AnthMid - Haubold Max Haubold 9 October 2008 Anthropology...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Haubold Max Haubold 9 October 2008 Anthropology 101: Sec 001 Midterm Examination-Clay Stuart Question 1A The assumption that Archeology is simply the hunt for valuable artifacts is completely erroneous. Archeology is the study of past peoples and cultures to better understand human kind. Although rare artifacts can provide much information, and in themselves are amazing, they are not the only valuable part of dig sites. Heinrich Schliemann, an early archeologist, is a prime example of bad archeology. Digging up sites such as Troy and Mycenae without any sort of system, or even the slightest hint of respect, has lost priceless information which will never be recovered. There are several things to explain this. Dig sites are not only used to search for gold coins and arrowheads. Good archeology shows concern for culture. Specifically, the processing of surrounding hints to understand the culture of the people. An example of this would be digging up a library. Without exploring our current culture, one could guess that it could be the home of a community scholar, rather than a communal book supply. This also works in conjunction with another aspect of good archeology. The context of a dig site is also crucial. If a burial ground is being excavated, the context of the site must be taken into account else conclusions could be drawn to falsify the actuality of the situation. Good archeology must also display a sense of preservation. This will help to let following archeologists to follow up on previous findings, or possibly revisit sites for clarification. Utilizing these facets of “Good Archeology”, gaps can be filled in and history augmented.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Haubold In continuation with the main parts of good archeology, it is important to have a better understanding of site classification. There are four ways, including contextual, artifact content, geographic location, and artifact content in relation to site function. By observing the context of a site, it can be determined whether it is a surface location, single level occupation, or stratified settlement. Using found artifacts can also help classify a site. By examining the way artifacts were made and finding possible similar artifacts, a site could be dated or learned more fully. Geographic location can also classify a site. Dig sites found in caves, valley bottoms, and flat lands would all have unique characteristics, helping in their classification. Lastly, the artifacts found at a site which are directly linked to specific functions, namely kill sites, habitations, burial sites, trading sites, quarries, and art sites. Delving deeper into digging sites, it must be understood how they are broken down. A site is divided into a matrix, or a three dimensional grid. This will help to uncover the context of a find, in league with two other things- provenance and assessment. Provenance is the origin position, detailing possible original uses or facts about the time period. Assessment is how the item got to its current position in the matrix, and what happened since the original position. These things are useful tools in finding out about past lifestyles, because they can help reveal
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/17/2011 for the course ANTH 101 taught by Professor Scarre during the Spring '07 term at UNC.

Page1 / 9

AnthMid - Haubold Max Haubold 9 October 2008 Anthropology...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online