NAME : SATYARTH SHARMA

COLLEGE ROLL NUMBER : 2156115

ARCHAEOLOGY : ASSIGNMENT

Question: What are the Archaeological Evidences? Discuss the types and importance of the
Archaeological Evidences in Archaeology.
Archaeology comes from the Greek word (arkhaiologia) archaeologia meaning antiquarian lore, ancient,
legend, history. Arkhaiologia comes from two words (arkhaios) archaeos meaning primal, old, ancient or
arche meaning beginning and logia meaning speech, oration, study or logos meaning theory, reason or
science. Archaeology is the systematic, scientific recovery and analysis of evidences (AEFI) in order to
answer the questions about past human culture and behaviour. According to K.V. Raman, “archaeology
studies the story of man’s past through his material remains.” According to Leonard Cottrell
archaeology “is a continuing story which begins with the first appearance of man on Earth and will only
end with the final extinction of the species.” Glyn Daniel opines that archaeology “deals with everything
from eoliths to time capsules and covers such an enormous field that much of it is dealt with specialist
studies such as history of art and architecture.”[1] According to Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn,
“Archaeology is partly the discovery of the treasures of the past, partly the meticulous work of the
scientific analyst, partly the exercise of the creative imagination”. [2]

In this essay, we will be discussing the Archaeological Evidences, their types and their importance in the
archaeology. We will also be discussing the types of Archaeology, after briefly discussing the goals and
History of archaeology. In this essay, we will also understand the importance of Archaeology and its
changing scope in the present time. For the proper understanding of the Archaeology we will be
discussing the perspectives and ideas of different scholars and historians also.

Archaeological evidences are a variety of sources used by archaeologist to reconstruct the past. There
are four categories of archaeological evidences or data. First are Artifacts, they are humanly touched
things. They are any movable or portable objects found and studied by archaeologists which have been
made, modified and manufactured by humans. Artifacts include stone, bones, metal tools, bead and
ornaments, pottery, artwork, religious and sacred items etc. Second are Features and they are non-
portable objects or structures formed or built by people and which cannot be recovered from their
matrix. They include humanly modified structures of landscapes such as house, walls, fields, streets,
postholes, hearths, pits, floor, roads etc. Third are Eco-facts, they are non-artifactual remains found at
sites. They are objects of non-cultural origins such as seeds, pollen, bones, shells, soil etc. Eco-facts help
us in understanding the environmental conditions, its advantages and disadvantages according to which
the man had to adapt itself. They indicate what people ate or the environmental conditions in which
they lived. Lastly we have Ideo-facts, they are objects or features that contain information about
people’s belief systems. They include historical monuments such as temples, mosques, church, caves,
stupa, forts, graves, etc. [3]

The archaeological data found in the site are the results of two basic factors namely behavioural process
and transformational process. All archaeological sites represents the product of human activity.
However the human mental conceptions are not represented. Most of human activities sometimes
modify the surrounding environment by cutting a tree, building a dam, diverting a river, these activities
that get reflected in the archaeological sites in the form of artefacts and features are called behavioural
process. And understanding the various human and natural events that involved in the transformation
of the archaeological data is known as transformational process. One of the major tasks of the
archaeologist is to locate sites of historical importance. Archaeologists formulate a research strategy to
resolve a particular question or hypothesis. A team of specialists collect, process and analysis the
available evidences and verify them through intensive field work. Reach archaeological site has its own
distinct character and problems. Based on the availability of the cultural material they are identified as
single or multi cultural site. [4]

According to Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, Undoubtedly one of the main concerns of the archaeologist
is the study of artifacts – objects used, modified, or made by people. But, as the work of Grahame Clark
and other pioneers of the ecological approach have demonstrated there is a whole category of non-
artifactual organic and environmental remains – sometimes called “eco-facts” – that can be equally
revealing about many aspects of past human activity.

