In The Beginning: An Introduction to Archaeology

In the Beginning: An Introduction to Archaeology, Eight Edition, Brian M. Fagan, Harper Collins College Publishers, 1994



The study of archaeology is vital to the understanding of humanity. It helps us understand how people of the past lived and died. It explains their diet, their methods of warfare, and far more mundane aspects of life such as what sort of utensils they used to eat, how they decorated their pots...in other words, digging up the past is key to understanding what happened, why...and how much better our life is today. With that in mind I sought to develop a better understanding of how archaeology is practiced. I sought out a popular text book and did some research.



As do most textbooks, In the Beginning starts by defining archaeology and giving a brief history of it. It goes on to discuss methodologies and meanings, strengths and weaknesses, and how it impacts various individuals. There were some fascinating passages within the book.



Here is one revealing paragraph:



"In most archaeological sites, only the most durable remains of human material culture are preserved for the archaeologist to study. Any picture of life in the prehistoric past derived from archaeological investigations is likely to be very one-sided. As a result, the unfortunate archaeologist is like a detective fitting together a complicated collection of clues to give a general impression and explanation of prehistoric culture and society. Often, it can be like taking a handful of miscellaneous objects-say, two spark plugs, a fragment of a china cup, a needle, a grindstone, and a candle-holder-and trying to reconstruct the culture of the people who made these diverse objects on the basis of these objects alone." (p. 18)



Think about the ramifications of that statement. So often we assume we know a great deal about ancient cultures but in truth, as often as not it is built on a shaky foundation indeed. It is excellent that Fagan addresses this. He later emphasizes that point.



"Documentary history contrasts sharply with the view of our past as it is reconstructed from the archaeological record." (p. 20)



He goes on to discuss how accurately things can be dated in "history", defined as the time period beginning with written documentation. This is an important distinction as it starts at widely divergent times...5000 B.C. for parts of Europe, the 15th century for North America, for example. This is an important concept. We sometimes are convinced that we know how cultures developed yet when these things are postulated based on just archaeological research they show a vastly different picture than we see when the written record is consulted.



This theme of the uncertainty of archaeology is an overriding theme. Radiocarbon dating, for instance, again and again is demonstrated to be unreliable (for example, the case study of Tehuacan Valley where cross-dated artifacts contradicted the radio carbon dating). Yet radio-carbon dating is one of the most frequently cited evidences in many fields, not just archaeology. Here is a demonstration of our uncertainty about when things happened.



"The other major radioactive technique, radiocarbon dating, covers a period from approximately 40,000 years ago up to as recently as A.D. 1500, when the standard errors become too large for the small time spans. Thus, there is a "black hole" in the chronology of prehistoric times, spanning a vast period of time from about a million years ago up to the outer limits of radiocarbon dating around 45,000 years before the present. Various experimental methods are attempting to bridge this chasm." (p. 106)





This is an eye-opening thing. We can theoretically time things that happened 45,000 years ago to the present and what happened over 1,000,000 years ago but nothing in between...yet the methods of timing these things are not questioned? How that can be said with a straight face eludes me. The discussion of half-life for argon 40 where they establish a half-life of 1.3 billion years is interesting and demonstrates that most prehistoric dates rely on a thin foundation indeed of very, very questionable integrity. On the bright side, even proponents of potassium 40 dating recognize it narrows things to a standard deviation of 250,000 years. In other words, if they date something to 1,000,000 years ago the date falls anywhere from 750,000 years ago to 1,250,000 years ago...if the dating is correct. (p. 108)



It is enough to really make a person think. We know about the development from chariots to tanks in less than 4,000 years. Yet the claim is made that "Stone flakes and chopping tools of undoubted human manufacture have come from Koobi Fora in northern Kenya, dated to about 2.5 million years, the earliest date for human artifacts." (p. 108)



Interesting. We can't go from a stone tool to a steel hammer for 1,995,000 years but then in 5,000 years (generously dated) we go from 2 wheeled chariot to a Ferrari? There is something wrong with this picture.



But perhaps I am being overly critical of dating accuracy. In 1949 J.R. Arnold and W.F. Libby brought radiocarbon dating to the field of dating. How heavily are they relied on? "For the first time we begin to have a world chronology for prehistory, based almost entirely on dates obtained by Libby's technique." (p. 109)



He gives a lengthy explanation of the principles of radiocarbon dating that thoroughly demonstrate how questionable the method is...yet it is fundamental to archaeological dates for everything where we do not have written documentation to date it by. Think about that for a few moments...where we DO have written documentation...or even stratigraphic documentation...radiocarbon dating is off. Where we don't have those checks it is unquestioningly accepted. I am stunned. Think I am overstating the case?



"The discrepancies between radiocarbon and calibrated dates are wide. Here is an example: 10 B.C. +/- 30 has a calibrated interval of 145 B.C. ot A.D. 210. British archaeologist Colin Renfrew calibrated radiocarbon dates for European prehistory some years ago. He claimed that, as a result, many long-accepted chronological relationships are now reversed (Renfrew, 1971). According to him, the famous megalithic stone-built tombs of Western Europe are older than the Pyramids of Egypt, supposedly their predecessors...." (p. 113)



Fagan addressed other issues throughout the book, of course, but these are examples of problems presenting themselves to the archaeologists. It is amazing in the light of all this that we know as much as we do about human history. And this book is an extremely valuable resource for discovering how these things are determined. It is a topic anyone with any interest in history should research and this is a great starting point.