Archaeology 1

Archaeology

Excavations at the site of Gran Dolina, in theAtapuerca Mountains, Spain, 2008

Archaeology, or archeology[1] (from Greek ἀρχαιολογία,archaiologia – ἀρχαῖος, arkhaīos, "ancient"; and -λογία, -logiā,"-logy[2] "), is the study of past human societies, primarily through therecovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental datawhich they have left behind, which includes artifacts, architecture,biofacts and cultural landscapes (the archaeological record). Becausearchaeology employs a wide range of different procedures, it can beconsidered to be both a science and a humanity,[3] and in the UnitedStates it is thought of as a branch of anthropology,[4] although inEurope it is viewed as a separate discipline.

Archaeology studies human history from the development of the firststone tools in eastern Africa 3.4 million years ago up until recentdecades.[5] It is of most importance for learning about prehistoricsocieties, when there are no written records for historians to study, andwhich makes up over 99% of total human history, from the Palaeolithicuntil the advent of literacy in any given society.[3] Archaeology hasvarious different goals, which range from studying human evolution tocultural evolution and understanding culture history.[6]

The discipline involves surveyance, excavation and eventually analysisof data collected in order to learn more about the past. In broad scope,archaeology relies on cross-disciplinary research. It draws uponanthropology, history, art history, classics, ethnology, geography,[7] geology,[8] [9] [10] linguistics, physics,information sciences, chemistry, statistics, paleoecology, paleontology, paleozoology, paleoethnobotany, andpaleobotany.

Archaeology developed out of antiquarianism in Europe during the 19th century, and has since become a disciplinepracticed across the world. Since its early development, various specific sub-disciplines of archaeology havedeveloped, including maritime archaeology, feminist archaeology and archaeoastronomy, and numerous differentscientific techniques have been developed to aid archaeological investigation. Nonetheless, today, archaeologistsface many problems, ranging from dealing with pseudoarchaeology to the looting of artifacts and opposition to theexcavation of human remains.

Archaeology 2

Purpose

The skull of the Taung child, uncovered in SouthAfrica. The Child was an infant of the

Australopithecus africanus species, an early formof hominin

The purpose of archaeology is to learn more about past societies andthe development of the human race. Over 99% of the history ofhumanity has occurred within prehistoric cultures, who did not makeuse of writing, thereby not leaving written records about themselveswhich we can study today. Without such written sources, the only wayto learn about prehistoric societies is to use archaeology. Manyimportant developments in human history occurred during prehistory,including the evolution of humanity during the Palaeolithic period,when the hominins developed from the australopithecines through tothe early homos in Africa and finally into modern Homo sapiens.Archaeology also sheds light on many of humanity’s technologicaladvances, for instance the ability to use fire, the development of stonetools, the discovery of metallurgy, the beginnings of religion and thecreation of agriculture. Without archaeology, we would know nothing of these evolutionary and technologicalchanges in humanity that pre-date writing.[11]

However, it is not only prehistoric, pre-literate cultures which can be studied using archaeology, but historic, literatecultures as well, through the sub-discipline of historical archaeology. For many literate cultures, such as AncientGreece and Mesopotamia, their surviving records are often incomplete and invariably biased to some extent. In manysocieties, literacy was restricted to the elite classes, such as the clergy or the bureaucracy of court or temple. Theliteracy even of aristocrats has sometimes been restricted to deeds and contracts. The interests and world-view ofelites are often quite different from the lives and interests of the populace. Writings that were produced by peoplemore representative of the general population were unlikely to find their way into libraries and be preserved there forposterity. Thus, written records tend to reflect the biases, assumptions, cultural values and possibly deceptions of alimited range of individuals, usually a small fraction of the larger population. Hence, written records cannot betrusted as a sole source. The material record may be closer to a fair representation of society, though it is subject toits own biases, such as sampling bias and differential preservation.{[12] }

TheoryThere is no one singular approach to archaeological theory that has been adhered to by all archaeologists. Whenarchaeology developed in the late 19th century, the first approach to archaeological theory to be practiced was that ofcultural-history archaeology, which held the goal of explaining why cultures changed and adapted rather than justhighlighting the fact that they did, therefore emphasizing historical particularism.[13] In the early 20th century manyarchaeologists who studied past societies with direct continuing links to existing ones (such as those of NativeAmericans, Siberians, Mesoamericans etc.) followed the direct historical approach, compared the continuity betweenthe past and contemporary ethnic and cultural groups.[13] In the 1960s, an archaeological movement largely led byAmerican archaeologists like Lewis Binford and Kent Flannery arose that rebelled against the establishedcultural-history archaeology.[14] [15] They proposed a "New Archaeology", which would be more "scientific" and"anthropological", with hypothesis testing and the scientific method very important parts of what became known asprocessual archaeology.[13]

In the 1980s, a new postmodern movement arose led by the British archaeologists Michael Shanks,[16] [17] [18] [19] Christopher Tilley,[20] Daniel Miller,[21] [22] and Ian Hodder,[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] which has become known as post-processual archaeology. It questioned processualism's appeals to scientific positivism and impartiality, and emphasised the importance of a more self-critical theoretical reflexivity. However, this approach has been criticized by processualists as lacking scientific rigor, and the validity of both processualism and post-processualism is still

Archaeology 3

under debate. Meanwhile, another theory, known as historical processualism has emerged seeking to incorporate afocus on process and post-processual archaeology's emphasis of reflexivity and history.[29]

Archaeological theory now borrows from a wide range of influences, including neo-Darwinian evolutionary thought,phenomenology, postmodernism, agency theory, cognitive science, Functionalism, gender-based and Feministarchaeology, and Systems theory.

MethodsAn archaeological investigation usually involves several distinct phases, each of which employs its own variety ofmethods. Before any practical work can begin however, a clear objective as to what the archaeologists are looking toachieve must be agreed upon. This done, a site is surveyed to find out as much as possible about it and thesurrounding area. Secondly, an excavation may take place to uncover any archaeological features buried under theground, and thirdly, the data collected from the excavation is studied and evaluated in an attempt to achieve theoriginal research objectives of the archaeologists. It is then considered good practice for the information to bepublished so that it is available to other archaeologists and historians, although this is sometimes neglected.[30]

Survey

Monte Alban archaeological site

A modern archaeological project often begins with a survey. Regionalsurvey is the attempt to systematically locate previously unknown sitesin a region. Site survey is the attempt to systematically locate featuresof interest, such as houses and middens, within a site. Each of thesetwo goals may be accomplished with largely the same methods.

Survey was not widely practiced in the early days of archaeology.Cultural historians and prior researchers were usually content withdiscovering the locations of monumental sites from the local populace,and excavating only the plainly visible features there. Gordon Willeypioneered the technique of regional settlement pattern survey in 1949in the Viru Valley of coastal Peru,[31] [32] and survey of all levels became prominent with the rise of processualarchaeology some years later.[33]

Survey work has many benefits if performed as a preliminary exercise to, or even in place of, excavation. It requiresrelatively little time and expense, because it does not require processing large volumes of soil to search out artifacts.(Nevertheless, surveying a large region or site can be expensive, so archaeologists often employ samplingmethods.)[34] As with other forms of non-destructive archaeology, survey avoids ethical issues (of particular concernto descendant peoples) associated with destroying a site through excavation. It is the only way to gather some formsof information, such as settlement patterns and settlement structure. Survey data are commonly assembled into maps,which may show surface features and/or artifact distribution.The simplest survey technique is surface survey. It involves combing an area, usually on foot but sometimes with theuse of mechanized transport, to search for features or artifacts visible on the surface. Surface survey cannot detectsites or features that are completely buried under earth, or overgrown with vegetation. Surface survey may alsoinclude mini-excavation techniques such as augers, corers, and shovel test pits. If no materials are found, the areasurveyed is deemed sterile.Aerial survey is conducted using cameras attached to airplanes, balloons, or even Kites. A bird's-eye view is useful for quick mapping of large or complex sites. Aerial photographs are used to document the status of the archaeological dig. Aerial imaging can also detect many things not visible from the surface. Plants growing above a buried man made structure, such as a stone wall, will develop more slowly, while those above other types of features (such as middens) may develop more rapidly. Photographs of ripening grain, which changes colour rapidly at

