▲ 51 points
back
15 comments
I am not an archaeologist, but I thougt I understood the gist, just from the title. And after reading the article, there was little light shed.
A couple of points of context.
- urban archaelogists in Britain find a very bright line between pre-tobacco and tobacco. Once in that latter period C1650, they are immediately inundated with disposable clay pipes. Lasting a couple of centuries. But the physical nature of those pipes provides little extra information. Nobody documented their manufacture.
- Its a kind of inside joke that our contemporary civilisation will deliver a similar quandry to future archaelogists: presumably, the archaelogists of the title. That is: there will be a similar bright line between pre-1980s ring-pull which were distributed absolutely everywhere, then immediately not at all in our contemporaneously developed world.
So I assume this was written for future archaelogists to get better context on contemporary detritus.
I suspect that all of the aluminum, and most if regular steel, when put into soil of moderate or subtropical latitudes, will either dissolve completely or deform beyond recognition in a couple thousand years. So beer cans will have very limited availability to future archeologists. Am I wrong?
I lived next to some urban woodlands and it was chock full of old garbage. Pull rings and bottle caps were pretty common. General construction debris was common: a couple of old bricks, roofing slates, wrought iron fencing that was nearly rusted out of existence. Once I found the case to a portable record player with a 1920s manufacture date.
That would be easier to follow with more photos.
Yeah the field identification guide cited [1] is better, although disappointingly monochrome
Just reading a little more, the aforementioned guide was published in 1993, so that explains the black and white photographs somewhat.
How is barely 86 years ago be considered archeology?
Am I Methuselah that have to be studied, poked, and prodded?
When I was a child I used to love watching Time Team, a British Channel 4 series where each episode the team would carry out a different archaeological dig.
Of course, normally they would be excavating a mediaeval or Roman site, but I remember seeing an episode where they were digging up a crashed WW2 B-17. That expanded my idea of what archaeology could be.
Also, loved that show although I never really knew why.
In series four, there was an episode in the US¹ that I found quite jarring with the discussion of prehistory finds only a few hundred years old. Obviously, the term has a different meaning given the context, but it still sticks in my mind to this day.
Tangentially related, in Amsterdam a few years back they were digging into a spot in the central city for a new metro station. They made a display of all the archaeological artefacts that they found, which you can see along the escalators.
It goes from 124,000BC (ok, seashells) to the 1300s (old pottery, cooking utensils), to 2005 (flippo disks, ID cards, probably some still functioning Nokia phones.) You can browse it here: https://belowthesurface.amsterdam/en
Yes :P
:D I did write in jest, but would love to learn if there is a barrier of age where something is considered worthy (?) of archeology, or worthy to be labeled as archeology.
One perspective is that it if archaeology is the study of humanity "through the recovery and analysis of material culture" (wikipedia), then everything where that is done qualifies, and could be quite young. E.g. WW2 is clearly in scope: while we do have documentation and eye-witness reports for a lot of it, they are far from universal and on-site studies of battlefields, former prisoner camps, sites of war crimes, ... are done and contributing to what we know. And historians in general are dealing with even younger events, e.g. historians are studying the cold war (although I'm not aware of any archeological studies of it - maybe there are some of the actual wars during it?)
On the other hand, just because an investigation of a somewhat recent event is digging through material doesn't make it archaeology, but I guess that's partially distinguished based on motivations? (e.g. accident/crime investigations etc)
EDIT: younger example: https://www.archaeology.org/news/8291-191213-south-carolina-... "Archaeologists are investigating a possible Vietnam War–era military training site at Fort Jackson, an initial entry training center for the U.S. Army in South Carolina, according to an ABC News report." - I guess discarded beer cans could be useful dating something like this
> although I'm not aware of any archeological studies of it
https://www.worldcat.org/title/archaeology-of-the-cold-war/o...
It varies by jurisdiction, what the research goals are (if any), and the details of what's found. 50 years plus for human remains is a pretty common number in my experience, but objects can really go all the way up to the present.