Sir Mortimer
Archaeology from the Earth. By Sir Mortimer Wheeler. (O.U.P. 25s.)
Slit MORTIMER WHEELER began excavating, as a young research 8,..tudent, at Wroxeter, in 1913: and he has been at it ever since—in Vales, England, India, Pakistan, and France. In this book, based n the Rhind Lectures to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in l9513, he gives us his views on the development of archaeological technique, and the principles, aims and techniques of excavation. At least a third of the book is technical stuff and the general reader Will not want to read about the intricacies of archaeological photo- graphy, the selection of tools, the layout of the pottery shed and the °, rganisation of the field laboratory. But the rest of the book should be read by all who want to know how archaeology works, or, in the Words of the title of the last chapter 'What are we digging up and why.' It is all written racily, freshly, vigorously, and is essentially a Personal book. Wheeler writes of what he knows—of forty years cf. field experience digging in a wide wide variety of climates, soils, Fonditions and sites. This book, like its author in conversation and broadcast, is outspoken and trenchant. The rod is not spared, the Punch is not pulled, and there will be a lot of broken pates and bloody coxcombs when these unsparing criticisms have been diffused around the world. Schliemann "tore Troy, Tiryns and Mycenae" to Pieces ; Palestine is "that land of archaeological sin"; some views are denounced as "nonsense"; and excavations criticised for "hope- less telescoping," "disastrous oversights," and having "observers Who simply failed to observe." This refreshingly candid treatment reaches heights of indignation when Wheeler is discussing the system of mechanical recording of every object and structure in relation to _fixed bench level—used by Petrie in Egypt and by Marshall and nlackay, Wheeler's predecessors in the excavations of the Indus cities. It is called a "fantastic and monstrous device evolved ... as substitute for exact observation," and" the very parody of scientific method ... utterly absurd." Wheeler prints together two photo- graphs; one is of Mackay's excavations at Mohenjodaro in 1935—a well-known official photograph; Wheeler's caption is just this— Chaos., Beneath it is a photograph of excavations at Arikamcdu !War Pondicherry in 1945; the caption is 'Discipline.' This second illustration is from Wheeler's own excavations, and he disarms our
criticisms by saying that it is put in "unblushingly .. on the Principle that the professor may properly be expected to practise."
No one can deny that Professor Wheeler is a great practitioner of archaeological excavation, and in the history of archaeology, the tradition of English excavational technique which he has built up from the end of the 1914-18 war by personal example at Colchester, Caernarvon, Brecon, Caerleon, Vcrulamium and Maiden Castle,and by Precept as Director of the National Museum of Wales, Director of the London Museum, Director of the Institute of Archaeology in London, and Director-General of Archaeology in India, is a major achievement of which all Englishmen should be proud. Wheeler here traces the origins of his technique in the work of General Pitt- Itivers whom he calls "the greatest of all archaeological excavators," but it is very apparent in this book how he has advanced from td, mGaedne.eral's days and what personal contributions Wheeler has himso But for what purpose are these complicated techniques evolved and practised? To what end are bent the efforts of archaeologists, these "fumblers in the earth" as Wheeler calls them ? "What are we trying to do in this rather complex fashion," he asks, "and how far can we hope to succeed? . . . What in fact does this thing, Archaeology, really amount to? " His last chapter is devoted to answering these questions, with a healthy bias and agreeable prejudice. 13' chides the French, whose excavational technique he deplores, fo having "evolved a hierarchical distinction between l'archeolog0 and la prdhistoire that is subtle enough to escape the average foreigner," and says the British counterpart is the distinction betweell archaeology and antiquary. But surely this is not so and there is no great subtlety in the distinction between archaeology and history. , archaeologist is concerned with the material remains of the past, the historian with reconstructing past cultural contexts from whatever sources at his disposal. In prehistoric, i.e. pre-written, times the only real source is archaeological so that the prehistorian must be an archaeologist. His task, however, is the writing of prehistorY: The archaeologist may do so too—we do not stop the epigraplkt and the palaeographer from being historians—but I do thin], Wheeler's strictures on the mere archaeologist are unfair. 1116 competent excavator has a place in scholarship just as have the epigrapher and translator. He produces basic facts from the earth, "Dead archaeology is the driest dust that blows," declares Wheel in a characteristically telling phrase, but as the techniques and ran!: fications of archaeological scholarship develop we cannot expect every practitioner to be both an excavator of the standards here demanded and also an historian. It is Wheeler's genius that he hint' self has been able to be both technician and scholar, to produce not only Maiden Cittstle but Prehistoric and Roman Wales and The Indus-Civilisation. But it is not given to all to bring archaeology and history from the earth. GLYN E. DANIEL
Previous page
