Skip to main content

 

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.

Popular posts from this blog

  Part Two -Getting involved in Archaeology as an Interest.   Part One looked at archaeology as a profession to get into, this looks at other aspects for people with other ambitions.   The early 19 th C origins of archaeology were from a time when there were no archaeologists – the people that pioneered it were often trained in other fields and many of them were employed in other fields. Now the field seems to be dominated by professionals, with a long path of training and experience needed to become one (See Part One).   Is there now no role for those with an interest in archaeology?   There is.   An Invitation to Archaeology:   “We are all archaeologists now.” ( The Archaeological Imagination . Michael Shanks)   If we have an interest in archaeology, it is because we have been exposed to archaeology in some form. Through that exposure we can start to see that the hand of past people is still with us in the physical world...
Read more
  For Museums. I love museums – there that is out. I have been associated with them all my life – as a donor to at least five, associated with their research with three, published in their Records and as a Board Member for one. I love that they use physical objects to tell a story. They can have art galleries and libraries and archives attached – they are often a good fit - but none are necessary. It is physical objects that are their heart. Their essential nature lies around those objects. They need a building to protect them – from decay, theft – and that building itself has to be protected, from fire, decay, earthquake – a suitable place for guarding taonga – treasures. The collections need to be catalogued, by someone who knows enough to adequately describe them and they need to be available for experts to study and, within reason, to anyone else who develops an interest in them. A Museum needs its public interface, through displays that engage its public. It does not...
Read more