Archaeology

Archaeology, or archeology,[1] is the study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. The
archaeological record consists of artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts and cultural landscapes. Archaeology can be
considered both a social science and a branch of the humanities.[2][3] In North America archaeology is a sub-field of
anthropology,[4] while in Europe it is often viewed as either a discipline in its own right or a sub-field of other disciplines.

Archaeologists study human prehistory and history, from the development of the first stone tools at Lomekwi in East Africa 3.3
million years ago up until recent decades.[5] Archaeology is distinct from palaeontology, which is the study of fossil remains. It is
particularly important for learning about prehistoric societies, for whom there may be no written records to study. Prehistory
includes over 99% of the human past, from the Paleolithic until the advent of literacy in societies across the world.[2]
Archaeology has various goals, which range from understanding culture history to reconstructing past lifeways to documenting
and explaining changes in human societies through time.[6]

The discipline involves surveying, excavation and eventually analysis of data collected to learn more about the past. In broad
scope, archaeology relies on cross-disciplinary research. It draws upon anthropology, history, art history, classics, ethnology,
geography, geology, literary history, linguistics, semiology, sociology, textual criticism, physics, information sciences, chemistry,
statistics, paleoecology, paleography, paleontology, paleozoology, and paleobotany.

Archaeology developed out of antiquarianism in Europe during the 19th century, and has since become a discipline practiced
across the world. Archaeology has been used by nation-states to create particular visions of the past.[7] Since its early
development, various specific sub-disciplines of archaeology have developed, including maritime archaeology, feminist
archaeology and archaeoastronomy, and numerous different scientific techniques have been developed to aid archaeological
investigation. Nonetheless, today, archaeologists face many problems, such as dealing with pseudoarchaeology, the looting of
artifacts,[8] a lack of public interest, and opposition to the excavation of human remains.

Contents
History
Antiquarians
First excavations
Development of archaeological method
Purpose
Theory
Methods
Remote sensing
Field survey
Excavation
Analysis
Computational and virtual archaeology
Drones
Academic sub-disciplines
Historical archaeology
Ethnoarchaeology
Experimental archaeology
 Archaeometry
Cultural resources management
Popular views of archaeology
Current issues and controversy
Public archaeology
Pseudoarchaeology
Looting
Descendant peoples
Repatriation

See also
References
Bibliography
Further reading
External links

History

Antiquarians
The science of archaeology (from Greek ἀρχαιολογία, archaiologia from ἀρχαῖος, arkhaios, "ancient" and -λογία, -logia, "-
logy")[9] grew out of the older multi-disciplinary study known as antiquarianism. Antiquarians studied history with particular
attention to ancient artifacts and manuscripts, as well as historical sites. Antiquarianism focused on the empirical evidence that
existed for the understanding of the past, encapsulated in the motto of the 18th-century antiquary, Sir Richard Colt Hoare, "We
speak from facts not theory". Tentative steps towards the systematization of archaeology as a science took place during the
Enlightenment era in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.[10]

In Europe, philosophical interest in the remains of Greco-Roman civilization and the rediscovery of classical culture began in the
late Middle Age. Flavio Biondo, an Italian Renaissance humanist historian, created a systematic guide to the ruins and
topography of ancient Rome in the early 15th century, for which he has been called an early founder of archaeology. Antiquarians
of the 16th century, including John Leland and William Camden, conducted surveys of the English countryside, drawing,
describing and interpreting the monuments that they encountered.

The OED first cites "archaeologist" from 1824; this soon took over as the usual term for one major branch of antiquarian activity.
"Archaeology", from 1607 onwards, initially meant what we would call "ancient history" generally, with the narrower modern
sense first seen in 1837.

First excavations
One of the first sites to undergo archaeological excavation was Stonehenge and other megalithic monuments in England. John
Aubrey (1626–1697) was a pioneer archaeologist who recorded numerous megalithic and other field monuments in southern
England. He was also ahead of his time in the analysis of his findings. He attempted to chart the chronological stylistic evolution
of handwriting, medieval architecture, costume, and shield-shapes.[11]

Excavations were also carried out by the Spanish military engineer Roque Joaquín de Alcubierre in the ancient towns of Pompeii
and Herculaneum, both of which had been covered by ash during the Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79. These excavations
began in 1748 in Pompeii, while in Herculaneum they began in 1738. The discovery of entire towns, complete with utensils and
even human shapes, as well the unearthing of frescos, had a big impact throughout Europe.
 However, prior to the development of modern techniques, excavations
tended to be haphazard; the importance of concepts such as stratification
and context were overlooked.[12]

Development of archaeological method

An early photograph of Stonehenge taken

July 1877

The father of archaeological excavation was William Cunnington (1754–1810). He

undertook excavations in Wiltshire from around 1798,[13] funded by Sir Richard
Colt Hoare. Cunnington made meticulous recordings of Neolithic and Bronze Age
barrows, and the terms he used to categorize and describe them are still used by
archaeologists today.[14]
Artifacts discovered at the 1808
One of the major achievements of 19th-century archaeology was the development of Bush Barrow excavation by Sir
stratigraphy. The idea of overlapping strata tracing back to successive periods was Richard Colt Hoare and William
borrowed from the new geological and paleontological work of scholars like Cunnington.
William Smith, James Hutton and Charles Lyell. The application of stratigraphy to
archaeology first took place with the excavations of prehistorical and Bronze Age
sites. In the third and fourth decades of the 19th-century, archaeologists like Jacques Boucher de Perthes and Christian Jürgensen
Thomsen began to put the artifacts they had found in chronological order.

A major figure in the development of archaeology into a rigorous science was the army officer and ethnologist, Augustus Pitt
Rivers,[15] who began excavations on his land in England in the 1880s. His approach was highly methodical by the standards of
the time, and he is widely regarded as the first scientific archaeologist. He arranged his artifacts by type or "typologically, and
within types by date or "chronologically". This style of arrangement, designed to highlight the evolutionary trends in human
artifacts, was of enormous significance for the accurate dating of the objects. His most important methodological innovation was
his insistence that all artifacts, not just beautiful or unique ones, be collected and catalogued.[16]

William Flinders Petrie is another man who may legitimately be called the Father of Archaeology. His painstaking recording and
study of artifacts, both in Egypt and later in Palestine, laid down many of the ideas behind modern archaeological recording; he
remarked that "I believe the true line of research lies in the noting and comparison of the smallest details." Petrie developed the
system of dating layers based on pottery and ceramic findings, which revolutionized the chronological basis of Egyptology. Petrie
was the first to scientifically investigate the Great Pyramid in Egypt during the 1880s.[17] He was also responsible for mentoring
and training a whole generation of Egyptologists, including Howard Carter who went on to achieve fame with the discovery of
the tomb of 14th-century BC pharaoh Tutankhamun.

