Archaeology and the Ethics of Scientific Destruction

  • Edward C. Harris

Abstract

When archaeological research includes excavation, it is axiomatic that archaeologists engage in the destruction of the very truths they seek to discover. The means of such destruction have long been contested, but it is generally accepted that the industry standard is the stratigraphic method, by which deposits are excavated (destroyed) in the reverse order to their creation. The central system for recording that scientific destruction is also the stratigraphic method, intensively developed in archaeology over the last few decades. This chapter briefly discusses the stratigraphic revolution in archaeological methods ushered in by the invention of the Harris Matrix in the 1970s. It highlights the vital introduction of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and computerized mapping. It concludes with a call for the introduction of detailed ethical standards for archaeological excavation and recording by professional archaeological organizations, such as the Society for Historical Archaeology, to name but one.

Key words

Archaeological documentation ethics GIS Harris Matrix single-surface recording stratigraphic method stratigraphy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brown III, M.R. and Harris, E.C., 1993, Interfaces in archaeological stratigraphy, in: Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy, E.C. Harris, M.R. Brown III and G.J. Brown, eds. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  2. Doneus, M., Neubauer, W. and Studnicka, N., 2003, Digital recording of stratigraphic excavations, in: Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium CIPA 2003 New Perspectives to Save Cultural Heritage, CIPA International Archives for Documentation of Cultural Heritage, XIX, pp. 451–456.Google Scholar
  3. Fagan, B., 1995, Archaeology’s dirty secret, Archaeology 48(4): 14–17.Google Scholar
  4. Gerrard, C., 2003, Medieval Archaeology: Understanding Traditions and Contemporary Approaches, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  5. Hanson, I., 2004, The importance of stratigraphy in forensic investigation, in: Forensic Geoscience: Principles, Techniques and Applications, K. Pye and D. Croft, eds., Geological Society Special Publications, London.Google Scholar
  6. IFA, 2001, Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation, Institute of Field Archaeologists, London.Google Scholar
  7. Lucas, G., 2001, Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  8. ROPA, 2000, The Register, 2000–2001 Directory, Register of Professional Archaeologists, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  9. SAA, 1995, Ethics in American Archaeology: Challenges for the 1990s, Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. SHA, 2003, Ethical principles. Society for Historical Archaeology Newsletter 36(4): 32.Google Scholar
  11. Vitelli, K.D., 1996, Archaeological Ethics, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward C. Harris
    • 1
  1. 1.Bermuda Maritime MuseumMangrove BayBermuda MABX

Personalised recommendations