We had some difficulty deciding on a topic for this week’s co-written blog assignment. We are both archaeologists with partially overlapping backgrounds, having both worked at Sustainable Archaeology at McMaster Innovation Park, and for the Stelida Naxos Archaeological Project. We also have very similar views on many aspects of our field. We do, however, have very different specializations, Beatrice in soil chemistry and Sean in lithic studies. We hope that this area of contention allowed us to combine our voices in a way that allowed for distinction, while exploring the petal where our bedraggled daisies intertwine.

Introduction: Defining an Archaeological Site

In both of our experiences, archaeology has propelled us to become aware of a pressing need for a better way to identify and define archaeological sites, or “sites”. Sean’s knowledge of the techno-typological components of the chipped stone assemblages that many sites have been defined upon, and Beatrice’s involvement with attempting to identify potential sites based on chemical traces left in soils mesh well together, and both have the potential to contribute to these arguments. However, our differing approaches and knowledge allow us to explore this topic from different vantage points. Of particular interest are the different ways we define sites and challenge traditional perspectives.

Lithics for site prospection

Lithics have been used to define sites pretty much since the definitions of sites began. It is easy to understand why they have been relied upon so much, because they’re clearly the quickest and most reliable way to identify human presence. Eeeeeaaaasy now, I’m not offending any of the other material types (obviously this is Sean talking), I’m just saying that stone is one of the only things in the archaeological record that can pretty much last forever. Almost everything else does not last after a certain period of time barring unique preservation conditions. This loss of material culture is so limiting that the vast majority of our archaeological heritage is defined by the discovery of all manner of stone tools. I think this is still true for much of archaeology today. However, I also believe that we are at a point in the global archaeological trajectory (theoretical and methodological) where we can open things up a little to include wider definitions beyond the simple, “there are more than 10 flakes in this unit, so now we can officially call this a site”.

Alternative methods of site prospection

This point in the archaeological trajectory where wider definitions have been sought has opened up the potential to use alternative methods of site prospection. Some methods of geophysical survey have been fundamental in detecting sites based on features or landscape anomalies (Gaffney, 2008). However, these methods still rely on sites being defined by built environments. Like lithics, this can privilege physical evidence of particular ways of being on the landscape. I’ve tried to promote soil chemistry as a method of gaining greater insight into larger scopes of activity that may or may not involve stone tools, ceramics, or built environments. Multi-element analysis methods like XRF can define sites in more liberal ways and areas where chemical evidence indicates human activity. Studies have shown that this may extend beyond the built environment and highlight activities in structurally empty plaza areas or extend beyond built boundaries (Birch, 2016). To allow for this level of interpretation, suites of chemicals have been associated with specific activities such as food processing or lithic manufacturing. Though these new methods seem to promise a more complete picture of past activities, they aren’t without their challenges and limitations.

Challenges

Some of the challenges to face are fairly obvious, as they have plagued archaeologists for generations. Many materials simply do not preserve in most soils, and thus is why lithics have been relied upon so heavily. However, with new advances in soil sciences and instruments to measure with precision the minute characteristics that could indicate human presence there are possibilities that were not open to these previous generations. The major challenges will be to make this technology easily accessible, affordable, and the resulting data standardized across labs.  This also includes necessary advancements towards greater efficiency and less processing time for methods like soil chemical analysis. Other challenges will include matching our social theories of being with material records of existence. Given the clarity of these problems when considering both of our research programs, we are confident that addressing these problems will propel current archaeological projects.

Possibilities for Collaboration: Academic Research Problems

We can both find excitement in collaboration between lithics and soil chemistry. The efficiency and substantive research backing of lithic analysis provides a wonderful starting point when considering surface collections or excavations material. Lithics are always indicative of human activity and their analysis is reasonably efficient. Soil chemical analysis on the other hand is fraught with interpretation concerns. Not only is it time consuming, but anthropogenic chemical signatures must be separated from the background lithology of the area. Because theses methods address different scales and require different time investments, they can pair well under a single research banner. When combined, these methods can collectively provide more dynamic notions of where sites can be located or what (or even if) site boundaries actually exist. Despite many studies existing independently, the discussions we shared enforced our enthusiasm for combining methods to answer broader anthropological questions concerning behaviour. This potential for collaboration can even lead into further multi-disciplinary projects.

Potential for Public Archaeology in Site Definition

The issue of site identification has the potential to be benefitted by a campaign to promote public archaeology, or at least to increase the awareness of the public when it comes to picking up artifacts from the ground. Let’s face it, people have always done it, and people will always do it, so instead of telling them not to and having them ignore us completely, we should create platforms that allow people to pinpoint with GPS where they found certain artifacts, and perhaps they could let us look at those artifacts, and better yet they could also collect a soil sample from the area directly associated with the artifacts. What comes to mind is an app for mobile devices that could allow people to do this, and it automatically gets reported to the closest archaeological department for further investigation. I think something like this might exist already.

At the very least this could provide a map of artifacts/”sites” that would not be possible without the aid of the public. The stigma attached to the public ‘desecration’ of archaeological material must be washed away, because we will not be able to stop it. We might as well embrace it, and get as much data out of it as possible, because it would be lost otherwise. In the best case scenario, the soils would contain appropriate levels of phosphorus, potassium, or calcium to indicate past human presence, and a suitable database could be built up over time that would help legitimize the capabilities of these new applications in soil sciences so they can eventually be used to define sites where the reliance on stone tools is not possible (many occupied “sites” might not have any stone at all, or not enough stone, or the stone doesn’t tell any kind of story).

Conclusion

The exercise of discussing our research and exploring areas of agreement or contention was a useful one. We found many areas of overlap and significant potential for collaboration. What was most interesting was that our collaboration was catalyzed by discussions of sites, human activity, and the use of space. These anthropological questions of behaviour cross cut each of the anthropological sub-disciplines in one way or another. If anything has come out of this experience, it is understanding the importance of stepping back and finding common ground in broader questions. When the intersecting petal of your bedraggled daisy is found, collaborations suddenly seem much more manageable.

References

Birch, Jennifer. 2016. Interpreting Iroquoian site structure through geophysical prospection and soil chemistry: Insights from a coalescent community in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Archaeological Science. Reports: 102-111.
Gaffney, C. 2008. Detecting Trends in the Prediction of the Buried Past: A Review of Geophysical Techniques in Archaeology. Archaeometry. 50.2: 313-336.