The archaeological record, the domain of the science of archaeology, exists as a repository wherein lie the decaying material remains of ancient beings and civilizations. As archaeologists approach their work they encounter raw data from the archaeological record which serves as the source of their evidence.

With respect to the production of raw data, to how it becomes evidence, and to the existence of its inferential value, two technical issues regarding the archaeological record have particular importance. The first deals with data, fact, and evidence as they relate to an acceptable standard of proof (see Data, Evidence, & Fact) and the second with the nature of the archaeological record (see Its Nature).

Its Nature

The archaeological record has its own reality and exists only in the here and now. The archaeological record exists alienated from its original meaning. How do archaeologists give meaning to it? What constitutes its essential relation to its originators? Scientific archaeology and hermeneutics do not approach these questions in the same way. In either case ideology conditions what one studies in the archaeological record, perceives as relevant evidence, and the meaning of that evidence.

In hermeneutics, e.g., contextual archaeology, the first proposition of exegesis consists of the acceptance of the archaeological record as a text. While nature remains neutral, the archaeological record has no neutrality as it results from the interaction of culture and natural processes. The archaeological record exists as one of context representing an interaction between nature and culture. The archaeological record offers no self-declaration of meaning. In hermeneutics archaeologists attempt to make clear where it came from and why. The exegete gives meaning to the archaeological record through hermeneutical interpretation.

Can the archaeological record exist as a text exist to be read? The answer depends upon who you ask. If by “text” one means the “context” of an artifact or other pertinent find then there exists text in a hermeneutical sense. This would not satisfy the scientific archaeologist. If text means a form of record then perhaps it can be “read” but this consists of no more than playing with words.

The word “record” comes from the Latin recordari meaning “to call to mind.” Among the postmodern meanings ascribed to the word “record” as a noun includes its evidentiary purpose “to serve as evidence of.” Within its scope comes anything that serves as evidence of an event. Often “record” implies a text or a writing. For hermeneutics, the archaeological record, must be understood like any other text that requires understanding, and this kind of understanding requires acquisition.

A goal of archaeological endeavor consists of the recovery, classification, and description of the durable remnant of human activities of antiquity to expand the knowledge of the present about the past. Stuart Piggott suggested a moderate hermeneutic approach when he submitted that archaeologists seek to:

“…discover the latent or hidden content of such things from the point of view of recovering or reconstructing the past from them” (Piggott 1959:24.)

In hermeneutic terms the archaeological record projects a “world” which shapes the judgment of the researcher who enters it. The incomplete nature of the evidence available to the archaeologist may frustrate his or her work, but the reality of the archaeological record transcends the content of the consciousness of the researcher. Its structure, form, and composition determine what counts as appropriate knowledge and action for the researcher. As Fuller said, one’s mind can be so delighted with all the “evidence” and “coherency” its construction draws from the data at hand that anger is easily generated against different constructions (Fuller 1982:864.)

Ian Hodder, in his contextual archaeology, advocated that the archaeological record be “read” as a text using hermeneutical analysis (Hodder 1986). Robert W. Preucel, who discussed this textual metaphor, concluded that Hodder:

…puts forth the idea that material culture can be read in ways analogous to the reading of literary texts. This “reading,” however, is not direct since material culture is a “less logical, more ambiguous language” than speech. Consequently, the act of reading the past involves a continuous dialogue of moving between sense and referent. Stated another way, this reading involves the transfer of meaning from one context to another through an interpretative exercise in which each individual actor must decide upon appropriate signification. (Preucel 1991:23.)

The ideas advanced by Hodder appear to closely resemble the same moderate approach advocated by Piggott who held:

The view of the past which one can form is conditioned by the evidence from which this view is constructed, especially as meaningful arrangements of the phenomena observed can only be made within the framework of some sort of conceptual model which will permit their interpretation. The models used when dealing with archaeological evidence have to be largely technological, evolutionary and economic, because it is these aspects of history which are reflected in the material culture which forms the archaeologist’s subject-matter, and in the absence of historical documents archaeological evidence on its own will necessarily tend to produce a materialist view of the past, simply owing to the nature of the evidence available within this particular discipline. (Piggott 1959:126.)

Matrix & Provenance

Matrix consists of the mass of material or physical substance that surrounds a find (clay, gravel, mud, sand, or water). Water and soil constitute the matrix in most archaeological sites. The matrix at any archaeological site has resulted from any number of possibilities including the result of cultural, chemical, and physical activity. The formation of soil results from the interaction of organic matter, rock, climatic conditions, and time. 

Different climatic conditions produce varying soil conditions through calcification, lateralization, and podzolization. Calcification refers to the build up of calcium and magnesium salt deposits in the soil. Lateralization refers to the process of producing laterite a red, porous deposit containing large amounts of aluminum and ferric hydroxides, formed by the decomposition of certain rocks subjected to leaching as a result of rainfall. Podzolization refers to the slow decomposition of organic matter over highly leeched soil producing a type of relatively infertile soil found typically in forest lands and consisting of a thin, ash-colored layer overlying a brown, acidic humus.

Provenience and Three-Dimensional Control

Field excavators must retain strong three-dimensional control to record the provenience of finds thereby facilitating their analysis. Provenience, of course, refers to the location of an object in situ. The three-dimensional method of recording fixes the location of artifacts and structures as they were found in the archaeological record. Objects are recorded in their horizontal and vertical position with reference to the site grid i.e., on an x, y, z axis. This permits three-dimensional mapping for analysis.

Law of Superposition

The geological layers of the earth lie stratified or superimposed one upon another like layers of a cake wherein the lower strata are earlier than upper strata. The Law of Superposition states that in any deposit with a known top and bottom the order of succession from bottom to top constitutes the order of deposition. This does not mean that the bottom layer has claims as the oldest, e.g., inverted layers exist in the archaeological record.

Stratigraphic Excavations in Tells and Settlements

The Wheeler–Kenyon Method (earth layers analysis) emphasizes the vertical dimension through analysis of earth layers and their contents. Vertical control comes from the use of the balks separating grid squares. Horizontal control comes from keeping the working surface of the square level for any given locus and proper three-dimensional recording. This method bears the name of the two archaeologists credited for developing it— Mortimer Wheeler and Kathleen Kenyon. The Albright–Wright Method (architectural approach) emphasizes the wide-scale exposure of complete architectural units. Both the architectural and earth-layers approaches come from a tradition of archaeology as more of an art than a science.

The prevailing approach in Bible lands archaeology emphasizes a combination of the earth layers analysis and the architectural approach wherein excavations proceed through earth layers analysis including the exposure of complete architectural units through grid squares and balks. This approach supports both processual an post-processual archaeological research although the latter prevails in contemporary Levantine sites. A criticism of the approach consists of the problem that exposure of complete units does not leave the ability for re-excavation with improved techniques by subsequent generations.

Epigraphs

Artifacts known as epigraphs, e.g., inscriptions, seals, monuments, consist of written materials found in the archaeological record. Written materials discovered by archaeologists can illuminate (adding to knowledge) or confirm (provide concrete evidence) biblical events. 

In Mesopotamia archaeologists discovered thousands of clay tablets. Egypt has yielded “tons” of written material. In Palestine little written material survives. For example, at the Selz Foundation Hazor Excavations in Memory of Yigael Yadin the scarabs found in Late Bronze Age strata incited considerable excitement as these rare artifacts provide helpful means for establishing the absolute chronology of the loci in which excavators found them. 

Ancient languages, existing as non-alphabetic representations, required “decoding”, e.g., the Rosetta Stone which proved to be the key to “unlock” the hieroglyphics of ancient Egypt.