Spotlight on Students: Thinking Like an Archaeologist

Thinking like an archaeologist is one of the most challenging exercises a novice or inexperienced person can do, including beginner archaeologists.  For one of the SA 202: Introduction to Anthropology assignments students were tasked with doing just that.  By viewing the familiar as the unfamiliar they gained important insights into the challenges archaeologists face, and several of them did exceptionally well in the exercise.  Here is a student's piece that was eligible for and agreed to be published.

 

By: Blake Oakley

 

 

This project required the finding of an “archeological site” and making observations upon the site. We then had to discover three “artifacts” and record the information found made only by observations. This is a useful exercise as archeologists often must make interpretations based on the artifacts themselves and the surrounding site. These findings then had to be compared to a real-life archeological situation in which observations had to be made and conclusions drawn with the given evidence. The archeological site that I have discovered is located in what seems to be the remnants of a large building complex in Jefferson City.

The area of the site that has been best preserved is an area measuring 15x12 feet. The walls are eight feet high with a ceiling above. This appears to have been a room within this larger complex, leading me to believe the other rooms may have been similar. The room contains a combination of organic and inorganic objects. There are objects made of wood, stone, paper, metal, and plastic. What was probably a large window or glass pane is fitted into the east wall in the back of the room, opposite of the wall with the entryway. All the walls and ceiling are white, the exception being the grey-brown floor. The walls are made up of what appear to be blocks with rough faces but uniform shape. There are duplicates of multiple objects in the room, leading me to believe these may have had more use or importance. There are some square and rectangular objects hanging on the walls, some of them containing imagery of people. These may have been important people to the room or whoever used it. Most of the large objects seem to be located on or touching at least one wall, keeping most of the middle space open. The objects of wood appear most commonly in the colors black, brown, and orange. There is a variety of sizes as some artifacts are multiple feet long and others only measure a couple inches. Perhaps this center space was more or less important depending on the purpose of this room. There are three distinct artifacts that I have researched thus far, and I will report on the information regarding these.

            The first artifact of note was a navy-blue sheet of fabric. This object appears relatively durable, the bottom of it being made of a white, rubbery material. It measures 3x2 feet and is a 1/2 inch thick. It weighs around three pounds. The top of this fabric has pieces of the fabric that move and appear like hair or brush bristles. It was discovered in between two identical wood framed objects with a thick but soft fabric object on top. The fact that this item was discovered roughly in the center of the rooms leads me to believe it could have been held in high regard. This seems especially so since most objects in the room are located near the walls, not the center of the room. As the back of the object is white like the ceiling of this room, it is possible that this fabric was originally placed on the ceiling or another white surface. This leads me to hypothesize that this object may be an ancient tapestry, perhaps held in high esteem by whoever utilized this room. Although as the object is the only soft object on the hard floor, perhaps there was a sort of personal value to this fabric. It may have been a sort of prayer or worship rug used in religious ceremonies or prayer. It is a very interesting object indeed.

            The second artifact is perhaps the most peculiar of the three. This artifact is a mostly metal object, rectangular in shape. It measures 2x1 feet and is primarily black on the outside of the object. It is in the center of the north wall and sits on a larger rectangular object. The side of the artifact facing the center of the room has a door on it which opens to a space inside that is; slightly smaller than the outside. The door has a pane in it which is somewhat see-through, with small crossing lines blocking a clear view. The inside of this object is white and also made of some sort of metal. The interesting part about the inside is the cylindrical turntable in the center. This turntable is roughly ¼ inch thick and eight inches across. The bottom of this glass object has some teeth or fittings in the center. These connect with an object in the bottom of the primary object with matching teeth. It moves and turns but cannot be viewed in total clarity from the outside. Perhaps the purpose of the so-called turntable is related to the pad of symbols which is also located on the front of this box-like object. These symbols are located on button-like surfaces, so perhaps there was an important sequence or use of the viewing or pressing of the symbols. It may be that these symbols correlate to the purpose or use of the turntable. This is reminiscent of a sacred or holy “tabernacle,” which could have house relics. These symbols may represent words or phrases, furthering the evidence that this object seems to have been a focal point of the room.

            The third artifact is represented by two separate but identical objects. One of the objects is located next to artifact two and the other is in the right-center of the east wall. These objects are made primarily of black and brown-orange colored wood. They are rectangular in shape measuring 4x2 feet. These objects are among the largest in the room, weighing 100-200 pounds. The tops of these objects are large and flat, perhaps used for placing things. On the side that faces the inside of the room, these objects contain what appears to be multiple storage or containment units. These units are equal and uniform, although have different widths depending on the level. These units each pull out on metal runners of sorts to keep them in place it appears. The smaller shelving units are about one foot wide each, with the larger units being nearly the full width of the larger artifact. The fact that there are two of these identical artifacts in the room leads me to hypothesize that they were of likely significant use or importance. Perhaps there was a substantial amount of something that needed to be stored in these likely storage units.