Archaeology 4

maturation, have revealed buried structures with great precision. Aerial photographs taken at different times of daywill help show the outlines of structures by changes in shadows. Aerial survey also employs infrared,ground-penetrating radar wavelengths, LiDAR and thermography.Geophysical survey can be the most effective way to see beneath the ground. Magnetometers detect minutedeviations in the Earth's magnetic field caused by iron artifacts, kilns, some types of stone structures, and evenditches and middens. Devices that measure the electrical resistivity of the soil are also widely used. Archaeologicalfeatures whose electrical resistivity contrasts with that of surrounding soils can be detected and mapped. Somearchaeological features (such as those composed of stone or brick) have higher resistivity than typical soils, whileothers (such as organic deposits or unfired clay) tend to have lower resistivity.Although some archaeologists consider the use of metal detectors to be tantamount to treasure hunting, others deemthem an effective tool in archaeological surveying. Examples of formal archaeological use of metal detectors includemusketball distribution analysis on English Civil War battlefields, metal distribution analysis prior to excavation of a19th century ship wreck, and service cable location during evaluation. Metal detectorists have also contributed toarchaeology where they have made detailed records of their results and refrained from raising artifacts from theirarchaeological context. In the UK, metal detectorists have been solicited for involvement in the Portable AntiquitiesScheme.Regional survey in underwater archaeology uses geophysical or remote sensing devices such as marinemagnetometer, side-scan sonar, or sub-bottom sonar.

Excavation

Excavations at the 3800-year-old Edgewater ParkSite, Iowa

Archaeological excavation existed even when the field was still thedomain of amateurs, and it remains the source of the majority of datarecovered in most field projects. It can reveal several types ofinformation usually not accessible to survey, such as stratigraphy,three-dimensional structure, and verifiably primary context.

Modern excavation techniques require that the precise locations ofobjects and features, known as their provenance or provenience, berecorded. This always involves determining their horizontal locations,and sometimes vertical position as well (also see Primary Laws ofArchaeology). Similarly, their association, or relationship with nearbyobjects and features, needs to be recorded for later analysis. Thisallows the archaeologist to deduce what artifacts and features were likely used together and which may be fromdifferent phases of activity. For example, excavation of a site reveals its stratigraphy; if a site was occupied by asuccession of distinct cultures, artifacts from more recent cultures will lie above those from more ancient cultures.

Excavation is the most expensive phase of archaeological research, in relative terms. Also, as a destructive process, itcarries ethical concerns. As a result, very few sites are excavated in their entirety. Again the percentage of a siteexcavated depends greatly on the country and "method statement" issued. In places 90% excavation is common.Sampling is even more important in excavation than in survey. It is common for large mechanical equipment, suchas

Archaeology 5

Archaeological excavation which discoveredprehistoric caves in Vill (Innsbruck), Austria

An archaeologist sifting for POW remains onWake Island.

backhoes (JCBs), to be used in excavation, especially to remove thetopsoil (overburden), though this method is increasingly used withgreat caution. Following this rather dramatic step, the exposed area isusually hand-cleaned with trowels or hoes to ensure that all features areapparent.

The next task is to form a site plan and then use it to help decide themethod of excavation. Features dug into the natural subsoil arenormally excavated in portions in order to produce a visiblearchaeological section for recording. A feature, for example a pit or aditch, consists of two parts: the cut and the fill. The cut describes theedge of the feature, where the feature meets the natural soil. It is thefeature's boundary. The fill is, understandably, what the feature is filledwith, and will often appear quite distinct from the natural soil. The cutand fill are given consecutive numbers for recording purposes. Scaledplans and sections of individual features are all drawn on site, blackand white and colour photographs of them are taken, and recordingsheets are filled in describing the context of each. All this informationserves as a permanent record of the now-destroyed archaeology and isused in describing and interpreting the site.

Analysis

Once artifacts and structures have been excavated, or collected fromsurface surveys, it is necessary to properly study them, to gain as muchdata as possible. This process is known as post-excavation analysis,and is normally the most time-consuming part of the archaeologicalinvestigation. It is not uncommon for the final excavation reports onmajor sites to take years to be published.At its most basic, the artifacts found are cleaned, cataloged andcompared to published collections, in order to classify them typologically and to identify other sites with similarartifact assemblages. However, a much more comprehensive range of analytical techniques are available througharchaeological science, meaning that artifacts can be dated and their compositions examined. The bones, plants andpollen collected from a site can all be analyzed (using the techniques of zooarchaeology, paleoethnobotany, andpalynology), while any texts can usually be deciphered.

These techniques frequently provide information that would not otherwise be known and therefore contribute greatlyto the understanding of a site.

Virtual archaeologySome time around 1995 archaeologists started using computer graphics to build virtual 3D models of sites such asthe throne room of an ancient Assyrian palace or ancient Rome.[35] This is done by collecting normal photographsand using computer graphics to build the virtual 3D model.[35] More generally, computers can be used to recreate theenvironment and conditions of the past, such as objects, buildings, landscapes and even ancient battles.[35] Computersimulation can be used to simulate the living conditions of an ancient community and to see how it would havereacted to various scenarios (such as how much food to grow, how many animals to slaughter, etc.)[35]

Computer-built topographical models have been combined with astronomical calculations to verify whether or notcertain structures (such as pillars) were aligned with astronomical events such as the sun's position at a solstice.[35]

Archaeology 6

Academic sub-disciplinesAs with most academic disciplines, there are a very large number of archaeological sub-disciplines characterised bya specific method or type of material (e.g. lithic analysis, music, archaeobotany), geographical or chronologicalfocus (e.g. Near Eastern archaeology, Islamic archaeology, Medieval archaeology), other thematic concern (e.g.maritime archaeology, landscape archaeology, battlefield archaeology), or a specific archaeological culture orcivilisation (e.g. Egyptology, Indology, Sinology).

Historical archaeologyHistorical archaeology is the study of cultures with some form of writing.In England, archaeologists have uncovered the long-lost layouts of medieval villages abandoned after the crises ofthe 14th century and the equally lost layouts of 17th century parterre gardens swept away by a change in fashion. Indowntown New York City archaeologists have exhumed the 18th century remains of the African burial ground.

EthnoarchaeologyEthnoarchaeology is the archaeological study of living people.[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] The approach gained notorietyduring the emphasis on middle range theory that was a feature of the processual movement of the 1960s. Earlyethnoarchaeological research focused on hunting and gathering or foraging societies. Ethnoarchaeology continues tobe a vibrant component of post-processual and other current archaeological approaches.[42] [43] [44] [45]

Ethnoarchaeology is the use of ethnography to increase and improve analogs, which are then used as analogies tointerpret the archaeological record. In short, ethnoarchaeology is the application of ethnography to archaeology.[46]

Experimental archaeologyExperimental archaeology represents the application of the experimental method to develop more highly controlledobservations of processes that create and impact the archaeological record.[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] In the context of thelogical positivism of processualism with its goals of improving the scientific rigor of archaeological epistemologiesthe experimental method gained importance. Experimental techniques remain a crucial component to improving theinferential frameworks for interpreting the archaeological record.

