Everybody knows that I love my job, I don't need to tell you that. But there are definitely aspects of my profession that I will never pretend to understand or be excited about. Honestly, I find a huge percentage of historical archaeology to be just plain boring and uninteresting. Early contact-period historic stuff, okay, that's pretty cool, but anything within the last 200 years or so just seems silly to me.
For instance, I recently had to consult this reference for a report I was writing:
I'm not sure what I think is worse- the fact that archaeological sites containing Clorox bottles are even considered sites at all, or the fact that somebody actually took the time to write an entire guide to the changes in Clorox bottles over time. Really?
The sad thing is, it is generally accepted by most agencies that we define archaeological materials based on age... the rule is typically that anything 50 years or older can be considered archaeological. That means that every year, new things get added to the archaeological record. That means that as of 2013, we have to potentially record trash and structural remains from 1963. Plastic. Styrofoam. The exact kind of stuff that many of us could find in our backyards or basements. And this is why historical archaeology drives me nuts. I'm tired of tin cans and barbed wire. At some point, somebody is going to have to put their foot down and define a specific boundary between Historical and Modern, because right now I think they are getting pretty blurred together.
Dear government, when you are looking to cut funds for cultural research and preservation programs, can we just make a rule that anything containing materials that date post-WWII is not worth spending money investigating? I don't want to spend my time taking photos of old motor oil cans and Fiesta dinnerware. That's not the kind of archaeology I signed up for. I'm here for the pottery and the pueblos, people.
No comments:
Post a Comment