to the capital where most of the women are sold into slavery and the men are painted blue and taken to the temple to be ritually sacrificed (hearts cut out while alive and then decapitated – I said this was not a movie for the faint heart).  When it is his turn, an eclipse fortuitously occurs and his life, and those of his friends, are temporarily spared.  They are then taken to be made sport of.  He manages to escape by killing the “general’s” son.  To get revenge, he is chased by the “general” and his men back into the jungle.  It is a race against time, his determined pursuers, and the elements in his attempt to get back to his wife and son before it rains (as she and their son will drown in the well if he doesn’t get back to save them).

All in all, it was an “entertaining” movie (for those who like this sort of thing).  It was very bloody.  This (the violence) was not really something I enjoy, but it did bring dramatically home to me the family behind the wars.  I study ancient history.  Often much of that history revolves around whatever written record we have; and unfortunately, much of it has to do with war.  I have often thought about the men who fight these wars, but I must confess to have not thought as much of the families behind these men.  We are truly blessed to not live in a war-torn country.  But this is not true of everyone on earth.  Unfortunately there are people who want to force their wills, beliefs, religions, etc on other people or simply just take more (“greed” motivation) for themselves.  Naturally, this has to be stopped, or prevented or the world we live in of relative peace will disappear, as it did to this small tribal village.

I also was faced with the realization that at some point in history, various tribal centers did become more ambitious and begin to build.  Those in the neighboring areas who didn’t want to “bow” to the new “rulers” were forced to bow or become slaves (or worse).  That is another unfortunate reality of the ancient (and to some degree, modern) world we study (and live in).  It is one thing to be part of the “rulers”.  It is quite another to be one of the “ruled”.

My Mayan archaeological companions viewed the movie in quite another way.  The professor was distraught over the “clean” jungle, the poor costuming, and the horrid pronunciation of the language (the entire move was in the foreign tongue – which I liked because it was more believable then the Mayan suddenly speaking English – probably with British accents like most of the ancient Egyptians are portrayed as doing in most movies).  Unfortunately, only one of the actors could speak the language fluently (again, fortunately, they were all local people and not “white” men acting like locals – Mel Gibson was the director, he was not in the movie).

One student pointed out that at the time when the Spanish came (which took place at the very end of the movie) everything was very agricultural and urban and nothing like the movie portrayed the Mayan civilization as being.  It is doubtful that the Mayan ever did ritual sacrificing.  And the city was not believable.  She also wondered why the village was only a day’s journey away, and yet they had no idea what was happening.  This was the general tenor of my companions and the other comments were along these lines.

In the end, we all agreed that these sorts of movies, while not true to the archaeological reality, do serve good purposes.  They make us think about our stereotypes.  They also make us think and evaluate what we perceive as reality.  But probably the best thing they do is inspire people to become interested in these areas and eventually grow up to be archaeologists who can study them and discover the truth (most of us became interested in our fields of study along similar lines).

And we all wished that the movie makers would do better research (for the same story could be told – and be accurate at the same time).

Managing Museums – Surviving Recessions

Recessions are a time when less revenue from public funding is available to museums.  However, as a manager, you must keep your museum viable.  The good news for museums is that historically it can be shown that the public values heritage more during recessions.  Also, each past recession has proven to be times of innovation and development in the heritage sector.  This post will briefly outline what museums must do (or be) to survive a recession.

Those museums which have survived recessions in the past have certain attributes.  The follow is a list of these:

They know their core – what they do that others don’t do

They do as much now as they always had done – but with less

They share resources with other institutions

They are less reliant on current principle funders

As a result, they fundraise constantly

They increase reliance on volunteers

Volunteers are donors as well as advocates – they are not separate entities

They modify their own governance to reflect the changing situation

They offer alternative services to the community such as: lectures, night classes, a store, and they make themselves available for group get-togethers/parties/meetings

To survive in hard times, requires creativity and streamlining.  It doesn’t necessarily mean that staff must be cut.  It does mean that the “old school” way of doing things, might need to be adjusted (perhaps even drastically).  No longer can a museum afford to be a “club” for its staff to do their own research in private.  Recessions force museums to open their doors to others and welcome them in.  This has to be demonstratable (meaning, the community must feel the change in a meaningful, audible, and visual way).  Common consent among the staff is not enough.