ArchaeometryArchaeometry is a field of study that aims to systematize archaeological measurement. It emphasizes the applicationof analytical techniques from physics, chemistry, and engineering. It is a lively field of research that frequentlyfocuses on the definition of the chemical composition of archaeological remains for source analysis.[52]

Archaeometry also investigates different spatial characteristics of features, employing such methods as space syntaxand geodesy which can be analyzed using computer-based geographic information system technologies. A relativelynascent subfield is that of archaeological materials, designed to enhance understanding of prehistoric andnon-industrial culture through scientific analysis of the structure and properties of materials associated with humanactivity.[53]

Cultural resources managementWhile archaeology can be done as a pure science, it can also be an applied science, namely the study of archaeological sites that are threatened by development. In such cases, archaeology is a subsidiary activity within Cultural resources management (CRM), also called heritage management in the United Kingdom.[54] Today, CRM accounts for most of the archaeological research done in the United States and much of that in western Europe as well. In the US, CRM archaeology has been a growing concern since the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, and most taxpayers, scholars, and politicians believe that CRM has helped

Archaeology 7

preserve much of that nation's history and prehistory that would have otherwise been lost in the expansion of cities,dams, and highways. Along with other statutes, the NHPA mandates that projects on federal land or involvingfederal funds or permits consider the effects of the project on each archaeological site.The application of CRM in the United Kingdom is not limited to government-funded projects. Since 1990 PPG16[55] has required planners to consider archaeology as a material consideration in determining applications for newdevelopment. As a result, numerous archaeological organisations undertake mitigation work in advance of (orduring) construction work in archaeologically sensitive areas, at the developer's expense.In England, ultimate responsibility of care for the historic environment rests with the Department for Culture, Mediaand Sport[56] in association with English Heritage.[57] In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the sameresponsibilities lie with Historic Scotland,[58] Cadw[59] and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency[60]

respectively.Among the goals of CRM are the identification, preservation, and maintenance of cultural sites on public and privatelands, and the removal of culturally valuable materials from areas where they would otherwise be destroyed byhuman activity, such as proposed construction. This study involves at least a cursory examination to determinewhether or not any significant archaeological sites are present in the area affected by the proposed construction. Ifthese do exist, time and money must be allotted for their excavation. If initial survey and/or test excavation indicatesthe presence of an extraordinarily valuable site, the construction may be prohibited entirely. CRM is a thrivingentity, especially in the United States and Europe where archaeologists from private companies and all levels ofgovernment engage in the practice of their discipline.Cultural resources management has, however, been criticized. CRM is conducted by private companies that bid forprojects by submitting proposals outlining the work to be done and an expected budget. It is not unheard-of for theagency responsible for the construction to simply choose the proposal that asks for the least funding. CRMarchaeologists face considerable time pressure, often being forced to complete their work in a fraction of the timethat might be allotted for a purely scholarly endeavor. Compounding the time pressure is the vetting process of sitereports which are required (in the US) to be submitted by CRM firms to the appropriate State Historic PreservationOffice (SHPO). From the SHPO's perspective there is to be no difference between a report submitted by a CRM firmoperating under a deadline, and a multi-year academic project. The end result is that for a Cultural ResourceManagement archaeologist to be successful, they must be able to produce academic quality documents at a corporateworld pace.The annual ratio of open academic archaeology positions (inclusive of Post-Doc, temporary, and non tenure trackappointments) to the annual number of archaeology MA/MSc and PhD students is grossly disproportionate. Thisdearth of academic positions causes a predictable excess of well educated individuals who join the ranks of thefollowing year's crop of non-academically employed archaeologists. Cultural Resource Management, onceconsidered an intellectual backwater for individuals with "strong backs and weak minds"[61] has reaped the benefit ofthis massive pool of well educated professionals. This results in CRM offices increasingly staffed by advancedegreed individuals with a track record of producing scholarly articles but who have the notches on their trowels toshow they have been in the trenches as a shovelbum.

History of archaeologyFlavio Biondo, an Italian Renaissance humanist historian, created a systematic and documented guide to the ruinsand topography of ancient Rome in the early 15th century for which he has been called an early founder ofarchaeology. Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli or Cyriacus of Ancona (31 July 1391 — 1453/55) was a restlessly itinerant Italianhumanist who came from a prominent family of merchants in Ancona. Ciriaco traveled all around the EasternMediterranean, noting down his archaeological discoveries in his day-book, Commentaria, that eventually filled sixvolumes. He has been called father of archaeology.

Archaeology 8

After that, modern archaeology has its origins in the antiquarianism of Europe in the mid-19th century, where itdeveloped soon after the scientific advancement of geology, which had shown that the Earth was billions rather thanthousands of years old, as was then commonly believed. Soon after this, in 1859, Charles Darwin's On the Origin ofSpecies was published, outlining his theory of evolution, eventually leading scientists to believe that humanity was infact millions of years old, thereby providing a time limit within which the burgeoning archaeological movementcould study. Meanwhile, in 1836 the Danish historian Christian Jürgensen Thomsen published A Ledetraad tilNordisk Oldkyndighed (Guideline to Scandinavian Antiquity) translated into English in 1848, in which he proposedthe idea that the European prehistoric could be divided up into a three age system; the Stone Age, Bronze Age andIron Age, based upon the materials used by humankind. It was these three concepts of human antiquity, evolutionand the Three-Age system that are often thought of as the building blocks for modern archaeology.[62]

Soon the early archaeologists began to investigate various areas around the world, with the study of ancient Aegeancivilization being stimulated by the excavations of Heinrich Schliemann at Troy, and of Arthur Evans at Crete,whilst John Lloyd Stephens was a pivotal figure in the rediscovery of Maya civilization throughout Central America.However, the methodologies employed by these archaeologists were highly flawed by today's standards, oftenhaving a eurocentric bias, and many early European archaeologists often relied on anthropological and ethnographicaccounts provided by the likes of Edward Tylor and Lewis Henry Morgan, thereby comparing contemporary"savage" peoples like the Native Americans with the historical peoples of Europe who lived in similar societies.[63]

Soon the new discipline of archaeology spread to North America, where it was taken up by figures like SamuelHaven and William Henry Holmes, whom excavated ancient Native American monuments.[64]

Further advancements in archaeological field methodology arose in the late 19th century. One of the pioneeringfigures in this was Augustus Pitt Rivers, who meticulously excavated on Cranborne Chase in southern England,emphasising that it was not only items of beauty or value that should be recorded, but mundane items as well; hetherefore helped to differentiate archaeology from antiquarianism. Other important archaeologists who furtherrefined the discipline in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Flinders Petrie (who excavated in Egypt andPalestine), Sir Mortimer Wheeler (India), Dorothy Garrod (the Middle East), Max Uhle (Peru) and Alfred Kidder(Mexico).[65] Further adaptation and innovation in archaeology continued throughout the 20th century, particularlyin the 1960s, when maritime archaeology was popularised by George Bass, urban archaeology became moreprevalent with redevelopment in many European cities, and rescue archaeology was developed as a result ofincreasing commercial development.[65]

Popular views of archaeology

Extensive excavations at Beit She'an, Israel

Early archaeology was largely an attempt to uncover spectacularartifacts and features, or to explore vast and mysterious abandonedcities. Such pursuits continue to fascinate the public. Books, films, andvideo games, such as The City of Brass, King Solomon's Mines,Indiana Jones, Tomb Raider, The Mummy and Relic Hunter all testifyto the public's interest in the discovery aspect of archaeology.

