Category Archives: Fall 2012

Ancient Egypt—Discovered Remains In an Art Museum?

Posted on by
Reply

Growing up in New York City, I always ran.  Several times a week on my runs, I would pass the Metropolitan Museum of Art (MET) and look into the giant glass windows that enclosed an ancient Egyptian world packed with tourists.  As a naïve child that had not visited the exhibit, I assumed that it was filled with treasures and mummies.

Lila Acheson Wallace Galleries of Egyptian Art

I was wrong; the Egyptian Art Wing at the MET consists of 26,000 objects arranged in chronological order.  Who analyzed these objects, and with what knowledge did they do so?  Why does the MET have an Egyptian exhibit if it is an art museum?

Egyptologists I have learned, not archaeologists, analyzed these objects.  Egyptologists do not need their Masters in anthropology, but can have other Masters, such as a Masters in Fine Arts.  In the U.S., archaeology is a subdiscipline of anthropology (“the comprehensive study of human species from biological, social, and cultural perspectives using both synchronic and diachronic views”) (Ashmore 4).  According to Ashmore an archaeologist is “a professional scholar who studies the human past through its physical remains” (Ashmore 4).  In comparison, an Egyptologist, according to the University of Chicago, is an individual “whose regular work involves the history, archaeology, language or culture of ancient (pre-Islamic) Egypt”.

The average person does not understand Egyptology or archaeology.  When I asked random Vassar students what Egyptologists and archaeologists do, they had similar responses–looking in the field for mummies, looking for treasures (which are the objectives of looters), “digging up stuff” and “dusting off bones”.

The average person's understanding of Egyptology and archaeology

In reality, an Egyptologist needs to be a “student of language” who analyzes hieroglyphics and artifacts to understand the past. This is contrary to archaeologists who use physical remains as well as diverse and complex methods to understand the past and humanity.  Without an education in Egyptology or archaeology, a false understanding is derived from television, movies, and other media.  Egyptologists and archaeologists are made to seem like adventurers to capture the attention of the public.

So why did the Egyptologists put these objects in the MET?  They did so because Egyptian remains are the basis of Western Art.  Europeans view Egypt as part of their ancestry, and we, as Americans, view Europe as part of our ancestry.  As Americans we are learning about our heritage by studying Egyptian art.  In addition, we have the ability to study a wide variety of ancient Egyptian art, allowing us to better understand our past.  While much of Native American art may have decomposed because of moist environments, Egypt is arid and preserves the past well.  The Egyptian collection, therefore, should be in the MET.

Ancient Aliens

Posted on by
Reply

There are many unsolved archaeological and historical mysteries such as who created the mysterious monument of Stonehenge and why?  And, how were the Great Pyramids in Egypt constructed? According to one television series on the History Channel the answer is simple: aliens. Yes, aliens. The commentators on the show Ancient Aliens propose that most of the unsolved archaeological mysteries can be explained by extraterrestrial beings who visited ancient civilizations and gave them technology and knowledge.

The Saqqara Bird

Once you get past the dramatic editing, special effects and dramatic music, an individual who is not familiar with “real” archaeological research and analysis may actually begin to believe what the show is trying to convince you of. The first case that the show presents is the Saqqara Bird (a small wooden bird that was recovered during the excavation of the tomb of the ancient Egyptian official Pa-di-Imen in 1898). An author and an engineer then explain to viewers the interesting physical properties of the bird (wings that look like aircraft wings, a tail that appears to be a rudder). These observations, along with the fact that it was found lying next to a papyrus with the inscription “I want to fly” lead them to believe that the bird is most likely a model for an aircraft.