Let us talk about the Artifacts, they are humanly made or humanly modified ‘portable objects’, for
example, stone tools, pottery, and metal weapons. Some researchers and Archaeologists broaden the
meaning of the term “artifact” and included all humanly modified components of landscape, like
hearths, postholes, and storage pits; but all these are more usefully described as features, defined as
non-portable artifacts. Simple features such as postholes may themselves, or in combination with
remains of hearths, floors, ditches, etc., give evidence for complex features or structures, defined as
buildings of all kinds, including houses and granaries to palaces and temples. Non-artifactual organic and
environmental remains or eco-facts include human skeletons, animal bones, and plant remains, but also
soils and sediments – all of shed light on reconstruction of history and past human activities. They are
important because they can indicate, what people ate or the environmental conditions under which
they lived. [5]

Now let us briefly discuss the Goals of Archaeology, which includes very importantly, Conserving and
managing the world archaeological sites/remains/artifacts/monuments for the future generations. It
also includes Studying sites and their contents in a context of space and time to reconstruct human
culture and past. Reconstructing the past lifeways or the ways in which people made their living in the
changing environments of the past, has also developed into a major goal of archaeology. Archaeology
also explains us why cultures change or remains same. And lastly, another important goal is to
understand sites, artifactual remains and other aspects of the archaeological records. In article, ‘THE
NATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLANATION’ John M. Fritz and Fred T. Plog argued that, the
development and use of law-like statements by archaeologists to explain characteristics of the
archaeological record has been and should continue to be one of the most important goals of
archaeological research.[6]
Before getting into deeper it is important to understand the History of archaeology and archaeologists.
According to most historians Nabonidus (the last king of the neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) empire) was the
first archaeologist. Largely because Nabonidus (556-539 BCE) rebuilt temples of Babylon (Sippar city)
and searched (excavated) for the foundations for inscriptions of earlier kings, and he looked for answers
to questions about the past in physical residues of antiquity. Fifteenth century Italian scholar Ciriaco de
Pizzicolli established the modern discipline of archaeology. He translated the Latin Inscription on the
triumphal arch of Trajan, Ancona, Italy. He also devoted his life in studying ancient monuments, copying
inscriptions and promoting the study of past.

In 1836, A French Geologist Boucher de Perthes, found ancient tools and bones of extinct mammals, in
the gravels of the Somme River. He believed that this proved the existence of ancient man. But
according to prevalent religious thoughts, human beings had only been on earth for 6000 years, so many
didn’t believe him. Some even suggested that tools were produced by lightning, elves or fairies. He
discovered complete hand axes, flint objects and many fragments of items that he claimed were tools
shaped by human endeavor. De Perthes further said that these tools were scattered among a collection
of fossilized mammal bones from animals reckoned to be very old. He proposed this as evidence of so-
called ‘primitive man’. Then more finds were made in St. Acheul (Acheulian), in Northern France and in
Southern England. He was supported by British paleontologist, Hugh Falconer and other scholars for De
Perthes findings on 1859. All this led to the recognition that life was more ancient than what Biblical
scholars argued and that human culture had evolved over time. Finally, British Royal Society (1859)
creates Commission of Experts who verified De Perthes claims stratigraphically.

Now let us see the Emergence of archaeology as a discipline. In development of Archaeology as a formal
discipline, several conceptual and methodological advancements in the 19th and 20th centuries were
critical. It made possible the systematic study of material remains of past human societies in their
temporal and spatial contexts. Lewis R. Binford argued that archaeologists should acquire data that
makes samples more representative of the population from which they are drawn. He also urged
archaeologists to look beyond individual site in the region so that the entire cultural system could be
reconstructed.

