Analytical Exercise 1 Yunyao Chen Student ID Number: 900204948

From the late 19th century to the current day, archaeology has undergone a great
change in all aspects. In this paper, I will take the archaeological research in Amarna
as a case to examine the evolution of archaeological techniques and publications
methods for settlement archaeology.

There has been a significant development in the fieldwork techniques from the late
19th century to the 21st century. In 1891, Flinders Petrie (1894, 1) carried out his
excavation at a rapid pace because it only took half of a year from start to finish.
Petrie and his colleagues used the triangulation technology to conduct their survey
work in the desert. They tried to measure the distance between several selective
points by counting steps with compass. In the 1920s and the 1930s, Henri Frankfort
and John Pendlebury directed the excavation in the north and the central part of
Amarna (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933, v–vi). They conducted a more detailed and
systematic excavation in the north part of Amarna than Petrie. For instance, they
drew up the detailed plans of different quarters and even made restored plans
(Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933, vii); on the contrary, Petrie's plans lacked such
detailed information and they are also less in number (Petrie 1894, Pl. XXXIV–XLII). In
addition, Frankfort devoted more attention to how the neighbouring structures
interacted with one another. To be more specific, his approach is to comparing the
relative size and quality of "slums" and "large estates" in the North Suburb in order
to discuss their relationship (Shaw 2012, 278). From 2002 to 2005, grid 12 and the
house of Ranefer in the Main City of Amarna had been "almost surgically" (Kemp and
Stevens 2010a, 191) analyzed by members of the Egypt Exploration Society (Kemp
and Stevens 2010a, 9). There are also many new fieldwork techniques employed in
the excavations compared to the earlier excavations mentioned in this paper. The
archaeologists tried to analyze "the full vertical variation in the fill deposits" (Kemp
and Stevens 2010a, 204). For example, they created section drawings of the northern
face and the west face of multiple sections through the stratigraphy (Kemp and
Stevens 2010a, 201).

As for the treatment of different categories, Petrie divided the data he collected in
Amarna into eight categories, i. e. the site, the palace and temple, the house, the
manufactures, the jar inscriptions, the cuneiform tablets, the flint tools, and
historical results (Petrie 1894, iii–iv). His treatment of each category is relatively
simple and general. Take his treatment of pottery as an example. Petrie described the
main features of pottery according to colours, patterns, basis, and decorations,
without mentioning every single case or classifying pottery into certain categories
(Petrie 1894, 30). In the 20th century, scholars tried to categorize archaeological data
with new classification methods. For instance, Pendlebury (Frankfort and Pendlebury
1933, 110–113) attached more importance to pottery compared with Petrie's
method. Based on P. L. O. Guy's approach (Peet and Woolley 1923, 135–141) to
classification of pottery, Pendlebury's method to analyzing pottery discovered in
Amarna is more systematic and detailed by categorizing the types according to shape
and usage with a simple table (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933, 111–113). He
simplified Guy's work by amalgamating many types and added the new types. In the
21st century, Barry Kemp and Anna Stevens categorized the data with a clear
criterion according to their usage. Their catalog includes three major categories and
thirty-two sub-categories (Kemp and Stevens 2010b, 1–2). Although "pottery" also
appeared in the title of chapter 17 (Kemp and Anna 2010b, 239), it was no longer
treated as a separate section but rather was listed in different categories as a type of
material.

The method that data is presented has also undergone a significant change. In the
late 19th century, Petrie's primary approach to presenting the data in Amarna was
drawing and painting them by hand. For instance, he drew the weights, inscribed
vases, and glass making discovered in Amarna with some brief descriptions (Petrie
1894, Pl. XIII). In addition, photographs of certain fresco, reliefs and statues of the
royal family are also included in the work (Petrie 1894, I). In the 20th century,
photography played a quite important part in presenting archaeological data.
Frankfort and Pendlebury's team used a pile of black and white photos to present
archaeological sites and objects (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933, Pl. XXVII–XLVIII).
Although the photos were widely used in recording data, the archaeologists
continued to draw illustrations by hand in order to show full details clearly, such as
new types of amulets and ring bezels (Frankfort and Pendlebury 1933, Pl. XLIX). In
general, traditional paper media was the main way to present data in the 19th and
20th century. At the beginning of the 21st century, there was a revolutionary advance
in presenting archaeological data of Amarna. First, many more color photos and
aerial photos were used in recording excavation sites and small items. For example,
Gail Owen used the expedition's helium-filled photography balloon to take aerial
photographs in order to observe the condition of archaeological sites and mark each
site and compare the changes before and after cleaning and excavating (Kemp and
Stevens 2010a, 193–195). Secondly, the website of Amarnaproject was first posted in
September 2000, which presents numerous archaeological data as well as the
catalogue of related publications to its visitors. In addition, based on accumulated
objects and meticulous analysis, Kemp and Anna also used tables to present data
with more specific information in their work. For instance, the table of Glass ribbons
includes their types, object numbers, provenance, colours, pantones, dimensions,
section shapes, and comments (Kemp and Anna 2010b, 508–510).