The first stratigraphic excavation to reach wide popularity with public was that of Hissarlik, on the site of ancient Troy, carried
out by Heinrich Schliemann, Frank Calvert and Wilhelm Dörpfeld in the 1870s. These scholars individuated nine different cities
that had overlapped with one another, from prehistory to the Hellenistic period.[18] Meanwhile, the work of Sir Arthur Evans at
Knossos in Crete revealed the ancient existence of an equally advanced Minoan civilization.[19]

The next major figure in the development of archaeology was Sir Mortimer Wheeler, whose highly disciplined approach to
excavation and systematic coverage in the 1920s and 1930s brought the science on swiftly. Wheeler developed the grid system of
excavation, which was further improved by his student Kathleen Kenyon.
 Archaeology became a professional activity in the first half of the 20th century,
and it became possible to study archaeology as a subject in universities and even
schools. By the end of the 20th century nearly all professional archaeologists, at
least in developed countries, were graduates. Further adaptation and innovation
in archaeology continued in this period, when maritime archaeology and urban
archaeology became more prevalent and rescue archaeology was developed as a
result of increasing commercial development.[20]

Mortimer Wheeler pioneered

Purpose
systematic excavation in the early The purpose of archaeology is
20th century. Pictured, are his
to learn more about past
excavations at Maiden Castle,
Dorset, in October 1937. societies and the development
of the human race. Over 99% of
the development of humanity
has occurred within prehistoric cultures, who did not make use of writing,
thereby no written records exist for study purposes. Without such written
sources, the only way to understand prehistoric societies is through archaeology.
Because archaeology is the study of past human activity, it stretches back to
about 2.5 million years ago when we find the first stone tools – The Oldowan
Cast of the skull of the Taung child,
Industry. Many important developments in human history occurred during uncovered in South Africa. The Child
prehistory, such as the evolution of humanity during the Paleolithic period, when was an infant of the Australopithecus
the hominins developed from the australopithecines in Africa and eventually into africanus species, an early form of
modern Homo sapiens. Archaeology also sheds light on many of humanity's hominin
technological advances, for instance the ability to use fire, the development of
stone tools, the discovery of metallurgy, the beginnings of religion and the
creation of agriculture. Without archaeology, we would know little or nothing about the use of material culture by humanity that
pre-dates writing.[21]

However, it is not only prehistoric, pre-literate cultures that can be studied using archaeology but historic, literate cultures as well,
through the sub-discipline of historical archaeology. For many literate cultures, such as Ancient Greece and Mesopotamia, their
surviving records are often incomplete and biased to some extent. In many societies, literacy was restricted to the elite classes,
such as the clergy or the bureaucracy of court or temple. The literacy even of aristocrats has sometimes been restricted to deeds
and contracts. The interests and world-view of elites are often quite different from the lives and interests of the populace.
Writings that were produced by people more representative of the general population were unlikely to find their way into libraries
and be preserved there for posterity. Thus, written records tend to reflect the biases, assumptions, cultural values and possibly
deceptions of a limited range of individuals, usually a small fraction of the larger population. Hence, written records cannot be
trusted as a sole source. The material record may be closer to a fair representation of society, though it is subject to its own biases,
such as sampling bias and differential preservation.[22]

Often, archaeology provides the only means to learn of the existence and behaviors of people of the past. Across the millennia
many thousands of cultures and societies and billions of people have come and gone of which there is little or no written record or
existing records are misrepresentative or incomplete. Writing as it is known today did not exist in human civilization until the 4th
millennium BC, in a relatively small number of technologically advanced civilizations. In contrast, Homo sapiens has existed for
at least 200,000 years, and other species of Homo for millions of years (see Human evolution). These civilizations are, not
coincidentally, the best-known; they are open to the inquiry of historians for centuries, while the study of pre-historic cultures has
arisen only recently. Even within a literate civilization many events and important human practices are not officially recorded.
Any knowledge of the early years of human civilization – the development of agriculture, cult practices of folk religion, the rise
of the first cities – must come from archaeology.

In addition to their scientific importance, archaeological remains sometimes have political or cultural significance to descendants
of the people who produced them, monetary value to collectors, or simply strong aesthetic appeal. Many people identify
archaeology with the recovery of such aesthetic, religious, political, or economic treasures rather than with the reconstruction of
past societies.

This view is often espoused in works of popular fiction, such as Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Mummy, and King Solomon's
Mines. When such unrealistic subjects are treated more seriously, accusations of pseudoscience are invariably levelled at their
proponents (see Pseudoarchaeology). However, these endeavours, real and fictional, are not representative of modern
archaeology.

Theory
There is no one approach to archaeological theory that has been adhered to by all
archaeologists. When archaeology developed in the late 19th century, the first
approach to archaeological theory to be practiced was that of cultural-history
archaeology, which held the goal of explaining why cultures changed and adapted
rather than just highlighting the fact that they did, therefore emphasizing historical
particularism.[23] In the early 20th century, many archaeologists who studied past
societies with direct continuing links to existing ones (such as those of Native
Americans, Siberians, Mesoamericans etc.) followed the direct historical approach,
Sign at Lubbock Lake Landmark
compared the continuity between the past and contemporary ethnic and cultural
in Lubbock, Texas
groups.[23] In the 1960s, an archaeological movement largely led by American
archaeologists like Lewis Binford and Kent Flannery arose that rebelled against the
established cultural-history archaeology.[24][25] 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 as processual
archaeology.[23]

In the 1980s, a new postmodern movement arose led by the British archaeologists Michael Shanks,[26][27][28][29] Christopher
Tilley,[30] Daniel Miller,[31][32] and Ian Hodder,[33][34][35][36][37][38] which has become known as post-processual archaeology.
It questioned processualism's appeals to scientific positivism and impartiality, and emphasized 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 under debate. Meanwhile, another theory, known as historical
processualism has emerged seeking to incorporate a focus on process and post-processual archaeology's emphasis of reflexivity
and history.[39]

Archaeological theory now borrows from a wide range of influences, including neo-evolutionary thought,[40][35]
phenomenology, postmodernism, agency theory, cognitive science, structural functionalism, gender-based and feminist
archaeology, and systems theory.

Methods
An archaeological investigation usually involves several distinct phases, each of which employs its own variety of methods.
Before any practical work can begin, however, a clear objective as to what the archaeologists are looking to achieve must be
agreed upon. This done, a site is surveyed to find out as much as possible about it and the surrounding area. Second, an
excavation may take place to uncover any archaeological features buried under the ground. And, third, the data collected from the
excavation is studied and evaluated in an attempt to achieve the original research
objectives of the archaeologists. It is then considered good practice for the
information to be published so that it is available to other archaeologists and
historians, although this is sometimes neglected.[41]

Remote sensing
Play media
Before actually starting to dig in a location, remote sensing can be used to look
Video showing the different works in
where sites are located within a large area or provide more information about an archaeological recovery and
sites or regions. There are two types of remote sensing instruments—passive and analysis
active. Passive instruments detect natural energy that is reflected or emitted from
the observed scene. Passive instruments sense only radiation emitted by the
object being viewed or reflected by the object from a source other than the instrument. Active instruments emit energy and record
what is reflected. Satellite imagery is an example of passive remote sensing. Here are two active remote sensing instruments:

Lidar (Light Detection and Ranging) A lidar uses a laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) to transmit a
light pulse and a receiver with sensitive detectors to measure the backscattered or reflected light. Distance to the object is
determined by recording the time between the transmitted and backscattered pulses and using the speed of light to calculate the
distance travelled. Lidars can determine atmospheric profiles of aerosols, clouds, and other constituents of the atmosphere.

Laser altimeter A laser altimeter uses a lidar (see above) to measure the height of the instrument platform above the surface. By
independently knowing the height of the platform with respect to the mean Earth's surface, the topography of the underlying
surface can be determined. [42]

Field survey
The archaeological project then continues (or alternatively, begins) with a field
survey. Regional survey is the attempt to systematically locate previously
unknown sites in a region. Site survey is the attempt to systematically locate
features of interest, such as houses and middens, within a site. Each of these two
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 with discovering the
locations of monumental sites from the local populace, and excavating only the
Monte Alban archaeological site
plainly visible features there. Gordon Willey pioneered the technique of regional
settlement pattern survey in 1949 in the Viru Valley of coastal Peru,[43][44] and
survey of all levels became prominent with the rise of processual archaeology some years later.[45]

Survey work has many benefits if performed as a preliminary exercise to, or even in place of, excavation. It requires relatively
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 sampling methods.)[46] As with other forms of
non-destructive archaeology, survey avoids ethical issues (of particular concern to descendant peoples) associated with destroying
a site through excavation. It is the only way to gather some forms of 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 the use of
mechanized transport, to search for features or artifacts visible on the surface. Surface survey cannot detect sites or features that
are completely buried under earth, or overgrown with vegetation. Surface survey may also include mini-excavation techniques
such as augers, corers, and shovel test pits. If no materials are found, the area
surveyed is deemed sterile.