So far, taking into account that they have not explained all of the information known in relation to the artifact, the interpretations don’t seem too extreme: they are presenting a hypothesis based on observations of the artifact’s characteristics and its provenience as well as specific prior knowledge. But hypotheses cannot be held up without evidence, therefore, a larger scale model of the bird was built and tested to see if it would be able to fly. Quick shots of the experiments were shown to the viewer without any explanation of what was happening or why, and then we were told that the results clearly show that the bird is a model of a “highly developed glider”. We, apparently, use that same design today, but our gliders are launched with a bungee cord system. If this is indeed what the Saqqara Bird is, how did the Egyptians come up with such an advanced technology? The answer, according to Ancient Aliens, is obvious: aliens. They jump to this absurd conclusion abruptly, without any supporting evidence. They omit and misrepresent facts and disregard much of the previous information known about ancient cultures. Their only claim to truth is that there is no proof to disprove them.

They are doing what many people believe real archeologists do: making up information about past cultures and people. When real archeologists present a hypothesis or theory, they conduct an interpretive process that is based primarily on the gathering of information. Most non-archaeologists do not have the understanding of anthropological or archaeological theory to understand this process (Beisaw). They think archaeologists are creating stories about the past without proof when they are in fact undergoing a thorough scientific process to reach their conclusions.

The most common theoretical approach to archaeology is the culture history approach. This approach is a way of reconstructing the past using a normative model of culture. Each culture has a set of rules or norms that govern the society and are passed from one generation to the next (Ashmore 40). If this theory is applied to the Saqqara Bird, a trained archaeologist might conclude that the bird was perhaps a ceremonial or burial item based on the provenience and the  previous known fact that falcons were a highly valued bird in Egyptian culture. The slight style variations that the show explains to be unique features could be attributed to the degrees of change (idiosyncratic behavior, aka, the choice of the artists) within the normative system (Ashmore 40). Only if enough evidence and support through the careful assimilation of data would the archaeologist hypothesizes the potential meaning of the bird. If there is no evidence to support the claim, the archaeologist may search for new interpretation. Ancient Aliens does the opposite and creates false evidence to support a hypothesis. This pseudo archaeological approach involving the misuse and omission of facts used in Ancient Aliens is a gross misrepresentation of how archaeologists analyze the past and also an insult to our ancestors.

Originality and Age

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve never lived in a house that my family has owned, my entire life we’ve rented our home for whatever tenure of time we were spending there. Before us another family had lived there, and after we left somebody else would move in. But for the period of time that I lived there it was my home and I felt ownership of it. For this reason I take personal issue with a focus in personal culture and history of possession being determined by ‘firsts.’ Who first lived in the house? Who built it? Bought the land that it was on? Popular culture has a misunderstanding of archaeology that whatever is older must be more important.

This misconception can have drastic implications. As we read last week in Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity, arguments over primary ownership of land can erupt centuries later, creating violence and heated debate. When the investigation of the Babri Mosque destruction was undertaken there was a large dependence on archaeologists to provide information concerning the original use of the land and the possibility that an important Hindu temple had once stood there. Attempts to condone the violence committed in 1992 by reference to past wrongdoings or disputed entitlement to the land does not excuse modern acts of terrorism. This demonstrates the danger of relying on past ownership. People develop strong emotional connections and cultural identity through history. This reliance on history can help inform modern life, but it can also be used as justification for modern wrongdoing. Therefore the understanding that primary possession is chief cannot only be misleading but also dangerous.

If an archaeologist is not frantically digging in Rome or Egypt attempting to find the first ever toothbrush do they not have any value to modern man?

Store Catalog from 1902. The earliest description of a toothbrush has actually been found in China, dating back to 1600 B.C.

An emphasis on the original can be useful, knowing when a technology first came into use or the development of an object can reveal a lot about post-processual archaeology, investigations into the social classes and roles of individuals in a society. But the implication that if an artifact is not the oldest of its kind or at least from an ancient civilization ignores the significance of countless archaeological discoveries. Archaeology is not, as depicted in the media concentrated on finding the oldest artifacts possible, a single ancient object will not provide the context of an entire civilization and population that existed there previously. Opposed to the depicted treasure hunt, archaeology is more of a puzzle, piecing together the lives of previous societies and carefully documenting and learning from them.

