E 2706
In addition to the above, Evolutionary Anthro-
Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues,
News, and Reviews
John G. Fleagle
School of Medicine, Stony Brook University,
Stony Brook, NY, USA
Brief Definition of the Topic
Evolutionary Anthropology is a peer-reviewed
journal focusing on current issues in biological
anthropology, paleontology, archaeology, prima-
tology, genetics, human ecology, and other areas
pertinent to understanding human evolution in
a broad perspective. It is designed to provide
researchers, educators, and students in anthropol-
ogy and related disciplines with reviews of recent
research, discussions of theoretical issues, and
changing perspectives on human evolutionary biol-
ogy in a concise, readable format. It was founded in
1992 and appears in six bimonthly issues each year.
Evolutionary Anthropology normally pub-
lishes four types of articles:
1. News Articles are brief reports on recent pro-
fessional meetings, symposia, workshops, and
other events of general interest to the anthro-
pological community.
2. Issues Essays are articles on subjects of broad
interest to topical interest and are designed to
raise awareness of important topics in the study
of human evolution that have perhaps been
overlooked or not widely known, but are not
suitable for a major review. Issues Essays can
take more of a personal or adversarial approach
rather than offering a scholarly review.
3. Articles are minireviews of up to 10,000 words
that provide an overview of the current state of
knowledge on a topic of general interest to
a wide audience of students, teachers, and
researchers in the broad area of human evolu-
tion. They should provide a balanced treat-
ment of current literature and views.
4. Book Reviews are designed to discuss recently
published books in the broader context of cur-
rent research in the area to which the book
contributes.
Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews
pology also publishes obituaries of prominent fig-
ures in the field of human evolution and sometimes
publishes essays from regular contributors. In the
1990s, the journal published a series of debates
between Ian Tattersall and Milford Wolpoff on
topics in human evolution. In the early part of the
twenty-first century, Dr. Kenneth Weiss contributed
a regular series of essays on aspects of genetics and
evolution entitled Crotchets and Quiddities. Begin-
ning in 2008, Evolutionary Anthropology published
one special issue a year devoted to a single
topic. The first of these were on Modern Human
Origins (2008), The Evolution of Human Behavior
(2009), and Genetics and Human Evolution (2010).
Articles in Evolutionary Anthropology are
commissioned by the editor in conjunction with
the associate editors and are subject to editorial
review prior to acceptance and publication. Evo-
lutionary Anthropology is published and distrib-
uted by Wiley-Blackwell and is available in both
electronic and paper formats.
Cross-References
▶ Journal of Human Evolution
Further Reading
EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY: ISSUES, NEWS, AND REVIEWS.
n.d. Available at:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6505.
Excavation Methods in Archaeology
Martin Carver
Department of Archaeology, University of York,
York, UK
Introduction and Definition
Archaeological excavation is the procedure by
which archaeologists define, retrieve, and record
cultural and biological remains found in the ground.
Excavation Methods in Archaeology
Past activities leave traces in the form of house
foundations, graves, artifacts, bones, seeds, and
numerous other traces indicative of human experi-
ence. These strata survive vary variously,
depending on the type of location and geology
(hilly, lowland, wet, dry, acid, etc., known as the
terrain). Survival and visibility also depend on how
far the remains of the past have already decayed or
been disturbed by later activities, such as cultivation
or building. These site formation processes give
a site its modern character, and this has a strong
influence on the excavation method that is used.
Excavation usually (but not always, see below)
requires the removal and permanent dispersal of
strata so they can never be reexamined. So
the method is also influenced by the need to con-
serve cultural strata as far as possible – never dig
more than you need to understand the site. Many
sites are situated in socially sensitive areas, where
excavation (particularly the removal of skeletal
remains) is to be avoided or kept to a minimum.
Successful excavation depends on our ability
to see or detect these traces, so that they can be
measured and sampled, and this in turn depends
on the techniques and the skilled workforce
available. Like other sciences, excavation
requires us to devise new techniques that enable