Aerial survey is conducted using cameras attached to airplanes, balloons, UAVs,

or even Kites.[47] 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 maturation, have revealed buried structures with great
precision. Aerial photographs taken at different times of day will help show the
Inverted kite aerial photo of an
outlines of structures by changes in shadows. Aerial survey also employs
excavation of a Roman building at
ultraviolet, infrared, ground-penetrating radar wavelengths, LiDAR and Nesley near Tetbury in
thermography.[48] Gloucestershire.

Geophysical survey can be the most effective way to see beneath the ground.
Magnetometers detect minute deviations in the Earth's magnetic field caused by iron artifacts, kilns, some types of stone
structures, and even ditches and middens. Devices that measure the electrical resistivity of the soil are also widely used.
Archaeological features whose electrical resistivity contrasts with that of surrounding soils can be detected and mapped. Some
archaeological features (such as those composed of stone or brick) have higher resistivity than typical soils, while others (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 deem them an
effective tool in archaeological surveying.[49] Examples of formal archaeological use of metal detectors include musketball
distribution analysis on English Civil War battlefields, metal distribution analysis prior to excavation of a 19th-century ship
wreck, and service cable location during evaluation. Metal detectorists have also contributed to archaeology where they have
made detailed records of their results and refrained from raising artifacts from their archaeological context. In the UK, metal
detectorists have been solicited for involvement in the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

Regional survey in underwater archaeology uses geophysical or remote sensing devices such as marine magnetometer, side-scan
sonar, or sub-bottom sonar.[50]

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

Modern excavation techniques require that the precise locations of objects and
features, known as their provenance or provenience, be recorded. This always
involves determining their horizontal locations, and sometimes vertical position
Excavations at the 3800-year-old
as well (also see Primary Laws of Archaeology). Likewise, their association, or
Edgewater Park Site, Iowa
relationship with nearby objects and features, needs to be recorded for later
analysis. This allows the archaeologist to deduce which artifacts and features
were likely used together and which may be from different phases of activity. For
example, excavation of a site reveals its stratigraphy; if a site was occupied by a
succession 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, it carries ethical concerns. As a result, very few sites are
excavated in their entirety. Again the percentage of a site excavated depends greatly on the
country and "method statement" issued. Sampling is even more important in excavation
than in survey. Sometimes large mechanical equipment, such as backhoes (JCBs), is used
in excavation, especially to remove the topsoil (overburden), though this method is
increasingly used with great caution. Following this rather dramatic step, the exposed area
is usually hand-cleaned with trowels or hoes to ensure that all features are apparent. Archaeological excavation
that discovered prehistoric
The next task is to form a site plan and then use it to help decide the method of caves in Vill (Innsbruck),
excavation. Features dug into the natural subsoil are normally excavated in portions to Austria
produce a visible archaeological section for recording. A feature, for example a pit or a
ditch, consists of two parts: the cut and the fill. The cut describes the edge of the
feature, where the feature meets the natural soil. It is the feature's boundary. The
fill is what the feature is filled with, and will often appear quite distinct from the
natural soil. The cut and fill are given consecutive numbers for recording
purposes. Scaled plans and sections of individual features are all drawn on site,
black and white and colour photographs of them are taken, and recording sheets
are filled in describing the context of each. All this information serves as a
permanent record of the now-destroyed archaeology and is used in describing
and interpreting the site. An archaeologist sifting for POW
remains on Wake Island.

Analysis
Once artifacts and structures have been excavated, or collected from surface surveys, it is necessary to properly study them. This
process is known as post-excavation analysis, and is usually the most time-consuming part of an archaeological investigation. It is
not uncommon for final excavation reports for major sites to take years to be published.

At a basic level of analysis, artifacts found are cleaned, catalogued and compared to published collections. This comparison
process often involves classifying them typologically and identifying other sites with similar artifact assemblages. However, a
much more comprehensive range of analytical techniques are available through archaeological science, meaning that artifacts can
be dated and their compositions examined. Bones, plants, and pollen collected from a site can all be analyzed using the methods
of zooarchaeology, paleoethnobotany, palynology and stable isotopes[51] while any texts can usually be deciphered.

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

Computational and virtual archaeology

Computer graphics are now used to build virtual 3D models of sites, such as the throne room of an Assyrian palace or ancient
Rome.[52] Photogrammetry is also used as an analytical tool, and digital topographical models have been combined with
astronomical calculations to verify whether or not certain structures (such as pillars) were aligned with astronomical events such
as the sun's position at a solstice.[52] Agent-based modeling and simulation can be used to better understand past social dynamics
and outcomes. Data mining can be applied to large bodies of archaeological 'grey literature'.
Drones
Archaeologists around the world use drones to speed up survey work and protect sites from squatters, builders and miners. In
Peru, small drones helped researchers produce three-dimensional models of Peruvian sites instead of the usual flat maps – and in
days and weeks instead of months and years.[53]

Drones costing as little as £650 have proven useful. In 2013, drones have flown over at least six Peruvian archaeological sites,
including the colonial Andean town Machu Llacta 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) above sea level. The drones continue to have altitude
problems in the Andes, leading to plans to make a drone blimp, employing open source software.[53]

Jeffrey Quilter, an archaeologist with Harvard University said, "You can go up three metres and photograph a room, 300 metres
and photograph a site, or you can go up 3,000 metres and photograph the entire valley."[53]

In September 2014 drones weighing about 5 kg (11 lb) were used for 3D mapping of the above-ground ruins of the Greek city of
Aphrodisias. The data is being analysed by the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Vienna.[54]

Academic sub-disciplines
As with most academic disciplines, there are a very large number of archaeological sub-disciplines characterized by a specific
method or type of material (e.g., lithic analysis, music, archaeobotany), geographical or chronological focus (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 or civilization (e.g. Egyptology, Indology,
Sinology).[55]

Historical archaeology
Historical archaeology is the study of cultures with some form of writing.

In England, archaeologists have uncovered layouts of 14th century medieval villages, abandoned after crises such as the Black
Death.[56] In downtown New York City, archaeologists have exhumed the 18th century remains of the African Burial Ground.
When remnants of the WWII Siegfried Line were being destroyed, emergency archaeological digs took place whenever any part
of the line was removed, to further scientific knowledge and reveal details of the line's construction.

Ethnoarchaeology
Ethnoarchaeology is the ethnographic study of living people, designed to aid in our interpretation of the archaeological
record.[57][58][59][60][61][62] The approach first gained prominence during the processual movement of the 1960s, and continues
to be a vibrant component of post-processual and other current archaeological approaches.[40][63][64][65][66] Early
ethnoarchaeological research focused on hunter-gatherer or foraging societies; today ethnoarchaeological research encompasses a
much wider range of human behaviour.

Experimental archaeology
Experimental archaeology represents the application of the experimental method to develop more highly controlled observations
of processes that create and impact the archaeological record.[67][68][69][70][71] In the context of the logical positivism of
processualism with its goals of improving the scientific rigor of archaeological epistemologies the experimental method gained
importance. Experimental techniques remain a crucial component to improving the inferential frameworks for interpreting the
archaeological record.
Archaeometry
Archaeometry aims to systematize archaeological measurement. It emphasizes the application of analytical techniques from
physics, chemistry, and engineering. It is a field of research that frequently focuses on the definition of the chemical composition
of archaeological remains for source analysis.[72] Archaeometry also investigates different spatial characteristics of features,
employing methods such as space syntax techniques and geodesy as well as computer-based tools such as geographic information
system technology.[73] Rare earth elements patterns may also be used.[74] A relatively nascent subfield is that of archaeological
materials, designed to enhance understanding of prehistoric and non-industrial culture through scientific analysis of the structure
and properties of materials associated with human activity.[75]

Cultural resources management

Archaeology can be a subsidiary activity within Cultural resources management (CRM), also called Cultural heritage
management (CHM) in the United Kingdom.[76] CRM archaeologists frequently examine archaeological sites that are threatened
by development. 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 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 involving federal 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, PPG 16[77] has
required planners to consider archaeology as a material consideration in determining applications for new development. As a
result, numerous archaeological organizations undertake mitigation work in advance of (or during) 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, Media and
Sport[78] in association with English Heritage.[79] In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the same responsibilities lie with
Historic Scotland,[80] Cadw[81] and the Northern Ireland Environment Agency[82] respectively.