Much thorough and productive research has indeed been conducted indramatic locales such as Copán and the Valley of the Kings, but thebulk of activities and finds of modern archaeology are not sosensational. Archaeological adventure stories tend to ignore the painstaking work involved in carrying out modernsurvey, excavation, and data processing. Some archaeologists refer to such off the mark portrayals as"pseudoarchaeology".[66]

Archaeology has been portrayed in the mainstream media in sensational ways. This has its advantages and disadvantages. Many practitioners point to the childhood excitement of Indiana Jones films as the inspiration for

Archaeology 9

them to enter the field.[67] [68] Archaeologists are also very much reliant on public support, the question of exactlywho they are doing their work for is often discussed.[69]

Current issues and controversy

Public archaeologyMotivated by a desire to halt looting, curb pseudoarchaeology, and to help preserve archaeological sites througheducation and fostering public appreciation for the importance of archaeological heritage, archaeologists aremounting public-outreach campaigns.[70] They seek to stop looting by combatting people who illegally take artifactsfrom protected sites, and by alerting people who live near archaeological sites of the threat of looting. Commonmethods of public outreach include press releases, and the encouragement of school field trips to sites underexcavation by professional archaeologists. Public appreciation of the significance of archaeology and archaeologicalsites often leads to improved protection from encroaching development or other threats.One audience for archaeologists' work is the public. They increasingly realize that their work can benefitnon-academic and non-archaeological audiences, and that they have a responsibility to educate and inform the publicabout archaeology. Local heritage awareness is aimed at increasing civic and individual pride through projects suchas community excavation projects, and better public presentations of archaeological sites and knowledge. TheU.S.Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service(USFS) operates a volunteer archaeology and historic preservation programcalled the Passport in Time (PIT). Volunteers work with professional USFS archaeologists and historians on nationalforests throughout the U.S. Volunteers are involved in all aspects of professional archaeology under expertsupervision.[71]

In the UK, popular archaeology programs such as Time Team and Meet the Ancestors have resulted in a hugeupsurge in public interest. Where possible, archaeologists now make more provisions for public involvement andoutreach in larger projects than they once did, and many local archaeological organizations operate within theCommunity archaeology framework to expand public involvement in smaller-scale, more local projects.Archaeological excavation, however, is best undertaken by well-trained staff that can work quickly and accurately.Often this requires observing the necessary health and safety and indemnity insurance issues involved in working ona modern building site with tight deadlines. Certain charities and local government bodies sometimes offer places onresearch projects either as part of academic work or as a defined community project. There is also a flourishingindustry selling places on commercial training excavations and archaeological holiday tours.Archaeologists prize local knowledge and often liaise with local historical and archaeological societies, which is onereason why Community archaeology projects are starting to become more common. Often archaeologists are assistedby the public in the locating of archaeological sites, which professional archaeologists have neither the funding, northe time to do.

PseudoarchaeologyPseudoarchaeology is an umbrella term for all activities that claim to be archaeological but in fact violate commonlyaccepted and scientific archaeological practices. It includes much fictional archaeological work (discussed above), aswell as some actual activity. Many non-fiction authors have ignored the scientific methods of processualarchaeology, or the specific critiques of it contained in post-processualism.An example of this type is the writing of Erich von Däniken. His 1968 book, Chariots of the Gods?, together withmany subsequent lesser-known works, expounds a theory of ancient contacts between human civilisation on Earthand more technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilisations. This theory, known as palaeocontact theory, orAncient astronaut theory, is not exclusively Däniken's, nor did the idea originate with him. Works of this nature areusually marked by the renunciation of well-established theories on the basis of limited evidence and theinterpretation of evidence with a preconceived theory in mind.

Archaeology 10

Looting

A looter's pit on the morning following itsexcavation, taken at Rontoy, Huaura Valley, Peruin June 2007. Several small holes left by looters'prospecting probes can be seen, as well as their

footprints.

Stela of a king named Adad-Nirari. Object stolenfrom the Iraq National Museum in the looting in

connection with the Iraq war of 2003.

Looting of archaeological sites is an ancient problem. For instance,many of the tombs of the Egyptian pharaohs were looted duringantiquity.[72] Archaeology stimulates interest in ancient objects, andpeople in search of artifacts or treasure cause damage to archaeologicalsites. The commercial and academic demand for artifacts unfortunatelycontributes directly to the illicit antiquities trade. Smuggling ofantiquities abroad to private collectors has caused great cultural andeconomic damage in many countries whose governments lack theresources and or the will to deter it. Looters damage and destroyarchaeological sites, denying future generations information about theirethnic and cultural heritage. Indigenous peoples especially lose accessto and control over their 'cultural resources', ultimately denying themthe opportunity to know their past.[73]

Popular consciousness often associates looting with poor Third Worldcountries, but this is a false assumption.[73] A lack of financialresources and political will are chronic worldwide problems inhibitingmore effective protection of archaeological sites. Many NativeAmerican Indians today, such as Vine Deloria, Jr., consider anyremoval of cultural artifacts from a Native American Indian site to betheft, and much of professional archaeology as academic looting.

In 1937 W. F. Hodge the Director of the Southwest Museum in LosAngeles CA, released a statement that the museum would no longerpurchase or accept collections from looted contexts.[74] The firstconviction of the transport of artifacts illegally removed from privateproperty under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA;Public Law 96-95; 93 Statute 721; 16 U.S.C. 470aamm) [75] was in1992 in the State of Indiana.[76]

Descendant peoples

In the United States, examples such as the case of Kennewick Manhave illustrated the tensions between Native Americans andarchaeologists which can be summarized as a conflict between a needto remain respectful towards burials sacred sites and the academicbenefit from studying them. For years, American archaeologists dug onIndian burial grounds and other places considered sacred, removingartifacts and human remains to storage facilities for further study. Insome cases human remains were not even thoroughly studied butinstead archived rather than reburied. Furthermore, Western archaeologists' views of the past often differ from thoseof tribal peoples. The West views time as linear; for many natives, it is cyclic. From a Western perspective, the pastis long-gone; from a native perspective, disturbing the past can have dire consequences in the present.

As a consequence of this, American Indians attempted to prevent archaeological excavation of sites inhabited bytheir ancestors, while American archaeologists believed that the advancement of scientific knowledge was a valid

Archaeology 11

reason to continue their studies. This contradictory situation was addressed by the Native American GravesProtection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 1990), which sought to reach a compromise by limiting the right ofresearch institutions to possess human remains. Due in part to the spirit of postprocessualism, some archaeologistshave begun to actively enlist the assistance of indigenous peoples likely to be descended from those under study.Archaeologists have also been obliged to re-examine what constitutes an archaeological site in view of what nativepeoples believe to constitute sacred space. To many native peoples, natural features such as lakes, mountains or evenindividual trees have cultural significance. Australian archaeologists especially have explored this issue andattempted to survey these sites in order to give them some protection from being developed. Such work requiresclose links and trust between archaeologists and the people they are trying to help and at the same time study.While this cooperation presents a new set of challenges and hurdles to fieldwork, it has benefits for all partiesinvolved. Tribal elders cooperating with archaeologists can prevent the excavation of areas of sites that they considersacred, while the archaeologists gain the elders' aid in interpreting their finds. There have also been active efforts torecruit aboriginal peoples directly into the archaeological profession.

Repatriation

See Repatriation and reburial of human remains

A new trend in the heated controversy between First Nations groups and scientists is the repatriation of nativeartifacts to the original descendants. An example of this occurred June 21, 2005, when community members andelders from a number of the 10 Algonquian nations in the Ottawa area convened on the Kitigan Zibi reservation nearManiwaki, Quebec, to inter ancestral human remains and burial goods — some dating back 6,000 years. It was notdetermined, however, if the remains were directly related to the Algonquin people who now inhabit the region. Theremains may be of Iroquoian ancestry, since Iroquoian people inhabited the area before the Algonquin. Alternatively,the oldest of these remains might have no relation at all to the Algonquin or Iroquois, and belong to an earlier culturewho previously inhabited the area.The remains and artifacts, including jewelry, tools and weapons, were originally excavated from various sites in theOttawa Valley, including Morrison and the Allumette Islands. They had been part of the Canadian Museum ofCivilization’s research collection for decades, some since the late 19th century. Elders from various Algonquincommunities conferred on an appropriate reburial, eventually deciding on traditional redcedar and birchbark boxeslined with redcedar chips, muskrat and beaver pelts.Now, an inconspicuous rock mound marks the reburial site where close to 80 boxes of various sizes are buried, nofurther scientific study is possible. Although negotiations were at times tense between the Kitigan Zibi communityand museum, they were able to reach agreement.[77]

Kennewick Man is another repatriation candidate that has been the source of heated debate.

