I was talking with the wife today about a conversation she had with one of her employees, actually it’s a conversation we, both of us, have had way too many times, about history. Her conversation was different but the generic one goes something like this:
British person (we live in Scotland at the moment): “Oh you’re from America and you’re an archaeologists/heritage manager, did you come here for the history?”
Us: “What do you mean ‘the history'”
British person: “Well, you know America doesn’t really have history.”
Us: “Nope, not sure what you mean, we have sites going back 12,000 years. Sorry, my bad they actually just found the first evidence of people there 15,000 years ago. Longer occupation than people have been in the UK since the last ice age.”
British person: “No not like that but you know history. Here we have castles and hillforts. America doesn’t have that.”
It is a huge problem I have with people, they equate history with buildings. Somehow if it is not a castle or Stonehenge then it is not really history. History is about people and their actions. It is about how they lived and who they lived it with. Yes, buildings are a part of history but it is such a small part of it. Most of what happened in history took place inside and around buildings by people. Last time I checked people built castles not the other way around.
Now this isn’t a British problem as Americans (this includes you Canadians) are just as bad, maybe worse. Here is a generic conversation I have with lots of North American archaeologists wanting to work in the UK:
Me: “So why did you come to the UK?”
Them: “Because of the archaeology, you know they have real archaeology here”
Me: “No, I don’t follow you. I have done lots of archaeology in the states”
Them: “Yeah, but its not real archaeology it is just lithic scatters and hearth features. They have real archaeology here with castles and hillforts”
Again people confuse buildings, monumental buildings at that (no one mentions the iron age huts), with archaeology. Archaeology is about looking at past people’s behaviors through their objects, NOT their objects. If you want to look at pretty things then your a collector not an archaeologist. Just because it is not some monumental building does not mean it is not interesting or even more interesting. I have dug a couple of hillforts and several castles now and I can tell you without a doubt they are quite boring. Yes, the walls are nice and finding a staircase is always nice, so was that 3m deep ditch we excavated lost month at Sheriffside, BUT they are actually quite boring archaeologically speaking. You find very little in the way of artifacts that actually tell you what people were doing and why.
With a hearth feature and lithic scatter, the boring stuff in the states, you can learn so much. You can source the lithic materials to find trade routes or where the people came from. You can look at the lithics themselves to see what they were doing there e.g. hunting birds, hunting dear, gathering. The hearth feature you can date and possibly obtain seeds to see what they were eating. You can take pollen samples or if there is bone determine what time of the year they were there.
The long and short of it is that I think we need to do a better job teaching people about history and archaeology. We need to teach people that history and archaeology is not about buildings and that one should not confuse buildings with either. I think there are a lot of archaeologists and historians we need to explain that to as well.
Lumbergh
May 21, 2012
Good points, and I agree philosophically, but I’m ashamed to say my gut reacts the same way as your interlocutors do. I now do mostly prehistoric CRM lithic-scatter-type archaeology in the US, and I have say it is boring as hell compared to the classical and other monumental stuff I used to do. PLEASE everyone, don’t give me the lecture about the importance of the ephemeral stuff — I give it to people all the time — but I’m just admitting, deep down, I am not as personally excited by lithic scatters as I am by Roman or other buildings.
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
May 21, 2012
I was going to talk about this as well but decided it was for another post. Difference between commercial archaeology and other types of archaeology. The pueblos of the southwest or the mounds of the miss. or the Mayan cities of the Mesoamerica or Detroit in 20 years time. All great monumental buildings. America is not lagging in monumental archaeology despite what most people think. The difference is that in commercial archaeology you dig what is there and you avoid the big stuff. Same thing happens in the UK as most “impressive” stuff is scheduled and very little archaeology happens with that. People have a notion that commercial archaeology in the UK will be something magical, it isn’t. Most of it is digging up field drainage trenches. Pretty much it’s the same stuff different place.
And by all means we all have are preferences of archaeology we like or dislike. I have no problem with that, just with people confusing what archaeology actually is.
Joseph
May 21, 2012
I think they’re trying to describe ‘heritage’, not ‘history’. You’re correct, though, there is a disconnect that needs to be addressed across the pond, as it were.