In France, the Institut national du patrimoine (The National Institute of Cultural Heritage) trains curators specialized in
archaeology. Their mission is to enhance the objects discovered. The curator is the link between scientific knowledge,
administrative regulations, heritage objects and the public.

Among the goals of CRM are the identification, preservation, and maintenance of cultural sites on public and private lands, and
the removal of culturally valuable materials from areas where they would otherwise be destroyed by human activity, such as
proposed construction. This study involves at least a cursory examination to determine whether or not any significant
archaeological sites are present in the area affected by the proposed construction. If these do exist, time and money must be
allotted for their excavation. If initial survey and/or test excavations indicate the presence of an extraordinarily valuable site, the
construction may be prohibited entirely.

Cultural resources management has, however, been criticized. CRM is conducted by private companies that bid for projects by
submitting proposals outlining the work to be done and an expected budget. It is not unheard-of for the agency responsible for the
construction to simply choose the proposal that asks for the least funding. CRM archaeologists face considerable time pressure,
often being forced to complete their work in a fraction of the time that might be allotted for a purely scholarly endeavour.
Compounding the time pressure is the vetting process of site reports that are required (in the US) to be submitted by CRM firms
to the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). From the SHPO's perspective there is to be no difference between a
report submitted by a CRM firm operating under a deadline, and a multi-year academic project. The end result is that for a
Cultural Resource Management archaeologist to be successful, they must be able to produce academic quality documents at a
corporate world pace.
The annual ratio of open academic archaeology positions (inclusive of post-doc, temporary, and non- tenure track appointments)
to the annual number of archaeology MA/MSc and PhD students is disproportionate. Cultural Resource Management, once
considered an intellectual backwater for individuals with "strong backs and weak minds,"[83] has attracted these graduates, and
CRM offices are thus increasingly staffed by advance degreed individuals with a track record of producing scholarly articles but
who also have extensive CRM field experience.

Popular views of archaeology

Early archaeology was largely an attempt to uncover spectacular artifacts and
features, or to explore vast and mysterious abandoned cities and was mostly
done by upper class, scholarly men. This general tendency laid the foundation
for the modern popular view of archaeology and archaeologists. Many of the
public view archaeology as something only available to a narrow demographic.
The job of archaeologist is depicted as a "romantic adventurist occupation".[84]
and as a hobby more than a job in the scientific community. Cinema audiences
form a notion of "who archaeologists are, why they do what they do, and how Extensive excavations at Beit
relationships to the past are constituted",[84] and is often under the impression She'an, Israel
that all archaeology takes place in a distant and foreign land, only to collect
monetarily or spiritually priceless artifacts. The modern depiction of archaeology
has incorrectly formed the public's perception of what archaeology is.

Much thorough and productive research has indeed been conducted in dramatic
locales such as Copán and the Valley of the Kings, but the bulk of activities and
finds of modern archaeology are not so sensational. Archaeological adventure
stories tend to ignore the painstaking work involved in carrying out modern
surveys, excavations, and data processing. Some archaeologists refer to such off-
the-mark portrayals as "pseudoarchaeology".[85] Archaeologists are also very
much reliant on public support; the question of exactly who they are doing their Permanent exhibition in a German
work for is often discussed.[86] multi-storey car park, explaining the
archaeological discoveries made
during the construction of this
Current issues and controversy building

Public archaeology
Motivated by a desire to halt looting, curb pseudoarchaeology, and to help preserve archaeological sites through education and
fostering public appreciation for the importance of archaeological heritage, archaeologists are mounting public-outreach
campaigns.[87] They seek to stop looting by combatting people who illegally take artifacts from protected sites, and by alerting
people who live near archaeological sites of the threat of looting. Common methods of public outreach include press releases, and
the encouragement of school field trips to sites under excavation by professional archaeologists. Public appreciation of the
significance of archaeology and archaeological sites 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 benefit non-academic and non-
archaeological audiences, and that they have a responsibility to educate and inform the public about archaeology. Local heritage
awareness is aimed at increasing civic and individual pride through projects such as community excavation projects, and better
public presentations of archaeological sites and knowledge. The U.S.Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) operates a
volunteer archaeology and historic preservation program called the Passport in Time
(PIT). Volunteers work with professional USFS archaeologists and historians on national
forests throughout the U.S. Volunteers are involved in all aspects of professional
archaeology under expert supervision.[88]

Television programs, web videos and social media can also bring an understanding of
underwater archaeology to a broad audience. The Mardi Gras Shipwreck Project[89]
integrated a one-hour HD documentary,[90] short videos for public viewing and video
updates during the expedition as part of the educational outreach. Webcasting is also
another tool for educational outreach. For one week in 2000 and 2001, live underwater
video of the Queen Anne's Revenge Shipwreck Project was webcast to the Internet as a
part of the QAR DiveLive[91] educational program that reached thousands of children
around the world.[92] Created and co-produced by Nautilus Productions and Marine
Grafics, this project enabled students to talk to scientists and learn about methods and
technologies utilized by the underwater archaeology team.[93][94]
Excavations at the site of
In the UK, popular archaeology programs such as Time Team and Meet the Ancestors have Gran Dolina, in the
resulted in a huge upsurge in public interest. Where possible, archaeologists now make Atapuerca Mountains,
more provisions for public involvement and outreach in larger projects than they once did, Spain, 2008
and many local archaeological organizations operate within the Community 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 on a modern building site
with tight deadlines. Certain charities and local government bodies sometimes offer places on research projects either as part of
academic work or as a defined community project. There is also a flourishing industry 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 one reason why
Community archaeology projects are starting to become more common. Often archaeologists are assisted by the public in the
locating of archaeological sites, which professional archaeologists have neither the funding, nor the time to do.

Archaeological Legacy Institute (ALI), is a registered 501[c] [3] non-profit, media and education corporation registered in
Oregon in 1999. ALI founded a website, The Archaeology Channel (http://archaeologychannel.org/) to support the organization's
mission "to nurturing and bringing attention to the human cultural heritage, by using media in the most efficient and effective
ways possible."[95]

Pseudoarchaeology
Pseudoarchaeology is an umbrella term for all activities that falsely claim to be archaeological but in fact violate commonly
accepted and scientific archaeological practices. It includes much fictional archaeological work (discussed above), as well as
some actual activity. Many non-fiction authors have ignored the scientific methods of processual archaeology, 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 with many
subsequent lesser-known works, expounds a theory of ancient contacts between human civilization on Earth and more
technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations. This theory, known as palaeocontact theory, or Ancient astronaut theory, is
not exclusively Däniken's, nor did the idea originate with him. Works of this nature are usually marked by the renunciation of
well-established theories on the basis of limited evidence, and the interpretation of evidence with a preconceived theory in mind.
Looting
Looting of archaeological sites is an ancient problem. For instance, many of the
tombs of the Egyptian pharaohs were looted during antiquity.[96] Archaeology
stimulates interest in ancient objects, and people in search of artifacts or treasure
cause damage to archaeological sites. The commercial and academic demand for
artifacts unfortunately contributes directly to the illicit antiquities trade.
Smuggling of antiquities abroad to private collectors has caused great cultural
and economic damage in many countries whose governments lack the resources
and or the will to deter it. Looters damage and destroy archaeological sites,
denying future generations information about their ethnic and cultural heritage.
Indigenous peoples especially lose access to and control over their 'cultural A looter's pit on the morning following
its excavation, taken at Rontoy,
resources', ultimately denying them the opportunity to know their past.[97]
Huaura Valley, Peru in June 2007.
In 1937, W. F. Hodge the Director of the Southwest Museum released a Several small holes left by looters'
prospecting probes can be seen, as
statement that the museum would no longer purchase or accept collections from
well as their footprints.
looted contexts.[98] The first conviction of the transport of artifacts illegally
removed from private property under the Archaeological Resources Protection
Act (ARPA; Public Law 96-95; 93 Statute 721; (http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FH
PL_ArchRsrcsProt.pdf) 16 U.S.C. § 470aamm (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1
6/470aamm)) was in 1992 in the State of Indiana.[99]