us to see more, so that excavation method is in
a state of continual development.
The way an excavation is done is therefore
determined by what you want to know, the state
of preservation of the site, the techniques and
skills available, and the social context of the
country in which the excavation takes place. In
best practice, these are brought together and
balanced in a program specially designed for
each project. Contrary to popular belief, success
is much less dependent on the application of
a standard method (or default system) to every
situation (Carver 2011).
Key Issues/Current Debates/Future
Directions/Examples
Excavation Areas
The type of area opened in an excavation is
determined by its purpose. Small-scale
2707 E
excavations, such as shovel tests and test pits and
trenches, are used in the reconnaissance stage to
locate sites or in the evaluation stage to help assign
their current value. Shovel tests are the size of a
shovel blade say 15  15 cm, test pits are 1  1 to
4  4 m, and test trenches are 1–3 m wide and can
be very long (100 m or more). They are especially
valuable for testing deep strata, since the sides can
be held up by shoring, so protecting the excavators
from the danger of collapse (Fig. 1).
E
Sets of test pits and trenches also have a wide
application in addressing particular research
questions over a wide area. In this case the pits
and trenches are distributed over the landscape
with a view to obtaining examples (samples) of
assemblages and local sequences from which
an occupation or behavior can be generalized
(see Hester et al. 1997, 58–74; and the entry on
American Pioneers and Traditions, Fig. 3 in this
encyclopedia). Box excavation consists of
a number of test pits (up to 5  5 m in area) set
adjacent to each other in a grid, each separated
from the other by a balk (about half a meter wide)
along which excavators can walk and earth be
removed. The balk also serves to retain
a section, a vertical slice of strata, drawn by
excavators to record the sequence of layers
at that point. Box excavation was pioneered in
Russia and adopted in China, and a version
was also enthusiastically promoted in
England by Mortimer Wheeler (see the entry on
▶ British Pioneers and Fieldwork Traditions
in this encyclopedia).
Area excavation refers to an excavation where
the area opened is continuous (Fig. 2). In research
excavations, the size of the area is closely
connected to the questions addressed: early
pioneers in Denmark used areas of up to 3 ha to
reveal the shallow but extensive traces of Iron Age
villages consisting only of pits and postholes. In
CRM excavations the size is related to the area to
be affected by development; these are often very
extensive, such as the Framework Excavations in
advance of London’s Fifth terminal at Heathrow,
or the excavations by the National Road Authority
in Ireland (see the entry on ▶ Ireland: Investiga-
tions in Advance of Motorway Construction in this
encyclopedia).
E 2708
Excavation Methods in
Archaeology,
Fig. 1 Excavation through
part of the tell settlement at
Catal Hoyuk, Turkey,
showing edges protected
from collapse by sandbags
and a deeper trench
supported by timber
shoring (M. Carver)
Excavation Techniques
Archaeological strata are defined in the
horizontal plane by scraping the surface until
boundaries (anomalies) are seen in the soil.
These denote the edges of contexts, deposits that
are made at different times (Fig. 3). The object of
excavation is to define contexts and put them in
order to produce the story of the site. Initial
definition of a deposit is often achieved with
a mechanical excavator with a front bucket or
backhoe, used for example to remove topsoil or
a concrete platform. The surface may then be
cleaned with a shovel and further defined with
a trowel, a tool which archaeologists have
Excavation Methods in Archaeology
adopted from the building trade (a pointing
trowel) and made especially their own (Fig. 4).
The ability to define strata and to see objects
depends on the technique and the intensity of
effort applied. For example, clearance of the
topsoil with a back-actor is fast but visibility is
sacrificed – smaller objects and more subtle edges
in the soil will not be noticed. By contrast, to
ensure that everything is noticed in a feature of
special importance, such as furnished grave, the
excavator will proceed with the greatest caution,
not only taking care to define every tiny anomaly
in the ground, but screening (sieving) all the
waste soil (spoil) to make sure nothing escapes.
Excavation Methods in Archaeology 2709 E
Excavation Methods in
Archaeology,
Fig. 2 Area excavation at
Portmahomack, Scotland.
The horizon is being
exposed by a troweling line
and will be recorded with
the assistance of
observation from a tower
(M. Carver)

