On Mon, 16 Aug 1999 13:57:53 -0700 Sue <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I disagree with Ned Heite a little in that I don’t think it is possible
> to ever completely remove some aspects of anthropology from archaeology
> even when dealing with technical matters.
This is where I have to jump in, although my experience mainly
applies the period before 1500AD. I agree that is impossible to
completely some aspects of anthropology, but think that too often
the underlying craft aspect, and science is ignored.
> Because I focus on industrial
> mining archaeology, I understand what he is saying. Industrial
> archaeology does not apply anthropological theory as well as other
> sub-specialties, but it does not mean that we cannot do so or that we
> are not asking questions that are anthropologically based. Of course, we
> could concentrate on the metallurgy of nails at a site, but in doing so
> don’t we ask questions about the methods used to produce the nails and
> why specific ores or equipment were used in their production? Why was a
> furnace placed where it was placed? What was being produced?
>This is anthropology.
Is it?
The above are often controlled by metallurgy, or the combination
of metallurgy, geology, economics and ritual. Much of metallurgy
of what made work was codified as ritual up until the 18th
century. Certain ores were more easily smelted, or they could be
used to produce steel, whereas, other could not. Position of
furnaces, and hearths is often simply controlled by the
practicalities of the operations needed to be carried out. Too
often in my opinion, such practicalities have been over looked in
favour of purely 'ritual' explanations by anthropologists, this is
especially prevalent by certain schools from the states, but is
beginning to take hold in this country. That is not to say that
there is not an anthropological(UK type) aspect to be considered,
but first the practical metallurgical constraints need to be
considered. But amongst some archaeologists there is a very great
reluctant to take on these considerations.
As for research schemes for archaeological digs, they are are a
very mixed blessing, if they are formulated at the start and
rigidly maintained despite the evidence the site produces. On
three major digs I have seen important information destroyed, or
ignored, because it not relevant to the research scheme that the
project started with. In more a lost more cases, evidence has been
destroyed by the excavator because they have not known what they
are looking at, and carried on excavating. It is thought
that that the post-excavation analysis will be able to interpret
the data. But, if they had brought an specialist on to site, he or
she could have easily told them what the sort of evidence that
should be associated with the activity, and more importantly how
to recover it.
Of late there have been a number of papers trying to extract the
ritual and sacred components of British Iron Age working sites by
looking at the geographical distribution of metal-working debris,
but with little reference to the practicalities of the processes.
This is not denying that there would have been a ritual aspect to
blacksmithing, but you have first to determine if the deposition
pattern fits with what what you might expect if the hearths were
run in the most practical method given the constraints of the
period.
For instance over much of Devon and Cornwall in the 1960, and
1970's, when I was young, to get to many mineral locations in
quarries and mines one had to pick one's way through discarded
cars and agricultural machinery. Thus, one has one the face of it a
strong correlation between metal extraction sites and the 'ritual'
destruction of finished metal artefacts. In the far future,
could be interpreted as a ritual propitiation of the earth spirits
to yield more metal, or the easiest place to get rid of rubbish. I
have the a sneaking suspicion that there is a tendency of
archaeo/anthropologists to favour the former over the later.
But perhaps that is another debate
Chris Salter
-------------------------------------------------
E-mail [log in to unmask]
Dept of Materials,
Oxford University,
Parks Rd,
OX1 3PH, England
Telphone
+44 1865 273728 Office (Answer Phone)
+44 1865 273933 SEMPROBE
+44 1865 273794 Fax
|