Archaeologists trying to protect artifacts may be placed in danger by looters or locals

trying to protect the artifacts from archaeologists who are viewed as looters by the
locals.[100]

Descendant peoples
In the United States, examples such as the case of Kennewick Man have illustrated the
tensions between Native Americans and archaeologists, which can be summarized as a
conflict between a need to remain respectful toward sacred burial sites and the academic
benefit from studying them. For years, American archaeologists dug on Indian burial
grounds and other places considered sacred, removing artifacts and human remains to
storage facilities for further study. In some cases human remains were not even thoroughly
studied but instead archived rather than reburied. Furthermore, Western archaeologists' Stela of a king named Adad-
Nirari. Object stolen from the
views of the past often differ from those of tribal peoples. The West views time as linear;
Iraq National Museum in the
for many natives, it is cyclic. From a Western perspective, the past is long-gone; from a looting in connection with
native perspective, disturbing the past can have dire consequences in the present. the Iraq War of 2003.

As a consequence of this, American Indians attempted to prevent archaeological

excavation of sites inhabited by their ancestors, while American archaeologists believed that the advancement of scientific
knowledge was a valid reason to continue their studies. This contradictory situation was addressed by the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 1990), which sought to reach a compromise by limiting the right of research
institutions to possess human remains. Due in part to the spirit of postprocessualism, some archaeologists have 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 native peoples
believe to constitute sacred space. To many native peoples, natural features such as lakes, mountains or even individual trees have
cultural significance. Australian archaeologists especially have explored this issue and attempted to survey these sites to give
them some protection from being developed. Such work requires close 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 parties involved. Tribal
elders cooperating with archaeologists can prevent the excavation of areas of sites that they consider sacred, while the
archaeologists gain the elders' aid in interpreting their finds. There have also been active efforts to recruit 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 native artifacts to the
original descendants. An example of this occurred on 21 June 2005, when community members and elders from a number of the
10 Algonquian nations in the Ottawa area convened on the Kitigan Zibi reservation near Maniwaki, Quebec, to inter ancestral
human remains and burial goods—some dating back 6,000 years. It was not determined, however, if the remains were directly
related to the Algonquin people who now inhabit the region. The remains may be of Iroquoian ancestry, since Iroquoian people
inhabited the area before the Algonquin. Moreover, the oldest of these remains might have no relation at all to the Algonquin or
Iroquois, and belong to an earlier culture who previously inhabited the area.

The remains and artifacts, including jewelry, tools and weapons, were originally excavated from various sites in the Ottawa
Valley, including Morrison and the Allumette Islands. They had been part of the Canadian Museum of Civilization's research
collection for decades, some since the late 19th century. Elders from various Algonquin communities conferred on an appropriate
reburial, eventually deciding on traditional redcedar and birchbark boxes lined with redcedar chips, muskrat and beaver pelts.

An inconspicuous rock mound marks the reburial site where close to 80 boxes of various sizes are buried. Because of this
reburial, no further scientific study is possible. Although negotiations were at times tense between the Kitigan Zibi community
and museum, they were able to reach agreement.[101]

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

See also
Anthropology – The science of human behavior and societies
Archaeobiology
Archaeogenetics – Application of the techniques of molecular population genetics to the study of the human past
Archaeology of religion and ritual
Area of archaeological potential
Chronological dating
Classical archaeology – Sub-discipline of archeology
Dump digging
GIS in archaeology – Aspect of GIS usage
Harris matrix – Method in archaeology
Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage project
Palaeoanthropology – Study of ancient humans
Lists