known as one carefully revealed by the trowel

Excavation Methods in Archaeology, Fig. 3 The dark
curved patterns of post pits and ditches revealed by trowel-
ing. On this sandy terrain, the edges are rendered more
visible for visible with the aid of a light spray (M. Carver)
These different levels of digging at
which excavation may operate also imply the
application of different levels of recording. For
example, the character and location of a wall
exposed by a bulldozer will not be as accurately
and brush. Accordingly, the more detailed the
excavation, the more detailed should be the
records. It can be seen too, that the more
detailed the digging, the longer it will take and
the more it will cost. The question of how much
trouble to take is therefore a vital one to con-
sider at the design stage. One useful way of
controlling the application of appropriate level
of digging and recording is to use Recovery
Levels, lettered A–F (Fig. 5), a handy template
which lays down in advance the minimum
recording required for each type of digging.
This ensures not only that the full record is
made but that features excavated at the same
level can be compared: the assemblages of two
garbage pits excavated at the same recovery
level are comparable, since they were retrieved
at the same level of intensity and subjected to
the same screening regime.
Recovery levels are decided in the design
stage. In general, Level A is used for the
clearance of the top of a site by machine: Level
B usually refers to tidying with a shovel and
Level C to preliminary definition with a trowel.
The vast majority of features are excavated at
Level D or its equivalent. Here definition is as
good as can be achieved by the naked eye, each
context is recorded individually, 25 % of the
spoil is screened, and there are detailed written
and photographic records of all features. Level
E 2710 Excavation Methods in Archaeology

Excavation Methods in
Archaeology,
Fig. 4 Trowels in use.
(a) The pointing trowel
favored in Europe. (b) The
handpick favored in East
Asia (M. Carver)

E tends to be applied to features of special a feature is so unusual, and in such good

importance like an undisturbed floor or
a furnished grave. Here the tools used are the
dental pick or the scapula, rather than the trowel,
and the excavator works very slowly and close to
the ground. There will be occasions when
condition, that the excavators cannot do justice
to it on site. In this case (Level F) it is boxed and
lifted and taken to the laboratory, where it can be
slowly dissected in controlled conditions.
A pioneering example was the lifting of an entire
 LEVEL COMPONENT FIND CONTEXT FEATURE STRUCTURE LANDSCAPE e.g.

A (not recovered) Surface finds Inferred by sensor Inferred by sensor Inferred by sensor Inferred by sensor Field
PLOT 2-D OUTLINE PLAN OUTLINE PLAN OUTLINE PLAN walking

B (not recovered) Large finds Defined by shovel Defined by shovel as features PLOT STRUCTURES 19th C
RECORD EXAMPLES DESCRIBE SHORT DESCRIPTION. on OS House
KEEP EXAMPLES OUTLINE PLAN

C (not recovered) All visible Defined by coarse Defined by coarse Defined by coarse 1:100 PLAN 16th C
Excavation Methods in Archaeology

finds. RECORD trowel trowel trowel PROFILE Pits

ALL. KEEP DESCRIPTION FULL EXCAVATE AS ONE.
EXAMPLES. MAY (Munsell for DESCRIPTION. PHOTOGRAPH
PLOT BY m2 mortars and DETAILED PLAN
natural) HEIGHT

D SAMPLE SIEVING All visible Defined by fine Defined by fine Defined by fine 1:100 PLAN Timber trace
of spoil on site finds PLOT trowel trowel trowel CONTOUR building
for presence of 3-D and DESCRIPTION FULL EXCAVATE AS ONE. SURVEY
specified KEEP ALL (Incl. Munsell) DESCRIPTION. PHOTOGRAPH by
material (spoil PLAN 1:20 DETAILED PLAN PHASE
not kept) 1:20 (colour coded)
CONTOURS
PHOTOGRAPH (B/W)

E TOTAL SIEVING All visible Defined minutely Defined minutely Defined minutely (as LEVEL D) Skeleton
of spoil on site finds PLOT DESCRIPTION FULL EXCAVATE AS ONE. CONTOUR
for presence of 3-D and KEEP (Incl. Munsell). DESCRIPTION. PHOTOGRAPH by SURVEY
specified ALL PLAN (natural PLAN (colour) 1:10 PHASE
material and colour) 1:10 or or 1:5 CONTOUR.
KEEP SPOIL 1:5 contour PHOTOGRAPH

F MICRO SIEVING (as component) (as LEVEL E) (as LEVEL E) (as LEVEL E) (as LEVEL D) Storage pit
soil block in and LIFT AS fill
laboratory BLOCK
2711