Jane Balme and Alistair Paterson in book ‘Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological
Analyses’ talked about Crawford who argued that, Early in the history of archaeology attention was
drawn naturally to the highly visible remains of former societies and civilizations, and also Literary
sources (such as the Bible and the Homeric sagas) also encouraged the search for particular sites.
According to them, deliberate and systematic exploration of landscapes for signs of past human activity
as a discipline came of age following the ‘realization’ (early in the twentieth century), when ‘aerial
exploration’ was seen as useful to identify new sites which were invisible or incomprehensible at the
ground surface.[7]

When we talk about the Beginning and development of Indian Archaeology, In early 16th and late 17th
centuries, three groups of people were involved in two categories of monuments- rock-cut caves of
western India and south Indian Temples: this includes i) Portuguese of Goa, ii) Other European sailors iii)
Occasional Travellers. There were several visitors like St. Francis Xavier (1542), Thomas Stephens, Filippo
Sassetti, Roberto de Nobili, Brahmanised Jesuits etc. Pietro Della Valle (Italian) visited India between
1623 and 1625 drew the ground plans of the south Indian temples (first European literature). Elephanta,
Jagannath, Konark etc. these were also documented by others. Though they were impressed by Indian
 monuments and art objects, but they made no real attempt to understand the historical background
and historical processes of the culture of the people on whom they worked. This started from the last
quarter of the 18th century, that officers of the British East India Company began to take interest in the
antiquarian wealth of India. In 1784, under the guidance of Sir William Jones (Judge of the East India
Company in Calcutta) the ‘Asiatic Society’ was started on 15th Jan, 1784, for enquiring into the history,
antiquities, arts, sciences, literature of Asia. Governor General Warren Hastings was an active member
of this society. Acting on the letter of Dr. Johnson, the society was intended ‘to examine the tradition
and history of the east and to conserve the remains of its ancient edifices and trace the vestiges of its
ruined cities’. Andrew David very importantly highlighted that, Archaeological sites are also in the
imp uniquely difficult position whereby detailed knowledge about them is achieved by the destructive
process of excavation itself. [8]

Indian Archaeology is divided into four periods, first is 1784-1861 of Non-professional scholars; then,
1861-1901 of Alexander Cunningham; the time 1901-1947 was of Marshall and Wheeler; and finally
1947 onwards time of Indian scholars. Today, archaeology covers pre-historic, proto-historic and historic
periods. And The number of archaeologists has grown dramatically, largely after the 1960s. The field
represents many different theoretical perspectives and it also acknowledges the need and impoertance
to communicate results to the public. Through archaeology, we have learnt about neolithic cultures,
megalithic cultures, archaeo-botanical studies, archaeo-zoological studies, archaeo-biological studies,
Harappan civilization, rock-art, chalcolithic cultures, copper hoards, OCP, BRW, RW,PGW, NBPW
cultures, researches in metallurgy etc. all this greatly helped us in understanding our past.

In book ‘Archaeology in Practice A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses’ of Jane Balme and Alistair
Paterson, Larry J. Zimmerman in one chapter argued that, Many archaeologists now fully understand
that the past has many ‘stakeholders’ [an individual or group with an interest or “stake” in some aspect
of the archaeological record]; in fact, according to him, some may even recognize that there are several
pasts, all of them capable of explicating a particular set of material remains that an archaeologist might
find. [9]

Jane Balme and Alistair Paterson also talked about the Stratigraphy as the study of stratification; that is,
according to them is the interpretation of horizontal layers that form the deposits of a site over time.
For understanding what happened at an archaeological site, the interpretation of site stratigraphy is of
crucial importance. According to them, it is the starting point for developing time sequences at the site
and determining the relative ages of artifacts within the site. Knowledge of these is important for
comparison of archaeological remains across time and space. It is important because, Stratigraphy is the
starting point for interpreting the chronological order of events and artifacts at a stratified site, and it is
the basis of the analytical units used to explore the human activities at the particular site.