Why does society have the impression that if something is older or original it must have a greater value? In some cultures there is an automatic assumption that age signifies wisdom. Asian cultures give a great reverence to their elders on the basis that their age demonstrates a greater wealth of life experiences. Their importance comes not from mere antiquity, but cumulated knowledge. In Western culture there appears to be an enthrallment with things of great age, evidence that humanity extended through eons, an almost egotistical claim to ancient ancestors. Regardless of where the fascination with originality and age stems from, it can damage understanding of the science of archaeology and how archaeological analogy is constructed.

No Guts, No Glory

Posted on by
Reply

So many people are focused on the here and now. Our society is fast-paced and everyone lives for the present. However, history repeats itself. Everyone knows the cliché, yet few people actually take what it implies to heart. Even when people take the time to realize the relevance and impact of the past, very often they do not fully appreciate the extent that the past has to do with each and every day. Berneck and Polluck’s article states that the “relevance of the past…is evident in many facets of daily life”. Very few people realize the truth of this statement. Down to the very structure of our society, the past has influenced our lives. As cultures have evolved and adapted, their habits and ways of life have transcended generations. Without the innovations of agriculture, who knows how long we’d have been hunting for food. Ancient civilizations established governments. Without governments, our world would be in chaos. History and the past have shaped our present and future.
Now, it is the job of archaeologists to interpret the past so we can better understand out future. Many people do not understand this part of archaeologists’ jobs. The reason behind most ignorance, I feel, is that the do not want to believe that there is more to an archaeologist’s job than adventures and digs. There is glamour and razzle-dazzle in the concept of exotic adventures and getting down and dirty in digs. The blind romance is more appealing.
Furthermore, people do not understand the processes used to archaeologists to deduce information about the people and societies of the past. Culture History, Processual, and Post- Processual archaeology are obscure concepts that not many people pay any mind to when they attempt to understand archaeology. The general public finds many hypotheses made by archaeologists to be mere guesses not based on historical or scientific information. I do feel that most people relate Culture History to archaeology, but do not realize where the information is actually coming from.
Very few realize the science that goes into archaeology. The technology present at sites and in the labs is extensive and high quality. The instruments are precise and used for legitimate reasons in determining facts about artifacts and features found at sites. The concept of curses and black magic is much more associated with archaeology than science.
Pop culture certainly does not aid archaeology’s reputation, and the lies start early. In the children’s show The Suite Life on Deck, archaeology takes on its usual mask of guts and glory of gold objects in the jungle. The kids at the school go on “archaeological expedition” into the jungle to find a crown and ancient, royal tomb. The crown is taken from the tomb, and therefore loses the contextual significance that it would hold. This is never addressed though, and kids start learning early that what you can learn from artifacts is so much more important that finding something gold.
The unwillingness to separate from the mysterious and exciting world of adventures and journeys is what is holding back the public from understanding and truly appreciating archaeology for the art and science that is really is.

What’s Done Is Done…Or Is It?

Posted on by
Reply

A recent influx of embracing the present and future has overshadowed any appreciation we have for our pasts. As human beings living in the 21st century, we are bombarded with urges to “live in the moment” and “seize the day”. We have become obsessed with knowledge about the end of the world (such as 2012…which is rapidly approaching!). Even popular media figures have enlightened us with quotes to live by, such as Drake’s famously rapped motto “YOLO – You Only Live Once”.

This disconnection doesn’t seem to be purposeful, but merely a result of technological advances (everybody impatiently awaiting the newest iPhone model) and the fact that human beings are currently in a constant forward plow towards an obscure future (going to college in order to get into graduate school in order to get a job in order to raise a family, etc).

