32 BASICPRINCIPLES – MAKING THEMOST OF THECLUES
deposition of an ornament or weapon into a river
or the sea to appease the spirits, may both be represented
in the archaeological record, but will these objects be
understood when they are found? Moreover, there is
some debate as to which objects were deliberately placed
in the water and which have eroded out of riverbanks or
lakesides. The evidence is unlikely to allow any simple
or easy interpretation.
The effect of the environment on humans has been
considered above but another major source of evidence
is the traces left by humankind’s effect on the environ-
ment. The changes that can be studied range in scale from
the disturbance of ground, building of houses or digging
of pits, to large-scale deforestation. Much of this evi-
dence is again created ‘accidentally’ by human activity and
so is one step removed from the activities of real interest.
This evidence may not, therefore, seem immediately
relevant until its causes are traced back. Of course, to appre-
ciate the impact of humans on the environment it is also
necessary to understand the character of the environment
before it was changed.
Occupation sites are often inhabited for long periods
and activities carried out on the site will vary over time,
leaving behind often very complex sets of clues. These clues
provide a record of the changes. It can be extremely
valuable to study long periods of occupation in this way,
precisely because changes and continuities in the society
concerned should be detectable in the evidence. Yet in
this situation the surviving clues do not represent a
total picture of the site at any one moment. Clues
left by earlier occupation might be altered or destroyed
by later activities on the same site, such as pit-digging
or the preparation of deep foundations for modern
buildings.
The recycling of material is also an important factor
in modifying the evidence archaeologists eventually
study (figure 4.12). There is often a conscious selection
of what is taken away and what is left behind. This will
depend on many factors. The occupants might only
remove what they consider valuable (which will not
necessarily be the same things that are considered valu-
able today). The material removed may depend on what
can be carried with the available means of transport.
Perhaps objects will be selected on the basis of sentimental
or ritual value.
It is very difficult to define all the processes that might
result in material being removed from a site, but it is import-
ant to consider as wide a range of potential factors as pos-
sible. Underwater sites are no different from land sites. On
submerged settlement sites, after inundation it may be more
difficult for material to be recycled or disturbed by later
activity but they will have been modified by long periods
of habitation before they are inundated. Shipwrecks may
result in a group of closely associated materials being
deposited together. However, as surviving documentary
records make clear, many vessels have been partially or
wholly salvaged, involving selective removal of material
from the site. Use of the seabed for fishing, anchorage
or dredging will remove and add material. Finally, sites
are known where a shipwreck lies on top of prehistoric
remains (and sites comprising multiple shipwrecks), pro-
ducing the effect of later activity on a site blurring the clues
left by earlier occupation (Murphy, 1990).
The influence of environment and the influence of
cultural factors are interlinked. It would, for example, be
difficult to interpret an umbrella successfully without
reference to the environment (in this case shelter from the
rain or sun). However, a detailed study of the environ-
ment will not reveal why the umbrella was coloured red,
green and yellow or had a certain design on the handle- these factors may simply be dictated by personal or
community preference.
The fact remains that most of the material found
buried in archaeological sites represents the rubbish
and chance losses which have survived retrieval by later
occupants and the various natural processes that cause
objects to deteriorate. Any investigation that tries to use
archaeological evidence by assuming that a site, even a sub-
merged one, has been free of the processes and mecha-
nisms that modify the way that clues appear is adopting
a very simplistic approach. Complex questions must be
asked of the evidence and any biases within the evidence
must be rigorously evaluated. To achieve this, it is essen-
tial to document carefully the nature of the processes that
interact to form the archaeological record.
Figure 4.12 Re-used ship’s timbers in an open barn on the
Turks and Caicos Islands. The heavy transverse beam is part
of a keel, showing a hook scarph. Roman numerals (XIX)
identify the mating pieces. Below is a small knee. (Photo:
Colin Martin)