I found this lecture to be interesting and informative – not to mention timely.  The museums, here in the UK, have just faced a drastic cut-back in government funding and the class (full of future museum managers) needs to be aware of the dangers that lurk beyond the walls of the school.  I am happy that the teachers are able and willing to adjust their teaching lectures to meet the times in which they are teaching.  This information is helpful to all who will work in the UK, as well as those who will not.

Managing Archaeological Sites – Community Planning

When preparing to manage an archaeological site, how much does the community factor into the decisions that are being made?  Do they have any role in the planning?  This class focused on the question, “Whose future are we planning when we makes plans for managing archaeological sites?”

It is not a simple thing to get a pulse on the values and sense of expectation of the community and then to incorporate that into our plans for the site – but perhaps it is the right thing to do.  And perhaps by doing this, we also ensure that the community takes “ownership” of the site.

Without casting dispersions on the motives of anyone, this aspect of site management is often ignored.  After all, what if the community does take “ownership” of the site and then they decide to manage it differently than you?  But again, the question must be asked, “Whose future are you planning – the sites or the people who live around the site?”

It is common for site managers to talk about the revenue that proper site management will bring to the surrounding community from tourists.  However, is the site manager really interested in the wellbeing of the community or are they just trying to get the community’s consent so they can then turn around and do whatever they want to do?

Another problem in this is that there are more “stakeholders” in the process then just the community.  Trying to keep the relationship between the stakeholders civil as well as provide for everyone’s expectations just might not be possible.  However, it must be done, and the community is a stakeholder too.

Honesty is a very key attribute in the process.  It is important not to oversell the site.  In all reality, your archaeological site will probably not become a tourist “hotspot” to rival the pyramids of Giza in Egypt.  In fact, there may be very little change in the annual tourist attendance in the near future.  Setting realistic, attainable goals is very important when casting the vision to the stakeholders (including the community).

It is also valuable to realize that the community has skills and resources that can be of great use to the site and its management.  After all, they will remain at the site all year, every year, while you will come and go.  It cannot be forgotten that this is their home.  However, you might have to educate them in the process before you beginning the planning as the key players may not even understand what you are attempting to do.

By the end of this class I could see the wisdom in what was being presented.  And to answer the question posed to us at the beginning, I believe that the site and the community are the same, therefore, the future that we are planning belongs to both together.  They cannot be separated.

Archaeology and Education – Cross-curricular Teaching

Cross-curricular work is done usually in a one-room classroom where an educator takes one idea and runs that through a variety of subjects.  Since teachers of one-room classes rarely are specialists in each subject they are asked to teach, it is important to provide aids to them and archaeology is one area that can easily be used cross-curricularly.  This blog will demonstrate how archaeology can be used in a variety of subjects.

History is the subject most likely to be used with archaeology.  It is important to note that certain words should be at the core of a study of history.  Among which are “sources (primary/secondary)”, “evidence”, “artifact”, “anachronism”, “bias”, and “chronology”.  Students should know the difference between the different types of sources.  They should be presented with evidence and appreciate that evidence must be interpreted.  It is crucial that they know that both documents, as well as, physical objects have a bias.  They need to know how to order things in time.  And they need to learn how to communicate their findings.

One way to teach young (and old) students to order history is to ask them to think in three ways: think of things that happened before “I” was born, think of things that happened since “I” was born, and to order these events correctly.  Since nearly all young children (ages 7/8) have a world-view that is orientated to and around the family, most will answer these with the birthdays of brothers and sisters either older or younger.  Whatever they come up with, take those birth years and ask them to order them from oldest to newest.  In this way they learn that dates represent things older or younger than each other.