However, as Professor Beisaw made us all aware of in class on Thursday, the past is interwoven into every single facet of our daily lives. Although we tend to neglect this fact, we aren’t entirely oblivious to the past – but we only use it when it is convenient (to describe the unique nationality you inherited from your father’s uncle’s mother’s Portuguese brother). We ignore it when it is hurtful (losing a war) or shameful (slavery in colonial America). As inferred in Bernbeck and Pollock’s article “Ayodhya, Archaeology, and Identity”, human beings manipulate the past, and therefore archaeology, so that it becomes a glamorized version that we can be proud of. This is displayed through ascending and descending anachronisms. An ascending anachronism attempts to push a past event farther back in time so that it appears to be more distant, while a descending anachronism brings events closer to the present. By ascending events that are dishonorable and descending events that are more respectable, people take control of their histories and create a version to fit their desires.

This is where the public misunderstands archaeology – archaeology provides the facts of the past, but these facts are misconstrued by public manipulations. Mythical history “stresses continuity of past and present” (Bernbeck and Pollock 140), and many political issues today are based on this manipulation. For example, the current battle between the Hindus and Muslims in India displays how “bringing the past very near to the present helps to legitimate revenge for past injuries” (Bernbeck and Pollock 140). This is just one example of how issues based far in the past are manipulated by present day humans in order to solve ancient quarrels that probably don’t even matter in the slightest bit.

This just proves to show how archaeology is relevant to EVERYTHING. Archaeology is the analysis of our pasts but places so much emphasis on the bigger picture, and therefore has so much substantial influence in our present and our futures. People misunderstand this aspect of archaeology because of our manipulation of the past, as well as our inherent obsession with living in the now and embracing our futures. The truth is, the past is what makes us who we are and what gives us a sense of identity. The present and future are nothing without the past, and to say “what’s done is done” is ignorant. That present and future are nothing without the influence of the past – and that’s where archaeology comes in – it is the vehicle through which the past is revealed and interwoven into our lives.

A Cemetery as an Archaeological Site?

Posted on by
Reply

I believe archaeology is misunderstood because people assume archaeologists only work at ancient sites where the artifacts, ecofacts and features are thousands of years old and are dug up on a different continent instead of under our feet or in our backyards. Even if they do understand that archaeology can be done anywhere, they lack the understanding that archaeology goes beyond collecting, identifying and analyzing artifacts, ecofacts and features. Archaeology looks at the big picture. Archaeologists use analogy and theory to answer the big questions such as “What does it mean to be human?” and “How do humans deal with change?”

A stone wall and a fence serve the same purpose

As we were searching for the cemetery at Boyd Corners North, we stumbled across a stone wall in the middle of the woods. Using what Ashmore refers to as analogy, we could infer that the stone wall was used to mark a property and possibly enclose a house or a church by comparing the shape and structure to what we use today (fences).

Where we found artifacts/features

When we found stone walls and eventually the cemetery along our hike, we plotted the latitude and longitude coordinates of each feature or artifact in the GPS. Ashmore stresses the importance of this on pg. 187 because “spatial distributions and associations of archaeological data are often directly observable” when plotted on a map. If we were to go back and look at the plots, patterns could arise and we might be able to conclude how big the community was and how it was laid out. Then if we wanted to look deeper, we could infer why they placed features in specific areas and what the purpose of each feature was.

Example of a woman's tombstone

A cemetery might not sound interesting to most of the general public, but I was amazed to realize how much a cemetery that was only a century old could tell us about who lived on the ground we were exploring. In the short fifteen minutes we were there, we concluded that it was not solely a family cemetery, but a community cemetery. The presence of a stone wall around the land suggests that those that lived there planned to stay for a long period of time. Also, there is evidence based on the wording and trends of the tombstones that women didn’t have much power in their society because husband’s names were listed on the wife’s tombstones but not the other way around.

A cemetery, before my practical on Friday and this week’s classes meant a place where several dead people were buried, a place where their family, friends, and ancestors could come pay their respects. Never had I considered the amount of archeological knowledge that could come from just walking around one.