References

Footnotes[1] Society for American Archaeology (http:/ / www. saa. org/ ForthePublic/ Resources/ OtherUsefulResources/

Whyaretheretwodifferentspellingsarchaeology/ tabid/ 1078/ Default. aspx), , retrieved 2011-01-15[2] Or science, in old Greek.[3] Renfrew and Bahn (2004 [1991]:13)[4] Cultural Anthropology The Human Challenge (2005)[5] McPherron, S. P., Z. Alemseged, C. W. Marean, J. G. Wynn, D. Reed, D. Geraads, R. Bobe, and H. A. Bearat. 2010. Evidence for

stone-tool-assisted consumption of animal tissues before 3.39 million years ago at Dikika, Ethiopia. Nature 466:857-860[6] Wylie, Alison (2002), Thinking from things: essays in the philosophy of archaeology, Berkeley: University of California Press, p. 31,

ISBN 0-520-22361-6[7] Aldenderfer and Maschner (1996)[8] Gladfelter (1977)

Archaeology 12

[9] Watters (1992)[10] Watters (2000)[11] "Kevin Greene - ''Archaeology: an Introduction''" (http:/ / www. staff. ncl. ac. uk/ kevin. greene/ wintro). Staff.ncl.ac.uk. . Retrieved

2010-08-12.[12] Schiffer, M. B. 1972. Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37: 156-165[13] Trigger (1989)[14] Binford (1962)[15] Flannery (1967)[16] Shanks and Tilley (1987)[17] Shanks and Tilley (1988)[18] Shanks (1991)[19] Shanks (1993)[20] Tilley (1993)[21] Miller and Tilley1984[22] Miller et al. (1989)[23] Hodder (1982)[24] Hodder (1985)[25] Hodder (1987)[26] Hodder (1990)[27] Hodder (1991)[28] Hodder (1992)[29] Pauketat, Timothy R. (2001)[30] Renfrew and Bahn (2004 [1991]:75)[31] Willey (1953)[32] Willey (1968)[33] Billman and Feinman (1999)[34] Redman (1974)[35] Michael Bawaya, "Virtual Archaeologists Recreate Parts of Ancient Worlds", Science, 8 January 2010, vol. 327, p. 140.[36] Gould (1971a)[37] Gould (1971b)[38] Yellen (1972)[39] Yellen (1977)[40] Gould and Yellen 1987[41] Yellen (1991)[42] Sillet et al. (2006)[43] Schott and Sillitoe (2005)[44] Ogundele (2005)[45] Kuznar (2001)[46] Ashcer (1961) as cited in Wylie (1985)[47] Ascher (1961)[48] Saraydar and Shimada (1971)[49] Saraydar and Shimada (1973)[50] Gifford-Gonzalez (1985)[51] Frison (1989)[52] Glascock et al. 1994[53] MIT Archaeological Materials and CMRAE Mission Statement (http:/ / web. mit. edu/ cmrae/ cmrae_mission. htm/ )[54] The University of Exeter - SoGAER - Department of Archaeology (http:/ / www. sogaer. ex. ac. uk/ archaeology/ modules/ arc3600. shtml),

Sogaer.ex.ac.uk, 2008-10-28, , retrieved 2009-05-05[55] "Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and planning - Planning, building and the environment - Communities and Local Government"

(http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20080212011420/ http:/ / www. communities. gov. uk/ publications/ planningandbuilding/planningpolicyguidance9). Web.archive.org. Archived from the original (http:/ / www. communities. gov. uk/ publications/planningandbuilding/ planningpolicyguidance9) on 2008-02-12. . Retrieved 2009-07-25.

[56] Department for Culture Media and Sport - historic environment (http:/ / www. culture. gov. uk/ what_we_do/ Historic_environment/ ),Culture.gov.uk, 2009-04-28, , retrieved 2009-05-05

[57] English Heritage - Stonehenge & the History of England: English Heritage (http:/ / www. english-heritage. org. uk), English Heritage<!, ,retrieved 2009-05-05

[58] , Historic Scotland, http:/ / www. historic-scotland. gov. uk/ , retrieved 2009-05-05[59] Cadw (http:/ / www. cadw. wales. gov. uk/ default. asp), Cadw.wales.gov.uk, , retrieved 2009-05-05

Archaeology 13

[60] Built Environment (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20071225132821/ http:/ / www. ehsni. gov. uk/ built. htm), Ehsni.gov.uk, archived fromthe original (http:/ / www. ehsni. gov. uk/ built. htm) on 2007-12-25, , retrieved 2009-05-05

[61] Flannery (1982)[62] Renfrew and Bahn (2004 [1991]:26)[63] Renfrew and Bahn (2004 [1991]:29)[64] Renfrew and Bahn (2004 [1991]:30-31)[65] Renfrew and Bahn (2004 [1991]:33-35)[66] "Romancing the Past-Archaeology" (http:/ / www. denison. edu/ campuslife/ museum/ romancingthepastarchaeology. html). Denison

University. .[67] "Indiana Jones Inspires Fans" (http:/ / abcnews. go. com/ GMA/ Springtime/ story?id=4879875& page=1). ABC News. . Retrieved

2011-01-11.[68] Strong, Meghan (2007-04-19), The Indiana Jones Effect (http:/ / www. lycoming. edu/ library/ archives/ honorspdfs/ Meghan_Strong. pdf),

Lycoming College, p. 40,[69] "Denning 2004, Internet Archaeology 15" (http:/ / intarch. ac. uk/ journal/ issue15/ denning_index. html). Intarch.ac.uk. 2004-01-28. .

Retrieved 2010-08-12.[70] Anthropological Studies Center (ASC) (http:/ / www. sonoma. edu/ asc/ roadshow. html), Sonoma.edu, , retrieved 2009-05-05[71] "^ ''Rapid City Journal'' Published Online: 14 Nov 2008" (http:/ / www. rapidcityjournal. com/ news/ local/

article_3654c4d7-e241-5b5a-a624-46628d7c1f4f. html). Rapidcityjournal.com. 2008-11-14. . Retrieved 2010-08-12.[72] Time Life Lost Civilizations series: Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile (1993)[73] Sheets (1973)[74] Hodge (1937)[75] http:/ / www. nps. gov/ history/ local-law/ FHPL_ArchRsrcsProt. pdf[76] Munson et al. (1995)[77] Canadian Geographic Online (http:/ / www. canadiangeographic. ca/ magazine/ SO05/ indepth/ archaeology. asp),

Bibliography• Aldenderfer, M. S. & Maschner, H. D. G., ed. (1996), Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information

Systems, New York: Oxford University Press• Ascher, R. (1961), "Analogy in archaeological interpretation" (http:/ / www. jstor. org/ stable/ 3628943),

Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 17 (4): 317–325• Ascher, R. (1961), "Experimental Archeology", American Anthropologist 63: 793–816,

doi:10.1525/aa.1961.63.4.02a00070• Billman, B. R. & Feinman, G. (1999), Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas—Fifty Years Since Virú,

Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press• Binford, L. (1962), "Archaeology as Anthropology" (http:/ / jstor. org/ stable/ 278380), American Antiquity 28

