Context - Philosophical Concept | Alexandria
Context, in archaeology, is more than just "background information"; it is the critical matrix from which artifacts and features derive their meaning and significance. Often misunderstood as a mere descriptor of location, context encompasses the surrounding strata, associated artifacts, and their spatial relationships at a site. Without it, an artifact is akin to a word extracted from a sentence – suggestive, perhaps, but ultimately incomplete.
The concept, while inherent in earlier antiquarian practices, gained formal recognition in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with the rise of scientific excavation methods. Figures like General Pitt-Rivers, meticulous in his recording of provenience, laid the groundwork for contextual analysis. Early references can be seen in the detailed site reports emerging from digs such as the excavation of Mycenae by Heinrich Schliemann, beginning in 1876, although the emphasis was more on finding treasures than understanding their interconnectedness. The era, rife with imperial ambition and nascent archaeological theory, saw a tension between viewing artifacts as trophies and as pieces of a larger historical puzzle, sparking debates that continue to echo today.
Over time, the interpretation of context has deepened. The New Archaeology movement of the 1960s, championed by Lewis Binford, emphasized the importance of understanding cultural processes, pushing archaeologists to consider the ecological and social systems within which artifacts were deposited. Post-processual archaeology further complicated the picture, acknowledging the subjective nature of interpretation and the role of power dynamics in shaping archaeological narratives. Intriguingly, the very act of excavation destroys context. The careful recording and interpretation of what is lost becomes a critical process.
Today, context remains central to archaeological interpretation, informing everything from dating methods to understanding past behaviors. The rise of digital technologies, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), enables the creation of intricate context models, allowing archaeologists to virtually reconstruct past landscapes and examine the relationships between artifacts in ways previously unimaginable. The concept is frequently reinterpreted in contemporary discussions about heritage management and cultural identity, raising questions about who controls the narrative of the past. How can we ensure that the context within which artifacts are discovered is preserved and interpreted responsibly, offering insights into the complexities of human history rather than reinforcing simplified narratives?