List of archaeological periods – Wikimedia list article

List of archaeological sites by country – Wikimedia list article
List of archaeologists
List of paleoethnobotanists
References
1. Little, Barbara J. (2006), "Why are there two different spellings: archaeology and archeology?" (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20091205105622/http://www.saa.org/ForthePublic/Resources/OtherUsefulResources/Whyaretheretwo
differentspellingsarchaeology/tabid/1078/Default.aspx), Society for American Archaeology
2. Renfrew and Bahn (2004 [1991]:13)
3. Sinclair A (2016), "The Intellectual Base of Archaeological Research 2004–2013: a visualisation and analysis of
its disciplinary links, networks of authors and conceptual language", Internet Archaeology (42),
doi:10.11141/ia.42.8 (https://doi.org/10.11141%2Fia.42.8)
4. Haviland et al. 2010, p. 7,14
5. Roche, Hélène; Kent, Dennis V.; Kirwa, Christopher; Lokorodi, Sammy; Wright, James D.; Mortlock, Richard A.;
Leakey, Louise; Brugal, Jean-Philip; Daver, Guillaume (May 2015). "3.3-million-year-old stone tools from
Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya". Nature. 521 (7552): 310–315. doi:10.1038/nature14464 (https://doi.org/10.10
38%2Fnature14464). ISSN 1476-4687 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1476-4687).
6. "What Is Archaeology? | Archaeology Definition" (https://www.livescience.com/44448-what-is-archaeology.html),
Live Science, retrieved 25 August 2017
7. Christina Bueno, The Pursuit of Ruins: Archeology, History, and the Making of Modern Mexico. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press 2016.
8. Markin, Pablo (10 April 2017), "A Special Issue of Open Archaeology on Non-Professional Metal-Detecting" (htt
p://openscience.com/a-special-issue-of-open-archaeology-on-non-professional-metal-detecting/), OpenScience,
retrieved 11 April 2017
9. "archaeology" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=archaeology), Online Etymology Dictionary
10. Hirst, K. Kris (9 February 2017), "The History of Archaeology: How Ancient Relic Hunting Became Science" (htt
p://archaeology.about.com/od/historyofarchaeology/a/history_series.htm), ThoughtCo, retrieved 8 April 2018
11. Hunter, Michael (1975), John Aubrey and the Realm of Learning (https://archive.org/details/johnaubreyrealmo000
0hunt/page/156), London: Duckworth, pp. 156–57, 162–66, 181 (https://archive.org/details/johnaubreyrealmo000
0hunt/page/156), ISBN 978-0-7156-0818-0
12. Dorothy King, The Elgin Marbles (Hutchinson, January 2006)
13. Everill, P. 2010. The Parkers of Heytesbury: Archaeological pioneers. Antiquaries Journal 90: 441–53
14. Everill, P. 2009. Invisible Pioneers. British Archaeology 108: 40–43
15. Bowden, Mark (1984) General Pitt Rivers: The father of scientific archaeology. Salisbury and South Wiltshire
Museum. ISBN 0-947535-00-4.
16. Hicks, Dan (2013), "Characterizing the World Archaeology Collections of the Pitt Rivers Museum" (http://archaeo
press.com/ArchaeopressShop/Public/download.asp?id=%7B64476CB8-7963-40E1-B225-F54DA37A2F9A%7D),
in Hicks, Dan; Stevenson, Alice (eds.), World Archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum: a characterization, Oxford:
Archaeopress, ISBN 978-1-905739-58-5
17. Sir William Flinders Petrie (http://www.pef.org.uk/profiles/sir-william-flinders-petrie-1853-1942), Palestine
Exploration Fund, 2000, retrieved 19 November 2007
18. Harl, Kenneth W., Great Ancient Civilizations of Asia Minor (http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_
detail.aspx?cid=363), retrieved 23 November 2012
19. MacGillivray, Joseph Alexander (2000), Minotaur: Sir Arthur Evans and the Archaeology of the Minoan Myth,
New York: Hill and Wang (Farrar, Straus and Giroux)
20. Renfrew and Bahn (2004 [1991]:33–35)
21. Kevin Greene – Archaeology: an Introduction (http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/kevin.greene/wintro), Staff.ncl.ac.uk,
retrieved 12 August 2010
22. Schiffer M. B. (1972), "Archaeological Context and Systemic Context", American Antiquity, 37 (2): 156–65,
doi:10.2307/278203 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F278203), JSTOR 278203 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/278203)
23. Trigger (1989)
24. Binford (1962)
25. Flannery (1967)
26. Shanks and Tilley (1987)
27. Shanks and Tilley (1988)
28. Shanks (1991)
29. Shanks (1993)
30. Tilley (1993)
31. Miller and Tilley1984
32. Miller et al. (1989)
33. Hodder (1982)
34. Hodder (1985)
35. Hodder (1987)
36. Hodder (1990)
37. Hodder (1991)
38. Hodder (1992)
39. Pauketat, Timothy R. (2001)
40. Hinshaw (2000)
41. Renfrew and Bahn (2004 [1991]:75)
42. Steve, Graham (17 September 1999), Remote Sensing : Feature Articles (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu
res/RemoteSensing/), NASA, retrieved 8 April 2018
43. Willey (1953)
44. Willey (1968)
45. Billman and Feinman (1999)
46. Redman, C.L. (1974). Archaeological Sampling Strategies. Binghamton: State University of New York at
Binghamton.
47. Kite Aerial Photography (http://www.armadale.org.uk/kite03.htm), retrieved 2 December 2012
48. Reeves, D.M. (1936), "Aerial photography and archaeology", American Antiquity, 2 (2): 102–07,
doi:10.2307/275881 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F275881), JSTOR 275881 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/275881)
49. Sánchez, Rosalía (25 February 2015), "Para los arqueólogos es un ladrón, para los buscadores de tesoros un
ídolo" (http://www.elmundo.es/cultura/2015/02/25/54ee2718ca4741d71a8b457b.html), El Mundo (in Spanish),
retrieved 19 December 2017
50. Hall, E.T. (1970), "Survey techniques in underwater archaeology", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 269 (1193): 121–24,
doi:10.1098/rsta.1970.0090 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frsta.1970.0090), JSTOR 73925 (https://www.jstor.org/sta
ble/73925)
51. Luiz Abdalla Filho Adibe, Bielefeld Nardoto Gabriela, de Aro Galera Leonardo, Leite de Souza Janaina, Santos
Reis Luiza, Almoza Hernandez Yeleine, Sales Rebeca, Guimarães Gerardi Daniel, Antonio Martinelli Luiz (2019).
"Is the 'canine surrogacy approach' (CSA) still valid for dogs and humans in market-oriented and subsistence-
oriented communities in Brazil?". Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies. 55 (3): 227–236.
doi:10.1080/10256016.2019.1598986 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F10256016.2019.1598986).
52. Bawaya, Michael (8 January 2010), "Virtual Archaeologists Recreate Parts of Ancient Worlds" (http://village.anth.
wsu.edu/sites/village.anth.wsu.edu/files/0108-Virtual.pdf) (PDF), Science, 327 (5962): 140–41,
doi:10.1126/science.327.5962.140 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.327.5962.140), PMID 20056870 (https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20056870)
53. Reuters in Lima (25 August 2013), "Peru's archaeologists turn to drones to help protect and explore ancient ruins
| World news" (https://web.archive.org/web/20130825124451/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/25/per
u-archaeologists-drones-ancient-ruins), The Guardian, archived from the original (https://www.theguardian.com/w
orld/2013/aug/25/peru-archaeologists-drones-ancient-ruins) on 25 August 2013, retrieved 27 August 2013
54. Hudson, Hal (24 September 2014), Air-chaeological drones search for ancient treasures (https://www.newscientis
t.com/article/mg22329883.900-airchaeological-drones-search-for-ancient-treasures.html) (2988), New Scientist,
retrieved 2 October 2014
55. Archaeology, Society for American, "What is Archaeology?" (http://www.saa.org/Default.aspx?TabId=1346),
www.saa.org, retrieved 25 August 2017
56. Dyer, Christopher (1982), "Deserted Medieval Villages in the West Midlands", Economic History Society, 35 (1):
19–34, doi:10.2307/2595101 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2595101), JSTOR 2595101 (https://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/2595101)
57. Gould (1971a)
58. Gould (1971b)
59. Yellen (1972)
60. Yellen (1977)
61. Gould and Yellen 1987
62. Yellen (1991)
63. Sillet et al. (2006)
64. Schott and Sillitoe (2005)
65. Ogundele (2005)
66. Kuznar (2001)
67. Ascher (1961)
68. Saraydar and Shimada (1971)
69. Saraydar and Shimada (1973)
70. Gifford-Gonzalez (1985)
71. Frison, G.C. (1989). "Experimental Use of Clovis Weaponry and Tools on African Elephants". American Antiquity.
54 (4): 766–84. doi:10.2307/280681 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F280681). JSTOR 280681 (https://www.jstor.org/s
table/280681).
72. Glascock et al. 1994
73. Hacιgüzeller, Piraye (2012), "GIS, critique, representation and beyond" (http://jsa.sagepub.com/content/12/2/245.
abstract), Journal of Social Archaeology, 12 (2): 245–63, doi:10.1177/1469605312439139 (https://doi.org/10.117
7%2F1469605312439139)
74. Saiano, F.; Scalenghe, R. (2009), "An anthropic soil transformation fingerprinted by REY patterns", Journal of
Archaeological Science, 36 (11): 2502–06, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2009.06.025 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jas.2009.0
6.025)
75. MIT Archaeological Materials and CMRAE Mission Statement (http://web.mit.edu/cmrae/cmrae_mission.htm/)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080725154143/http://web.mit.edu/cmrae/cmrae_mission.htm/) 25 July
2008 at the Wayback Machine
76. The University of Exeter – SoGAER – Department of Archaeology (http://www.sogaer.ex.ac.uk/archaeology/mod
ules/arc3600.shtml), Sogaer.ex.ac.uk, 28 October 2008, retrieved 5 May 2009
77. Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and planning – Planning, building and the environment –
Communities and Local Government (https://web.archive.org/web/20080212011420/http://www.communities.gov.
uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicyguidance9), archived from the original (http://www.communitie
s.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/planningpolicyguidance9) on 12 February 2008, retrieved 25 July 2009
78. Department for Culture Media and Sport (28 April 2009), Department for Culture Media and Sport – historic
environment (http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/Historic_environment/), Culture.gov.uk, archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20090521191552/http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/Historic_environment/) from the
original on 21 May 2009, retrieved 5 May 2009
79. English Heritage – Stonehenge & the History of England: English Heritage (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk),
English Heritage, archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090430203419/http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/)
from the original on 30 April 2009, retrieved 5 May 2009
 80. Historic Scotland (http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/), Historic Scotland, archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0090426014641/http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/) from the original on 26 April 2009, retrieved 5 May 2009
81. Cadw (http://www.cadw.wales.gov.uk/default.asp), Cadw.wales.gov.uk, archived (https://web.archive.org/web/200
90429155411/http://www.cadw.wales.gov.uk/default.asp) from the original on 29 April 2009, retrieved 5 May 2009
82. Built Environment (https://web.archive.org/web/20071225132821/http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/built.htm),
Ehsni.gov.uk, archived from the original (http://www.ehsni.gov.uk/built.htm) on 25 December 2007, retrieved
5 May 2009
83. Flannery (1982)
84. McGeough, Kevin (2006), "Heroes, Mummies, and Treasure: Near Eastern Archaeology in the Movies", Near
Eastern Archaeology, 69 (3–4): 174–85, doi:10.1086/NEA25067670 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2FNEA25067670)
85. Romancing the Past-Archaeology (https://web.archive.org/web/20100531070750/https://www.denison.edu/camp
uslife/museum/romancingthepastarchaeology.html), Denison University, archived from the original (http://www.de
nison.edu/campuslife/museum/romancingthepastarchaeology.html) on 31 May 2010, retrieved 11 January 2011
86. Denning, K. (28 January 2004), " 'The Storm of Progress' and Archaeology for an Online Public", Internet
Archaeology, 15 (15), doi:10.11141/ia.15.1 (https://doi.org/10.11141%2Fia.15.1)
87. Anthropological Studies Center (ASC) (http://www.sonoma.edu/asc/roadshow.html), Sonoma.edu, archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20090328003841/http://www.sonoma.edu/asc/roadshow.html) from the original on 28
March 2009, retrieved 5 May 2009
88. "Volunteers restore antique Miller Cabin" (http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/article_3654c4d7-e241-5b5
a-a624-46628d7c1f4f.html), Rapid City Journal, 14 November 2008, retrieved 12 August 2010
89. "Mardi Gras Shipwreck" (https://web.archive.org/web/20150516045935/http://uwf.edu/jkent/fpan_preCMS/mardig
ras/), uwf.edu, archived from the original (http://uwf.edu/jkent/fpan_preCMS/mardigras/) on 16 May 2015
90. "Mystery Mardi Gras Shipwreck" (http://nautilusproductions.com/projects/mystery-mardi-gras-shipwreck-docume
ntary), Nautilus Productions
91. Live from Morehead City, it's Queen Anne's Revenge :: State Publications (http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm/ref/collecti
on/p249901coll22/id/695248)
92. C Southerly; J Gillman-Bryan (2003), "Diving on the Queen Anne's Revenge" (http://archive.rubicon-foundation.or
g/4760), In: SF Norton (ed). Diving for Science...2003., Proceedings of the American Academy of Underwater
Sciences (22nd Annual Scientific Diving Symposium), retrieved 3 July 2008
93. Apple, QuickTime help with underwater diving trip (http://www.macworld.com/article/1019428/quicktime.html),
Macworld, October 2001
94. Blackbeard's Glowing Shipwreck (http://www.p3update.com/events/67-lighting/blackbeard-s-glowing-shipwreck),
P3 Update
95. Archaeological Legacy Institute (ALI), "Our Organization" (http://www.archaeologychannel.org/about-guide/our-or
ganization), archaeologychannel.org, retrieved 20 March 2018
96. Time Life Lost Civilizations series: Ramses II: Magnificence on the Nile (1993)
97. Sheets, P.D. (1973). "The Pillage of Prehistory". American Antiquity. 38 (3): 317–20. doi:10.2307/279718 (https://
doi.org/10.2307%2F279718). JSTOR 279718 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/279718).
98. Hodge (1937)
99. Munson, C.A.; Jones, M.M.; Fry, R.E. (1995). "The GE Mound: An ARPA Case Study". American Antiquity. 60
(1): 131–59. doi:10.2307/282080 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F282080). JSTOR 282080 (https://www.jstor.org/stab
le/282080).
100. Strauss, Mark (20 August 2015), "Archaeologist's Execution Highlights Risks to History's Guardians" (http://news.
nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150820-syria-archaeologist-isis-protecting-artifacts/), National Geographic
News, retrieved 21 August 2015
101. Canadian Geographic Online (http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/SO05/indepth/archaeology.asp)