(4): 217–225, doi:10.2307/278380• Denning, K. (2004), "The Storm of Progress' and Archaeology for an Online Public", Internet Archaeology 15• Ebrey, Patricia Buckley (1999), The Cambridge Illustrated History of China, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, ISBN 0521435196, OCLC 223427870 33047244 59615754• Flannery, K. V. (1967), "Culture History v. Culture Process: A Debate in American archaeology", Scientific

American 217: 119–122• Flannery, K. V. (1982), "The Golden Marshalltown: A Parable for the Archaeology of the 1980s", American

Anthropologist 84: 265–278, doi:10.1525/aa.1982.84.2.02a00010• Fraser, Julius Thomas and Francis C. Haber. (1986), Time, Science, and Society in China and the West, Amherst:

University of Massachusetts Press• Frison, G. C. (1989), "Experimental Use of Clovis Weaponry and Tools on African Elephants" (http:/ / jstor. org/

stable/ 280681), American Antiquity 54 (4): 766–784, doi:10.2307/280681• Glascock, M. D., Neff, H., Stryker, K. S. & Johnson, T. N. (1994), "Sourcing Archaeological Obsidian by an

Abbreviated NAA Procedure", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 180: 29–35,doi:10.1007/BF02039899

• Gifford-Gonzalez, D. P., Damrosch, D. B., Damrosch, D. R., Pryor, J. & Thunen, R. L. (1985), "The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An Experiment in Trampling and Vertical Dispersal" (http:/ / jstor. org/ stable/

Archaeology 14

280169), American Antiquity 50 (4): 803–818, doi:10.2307/280169• Gladfelter, B. G. (1977), "Geoarchaeology: The Geomorphologist and Archaeology" (http:/ / jstor. org/ stable/

278926), American Antiquity 42 (4): 519–538, doi:10.2307/278926• Gould, R. (1971a), "The Archaeologist as Ethnographer: A Case from the Western Desert of Australia", World

Archaeology 3: 143–177, doi:10.1080/00438243.1969.9979499• Gould, R., Koster, D. A. & Sontz, A. H. L. (1971b), "The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of

Australia" (http:/ / jstor. org/ stable/ 278668), American Antiquity 36 (2): 149–169, doi:10.2307/278668• Gould, R. & Yellen, J. (1987), "Man the Hunted: Determinants of Household Spacing in Desert and Tropical

Foraging Societies", Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6: 77, doi:10.1016/0278-4165(87)90017-1• Hodder, I. (1982), Symbols in Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press• Hodder, I. (1985), "Post-Processual Archaeology", in SCHIFFER, M. B., Advances in Archaeological Method

and Theory, New York: Academic Press• Hodder, I., ed. (1987), The Archaeology of Contextual Meaning, New York: Cambridge University Press• Hodder, I. (1990), "Style as Historical Quality", in HASTORF, M. C. A. C., The Uses of Style in Archaeology,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press• Hodder, I. (1991), "Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role" (http:/ / jstor. org/ stable/ 280968), American Antiquity

56 (1): 7–18, doi:10.2307/280968• Hodder, I. (1992), Theory and Practice in Archaeology, London: Routeldge• Munson, C. A., Jones, M. M. & Fry, R. E. (1995), "The GE Mound: An ARPA Case Study" (http:/ / jstor. org/

stable/ 282080), American Antiquity 60 (1): 131–159, doi:10.2307/282080• Kuznar, L, ed. (2001), Ethnoarchaeology of Andean South America, Ann Arbor: International Monographs in

Prehistory• Miller, D. & Tilley, C. (1984), "Ideology, Power and Prehistory: An Introduction", in Miller, D. & Tilley, C.,

Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521255260, OCLC 2415992099827625

• Miller, D., Rowlands, M., Tilley, C., ed. (1989), Dominion and Resistance, New York: Routledge• Munson, C. A., Jones, M. M. & Fry, R. E. (1995), "The GE Mound: An ARPA Case Study" (http:/ / jstor. org/

stable/ 282080), American Antiquity 60 (1): 131–159, doi:10.2307/282080• Ogundele, S. O. (2005), "Ethnoarchaeology of Domestic Space and Spatial Behaviour Among the Tiv and

Ungwai of Central Nigeria", African Archaeological Review 22: 25–54, doi:10.1007/s10437-005-3158-2• Pauketat, T. R. (2001), "Practice and History in Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm", Anthropological Theory

1: 73–98, doi:10.1177/14634990122228638• Redman, C. L. (1974), Archaeological Sampling Strategies, Binghamton: State University of New York at

Binghamton• Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. G. (1991), Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, London: Thames and Hudson

Ltd, ISBN 0500278679, OCLC 185808200 34521234• Saraydar, S. & Shimada, I. (1971), "A Quantitative Comparison of Efficiency Between A Stone Axe and A Steel

Axe" (http:/ / jstor. org/ stable/ 278680), American Antiquity 36 (2): 216–217, doi:10.2307/278680• Saraydar, S. C. & Shimada, I. (1973), "Experimental Archaeology: A New Outlook" (http:/ / jstor. org/ stable/

279722), American Antiquity 38 (3): 344–350, doi:10.2307/279722• Sellet, F., Greaves, R. & Yu, P.-L. (2006), Archaeology and Ethnoarchaeology of Mobility, Gainesville:

University Press of Florida• Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. (1987), Reconstructing Archaeology, New York: Cambridge university Press• Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. (1988), Social Theory and Archaeology, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,

ISBN 0745601847, OCLC 16465065 185783860• Shanks, M. (1991), "Some recent approaches to style and social reconstruction in classical archaeology",

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 10: 164–174

Archaeology 15

• Shanks, M. (1993), "Style and the design of a perfume jar from an Archaic Greek city state", Journal of EuropeanArchaeology 1: 77–106

• Sheets, P. D. (1973), "The Pillage of Prehistory" (http:/ / jstor. org/ stable/ 279718), American Antiquity 38 (3):317–320, doi:10.2307/279718

• Shott, M. J. & Sillitoe, P. (2005), "Use life and curation in New Guinea experimental used flakes", Journal ofArchaeological Science 32: 653–663, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2004.11.012

• Tassie, G. J., Owens, L.S. (2010), Standards of Archaeological Excavations: A Fieldguide to the Methology,Recording Techniques and Conventions, London: GHP, ISBN 978-1906137175

• Taylor, W. W. (1948), A Study of Archaeology, Menasha: American Anthropological Association,ISBN 0906367123, OCLC 9714935

• Tilley, Christopher, ed. (1993), Interpretive Archaeology, Oxford: Berg, ISBN 0854968423, OCLC 18549400126263158

• Trigger, B. G. (1989), A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press• Watters, M.R. (1992), Principles of Geoarchaeology: A North American Perspective, Tucson: The University of

Arizona Press• Watters, M.R. (2000), "Alluvial stratigraphy and geoarchaeology in the American Southwest", Geoarchaeology

15: 537–557, doi:10.1002/1520-6548(200008)15:6<537::AID-GEA5>3.0.CO;2-E• Willey, G. R. (1953), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Perú, Washington DC• Willey, G. (1968), Settlement Archaeology, Palo Alto: National Press• Wylie, A. (1985), "The Reaction Against Analogy", in Schiffer, Michael B., Advances in Archaeological Method

and Theory, Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 63–111• Yellen, J. & Harpending, H. (1972), "Hunter-Gatherer Populations and Archaeological Inference", World

Archaeology 4: 244–253, doi:10.1080/00438243.1972.9979535• Yellen, J. (1977), Archaeological Approaches to the Present, New York: Academic Press, ISBN 0127703500,

