Honestly, there is so much potential in this topic and one small article just cannot sum up the potential of future archaeology. It is first and foremost impossible to reduce, what could be the archaeology of now to simply 'plastic', archaeology is as nuanced as the communities it represents and indeed as diverse as the individuals that choose to study it, because personal passions and choice do factor into what we choose to study, whether we as archaeologists would wish to admit so or not.
But still, it is evident that humans have a fundamental need to classify objects, in some small way it helps us in our studies to see a way to understanding. So much so that we as professionals have precedent for reducing vast expanses of time and generations of individuals to a single 'dominant' material. People need only look to the Three-Age system developed more than a century ago by C. J. Thomsen, that declared the Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age. This has been developed since and the Stone Age is now rarely referred to instead the period is sub-divided into the Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic, but the undercurrent, the base structure still reflects the Three-Age system. C. J. Thomsen was an antiquarian, a term which brings with it, its own set of negative connotations and has the effect of bringing many modern archaeologists to boiling temperature, but that discussion is for another time, like most antiquarians Thomsen in all probability had intensively studied Classics, and that's where he lifted his Three-Age system from, Lucretius to be exact (De Rerum Natura: Book V, 1200). Thomsen, using access to the Danish National Collection of Antiquities, sorted artefacts according to what forms appeared in what dated deposits, thus finding he could isolate certain artefact forms/materials to specific periods. To his credit C. J. Thomsen did note that, the methods available to the 19th C Antiquarian meant they couldn’t precisely pin down dates, after all things don’t come out the ground conveniently labelled… as an archaeologist, if only they did.
‘…we still do not know enough about most of the antiquities either;… only future archaeologists may be able to decide, but they will never be able to do so if they do not observe what things are found together and our collections are not brought to a greater degree of perfection.’ Personal Correspondence, C. J. Thomsen, 1822.
…Obviously he couldn’t foresee radiocarbon dating, we certainly don’t rely greatly on ‘what things are found together’ to date artefacts conclusively now, but he certainly deserves praise for helping to define ‘Prehistory’ and inspiring through such a definition, people to focus and study one of ‘three’ incredibly different periods that previously had been lumped into the studies of one archaeologist. Don’t get me wrong the Three-Age system is still a massive oversimplification, there are now so many sub-categories and the studies of individual archaeologists have become ever narrower, but it was a start.
Now on to the ‘Plastic Age’… This is a term which has been proposed as a definition for the Anthropocene, the now, as plastic is a dominant material within the modern manufacturing industries and on a more basic level within contemporary society (Miller: 2007) (Thompson et al: 2009). The most recent and pertinent data when examining the potential of a ‘Plastic Age’, and indeed the inspiration for this article, was resultant of an excavation inside two reconstructed roundhouses at Castell Henllys, Wales. The Castell Henllys site itself is a genuine, and extensively excavated, Iron Age hillfort, but has in the modern era seen sympathetic development as a heritage/tourist attraction, home to long term experimental structure reconstructions including the two excavated roundhouses which have stood for over 30 years (Mytum & Meek: 2020). The attraction itself has become a mainstay for school field trips within the region as, and quite rightly too, the Iron Age communities of Wales are a required aspect of teaching within the Welsh history curriculum. Rather brilliantly at Castell Henllys an opportunity was recognised for the examination of how modern material culture, integrates with the archaeological record. This excavation follows in the footsteps of Butser Ancient Farm and St Fagan’s National History Museum, but in reality, most archaeological excavations could incorporate such a study and be all the richer for it, in this authors humble opinion. Currently the ‘modern’ contexts… by this I mean upper layers of soil or topsoil, are often discarded as being irrelevant to archaeological study.
I should note here that I am a convert to the whole discussion regarding ‘future archaeologies’, previously uninterested, but upon consideration an examination of our own archaeological imprint can only optimise future researcher’s discussion. It also provides archaeology with an opportunity, which is exceedingly rare, to be largely relevant to contemporary discussion in particular regarding environmental concerns and modern human impact. The results from the Castell Henllys excavation are after all quite illuminating. The assemblage recovered is diverse in terms of both form and material, but plastics are dominant, the ‘artefacts’ relate to the attraction's initial construction, maintenance, and both individuals employed at the site and visitors (Mytum & Meek: 2020).
On an unrelated note, I am incredibly amused to think what future archaeologists studying diet, like I do, will make of that assemblage… Sweets: 1,100, Apples: 22. The sweets have it!
The Castell Henllys assemblage is incredibly intriguing as it should represent three decades of heritage activity, and thus by extension an aspect of Late 20th C-Early 21st C life, distinct patterns within the archaeological record which may come to be known as the Anthropocene signature (Mytum & Meek: 2020). It is notable that within this heritage attraction context, school pupils are major contributors to plastic pollution, the roundhouse context in which it is common for this group to take lunch was particularly dominated by plastic (Mytum & Meek: 2020). This is reinforceable not just because the use of the aforementioned context as a school field trip lunch venue is known but also because the plastic packaging recovered demonstrated targeted marketing towards children (Mytum & Meek: 2020). Another interesting point, how much will ‘targeted advertising’ in relation to artefacts effect future interpretation, will it make the process easier or restrict interpretive thinking. This is an issue future archaeologist will potentially need to address and may prompt a development within archaeological theory regarding theoretical processualism or mindscapes. Archaeological study is dependent on material culture, the material culture of recent deposits is incontrovertibly dominated by plastics… based on that there is a strong argument that we have curated our time upon this earth, as the ‘Plastic Age’.
That might cause some discomfort, even irritation with some individuals and make no bones about it, it should, we have irreversibly damaged the planet, upon which we depend to continue existence… that is the reason people should feel discomfort or irritation. Not because it essentially means that as a society, despite all our aggrandising, we will be defined by our rubbish. Goodness, four years ago now, I was sat in perhaps my second or third ever undergraduate lecture at Durham University, eagerly awaiting an answer to the question ‘Archaeology, just what is it?’. The simple answer, it’s a study of what previous communities have left behind, the physical residues of entire societies, their rubbish. Every previous society, through the lens of archaeology, is defined by their rubbish, we will be no different and there is something comforting in that, it’s just a pity it had to be plastic.
Which leads on to another interesting project, one of which is run by me, myself and I. As a part of the ArcHIVE Heritage Database Project, there is the sub-project called Heritage Of The Future. This hopes to encourage the creation of heritage resources for future researchers, there are a number of suggested projects, many of which would be brilliant to use as teaching tasks, for those currently home-schooling. Below is the official spiel to get you interested:
‘This is a page about pre-emptive action... you see, we as a generation are uniquely positioned to appreciate the value of heritage. It has been the case historically that most of our local, everyday, personal heritage resources have survived completely by chance. With the knowledge we have now surely that shouldn't be the case for the heritage resources of the future. Let's give future generations a rich resource to use to define our own portion of history.’
And the website address with details of tasks: https://leiaktilley.wixsite.com/archive/heritage-of-the-future
Stay safe in the big wide world.
Signing off,
Leia Tilley
References
Lucretius 'De Rerum Natura', Book 5. 1916. Trans. W. E. Leonard. E. P. Dutton.
Miller, D. 2007. 'Stone Age or Plastic Age?'. Archaeological Dialogues, 14. pg. 23-27.
Thompson, R. C., S. H. Swan, C. J. Moore & F. S. Vom Saal. 2009. 'Our Plastic Age'. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B: Biological Sciences 364. pg. 1973-1976.
Mytum, H. & J. Meek. 2020. 'The Iron Age in the Plastic Age: Anthropocene Signatures at Castell Henllys'. Antiquity. pg. 1-17.
Comments