            I stated most of what my interpretations regarding the purpose and importance of each of these artifacts may be, however there are some other points things that I would like to point out. The wide variety of materials used in each of the artifacts mentioned or otherwise; perhaps provide insight into the ability to create or acquire a multitude of goods. Objects of many great sizes are also present, perhaps concluding this was a multipurpose room. The variety of soft or comfort items with the combination of more complex, metal, and wood objects lead me to believe this room may have been inhabited or frequently used. These objects were clearly not created in this room and must have been outsourced from another location. The combination of the first two artifacts may provide insight into ritualistic practices or a religion. The fabric and box with displace and turntable may have a correlation. The third artifact is curious as well as nothing was found inside the likely shelving units, meaning many things could have been stored there if that was in fact their intended use. Since one of them was placed next to the second artifact, they may have been used to store objects for use on the turntable. The overall use and purpose of these objects is somewhat unclear; however these inferences are drawn based on the best information available.

            Archeologists often face the problem of identifying and interpreting artifacts. Accurately piecing the past together involves making the most accurate interpretations possible in archeological settings. Often there is information that is lacking or unclear, which leads to a variety of interpretations. One of my favorite examples of this involves the exact familial relationships and death of the famous Pharaoh, Tutankhamun. Tutankhamun’s tomb is the best preserved in all ancient Egypt, and therefore many accurate inferences can be drawn about his life. For example, his mummy shows that he had a clubbed foot and the existence of over 100 canes and walking sticks in his tomb supports this genetic deformity.[1] It is also known that he died young and unexpectedly, furthering the decline of the 18^th dynasty. The paint of his tomb is in abysmal condition compared to other pharaohs since his tomb was created in a hurry. The paint was likely not even given time to dry as discovered during investigations on the tomb.[2] The outer mask of his mummy was also found to not be modeled after his face; unlike the famous inner mask which was representative of Tutankhamun’s face. These are inferences that archeologists can hypothesize with a high degree of confidence even though there are no records that state any such events. The abundance of objects in his tomb as well brings more life to these inferences.

            There are however many inferences about the life of Tutankhamun that are not as clear with the available archeological evidence. The exact parentage of Tutankhamun is debated since there are no records available that state so. His parents were the unnamed mummies, KV55 and KV35. His likely father was Akhenaten, the pharaoh who completely changed the religion of Egypt, but also could have been Smenkhkare. Since Akhenaten was so hated, he and his successors were all erased from the written Egyptian records. Some of the objects in his tomb use the original nomen of the young pharaoh, Tutankhaten; note the “aten” ending versus the “amun” ending. Using the evidence of the abundance of the name Tutankhaten found on artifacts in his tomb, experts agree that Akhenaten is the most likely candidate as his father.[3] The identity of his mother, however, remains a mystery to this day. The cause of death of Tutankhamun is also not exactly clear with the given archeological and historical material. He is known to have many physical deformities and diseases, many of them genetically inherited due to the severe inbreeding of his ancestors. As there were many canes and chariots in his tomb used to assist him in mobility, along with the analysis of his mummy, it is found that Tutankhamun suffered from avascular necrosis and extreme malaria.[4] Likewise, his leg had been shattered at a time shortly before his death as well. Due to the many health issues surrounding Tutankhamun, archeologists and forensic experts have put forth multiple theories. However, his exact cause of death is still debated as there is no record, and conclusions must be drawn from testing and artifacts in his tomb. Tutankhamun is a great example of even though there is much known about him, much of his life is speculative and must be determined from archeological inferences.

 

---

[1] Jon Hamilton, “Frail and Sickly, King Tut Suffered through Life,” NPR.org, February 16, 2010, https://www.npr.org/2010/02/16/123781211/frail-and-sickly-king-tut-suffered-through-life.

[2] “Tut, Tut: Microbial Growth in Pharaoh’s Tomb Suggests Burial Was a Rush Job,” seas.harvard.edu, June 8, 2011, https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2011/06/tut-tut-microbial-growth-pharaohs-tomb-suggests-burial-was-rush-job.

[3] “Tutankhamun: Ancient and Modern Perspectives,” The British Museum, n.d., https://www.britishmuseum.org/visit/object-trails/tutankhamun-ancient-and-modern-perspectives.

[4] Zahi Hawass, “Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family,” JAMA 303, no. 7 (February 17, 2010): 638, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.121.