The difference between “Seeing” and “Observing”: Why Sherlock Holmes would make a better archaeologist than Indiana Jones.

Posted on by
Reply

“A picture is worth a thousand words”– the elementary(my dear Watson) clichéd words of wisdom we all (or will) encounter at least once in our early years of empty-slated minds– although simple and clichéd, is how we all should approach the field of archaeology.

The title really says it all– Indiana Jones is a horrible archaeologist, and he actually creates more damage on cultural and social history than anything else. This post will explain why the approach with the mindset of Sherlock Holmes will actually make us the better and the most idealistic archaeologist.

When we think graveyard in the context of archaeology, many pop culture, up to date(or perhaps outdated ones as well, Indian Jones is pretty old after all) movie-goers will probably think: “Let’s dig to find what people buried, maybe we can find some gold.” Sherlock Holmes fans may think differently. Yes, some might dig the graves to dig up some dead bodies for forensic analysis like they do in the recent Sherlock HolmesBBC TV series, but that’s not what I’m getting at.Sherlock Holmes, will probably take a mental picture of what he is looking at, from every details, to the type of grass, the age of the tombstones, any patterns, the relative ethnographic distribution of the area in a bigger context and picture. He will map out every detail, every singularities, differences, and similarities of the position of the entire graveyard before even digging the site.

Although all the evidences may be gathered from the site, there are still missing links that are lost that is impossible for us to obtain. The relative age, the reoccurring names, the stone wall encasing the particular graveyard, the size, the location, the soil type and samples, the decorations and engravings on the tombstones, are all pieces of a puzzle that archaeologists attempt to readjust and re-piece to map the history of their origins. Looking at figure in Ashmore’s Discovering the Past shows a graph of relative time periods certain tombstone types were popular in a particular graveyard, and the frequency of these tombstones will help determine the relative age and background about the tombstone or graveyard. But this data is not universal, and nor will it tell the history of the dead– it is merely a small tool to make an educated guess— it’s a hypothetical solution or approach to how a graveyard may have formed, under certain contexts.

Figure from Ashmore’s text, Graph of distribution and popularity of particular tombstones

In class, we approached these tombstones in different ways, Feminist and Marxist approaches to the graveyard data that the practical team gathered last week. We analyzed how a certain graveyard in Boyd Corner’s North might have oppressed women, or how women may have been treated differently than men by looking at the written words on tombstones and the general trends. Women’s tombstones all had the name of their husbands while the husbands’ tombstones did not show the names of their wives, which clearly shows the paternal nature of that community. The small size of the graveyard, as well as the walled stone surroundings shows that the graveyard was a reserved space for the small community. The dead also had reoccurring last names such as “Parker” which shows possible inbreeding amongst family members.

Observation is key and finding general patterns are important, and with general trends, we can perhaps guess about many things. But it is important to acknowledge the fact that archaeology lies in between the scientifically quantitative and the historically qualitative evidence. And at times, the evidence that is translated may be biased and not necessarily the truth, however, that itself will become part of the history and the motives behind the bias. Take the famous Paul Revere’s engraving of the Boston Massacre for example:

What does this image tell you about the British soldiers, the "Lobsterbacks?"

From this image we can infer many things, or guess. But these initial guesses are not backed with any evidence and therefore would not make you a Sherlock Holmes archaeologist. The picture shows the colonists completely helpless, and it looks like as if the general ordered these British soldiers to shoot on order. Another thing this engraving makes viewers believe is that the colonists look completely innocent. Reality: the colonists attacked first with snow, rocks, and fecal matter, and an accidental gunfire made others soldiers to believe that they were ordered to shoot. The British commander, Captain Prescott, did NOT order the call to shoot, and instead he was trying to calm the situation. Also many historians and history teachers teach students that they were nicknamed the “lobsterbacks”(as it says in the caption) during the American Revolution, however there is no evidence of the term being ever used until 1812-1813(Source). Paul Revere was on the Colonists’ side proving that even a primary source has its own bias and story.