Excavation Methods in Archaeology, Fig. 5 Recovery levels used to control the levels of precision applied to digging and recording in excavation (M. Carver)
E

E
E 2712
burial chamber at Högom in Sweden. At Monruz
in Switzerland, an Upper Paleolithic floor was
defined on site and then lifted and put on
permanent display – a combination of Levels
E and F excavation.
Nano-Excavation
Recent technical advances have further
enlarged the ambitions of excavators to
detect, and record in ever more detail, the
phenomena encountered on archaeological
sites. Archaeologists started screening and tak-
ing bags of soil (context samples) back to the
laboratory since decades ago, in order to extract
material that was suspected of being there, but
not visible to the naked eye. Examples are grains
of pollen or the husks (carcasses) of insects,
which give information about the vegetational
resources and the local environment,
respectively.
Further developments, which might be termed
Level G, use chemical and geophysical readings
taken on site, to infer the former presence of
certain activities. ICP analysis was used at Sutton
Hoo to detect traces of iron and copper from
a vanished cauldron and the residue of bones
from a burial chamber that had been scoured by
tomb robbers. Minute traces of bone can now be
identified to species by proteomics, using the
weight of specific proteins. In Greenland, an
archaeological team described 500-year
sequence of animal farming, using DNA drawn
from a sequence of samples taken from
a vertical core driven down into an open field
(Hebsgaard et al. 2009). Magnetic instruments
have proved revealing on site, for example, at
Pinnacle Point where Paleolithic hearths have
been detected using magnetic susceptibility
measurements. Perhaps the most interesting
advances, from the excavators’ point of
view, are the results of using geophysical and
geochemical techniques in combination.
An example is Karen Milek’s analysis of the
floor of Viking houses in Iceland where
magnetometer readings and chemical readings
allowed her to infer the presence of wool
washing, latrines, and beds and map their
location (Milek 2006; Fig. 6).
Excavation Methods in Archaeology
Arbitrary and Stratigraphic Excavation
Since the basic sequence of an archaeological site
is given by the contexts (layers), the ideal is to
record each of these in the order in which it was
deposited. This is stratigraphic excavation,
which, in its simplest form, maps each layer
separately (Roskams 2001) and in more sophisti-
cated schemes records all the layers but also
higher-order concepts like features and structures
(Carver 2009; and see the entry on ▶ Recording
in Archaeology in this encyclopedia). The order
of deposition may be partially captured in section
and is worked out for the site as a whole with the
aid of stratification diagrams.
Arbitrary excavation divides the deposit into
horizontal slices 5–10 cm thick, known as
arbitrary levels (or spits). This is naturally
a much faster method of digging than defining
each original cultural layer in three dimensions. It
is often justifiable in the case of deposits where
stratification is extremely difficult to see, for
example, in cave sites or LBK settlements. Even
when layer interfaces are visible, it is sometimes
championed as more scientific than the definition
of individual contexts, which is subject to the
variable skills of excavators. If a deposit is
precisely sliced, horizontally and vertically, the
records of these surfaces provide an unequivocal,
and checkable, account of where interfaces were
located and what layers looked like.
Analysis and Publication of Excavations
The minimum duty of every excavator is to
conserve the records made in a publically
accessible archive (see the entry on Publication in
Field Archaeology in this encyclopedia) and pro-
vide an account of the sequence of activities
encountered on the site. Many thousands of CRM
excavations are conducted each year that meet
these minimum requirements on behalf of clients.
The full yield of research requires a comprehensive
program of analysis, in which all the artifacts and
biota (the assemblages) are studied and the use of
space is analyzed and the sequence and date deter-
mined. In general the assemblages indicate the
activities on site; the spatial analysis discovers the
shape of buildings and how floors, yards, and routes
were used. The sequential analysis puts the
Excavation Methods in Archaeology
Excavation Methods in Archaeology, Fig. 6 An interpretation of Hofstadir pit house G, owed to microchemical and
geophysical mapping (Courtesy of Karen Milek)
structures and activities in order and gives them
a date. These results are synthesized to give
a documented account of the events that occurred
in order of date, often divided for convenience into
phases or periods. What every excavation should
offer is a strong, evidence-based local story, which