These changing techniques in archaeological research on Amarna tell us that

archaeological data play an increasingly important role in present archaeological
research. In the late 19th century, Petrie's career in Egyptian archaeology was mostly
based on "tableaux provided by individual sites" (Kemp 1984, 20). He devoted most
of his energy to architectural and textual data of Amarna so as to reconstruct the
history as what he had done in his preview research on the cemetery at Medium
(Petrie 1892, 5–40). In addition, in the final chapter of his work on Amarna he
proposed several theories about the history of Akhenaten and the royal family
(Petrie 1894, 38–44). This tableaux approach placed great importance on
architectural and textual information so as to modify the framework of ancient
Egyptian history without paying sufficient attention on minor such as other artefacts
and environmental remains (Kemp 1984, 20). Although this kind of approach
gradually changed, many archaeologists in the early 20th century still considered
archaeological findings as supplements and evidence for reconstructions of ancient
Egyptian history rather than archaeological reconstructions itself (Shaw 2012, 281).
From the 1920s to the 1950s, Pendlebury conducted the excavation and research on
Amarna. He paid much attention to many rubbish-pits and carefully cleaned them
(Pendlebury 1951, 35). Nevertheless, Ian Shaw pointed out that Pendlebury still had
motivation to find the data related to textual and architectural information in order
to revolutionize history. In this regard, he commented that Egyptian archaeology was
still principally "a means of acquiring new art historical and documentary evidence
rather than as a scientific end in itself" (Shaw 2012, 281). It is no doubt that the data
directly related to the framework of ancient Egypt are still the priorities in
archaeological research. In the twenty-first century, archaeologists tried to treat
every category of archaeological data equally. In the publication of the Main City in
2010 (Kemp and Stevens 2010a and 2010b), editors did not give priority to
architecture and texts but presented some kinds of data which had been overlooked
by their predecessors, such as the botanical samples, the insect remains, and the
mammal bones from Grid 12 (Kemp and Stevens 2010a, 399–453). Furthermore,
archaeologists attached increasing importance to using scientific methods to present,
analyse and interpret accumulated data. For instance, Shaw (2013, 315–333) applied
statistical tools including the line-plots of and two tables to present different types of
artefacts or refuse at Amarna in order to explore a wide variety of human activities.

The development of techniques applied in excavation and publications on Amarna

implies that scientific technology and methods become more and more significant in
using archaeological data in modern research. Take the application of photography as
an example of the influence of technological advancement. In the late 19th century,
it was impossible for Petrie to analyse sites by photography. He could only measure
the distance between main sites on his feet (Petrie 1894, 1) and draw the plans and
maps by hand (Petrie 1894, Pl. XXXIV–XLII). The usage of photography was limited in
the realm of record small artefacts (Petrie 1894, Pl. I). In the first half of the 20th
century, Pendlebury's team was able to use photography balloons to take aerial
photographs so as to analyse the landscape more comprehensively and clearly
(Pendlebury 1951, 35). From the twenty-first century onwards, the application of
aerial photography has become more prevalent in archaeological publications
(Parcak 2009, 31). On the website of Amarnaproject, there are many colored aerial
photographs, such as the satellite image of the Great Aten Temple and the aerial
photography of Kom El-Nana. The advancement of technology contributes to the
accumulation of archaeological data while scientific methods help us analyse and
interpret these increasing data. For instance, Shaw made use of the histogram, the
pie chart, the scatter-plots and the line plots to explore the accommodation
conditions of the inhabitants of Amarna (Shaw 1992, 152–160) .