“Again people confuse buildings, monumental buildings at that (no one mentions the iron age huts), with archaeology. Archaeology is about looking at past people’s behaviors through their objects, NOT their objects. If you want to look at pretty things then your a collector not an archaeologist. Just because it is not some monumental building does not mean it is not interesting or even more interesting. I have dug a couple of hillforts and several castles now and I can tell you without a doubt they are quite boring. Yes, the walls are nice and finding a staircase is always nice, so was that 3m deep ditch we excavated lost month at Sheriffside, BUT they are actually quite boring archaeologically speaking. You find very little in the way of artifacts that actually tell you what people were doing and why.”
To be fair though, buildings are a type of architecture, and architecture is most certainly a part of archaeology. The goal is to try and determine the ‘why’ or their behavior, and that is done through their material remains. Most of those remains are artifacts, but the architecture they created as well as the landscapes that they modified are as much an artifact and telling about past behaviors and activities as anything else.
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
May 21, 2012
Yes, completely correct. My example is a oversimplification of a very complex problem. When you simplify you run into the problem of missing the minor details. Though I think most people will hopefully over look the oversight and be able to think about the deeper message.
David Connolly
May 22, 2012
😉 Interesting premise, but… ( and I must be careful what images I lend you ! ) The argument is not which one is better, which one tells us more, but to be inclusive and examine in detail everything you do. Therefore, when I am asked what period I specialise in. I say Anything. and what location? Anywhere.
DIgging an 18th century glasshouse is just as exciting as a hillfort which is just as exciting as a lithic scatter which is just as exciting as a lost city (found two so far! – careless to lose them) To turn the idea on it’s head that “America does not have archaeology ( makes me sigh too) and All the ‘good’ archaeology is in Britain. ” is good, but it is better to consider what you get to in the end, that everything is interesting, there is no ‘better’
Learning from a hunters camp in Oregon is as fascinating as excavating a Priest Kings Temple in Belize which is as interesting as a castle in Scotland or a Sheep enclosure in Jordan. The story of people is indeed more than buildings. But then, that’s why I like Hillforts. Boring?? Never. An exciting attempt to tease the known from an unknown on a difficult site, where evidence is not in yer face.
I suspect you are not trying to say that British Archaeology is boring… or hat there are no buildings in America. ( Chaco Canyon anyone? )
So the education is, I am suspecting is not – you don’t have to have lots of standing remains to be good archaeology – in which case. Sheriffside is perfect for ya.
Doug Rocks-Macqueen
May 22, 2012
I was wondering how you would take it david. 🙂
“Learning from a hunters camp in Oregon is as fascinating as excavating a Priest Kings Temple in Belize which is as interesting as a castle in Scotland or a Sheep enclosure in Jordan” – that is the point but it just doesn’t bring out people to comment. Sometimes you have to be a little rough around the edges to get people talking.
Images- (in a Darth Vador voice) As director of North American archaeology for Connolly heritage I used my executive judgment to procure a decent image to educate the masses. 🙂 One day when you get as high as mean in the hierarchy of Connolly heritage you will understand, the ends justify the means.
David Connolly
May 23, 2012
I take it well. Given that if I fire you – my wages bill would not change 😉
It is worth educating all people that one thing is not better than another. Edinburgh Castle is no more or less important than a Mesolithic hunters camp. But how to explain that to the loveable public – from across the world.
Somehow a big mound = civilisation and tourism. an invisible resource risks remaining invisible in the public imagination.
Take the difference between Sheriffside and White Castle ( for those new to this… http://www.rampartscotland.co.uk ) one is a field the other has big ramparts and ditches and spectacular views. which one is more important? Discuss.
Keep at em Doug. also good to prod the comfy chairs that many BAJRites sit in.
cdougan
May 29, 2012
I was talking to an American today who expressed that ‘no American history’ angle. I took this from a dıfferent angle to yourself – after all, there’s Cahokia and its ilk: the suggestion that the Native Americans are structurally invisible isn’t even completely true, as Doug said.
Besides, as a Scot (hope you’re enjoying the place!) looking in from the outside I’ve always had a soft spot for those hearths and lithic scatters. After all, they tell the story of the human colonisation of two whole continents.