This quote
struck me in a compendium of quotes about archaeology:
“Archaeology
is the peeping Tom of the sciences. It is the sandbox of men who care not where
they are going; they merely want to know where everyone else has been.”
Jim Bishop, American, Journalist, 1907–1987.
Excuse the sexism – of its time I guess –
when the stereotypical archaeologist was male. Ther rest connected with me
because I had just been reading How
Archaeologists Can Solve The Earth’s ‘Wicked Problems’ Scoop News – attributed to “Human
Bridges”
The guts of the thesis is:
“…. archaeology is essential to the future of humanity and planetary
health. This is for three main reasons. First, archaeologists have the capacity
to think about and to understand humanity of the past, and to project that
insight into the future. Second, archaeologists are uniquely placed to
comprehend the many and complex ways in which humans, over time, have related
to their environment and environmental and other processes, such as the
changing climate, migration, or pandemics. And third, archaeology provides
opportunities for everyone to benefit, whether in terms of physical (by
undertaking surveys or excavations) or mental health (through social
interaction or artifact handling, to address loneliness or anxiety, for
example).”
Irrelevant to the future or central to it,
is the question that arises.
Let’s dismiss the third reason as
nonsensical – it is not “essential to the future of humanity and planetary
health.”
Do archaeologists have insights they
project on the future? Yes commonly, on the future of the sites they study,
threatened by climate change and societal pressures, but on the future of
humanity? – not often in my experience. Some big picture matters can be discerned
– for example that empires / cultures do not persist – is a perception that came
first from history but has been reinforced by archaeology – or that what may
have seemed like resource constraints in the past (peak flint mine say) are
transcended by technological development. This seems like a truism when we now
require a myriad of materials, are pressing global resources on many and suffering
negative consequences on some – most obviously in atmospheric and oceanic CO2
levels.
Do global issues think tanks engage
archaeologists? Not much. Should they? What might they contribute?
Is there enough common language? – the language
of leading-edge archaeology – laser scanning, eDNA, archaeozoology, automated
artefact recognition, Bayesian date analysis - are mostly about site
application. The ideas of David Clarke and the once New Archaeologists about higher
generalisations arising do not seem to be realised. Prehistories – who writes
them now? – even the very term is shunned by those who interact with indigenous
concepts of history. I doubt there is much to crossover.
I have practiced as an engineer and as an
avocational archaeologist. Engineering is about shaping the immediate future. I
have grappled in engineering with predicting populations, and demand, managing floods
and droughts, with changing societal expectations. Some things I had first
tried with archaeology – simulation, multivariant analysis – proved valuable in
engineering as well. But for me there were no blinding insights to carry over
to engineering practice.
Do archaeologists, as per Bishop, not care
about where they are going? Far from true – that is a calumny. More uniformly
caring, in my experience that the extremes of their engineering peers.
So Jim Bishop or Human Bridges? Neither. We should all care about where we are
going and in a rounded citizen some understanding of the wide and deep past is
desirable. Our future is in a part conditioned by our past but, in detail, the future
is not some extrapolation of the past. It will be far more nuanced, engaged
with science and technologies yet unimagined and (I am an optimist) less
limited by failures of human spirit than the present.