Another way is to teach them about a period in time (say Pompeii A.D. 79) and then show them the film “Pompeii – the Last Days” and ask them a series of questions of the accuracy between the evidence presented in class with the portrayal of it in the film.

History is easy, what about some other subjects?  In Language studies it is important to get students to learn how to listen, see, feel, etc and then communicate those senses to another person.  If you have taken the children to a heritage site, ask them to listen.  What do they hear?  In what ways might this be similar or dissimilar to when people used to live here.  Younger children can play “I Spy” in which they are asked to describe something they see while the rest of the class tries to guess.  Children can be given photos of various parts of the site and be asked to find them (perhaps even having another child attempt to describe the photo for them while they look).  They can be asked to write captions (usually in 25 words or less) teaching them to be concise.  They can be asked to write an account for a local newspaper (having an actual paper to look at for style examples) of their visit to the site.

The ability to describe something is very important in archaeology and in language skills.  Give the students each, one potato.  Ask them to write a description of it.  Then collect all the potatoes and ask each student in turn to read their description and then locate their potato.  When we, as archaeologists, write a description of artifacts or objects, we need to write in a way that allows future scholars to recognize what we see.

Science is another area where archaeology is obviously connected.  Scientific enquiry asks scientists to obtain and present evidence, explain and interpret observations, measurements, and conclusions, to us a wide range of methods to represent data, and to analyze physical change.  Archaeological techniques are to record field work such as monuments, archaeological features, artifacts, surveys, analyze data (for example a computer analysis of artifact scatters), and analyze artifacts (such as the wear of flint axes).

Science also looks at life processes, nutrition, and life environments.  Archaeology analyzes bones, seeds, and the environments in which people lived.  Science examines materials and their properties, so does archaeology (example the use of x-rays of metal artifacts).  There are physical properties that science studies such as the use of artificial satellites to observe the earth, electricity, and magnetism.  Archaeology uses aerial studies such as satellite images, air-born radar, and simple high-altitude aerial photography.  Also archaeologists use various techniques for dating, such as: pollen, dendrochronology, radiocarbon, archaeomagnetic, and thermoluminescence dating techneques.

Mathematics is also an area where archaeology can be used, particularly in the study of measurements, using and applying numbers, shapes and spaces, and handling data.  Since archaeologists survey, measure draw, and record landscapes, sites, and finds students can be asked to do the same.  Non-standard means of measurement (ie span, pace, thumb, body length, etc) can be used to measure a site and then replicated back on the school grounds to allow students to get a grasp of size.

Another project that brings in many aspects of the curriculum is data gathering.  Take students to a grave yard at a local church.  Have them plot the locations of the grave stones (survey work).  Have them note the dates on the tombstones and mark off where certain people were buried at various periods.  Have them look and compare (comparative study) the shapes and decorations of tomb stones and note the trends in tombstone design.  They also can note the “symbols of death” and how they change.  When all of this information is collected (and by the way, it is much more fun and useful for the student to gather the data themselves rather than just be fed it in a classroom) have them present their results.  It is likely that this sort of work has not been done yet on that cemetery.  This is real archaeology work that can be published and presented to the overseeing body of the site.  Just that knowledge alone makes the project more fun because the students will realize that what they are doing is “real”.

The same sorts of connections, I’m sure are becoming obvious.  Geography is basic survey work and map design.  This is exactly what archaeologists do.  The planning of space and routes is directly connected to archaeology and museums.  Music and Dance are expressive arts.  Why have the students draw the same apple over and over again?  Why not take them to a heritage site and have them draw something that they have not experienced before such as window design, etc.  The making of a class “mosaic” using small tiles is another project to tie history together with art.  And religious studies is an easy connection.  Avoid trying to “prove” anything, but simply help them to understand context better and also the material culture of certain religious structures and artifacts.

To become a successful archaeologist it is important to be a good scientist, mathematician, geographer, historian, artist, communicator, etc.  All this study is demonstrating is that when you need an example outside of the textbook or an idea for a project, archaeology provides a deep well that can be returned to repeatedly and will also be popular with the students.