Barbara Little (In book ‘Archaeology in Practice A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses’ of Jane
Balme and Alistair Paterson) talked about the very important aspect that, for the archaeologist,
historical sources must go far beyond pottery records assigning a range of manufacturing dates for a
type of ware, or a land deed confirming the sale date for an urban house lot, and the integration of
archaeological and documentary sources is a creative enterprise. She argued that, the interpretation of
documents is no less fraught with uncertainties and judgments than the interpretation of archaeological
resources. Thus argued Robin Winks, ‘the historian needs to assess evidence against a reasonably well
informed background’.
In the book ‘Philosophy and Archaeology’ Merrilee H. Salmon argued that, There are archaeologists
willing to forego the indulgence of guessing for reconstructing on a firm evidential basis ‘past cultural,
social, and economic systems’. They want to "know" all this, and use the "knowledge" to deepen and
extend our understanding of human behavior and past. Those involved raised questions about the
difference between guessing and knowing. Such questions have been a major preoccupation of
contemporary philosophy of science. He presented many points of contact between archaeology and
philosophy, and argued that Archaeologists' interest in philosophical aspects of their discipline is not
new. Careful attention to philosophy may produce such benefits as developing some analytic skills along
with a suitable vocabulary for characterizing methods of archaeology. Archaeologists may also develop
critical abilities. This aspect is important for us to understand the scope of Archaeology, and how
important it is to study all aspects of archaeological evidence, with the help of other disciplines also. [10]

In book ‘Archaeological Method and Theory: An Encyclopedia’, Linda Ellis argued, ‘As a discipline,
archaeology is the study of past human behavioral systems within the social, religious, economic,
political, biological, geological, and geographic contexts’. To accomplish such studies, argued Linda,
archaeology has developed philosophical and methodological ties to many academic fields. According to
her, Even before a surveying program can begin or an archaeological site can be excavated,
archaeologists have come to think that equally important is an understanding and analysis of how
archaeological deposits form, specially in terms of geological, biological, and human behavioral
processes. In the same book she also discussed that the most commonly used field techniques in
excavation are (e.g., GRID Excavation; HALF-SECTIONING, OPEN-AREA Excavation; QUARTERING; STEP-
TRENCHING; STRIPPING; TRENCH Excavation) and retrieval (FlOTATION; SIEVING). [11]

Linda further argued that, Archaeological research in practice has become ‘interdisciplinary’ in that it
has had to incorporate methods from the physical, biological, and earth sciences to retrieve information
about past human behavior from archaeological sites. (This we have also discussed above) She further
argues, since the mid-1940s, archaeology has also become ‘multidisciplinary’, and this trend led to the
development of a vast number of specializations in archaeology. Later she further adds that, Since all
phases of archaeological research-surveying, excavation, and analysis-have the propensity to generate
vast bodies of information, or data, archaeologists have used the methods from many subjects like
mathematics, statistics, and computer science for the storage, analysis, presentation, and management
of such data. Numerous statistical methods for the manipulation, analysis, and presentation of data are
also at the disposal of the archaeologist.

Now let us discuss the importance of the Archaeological evidences, as discussed by Linda. She said, in
the absence of accurate historical records, archaeological dating is critical to the establishment and
maintenance of a chronological framework, thus she highlighted its importance. She argued, the study
of plant and animal remains from archaeological sites is undertaken for identification of species,
understanding past human uses of plants and animals, and reconstruction of the natural environment.
The earth sciences also provide the archaeologist with a huge information for environmental
reconstruction.

Linda also discussed the different old and new trends in the Archaeology, she said, Since the 1940s,
many archaeologists explored new areas of research beyond the historical particularism of description
of artifacts and archaeological cultures towards the reconstruction of how people lived, in terms of both
the social and the physical environment. She said, ‘New Archaeology’, (which developed during the
1960s), was a movement in archaeology to use scientific methods to explain past human behavioral
patterns and the cultural processes that produced the archaeological record (NEW PROCESSUAL
ARCHAEOLOGY). The ideas of the New Archaeologists differed from the traditional inductive approach in
archaeology, by which generalizations or conclusions are formed on the basis of known data. But, New
Archaeology requires that archaeologists formulate hypotheses prior to collection of data through
archaeological surveying and excavation, to test those hypotheses against the data and to develop laws
on the basis of those tests. In practice, she concluded, archaeology must use both deductive and
inductive reasoning. [12]