As you can see, we can’t just accept things for what they look like, we have to actually observe every possible detail we can extract from anything we encounter as archaeologists. As archaeologists, we need to dig(both physically and metaphorically) as far as we can to understand the true purpose of what is found. Although one may argue that ethnographic and ethnoarchaeographic research eventually is the translation of the observer’s biases, it’s the best guess there is, and it’s viable to change and improvements over time as more evidence and more stories are gathered.

Instead of a whip and a Cowboy hat and fancy battle scenes with the Nazis, Smoke pipes, deerstalkers, and magnifying glass are the more appropriate tools of a true archaeologist. Indiana Jones is more like the professor Moriarty in the field of archaeology.

Bridging the Lab and the Dig Site

Posted on by
Reply

One of the main reasons the general public is confused about archaeology is the fact that they do not understand modern technology’s role in studying the past.  The classic image of an archaeologist is of someone in the field, digging with a shovel or trowel.  People picture a very isolated dig site without any sort of modern equipment and cannot understand why professional archaeologists need training for such straightforward work.  Because the act of digging seems so physical and basic, people assume that archaeology is not a science but guesswork.  They do not know that today, there are many advanced scientific ways to gather data about an artifact or ecofact.

This past week, we looked at flakes of obsidian in class.  When asked to speculate on what tools these flakes were, some people suggested that they were knives because of the way the stones fit into the palms of their hands.  However, it is dangerous to try and determine utility from something that varies as much as hand size does.  People have even mistaken ordinary stones for artifacts using this method.  Professor Beisaw instead suggested that one could determine usage by looking at the flakes under a microscope.  If the edge of a flake had been worn down, one would know it was used to cut something.  From there, one might be able to hypothesize more specifically about how it was used.  On the other hand, maybe the microscope would reveal that it was simply an abandoned remnant of a larger piece of stone that had been made into an arrowhead.

Obsidian Flake

Professor Beisaw also explained that a gun-like instrument that could determine a stone’s chemical makeup had been developed.  This technology helps identify whether a tool was made from local materials or materials from further away by scanning nearby natural resources.  If none of the natural resources match the tool, it not only reveals more information about the tool itself but also suggest that trade once occurred within the region.  In this way, using technology to analyze artifacts helps determine the exchange systems of ancient cultures.

Wendy Ashmore mentions a similar type of technology in Discovering Our Past.  On pages 200-201, she describes X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and neutron activation analysis (NAA) as analytical methods that determine the physical and chemical makeup of artifacts.  X-ray fluorescence works by releasing photons due through radiation that correspond to particular elements.  (http://serc.carleton.edu/research_education/geochemsheets/techniques/XRF.html)  Neutron activation analysis involves targeting nuclei with neutrons, producing a specific gamma ray reaction. (http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/naa_overview.html)

Neutron Activation Analysis

These technologies only scratch the surface when it comes to the methods used to study archaeological sites.  In addition to collecting artifacts of interest, archaeologists use both their knowledge of historical context and scientific instruments to paint a more complete picture of past civilizations.

Soiling The Name of Archaeology

Posted on by
Reply

Last week I experienced an awkward but relatable moment in my archaeology class. “What’s the substance in the ground,” Professor Beisaw asked. The answer seemed obvious so I stated, “Dirt.” “That’s right. It’s soil! Most people would have incorrectly answered dirt,” she explained. “Oops,” I thought and immediately broke eye contact! I then thanked the heavens that I have a voice softer than a mouse and that Professor Beisaw heard a different student answered the question before me! She further explained that the soil around an artifact holds valuable information about the past, while dirt is simply the stain on a shirt. I have walked on this earth and felt the soil between my toes for over 19 years, and never once have I thought about the stories that soil might tell. I have even soiled its name by assuming that it was the same as dirt! I believe that people misunderstand archaeology because they disregard the importance of the artifact’s surroundings, specifically soil. I will attempt to illustrate soil’s importance through the use of stratigraphy.