can then be deployed to understand bigger ques-
tions couched in more generalized theoretical
frameworks.
Cross-References
▶ American Pioneers and Traditions
▶ British Pioneers and Fieldwork Traditions
▶ Burial Excavation, Anglo-Saxon
▶ Ireland: Investigations in Advance of
Motorway Construction
2713 E
▶ Publication in Field Archaeology
▶ Recording in Archaeology
▶ Soil Pollen Analyses in Environmental
Archaeology
References
CARVER, M. 2009 Archaeological investigation. Boca
Raton: Taylor & Francis.
- 2011. Making archaeology happen. Walnut Creek: Left
Coast Press.
HEBSGAARD, M.B., M.T.P. GILBERT, J. ARNEBORG, P. HEYN,
M.E. ALLENTOFT, M. BUNCE, K. MUNCH, C. SCHWEGER &
E. WILLESLEV. 2009. The farm beneath the sand’ – an
archaeological case study on ancient ‘dirt’ DNA.
Antiquity 83: 430–44.
HESTER T.R., H.J. SHAFER & K.L. FEDER. 1997. Field
methods in archaeology. 7th. edn. Mountain View
(CA): Mayfield Publishing.
E 2714
MILEK, K. B. 2006. Houses and households in early
Icelandic society: geoarchaeology and the interpreta-
tion of social space. Unpublished PhD dissertation,
University of Cambridge.
ROSKAMS, S. 2001. Excavation (Cambridge Manuals
in Archaeology). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Experiencing Cultural Heritage
Ian Baxter
School of Business, Leadership & Enterprise,
University Campus Suffolk, Ipswich,
Suffolk, UK
Introduction
The experience of cultural heritage is varied
according to the person’s realm of experience,
the setting of the experience, and the intent of
the experience from the point of view of the
participator and the provider. The most readily
accessible experience of cultural heritage is in the
realm of tourism, whereby tourist motivation can
be explicitly linked to cultural heritage resources
and locations. Notable in European countries, and
borne out in global tourism statistics, the cultural
heritage tourist has particular motivations, allied
to education and cultural improvement, is
looking for authentic experiences of cultural
traits allied to distinct geographic locations, visits
particular sites, spends more at a location in both
time/duration, and money/investment in the lei-
sure activity. Figures produced by other national
tourism organizations (NTOs) around the globe
tend to concur with this trend too: Experience of
cultural heritage is a popular leisure motivation
on an international scale as well as a local driver
for economic and social development.
Definition
Heritage tourists can be readily identified in
demographic studies of leisure activities, and for
tourism, businesses are a sought-after group who
Experiencing Cultural Heritage
will often act as repeat visitors to an area. Heri-
tage tourists can therefore be categorized as
a sector of the visitor population who desire to
engage in and respond to an immersive experi-
ence associated with genius loci, or the “spirit of
place,” comprising all aspects of the built, natu-
ral, cultural, and social environment. Studies in
tourism management which have created typolo-
gies of visitor according to motivation and behav-
ior continue to subdivide and refine the form of
the heritage tourist, according to specialized area
of business/activity focus, but the general princi-
ple of this type of tourist can be understood dis-
tinctly alongside categories such as cultural
tourist, or eco-tourist. Associated variables in
the types of tourist and form of encounter can
be analyzed by the origin of the visitor, local,
domestic, or overseas; the duration of stay, as
a day visit or longer; and by the visitor context,
staying with friends or relatives, within a family
group, or on business.
The different types of tourist unsurprisingly
take part in different types of heritage tourism,
and the form of experience is molded by where
the encounter with cultural heritage takes place.
The most readily understood and studied form of
heritage experience can be found at sites operated
as visitor attraction. It should be remembered that
many sites operated as heritage visitor attractions
were not designed for the purpose of tourism
(e.g., castles, country houses, and battlefields),
and therefore can be argued to provide the most
accessible authentic form of encounter, albeit
requiring further interpretation for visitors
through guidebooks, display materials, and
other visitor service functions. The further
major locations for a definable cultural heritage
experience can occur within a museum or gallery,
which display specific aspects of a community’s
history or types of artform, and the function, form
and operation of museums and galleries have
a well-established literature and philosophy of
museology (Bennett 1995). Recognition of the
cultural heritage aspects of the wider tourism
environment beyond the defined site or building
is seen through increasing prominence of heri-
tage-themed events (associated with folk cus-
toms, historical or geographical traditions, and