OCLC 2911020

Further reading• Archaeology (magazine)• C. U. Larsen - Sites and Monuments (1992)• Colin Renfrew & Paul Bahn - Archaeology: theories, methods and practice 2nd edition (1996)• David Hurst Thomas - Archaeology 3rd. edition (1998)• Glyn Daniel - A Short History of Archaeology (1991)• International Journal of South American Archaeology - IJSA (magazine)• Internet Archaeology e-journal• Kevin Greene - Introduction to Archaeology (1983)• Lewis Binford - New Perspectives in Archaeology (1968) ISBN 0-202-33022-2• Robert J. Sharer & Wendy Ashmore - Archaeology: Discovering our Past 2nd edition (1993)• Thomas Hester, Harry Shafer, and Kenneth L. Feder - Field Methods in Archaeology 7th edition (1997)• Alison Wylie - Thinking From Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology, University of California Press,

Berkeley CA, 2002• Smekalova T. N., Voss O., Smekalov S. L. "Magnetic Surveying in Archaeology. More than 10 years of using the

Overhauser GSM-19 gradiometer", Wormianum 2008.• Bruce Trigger - "A History of Archaeological Thought" 2nd. edition (2007)• Ian Hodder & Scott Hutson - "Reading the Past" 3rd. edition (2003)• Adrian Praetzellis - "Death by Theory", AltaMira Press (2000). ISBN 0-7425-0359-3 / 9780742503595

Archaeology 16

External links• Archaeology Daily News (http:/ / www. archaeologydaily. com/ )• 400,000 records of archaeological sites and architecture in England (http:/ / pastscape. org. uk/ )• NPS Archeology Program: Visit Archeology (Archeology travel guides) (http:/ / www. nps. gov/ history/

archeology/ visit/ index. htm)• Great Archaeology (http:/ / www. greatarchaeology. com/ )• Archaeological news updated daily (http:/ / www. archaeologynews. org/ )• Council for British Archaeology (http:/ / www. britarch. ac. uk/ )• Fasti Online - an online database of archaeological sites (http:/ / www. fastionline. org/ )• Kite Aerial Photographers - Archaeology (http:/ / www. armadale. org. uk/ kite03. htm)• The Archaeology Division of the American Anthropological Association (http:/ / www. aaanet. org/ )• The Archaeological Institute of America (http:/ / www. archaeological. org/ )• The Society for American Archaeology (http:/ / www. saa. org/ )• US Forest Service Volunteer program Passport in Time (http:/ / www. passportintime. com/ )• The World Archaeological Congress (http:/ / www. worldarchaeologicalcongress. org/ site/ about. php)• Archaeolog.org (http:/ / archaeolog. org/ )• The Archaeology Data Service - Open access online archive for UK and global archaeology (http:/ / ads. ahds. ac.

uk/ )• World Archaeology News - weekly update from BBC Radio archaeologist, Win Scutt (http:/ / www. archaeology.

ws/ worldarchnews. html)• The Canadian Museum of Civilization - Archaeology (http:/ / www. civilization. ca/ cmc/ exhibitions/

online-exhibitions/ archaeology)• Estudio de Museología Rosario (http:/ / web. archive. org/ web/ 20091024171735/ http:/ / geocities. com/

emuseoros)• Sri Lanka Archaeology - New Knowledge in Archaeology in Sri Lanka (http:/ / www. archaeology. lk/ )