Bibliography
Aldenderfer, M.S.; Maschner, H.D.G., eds. (1996), Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems,
New York: Oxford University Press
Ascher, R. (1961), "Analogy in archaeological interpretation", Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, University
of New Mexico, 17 (4), pp. 317–25, JSTOR 3628943 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3628943)
Ascher, R. (1961), "Experimental Archeology", American Anthropologist, 63 (4), pp. 793–816,
doi:10.1525/aa.1961.63.4.02a00070 (https://doi.org/10.1525%2Faa.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", American Antiquity, Society for American Archaeology, 28 (4),
pp. 217–25, doi:10.2307/278380 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F278380), JSTOR 278380 (https://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/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 (https://archive.org/details/cambridgeil
lustr00ebre_0), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-43519-2, OCLC 223427870 (https://w
ww.worldcat.org/oclc/223427870)
Flannery, K.V. (1967), "Culture History v. Culture Process: A Debate in American archaeology", Scientific
American, 217 (2), pp. 119–22, doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0867-119 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fscientificam
erican0867-119)
Flannery, K.V. (1982), "The Golden Marshalltown: A Parable for the Archaeology of the 1980s", American
Anthropologist, 84 (2), pp. 265–278, doi:10.1525/aa.1982.84.2.02a00010 (https://doi.org/10.1525%2Faa.1982.8
4.2.02a00010)
Fraser, Julius Thomas; Francis C. Haber (1986), Time, Science, and Society in China and the West, Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press
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, pp. 29–35,
doi:10.1007/BF02039899 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF02039899)
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", American Antiquity, 50 (4), pp. 803–18,
doi:10.2307/280169 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F280169), JSTOR 280169 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/280169)
Gladfelter, B.G. (1977), "Geoarchaeology: The Geomorphologist and Archaeology", American Antiquity, Society
for American Archaeology, 42 (4), pp. 519–38, doi:10.2307/278926 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F278926),
JSTOR 278926 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/278926)
Gould, R. (1971a), "The Archaeologist as Ethnographer: A Case from the Western Desert of Australia", World
Archaeology, 3 (2), pp. 143–177, doi:10.1080/00438243.1969.9979499 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00438243.19
69.9979499)
Gould, R.; Koster, D.A. & Sontz, A.H.L. (1971b), "The Lithic Assemblage of the Western Desert Aborigines of
Australia", American Antiquity, 36 (2), pp. 149–69, doi:10.2307/278668 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F278668),
JSTOR 278668 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/278668)
Gould, R.; Yellen, J. (1987), "Man the Hunted: Determinants of Household Spacing in Desert and Tropical
Foraging Societies", Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 6, p. 77, doi:10.1016/0278-4165(87)90017-1 (http
s://doi.org/10.1016%2F0278-4165%2887%2990017-1)
Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald E.L.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana (2010), Cultural Anthropology: The
Human Challenge (13th ed.), Cengage Learning, ISBN 978-0-495-81082-7
Hinshaw, J. (2000), Ethnobotanical and Archaeobotanical Relationships: A Yuman Case Study, Salinas: Coyote
Press, pp. 3–7, 38–45
Hodder, I. (1982), Symbols in Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hodder, I. (1985), "Post-Processual Archaeology", in Schiffer, M.B. (ed.), 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. (ed.), The Uses of Style in Archaeology,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hodder, I. (1991), "Interpretive Archaeology and Its Role", American Antiquity, Society for American Archaeology,
56 (1), pp. 7–18, doi:10.2307/280968 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F280968), JSTOR 280968 (https://www.jstor.org/
stable/280968)
Hodder, I. (1992), Theory and Practice in Archaeology, London: Routeldge
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. (eds.),
Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-25526-4,
OCLC 241599209 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/241599209)
Miller, D.; Rowlands, M.; Tilley, C., eds. (1989), Dominion and Resistance, New York: Routledge
Ogundele, S.O. (2005), "Ethnoarchaeology of Domestic Space and Spatial Behaviour Among the Tiv and Ungwai
of Central Nigeria", African Archaeological Review, 22, pp. 25–54, doi:10.1007/s10437-005-3158-2 (https://doi.or
g/10.1007%2Fs10437-005-3158-2)
Pauketat, T.R. (2001), "Practice and History in Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm", Anthropological Theory, 1,
pp. 73–98, doi:10.1177/14634990122228638 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F14634990122228638)
Renfrew, C.; Bahn, P.G. (1991), Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice (https://archive.org/details/archae
ologytheor00renf_0), London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., ISBN 978-0-500-27867-3, OCLC 185808200 (https://ww
w.worldcat.org/oclc/185808200)
Saraydar, S.; Shimada, I. (1971), "A Quantitative Comparison of Efficiency Between A Stone Axe and A Steel
Axe", American Antiquity, 36 (2), pp. 216–217, doi:10.2307/278680 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F278680),
JSTOR 278680 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/278680)
Saraydar, S.C.; Shimada, I. (1973), "Experimental Archaeology: A New Outlook", American Antiquity, 38 (3),
pp. 344–50, doi:10.2307/279722 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F279722), JSTOR 279722 (https://www.jstor.org/stabl
e/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 978-0-7456-0184-7, OCLC 16465065 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/16465065)
Shanks, M. (1991), "Some recent approaches to style and social reconstruction in classical archaeology",
Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 10, pp. 164–74
Shanks, M. (1993), "Style and the design of a perfume jar from an Archaic Greek city state", Journal of European
Archaeology, 1, pp. 77–106, doi:10.1179/096576693800731190 (https://doi.org/10.1179%2F0965766938007311
90)
Shott, M.J.; Sillitoe, P. (2005), "Use life and curation in New Guinea experimental used flakes", Journal of
Archaeological Science, 32 (5), pp. 653–663, doi:10.1016/j.jas.2004.11.012 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jas.200
4.11.012)
Tassie, G J.; Owens, L.S. (2010), Standards of Archaeological Excavations: A Fieldguide to the Methology,
Recording Techniques and Conventions, London: GHP, ISBN 978-1-906137-17-5
Taylor, W.W. (1948), A Study of Archaeology, Menasha: American Anthropological Association, ISBN 978-0-
906367-12-4, OCLC 9714935 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/9714935)
Tilley, Christopher, ed. (1993), Interpretive Archaeology, Oxford: Berg, ISBN 978-0-85496-842-8,
OCLC 185494001 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/185494001)
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 (6), pp. 537–57, doi:10.1002/1520-6548(200008)15:6<537::AID-GEA5>3.0.CO;2-E (https://doi.org/10.1002%2
F1520-6548%28200008%2915%3A6%3C537%3A%3AAID-GEA5%3E3.0.CO%3B2-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. (ed.), 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 (2), pp. 244–53, doi:10.1080/00438243.1972.9979535 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00438243.197
2.9979535), PMID 16468220 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16468220)
Yellen, J. (1977), Archaeological Approaches to the Present (https://archive.org/details/archaeologicalap00yell),
New York: Academic Press, ISBN 978-0-12-770350-3, OCLC 2911020 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/2911020)

