Anthropology Class Discussion re: Archaeology Causing Damage

[Dive Right In Scuba 2]

Background: After going back for my Master's in Biology I decided to add an undergrad minor in Anthropology to my already insane academic schedule.

This week we had a class discussion that got me thinking about underwater archaeological survey and research as well as shipwrecks in general. for discussion purposes, here is the discussion question along with my response. Feel free to add thoughts and civil discussion.

Question: Archaeology is inherently a destructive process; when we dig we destroy something (however minimal) of the past. Given this fact, should we engage in archaeological excavations or should we rely upon remote sensing technology? Can archaeology be justified?

My Response: The process of archaeology is crucial to our society, but does it come at a cost? Archaeologists not only have a duty and an obligation to record the past for the overall good of society, but there also exists an obligation to conserve those sites and records. The question of whether or not damage caused by archaeology is worth the payoff is an often debated one. Are there better options through the use of technology? Is the archaeological process justified overall?In the process of archaeology, no matter how much care is taken to preserve a dig site, some level of damage will be caused. However, it is the duty of the archaeologists to understand that minimal damage is for the overall greater good. With this damage though, archaeologists have the duty to make efforts to conserve and protect dig sites. With that in mind damage control needs to be part of every step of the archaeological process. With this in mind the question comes up of are there alternatives to physically digging sites?
Many critics of archaeolgy and physically digging sites will be quick to promote the use of remote sensing technology as a replacement for digging. What these critics need to understand is that while helpful to the process, remote sensing is rather limited in gaining a "whole picture" of a site. To be effective archaeologists need to have multiple methods employed to sufficiently survey a site. In addition to digging, survey, and remote sensing, photo and video documentation are crucial to gain a well rounded view of the site and its contents. No matter what, critics of the process will always be present.
Like I mentioned above, there are critics of the archaeological process, who pose the question of can the process of archaeology and the damage it causes be justified? I believe that the process of archaeology is necessary because it gives us a link to our past. In addition to that, archaeology helps us understand who we are and where we came from, it also helps further society as a whole.
As you can see from the above, the ethical archaeologist mot only must record and understand the past, they need to make every effort to preserve it for future generations and research. While efforts must be made to preserve sites and reduce damage, it is simply a fact of life in archaeology. However, it is something that cannot be replaced by technology or other means. Effective archaeology requires a hands on approach to truly understand our past and help further society as a whole.

 

[Jared0425]

What they also exclude from conversation is that most sites are found by people who spend the time and money and effort to locate these sites and they want us to give them access to these sites with no strings attached. We go back out to these sites and the artifacts are gone. Most artifacts recovered sit in 55 gal drums in a warehouse never to see the light of day again. When regular people or non archeologists take artifacts, we are called pirates and looters. I believe that a certain few wrecks need to be protected and studies, but most are well known designs of working vessels and passenger steamers. I also have a soft side to some of the warships out there that hold the remains on servicemen both enemy and friend alike.

 

[Dive Right In Scuba 2]

I feel the same way regarding looting of sites. When divers ask me as the DM if it's allowed to take stuff off of a shipwreck I ask them if it's ok to take a few bolts off of your favorite roller coaster knowing you'll be riding it again? While not the best comparison in the world it has yet to fail at getting the point across.

 

[rddvet]

This reminds me of our trip a few months ago to Tulum. We've dove Chan Hol cave several times in the past. Archaeologically it's an interesting cave. There is some pottery and animal bones in the front of the cave (albeit they were moved there from deeper in the cave) as well as many fire pits and a skeleton further back in the system. The original surveyors of the cave made sure to keep the integrity of the site in tact while surveying and making archaeological finds. The most I know that they impacted the system was moving some of the pots. On our last trip we were warned to watch for new arrows. Apparently a group of semi-amateur archaeologists are taking an interest in the cave. It is my understanding it's kind of a pet project for fun with no funding or scientific sampling goals for research in mind. Honestly you can't get a straight answer what the point of it all is. Now when you dive the system there are line arrows and cookies with zip ties attached to them which create a little stem . The zip tie is then jammed into the ground in or near fire pits or other archaeological sites to mark them. There are also occassional arrows on the line used to mark sites, but with no real directional information associated with them. Using directional markers as a means of archaeological note taking with no regard to directional in my opinion is dangerous. It's well known in the area that one of the divers taking part in the study is known as the skull crusher because she lost buoyancy control and landed on a skull crushing it.

Point is that I understand causing damage if there is a real purpose and something real to be learned. In this case, the objective isn't really known other than to gain acclaim.

 

[Dive Right In Scuba 2]

This reminds me of our trip a few months ago to Tulum. We've dove Chan Hol cave several times in the past. Archaeologically it's an interesting cave. There is some pottery and animal bones in the front of the cave (albeit they were moved there from deeper in the cave) as well as many fire pits and a skeleton further back in the system. The original surveyors of the cave made sure to keep the integrity of the site in tact while surveying and making archaeological finds. The most I know that they impacted the system was moving some of the pots. On our last trip we were warned to watch for new arrows. Apparently a group of semi-amateur archaeologists are taking an interest in the cave. It is my understanding it's kind of a pet project for fun with no funding or scientific sampling goals for research in mind. Honestly you can't get a straight answer what the point of it all is. Now when you dive the system there are line arrows and cookies with zip ties attached to them which create a little stem . The zip tie is then jammed into the ground in or near fire pits or other archaeological sites to mark them. There are also occassional arrows on the line used to mark sites, but with no real directional information associated with them. Using directional markers as a means of archaeological note taking with no regard to directional in my opinion is dangerous. It's well known in the area that one of the divers taking part in the study is known as the skull crusher because she lost buoyancy control and landed on a skull crushing it.

Point is that I understand causing damage if there is a real purpose and something real to be learned. In this case, the objective isn't really known other than to gain acclaim.

I am inclined to agree with you on your last point here. It seems like whatever research that was/is conducted at this site has been conducted in a rather "rag tag" fashion. The site that you mention isn't the only instance of this in both nautical archaeology and archaeology as a whole. It seems that too many folks just want to "get their Indiana Jones on" without regard for what they're doing.

The fix for this is simple, if a diver is interested in nautical archaeology they simply need to contact the Nautical Archaeology Society who offers a 4 part certification course with classes popping up more and more as time goes on. Completion of the course levels enables divers to join ongoing research teams to hone their skills and perhaps even suggest a site to be surveyed in the future.