First, the ground is composed of sloping or marginally horizontal layers or strata of different soil on top of each other. They can usually be distinguished by their color, texture, or composition. As Wendy Ashmore notes in her book, Discovering Our Past, this is called stratification. She further points out that the sequence of these layered deposits obeys the Law of Superposition, meaning the sequence of the strata reflects the order of deposits. Archaeological assessment of stratification is known as stratigraphy. The benefits of stratigraphy are astounding, but numerous people overlook them. Most notably, by recording and analyzing the artifact’s location in relation to other artifacts and strata, archaeologists can determine the function and age of the artifact.

This stratification example provides a wealth of information. Due to the law of superposition, the natural subsoil was deposited first. We can assume that the Iron Age ditch and post-hole were from the same occupation because they are in the same strata. The Iron Age soil was deposited next and then the Roman dump soil. The Roman wall was then built because it was placed deep into the soil, and next the Roman floor was built. After that are the remains of the Roman building. The medieval pit must have been built before the wall since the wall’s edge is slightly in the pit. These lines of analysis continue for the entire stratification. All this information allows archaeologist to determine the relative age of the artifacts and understand specific time periods.

The example also demonstrates the complexity of stratigraphy. Behavioral and transformative processes can disrupt strata. In a class exercise, students found between 10 to 15 strata and 9 to 16 features in the picture. These results were anything but conclusive. However, through careful examination and a well thought out research question, an archaeologist can distinguish the important aspects of the stratification. By attempting to understand the intricacies of this archaeological technique, individuals can come to understand the field as a whole.

Features vs. Artifacts & Ecofacts

Posted on by
Reply

I think one of the most misunderstood aspects of archaeology is that artifacts are more important than features in telling us about the past. When most people think about archaeology and excavations the first thing that comes to mind after gold, curses, and Indiana Jones of course, are artifacts: chipped ceramics, arrowheads, statues, bones and mummies. They often forget about features such as stone walls, buildings, hearths, storage pits, and roads.

I think one of the main reasons people seem to care more about artifacts and ecofacts than features is because they can relate to them more easily. For example people are often more excited about finding ancient tools than an old road because they can physically hold a stone tool in their hand and compare it to more modern tools that they use daily, whereas most of the general public doesn’t think twice about the development of roads over time. Another example is the excavation of bones, either human or animal. I think people feel a strange connection to bones because we have a fascination with death. All cultures have certain burial practices and beliefs regarding death but for some reason most people would be more shocked and excited to discover bones on their property (ecofacts) rather than a stone wall (feature) surrounding a cemetery.

Stone Wall

While artifacts and ecofacts are extremely useful in teaching us about past activities and environments, features are just as helpful in finding out about past cultures. They help us understand the spatial distribution and organization of human activities and can reveal information about construction methods and the resources available during a certain time period (Ashmore 149).

Confederate Civil War Fort Excavation: Fort Pocahontas on Jamestown Island in Virginia

The video above shows the excavation of a bombproof shelter that was a feature of Fort Pocahontas on Jamestown Island during the Civil War. I think it’s really interesting for a number of reasons. First of all the bombproof shelter was a part of Fort Pocahontas that was constructed in 1861, the southern half of which was built directly on the remains of James Fort which was originally constructed in 1607.

One really confusing aspect of archaeology to explain is stratigraphy and I think this video does a good job of showing different layers of strata in the excavation of the bombproof shelter. When we looked at the sratigraphy diagram in class on Tuesday we all had a difficult time determining which layers contained features and which were simply strata. I think the archeologist in this video does a good job at showing the coloration of the different strata being excavated and touching on the often misunderstood concept that the top layer always contains the most recent features or artifacts.