SENSIBLE ARCHAEOLOGY

Posted by Past Horizons on Saturday, October 23, 2010 Comments (7)

he Campaign for Sensible Archaeology (CSA) was a deliberately provocative name

chosen for a Facebook group set up to discuss some problems in todays archaeology that are not currently being addressed. The Facebook group consists of people from a number of archaeology backgrounds and addresses three main issues. These include the tendency for archaeological language and terms to be unnecessarily complex and impenetrable; a surprising disregard for basing interpretations on traditional forms of evidence; and an increasing range of projects that could be better examined using nonarchaeological methods.
With tongues firmly in cheeks, we define Sensible Archaeology as projects which have selected topics suitable to archaeological investigation, that at least attempt to attach discussion to solid archaeological evidence, and which detail the work in purposefully clear and comprehensible language. We would not necessarily proclaim projects that fail to meet these standards as being flawed, pointless or irrelevant; rather, we would choose to categorise them as being Beyond Sensible. This criticism is mainly a matter of stylistic choices, and should not be taken too literally, but there are some serious consequences to the proliferation of Beyond Sensible archaeology which we are attempting to highlight.

The linguistic arms race

The literature of archaeology should be a pleasure to read, it is after all a fascinating subject. Unfortunately many archaeologists seem hell bent on turning the interesting into the insufferable, and the relatively simple into the hopelessly complex. Reading many archaeological texts can only be described as a chore. Some of this is unavoidable; stratigraphic reports, for example, are a vital part of archaeology but they could seldom be regarded as page-turners. However, it is in synthesis and thematic discussions that the CSA feels many archaeologists are failing. Modern archaeological writing appears obsessed with long, convoluted, multi-clause sentences; jargon and buzzwords abound. The whole effect is far more likely to promote headaches than enlightenment. We find the language of archaeology unpleasantly obtuse and dense, and wish to promote an improved level of elegance and clarity in archaeological writing. A restriction of specialised vocabulary to the useful minimum would also be welcome. Any concern that we are advocating a dumbing down of archaeology is simply unfounded. The suggestion that complex language equates to complex thought and that graceful language equates to shallow treatment is clearly absurd. In the worst cases it can be seen that complex verbiage is being used to conceal either unsubstantiated interpretive claims or statements of surprising banality.

Chains of evidence
A second area of concern is in the current treatment of archaeological evidence in whatever form it may take. A worrying trend in modern archaeology is the disregard of factual evidence in favour of opinions and speculation. In many texts what begins as legitimate speculation and suggestion is subsequently transformed into fact simply through repetition. In other cases speculation presented in one source is transformed into fact when the source material is referenced by another author. Evidence is a broad term that we would use to include anything from dimensional and stratigraphic data, statistical analysis, specialist reports, reviews of how particular concepts have evolved in the literature over time, ethnographic parallels and so on. But the chain that links an interpretation back to the evidence is not one of heavy iron that has to be resentfully carried and slipped away from at the first opportunity. Archaeological interpretation is a slow and delicate process where all of the evidence should be meticulously and precisely assembled. When the chain wont stretch any further it is fine to simply say that, for now, the limit of the evidence has been reached. After all patience is a key virtue of the archaeologist.

A dig too far?

Finally we see an increasing number of projects which seem to be deliberately stretching the boundaries of what is considered suitable for archaeological study, particularly projects investigating material from the very recent past and even into the present. The CSA has no desire to define what is and isnt available for archaeologists to study, and is well aware of the dangers of establishing arbitrary chronological cut-off points. However, many of these studies overlap with other subjects and professions and these may be in a far better position to investigate these topics. We would advocate that in the research design phase full consideration is given to whether archaeological methods are the ones best suited to investigate a particular topic and to establish if the information already exists elsewhere. Just because you can do something doesnt necessarily mean that you should, and we certainly do not see any need to stretch the boundaries just to provoke a debate on what can, or cannot, be considered archaeology. If projects demonstrate they can gain meaningful data that could only be gathered through archaeology then they should be celebrated for expanding the subject. On the other hand if a proposal can be seen to be spreading into a topic that is best studied from a different perspective or methodology then we suggest that participants should at least consider retraining in the already established field.

Waking up with a sore head and a messy apartment

The current economic squeeze provides an ideal opportunity to look back at the last decade of archaeology. Finances are going to be restricted in all sectors of archaeology and it is inevitable that some projects will not have the funding to continue. Whether people like it or not cuts will be made and these may well be based on some form of cost benefit analysis. In some instances decisions that affect archaeology may not be made by archaeologists. We would suggest that if an interpretive approach is worth spending time and money investigating, then it is worth spending time explaining the results in a legible manner. We would suggest that if time and money is to be spent on a theoretical analysis at least some of the results should be provable. We would suggest that if time and money are to be spent on projects that expand the scope of archaeology then it must be firmly established that they bring unique and tangible benefits to the new topic. To do anything else just wouldnt be sensible. The Campaign for Sensible Archaeology can be found on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=123023784380067