Further reading
Rathje, William; Shanks, Michael; Witmore, Christoper (2013). Archaeology in the Making (https://www.academi
a.edu/37112895). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-63480-9.
Hodder, Ian; Shanks, Michael; Alexandri, Alexandar; Buchili, Victor; Carman, John; Last, Jonathan; Lucas, Gavin
(2008). Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past (https://www.academia.edu/37558339). London:
Routledge.
Olsen, Bjørnar; Shanks, Michael; Webmoor, Timothy; Witmore, Christopher (2012). Archaeology: The Discipline
of Things (https://www.academia.edu/36747616). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of Caliphornia
Press.
Shanks, Michael (1992). Experiencing the Past: On the Character of Archaeology (https://www.academia.edu/40
16761). London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-203-97363-1.
Archaeology (magazine)
Lewis Binford - New Perspectives in Archaeology (1968) ISBN 0-202-33022-2
Glyn Daniel – A Short History of Archaeology (1991)
Kevin Greene – Introduction to Archaeology (1983)
Thomas Hester, Harry Shafer, and Kenneth L. Feder – Field Methods in Archaeology 7th edition (1997)
Ian Hodder & Scott Hutson – "Reading the Past" 3rd. edition (2003)
Hutchings Rich, La Salle Marina (2014), "Teaching Anti-Colonial Archaeology", Archaeologies, 10 (1): 27–69,
doi:10.1007/s11759-014-9250-y (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs11759-014-9250-y)
International Journal of South American Archaeology - IJSA (magazine)
Internet Archaeology, e-journal
C.U. Larsen - Sites and Monuments (1992)
Adrian Praetzellis – Death by Theory, AltaMira Press (2000). ISBN 0-7425-0359-3 ISBN 978-0-7425-0359-5
Colin Renfrew & Paul Bahn – Archaeology: theories, methods and practice, 2nd edition (1996)
Smekalova, T.N.; Voss O.; & Smekalov S.L. (2008). "Magnetic Surveying in Archaeology. More than 10 years of
using the Overhauser GSM-19 gradiometer". Wormianum.
David Hurst Thomas – Archaeology, 3rd. edition (1998)
Robert J. Sharer & Wendy Ashmore – Archaeology: Discovering our Past 2nd edition (1993)
Bruce Trigger – "A History of Archaeological Thought" 2nd. edition (2007)
Alison Wylie – Thinking From Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology, University of California Press,
Berkeley CA, 2002

External links
Works related to Archaeology at Wikisource

400,000 records of archaeological sites and architecture in England (https://web.archive.org/web/201504261120

22/http://www.pastscape.org.uk/)
Archaeolog.org (https://archive.is/20121209050439/http://archaeolog.org/)
 Archaeology Daily News (https://archive.is/20121208192450/http://www.archaeologydaily.com/)
Archaeology Times | The top archaeology news from around the world (http://www.archaeologytimes.com/)
Council for British Archaeology (http://www.britarch.ac.uk/)
Estudio de Museología Rosario (https://web.archive.org/web/20091024171735/http://geocities.com/emuseoros)
Fasti Online – an online database of archaeological sites (http://www.fastionline.org/)
Great Archaeology (http://www.greatarchaeology.com/)
Kite Aerial Photographers – Archaeology (http://www.armadale.org.uk/kite03.htm)
NPS Archeology Program: Visit Archeology (Archeology travel guides) (http://www.nps.gov/history/archeology/vis
it/index.htm)
Sri Lanka Archaeology – New Knowledge in Archaeology in Sri Lanka (http://www.archaeology.lk/)
The Archaeological Institute of America (http://www.archaeological.org/)
The Archaeology Channel (http://www.archaeologychannel.org/)
The Archaeology Data Service – Open access online archive for UK and global archaeology (http://archaeologyd
ataservice.ac.uk/)
The Archaeology Division of the American Anthropological Association (http://www.aaanet.org/)
The Canadian Museum of Civilization – Archaeology (http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/online-exhibitions/
archaeology)
The Society for American Archaeology (http://www.saa.org/)
The World Archaeological Congress (https://web.archive.org/web/20071022041307/http://www.worldarchaeologic
alcongress.org/site/about.php)
US Forest Service Volunteer program Passport in Time (http://www.passportintime.com/)
World Archaeology News – weekly update from BBC Radio archaeologist, Win Scutt (http://www.archaeology.ws/
worldarchnews.html)
The Italian Archaeological Mission in Uşaklı Höyük (http://usaklihoyuk.org/en)
Comprehensive Database of Archaeological Site Reports in Japan (http://sitereports.nabunken.go.jp/en)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Archaeology&oldid=911005331"

This page was last edited on 15 August 2019, at 23:50 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.