Talking about its importance, she argues, New Archaeology changed the types of questions relating to
human behavioral patterns, which had never been asked before: not only what and when, but also how
and why. New Archaeology, according to her, in fact, has long since been referred to as processual
archaeology because of its emphasis on identification and explanation of cultural processes that
produced the archaeological materials and their patterns in space and time. Interestingly, the term
‘processual archaeology’ also serves to distinguish the growing movement of ‘postprocessual
archaeology’, which developed during the early 1980s. Postprocessualists are very less unified and so it
is difficult to characterize but are distinguished by their divergent views of archaeology and discipline
and by their opposition to New\Processual Archaeology. Postprocessual archaeology has prompted
serious reevaluation and expansion of what archaeologists study by proposing the important question:
"Whose archaeologies?” Some topics of postprocessual research have included, said Linda, studies of
gender in archaeology and the archaeology of gender, the representation of indigenous pasts, the
influence of imperialism and Western capitalism on society, and the analysis of the political context in
which archaeology itself has been conducted. They raised and expanded the scope of the Archaeology
as a discipline, by incorporating vast number of untouched issued in it.

She also discussed different types of Archaeologies, like, EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY, in which
experiments are performed by the archaeologist to answer specifically the above question. And, the
study of contemporary human behavior as a model for describing the manufacture and use of objects,
as well as for understanding the patterning of artifact associations (ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY), has been
very important since the nineteenth century. Since the beginning of the discipline, archaeologists have
also sought to understand the nonmaterial aspects of behavioral systems, such as religion, ideology,
ritual, art and iconography, or symbolism (SYMBOLIC ARCHAEOLOGY). It includes use of structural,
contextual, cognitive, neuropsychological, ethnoarchaeological, and ethnohistoric analyses for the
interpretation of meaning. Lastly, the analysis of human behavior from the material cultural record, at
any time or any place, has been under the BEHAVIORAL ARCHAEOLOGY. The aim of behavioral research
on artifactual data is to reconstruct behavior and the social processes surrounding behavioral patterns.

To sum up, we can say that Archaeological evidences play huge role in the reconstruction of human
past, their ignorance could cost a big flaw. As we have seen, Archaeology as a discipline is expanding and
leading to the all-encompassing discipline. It is important for us to evolve our understanding of the past
through the better examination of Archaeological evidences, which could be done through the holistic
approach towards the past, through Archaeology.

Reference
1. Raman, K.V. (1986). Principles and Methods of Archaeology. Madras: Parthajan
Publications.
2. Renfrew, Colin and Paul Bahn. (2008). Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice
(5Th edition), Thames and Hudson.
3. Rajan, K.(2002). Archaeology: Principles and Methods. Tanjavur: Manoo Pathippakam;
Ch-5.
4. Rajan, K.(2002). Archaeology: Principles and Methods. Tanjavur: Manoo Pathippakam;
Ch-5.
5. Renfrew, Colin and Paul Bahn. (2008). Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice
(5Th edition), Thames and Hudson.
6. Fritz, John and Fred Plog. (1970). “The Nature of Archaeological Explanation.”
American Antiquity 35: pp.405-12.
7. Balme, Jane and Alistair Paterson (ed.). (2006). Archaeology in Practice: A Student
Guide to Archaeological Analysis. Blackwell Publishing.
8. Balme, Jane and Alistair Paterson (ed.). (2006). Archaeology in Practice: A Student
Guide to Archaeological Analysis. Blackwell Publishing.
9. Balme, Jane and Alistair Paterson (ed.). (2006). Archaeology in Practice: A Student
Guide to Archaeological Analysis. Blackwell Publishing.
10. Salmon, Merrilee. (1982). Philosophy and Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.
11. Ellis, Linda, (ed.). (2000). Archaeological Method and Theory: An Encyclopedia.
Garland Publishing.