A Capsule History of Archaeological Method

049

Until about 100 years ago archaeological method in the Near East consisted primarily of aimless treasure hunting.

In the latter part of the 19th century, archaeological pioneers like Heinrich Schliemann at Mycenae and Troy, and Flinders Petrie in Egypt and Palestine (see “Sir Flinders Petrie: Father of Palestinian Archaeology,” BAR 06:06) provided a vision that directed archaeology toward systematic excavation practices.

In the early 20th century, archaeological method was guided almost exclusively by principles of architectural analysis. Interpretive units, or loci (singular: locus) were defined architecturally, according to buildings, rooms or structural elements. Within this frame of reference, a stratum, or cultural level, meant a “building level.” Artifacts found in the excavation were collected and interpreted according to their association with these architectural phases. For a while, this method seemed adequate, especially when practiced by such skillful and sensitive excavators as the American archaeologists G. A. Reisner and C. S. Fisher at Samaria (1908–1910), Fisher and others at Megiddo (1925–1939), and more recently by the Israeli architect Munya Dunayevsky at a multitude of sites.

However, as field experience in systematic excavations accumulated, it became increasingly clear that the archaeological autopsy of a mound or tel was incomplete if observation was limited to the architectural bones. In the 1930s Kathleen Kenyon introduced at Samaria a technique developed by her mentor, Sir Mortimer Wheeler, known a debris analysis.

In this system more attention is directed to the soils and debris layers surrounding the architecture. When observed in section, that is, in the vertical slice exposed in carefully trimmed balks left standing around the digging areas, these layers provide a stratified picture of the way the soils and debris had accumulated through the mound’s history. Loci in this system are generally smaller and more refined recording units. A locus (singular) is defined as any three-dimensional element deposited or constructed in the buildup of the tel, and includes not only architectural features like walls, floors, towers, and surfaces, but also layers of soil and debris, pits, graves, and installations, In this way strata designations, while still determined primarily by architectural developments, can be analyzed in far more detail. Secondary surfaces, like added floors and repaved streets, and other minor building changes can be noted. More importantly, however, artifactual deposits of a secondary or intrusive nature can be more effectively identified and sorted out. This provides a much more secure data base for cultural and chronological interpretation than architectural analysis alone.

While, following Kenyon, British and American excavations soon adopted some form or another of the debris analysis system, other archaeologists, especially in Israel, were more cautious, maintaining and defending the architectural tradition.

The principal debate centered on “excavation economics.” The architectural analysis school was accused of digging “too much” and ignoring the fine points of stratigraphy and artifact separation. The debris analysis excavators were accused of digging “too little,” of sacrificing the larger picture (that is, complete architectural structures) in order to concentrate on nuances and details of possible marginal importance.

Happily, this methodological debate has now moved beyond the level of mere partisan squabble. More recent American efforts at sites like Gezer, Hesi, and Lahav, have employed the debris analysis techniques in more expansive excavation fields so that more architecture is exposed; Israeli teams, on the other hand at such sites as Aphek and Lachish, have begun to observe and record debris sections. Each has adopted the best of the other. An eclectic methodology is emerging.

In other ways, too, there are signs that archaeology as a disciplined, scientific pursuit is emerging from its adolescence. Newer excavations are increasingly concentrating on all aspects of environmental analysis, and in the coordinated use of specialists from many disciplines to encourage and facilitate a wider range of information retrieval and interpretive processes. Archaeological teams, as often as not, now include geologists, paleobotanists, ethnologists, and a host of other specialties.

Moreover, there is increasing awareness that “good archaeology” cannot be equated with a single excavation system or technique. Rather it involves the proper selection and coordination of a variety of research techniques and operations in relation to the specific challenges and problems of a given site. Within this perspective we can look optimistically toward the future, anticipating further growth and increasing productivity as the archaeological discipline moves ahead into its adult years.

Until about 100 years ago archaeological method in the Near East consisted primarily of aimless treasure hunting.