Article Sources and Contributors 17

Article Sources and ContributorsArchaeology  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=418187471  Contributors: (, 0, 130.94.122.xxx, 1freethinker, 205.138.230.xxx, 209.240.222.xxx, 24.190.154.xxx,62.253.64.xxx, 64.12.102.xxx, 888 terrorist 888, A Macedonian, A bit iffy, A. Parrot, A8UDI, ABVR, ADS Archaeology, AEvo, AHands, AKADriver, ARUNKUMAR P.R, ASJ94, Aandjnmr,Abce2, Acather96, Accurizer, Acroterion, Adamsan, Adder1, AdjustShift, Aerographer1981, Aesopos, Aetheling, Aeusoes1, Ahoerstemeier, Aitias, Alanchen3311, Alanscottwalker, Alansohn,Aldie, Alex '05, Alexius08, All Is One, Altenmann, Amire80, Amoruso, Anarkisto, Andre Engels, Andrea20, Andrewm, Andris, Andromeda, Angela, AnnaFrance, Anonymous Dissident,Antandrus, AnthonyQBachler, Anthonycorns, Antonrojo, Antreid, Anu826, Anypodetos, Appleboy, Archaeologist44, Archaeology-excavations, Archivist, Arjayay, Arkalochori, Arpingstone,Artifact collector101010, Asbestos, Atif.t2, Atmoz, Auric, Avenged Eightfold, Awickert, BAJR, BD2412, BKalesti, Bachrach44, Bantman, Baronnet, Ben Bris, Benjamin Ducke, Bensin,Benskingtut, Bewareofdog, Bhteam, Billposer, Billwhittaker, Black85ball, Blastfromthepast, Blimpguy, BlueBird, Bluemask, Bobblewik, Bobo192, Bolivian Unicyclist, Bookandcoffee, Borislav,Bornhj, Bosea, Brandon1000000, Brian0918, BrianGV, Brion VIBBER, Bristol 06, Bruceanthro, Brunnock, CBAHeadofInfo, CJ, CJLL Wright, Callinthepope, Calmer Waters, Calor, Can't sleep,clown will eat me, CardinalDan, Causa sui, Cdc, Cenarium, Cff12345, Cgingold, ChargersFan, Charles Matthews, Chaser, Chcknwnm, Cheeseman Muncher, Chenyu, Chris Kutler, Chris4682,Chris9086, Chrislk02, Christian List, Civertan, Clappingsimon, Closedmouth, ClovisPt, Cmdrjameson, Coemgenus, Cohesion, Cometstyles, ComradeAF, Consultant09, Contrebast, Conversionscript, Copysan, Cornellrockey, Correogsk, Crazygraham, Crohnie, Crusadeonilliteracy, Cychuck123, Cynwolfe, D0762, DHBoggs, DVD R W, Dale.tersey, Dancter, Dangerousnerd, Daniel,Darth Panda, DarwinPeacock, Dawynn, Dcoetzee, Deb, Delictuscoeli, Delirium, DeltaQuad, DerHexer, Desdecado, Dethme0w, Deviator13, Deville, Discospinster, Dithy, Djsasso, Doc Tropics,Docu, Dogofthedesert, Donarreiskoffer, Dori, Dougweller, Dputig07, Drlinux, Drtimmcguinness, Dune Sherban, Dysprosia, Ebricca, Ec5618, Edgar181, Edward, Efficiencyjacky154, Efio, El C,Eliz81, Elrodriguez, Enigmaman, Enlil Ninlil, Epbr123, Epolk, Erebus555, Eric, Erik, Euchiasmus, Everyking, Evil Monkey, Extramural, Eyeintheskye, FDuffy, FF2010, Faradayplank,FelixtheBear, FellowWikipedian, Finell, Flamma, Flauto Dolce, Fleela, Flint McRae, Fluoronaut, Fred Bauder, Fredbauder, Freedom skies, Fullobeans, Fæ, Gaff, Gaius Cornelius, Galoubet,Gautier lebon, Geni, Geologyguy, Gfoley4, Gilliam, Glenn, Gobonobo, GraemeL, Graham87, Gregbard, Greyhood, Grigri, Grumpy444grumpy, Grutter, HADC10, Hagedis, Hairy Dude,HalfShadow, Hall Monitor, HammerHeadHuman, Harmil, Haroldbethwelsh, Harp, Harryboyles, Heebiejeebieclub, Heightwatcher, Heironymous Rowe, Hephaestos, Heron, Hertz1888, Hires aneditor, Hjarvis, Hmains, Hunstiger, Husond, Hyugopdrt, Iammargi, Iced Kola, Ik1tzo, Imran, Indon, Infrogmation, Inkburrow, InsaneRoot, Ipatrol, Iridescent, Irishguy, Iwnbap, J. Charles Taylor,J.delanoy, J04n, J19000, JJefferson, JMK, JYolkowski, Jacek Kendysz, Jackrace, Jagged 85, Jalalarbil, James kolkata, JamesAM, Jamestrial, Jascabaco, Jason Jones, Jauche vs. Mist,Jcornelison59, Jdforrester, Jeff G., Jennavecia, Jerzy, JesseW, Jiang, Jibbajabba, Jim.henderson, Jmc6977, Joey Roe, Jonemerson, Jose77, Joshua Scott, Jossi, Joyous!, Jpbowen, Js525712,Jumbuck, Jumping cheese, Jusdafax, Just plain Bill, Jvsastra, K, KKennedy87, Kafka Liz, Kdammers, Kellym133, Kevinalewis, Keyzi, Khoikhoi, Khukri, Kimchi.sg, Kiwi128, Klow, Kmendez,Kmweber, Knickerplum, KnightofNEE, Knowledge Seeker, Knowledgeoflondon, Koyaanis Qatsi, Kozuch, Kpalion, Kristen Eriksen, Kukini, Kylu, LA2, Landroo, Latics, Laurascudder, Lear'sFool, LeaveSleaves, Lee J Haywood, LeilaniLad, Lesgles, Leszek Jańczuk, Lexor, Liftarn, Lilac Soul, Ling.Nut, LinkTiger, Lithoderm, Liv, Livajo, Llywrch, Locketudor, Lola Voss, Lone Isle,Lord Hawk, Lorenzop, Lotje, Lucidish, Lucyin, Luharring, Luna Santin, M0laria, MOOMOOcoming2eatU, MPF, MacTire02, Mackstar1, Magnus Manske, Mahanga, Man from the Ministry,Man vyi, Mani1, MarSch, Maralia, Marek69, Margin1522, Martarius, Matthew Yeager, Mattisse, Mattski, Maurreen, Mav, Mayumashu, McGeddon, Mccajor, MeltBanana, Meowsaidthecow,Mereda, Metlin, Mets501, Michael Hardy, MichaelBillington, MichaelTinkler, Mididoctors, Midnightblueowl, Midnightcomm, Mikenorton, Misza13, Mitchbas, Mmounties, Mnemeson,Modulatum, Moonriddengirl, Mooretwin, Moreschi, Mormegil, Moulder, MrOllie, Mrund, Ms2ger, Muijz, Mukadderat, Mxmsj, Myanw, Mybvega, Mynameis123456789, MythMe23, N5iln,Namdurclark, Nantennis, Naohiro19, Nate1481, Nathancraig, NawlinWiki, NeilN, Netalarm, NeutralLang, Nev1, Neverquick, NewEnglandYankee, NewInn, NewbieDoo, Nikai, NikolaSmolenski, Nishkid64, Nk, NotAnonymous0, Notheruser, Npeters22, Ntsimp, Nubiatech, Numbo3, Oaxaca dan, Okapi, Okinawasan, Olcoffin, Old Moonraker, Olivier, Omicronpersei8,Onceonthisisland, Oroso, OscarKosy, P199, PaladinWhite, Paleodigitalist, Palica, Parkwells, Patellokesh, Paul A, Paul August, Paul Barlow, Paul Kingston, Penfold, PericlesofAthens, Periquedes Palottes, Pesco, Pharos, Philip Trueman, Phlebas, Pigman, Pinethicket, Pip2andahalf, Pjamescowie, Poetaris, Poolguy613, Ppntori, Pr772, Puchiko, Quadell, Quota, Qwertzy2, Qxz, RJaguar3,RachaelLibrarian, Rama, Rambam rashi, Rapanui40, Rattus, Raven in Orbit, Raven1977, Rcc105, Rcollman, Rdsmith4, Reach Out to the Truth, RedWolf, Reddi, Renvarian, RexNL, RichFarmbrough, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), RichiH, Rjm at sleepers, Rjoebrandon, Robert Skyhawk, Royalbroil, Royalguard11, Rror, S.Brady1982, S.dugan.iverson, Saambarrager, Sadads,Saha7, Sahands, Salsa Shark, Sammydizzle88, Sballais, SchfiftyThree, Schwarzbichler, Secretlondon, Seeker400, Selket, Setanta747, SgftdsA, Sgt Pinback, Shadowjams, Shadyjusty, Shanes,Shanghai2008, ShelfSkewed, Shoessss, Siim, Silsor, Simple Bob, Sjc, Skenmy, Skomorokh, Skyezx, Slrubenstein, Smack, Some jerk on the Internet, SpaceFlight89, Spellcast, Spencer, Spn0910,Srleffler, Sssy13, Staxringold, Steerpike, Stefeyboy, Stephen Compall, Steve Welton, Sujatha1174, Suncrush, Superbeecat, Swat dragon, Tainter, TakuyaMurata, Talmage, Tangent747,Tangerines, Tapatio, Techbo, The Anome, The Kinslayer, The Man in Question, The Random Editor, The Thing That Should Not Be, The Transhumanist, The Transhumanist (AWB), TheUngovernable Force, The Utahraptor, The Wordsmith, TheDJ, TheKMan, TheSuave, Thegreenj, TheoClarke, Theowilkins, Thingg, Thunderboltz, Tide rolls, Timwi, TobiMcIntyre, Tomisaac,Tony Sidaway, Tpbradbury, Tpkunesh, Traroth, Treva135, Trevor MacInnis, Tribune, Turlo Lomon, Tvoz, Twthmoses, Udimu, Unyoyega, Urk, User6854, UtherSRG, VI, Vallegrande, Vary,Vendettanine, Verticalsearch, Viktorlillsunde, Vitund, Vkvora2001, Vrenator, Vsmith, WBardwin, WJBscribe, Walkerma, Wangi, Wavelength, Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas, Werdna,Wereon, Wetman, Wiki Raja, Wimt, WittyMan1986, Wknight94, Woohookitty, Wtwhitehead, XJamRastafire, Yak, Yelgrun, Yes, I'm A Scientist, Zach, Zacherystaylor, Zigger, ZuytdorpSurvivor, Zzuuzz, Zzzzz, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, Þjóðólfr, రవిచంద్ర, 1206 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and ContributorsFile:Dolina-Pano-3.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dolina-Pano-3.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0  Contributors: User:Mario modestoFile:Taung child (Frankfurt am Main) 2.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Taung_child_(Frankfurt_am_Main)_2.jpg  License: GNU Free Documentation License Contributors: User:GerbilFile:Monte Albán archeological site, Oaxaca.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Monte_Albán_archeological_site,_Oaxaca.jpg  License: GNU Free DocumentationLicense  Contributors: Haylli, PMG, Petrusbarbygere, Ultratomio, 1 anonymous editsFile:Iowa archaeology edgewater.JPG  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Iowa_archaeology_edgewater.JPG  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors:Billwhittaker (talk). Original uploader was Billwhittaker at en.wikipediaFile:Vill excavation.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Vill_excavation.jpg  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: User:PrometeusFile:Sifting for POW remains, Wake Island.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sifting_for_POW_remains,_Wake_Island.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors:U.S. Air Force photo/Tech. Sgt. Shane A. CuomoFile:Beit shean1.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Beit_shean1.jpg  License: GNU Free Documentation License  Contributors: Beny Shlevich, Gveret Tered, 1anonymous editsFile:Looting rontoy2007.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Looting_rontoy2007.jpg  License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0  Contributors: NathancraigFile:Adad-Nirari stela.jpg  Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Adad-Nirari_stela.jpg  License: Public Domain  Contributors: Dbachmann, Jastrow, Mmcannis, Smerdis ofTlön, Sumerophile

LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unportedhttp:/ / creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-sa/ 3. 0/