Describe with examples the differences between Artifacts and Acofacts. (Ay 304)

Archaeology, like most disciplines, relies on various sources to obtain its archaeological information. In archaeology, such sources are material remains of the past which are, normally, excavated from different sites and critically analyzed to provide reliable archaeological information that can be used for different purposes including supporting research in various other disciplines. According to Hines (2004:9) such material remains of the past notably; ecofacts, artifacts, structures and features are a huge source of information such that academic discipline of archaeology is, at most, the study of these.

In his book “Field Archaeology: An introduction”, Drewett (2012: 100) documents the importance of each individual type of material remain as having different value and role to archaeologists. In his account, however, such material remains are considered to have slight demarcations that are unclear to most people. It is from such pretext that this paper attempts, among other things, to elucidate the differences between artifacts and ecofacts. For the purpose of this discussion, such analysis will be preceded by conceptualization of the terms artifacts and ecofacts, the importance or usefulness of such material remains in archaeology discipline and the manner in which they can be used to provide multitude archaeological information. Finally, the challenges facing preservation of both artifacts and ecofacts together with their solutions shall also be discussed.

The term artifact has been defined differently by different scholars. According to Fagan (2010) Artifacts are objects found in archaeological sites that exhibit features resulting from human activities. Artifacts, therefore, covers every form of portable archaeological findings from stone axes to gold ornaments as well as food remains such as broken bones. As such, artifacts are product of human ideas, ideas that people had about the way object looks or is used.

 On the other hand Ewen (2003: 5) in his book “Artifacts” defines artifacts by using modification criterion. As such, Artifacts are defined as the objects that are made or modified by humans. The major weakness of this seemingly straightforward definition is it can quickly become fatally vague if subjected to intense scrutiny. The major challenge  to this definition ,has to do with objects that fits modification criterion but are never referred to as artifacts, for instance, building foundations, trashpit, the unmodified rocks, surrounding hearths, a deer ulna found in trashpit. All of these items can appear on archaeological sites and aid in archaeological interpretation, but calling them all artifacts stretches the definition to the breaking point.

 Feder (1996:458) offers a definition that clarifies the situation somewhat: “artifact-Any object manufactured by a human being or human ancestor, but usually a portable object like a stone spear point or a clay pot as distinguished from more complex archaeological features”. The concept of artifact portability is also stressed by Sharer and Ashmore who on their book “Archaeology: Discovering of our past”  defines artifact as a portable object whose form has been modified  wholly or partially by human activity object such as stone hammer and fired clay vessel.

Ecofacts has been defined by Fagan (2009:61) as archaeological findings of cultural significance that were not manufactured by humans. These include bones and plant remains. They are non-artifactual materials that are not directly created or modified by humans, but have cultural relevance. Examples of artifacts include remnants of both wild and domesticated animals and plant species i.e. bones and seeds. Although they are neither directly created nor significantly modified by human activity, ecofacts provide reliable information about past human activities. These and other ecofacts such as soils contribute to our understanding of the past because they reflect ancient environmental conditions diet, and resource exploitation.

At this level it should be emphasized that sometimes the line between ecofacts and artifacts is a bit ambiguous.  For example, bones with cut marks from butchering might be considered artifact reflecting human technology as well as ecofacts yielding clues to the ancient environment. As such, archaeologists agree that artifacts consist of inorganic materials and ecofacts consist of organic materials such as plants and animals that may become artifacts when they are modified or used for certain purpose.

Artifacts and ecofacts are important in the discipline archaeology in many ways. Archaeologists can analyze artifacts and ecofacts to determine the approximate time of occupation. For example at an early nineteenth-century fur-trading post excavated in northwestern Wisconsin, Ewen examined the faunal remains that were able to determine the season of occupation for the site and the dietary preferences of the fur traders, and they even contributed to a determination of which cabin was occupied by the high-status company partner and which was used by the lower-status employees. (Ewen 1986)

In addition, artifacts and ecofacts can also be used to determine occupational sequence, site activities, and site functions. Site activities include animal hide processing, cooking, and tool making. Site function is the overall use of the site. Examples of function include temporary camps, permanent villages, and special purpose sites such as cemeteries or bead manufacturing sites. (Ewen 1986)

The differences between Artifacts and Eco-facts can be explained in various criterions as follows;

The modification or usability criterion. For material remains to be regarded as artifacts they must be inorganic materials and have been modified or used by humans. In contrast, material remains are regarded as ecofacts when they are organic. However when ecofacts are used or modified by human beings they tend to shift from being ecofacts into becoming artifacts. According to Kowta (1980:1), archaeological materials which bear the imprint of human modification, occur primarily, though by no means exclusively, in the form of artifacts. Artifacts are, thus, discrete objects which bear some modification from the natural state attributable to man .One of the first and basic tasks of archaeology is that of differentiating such man modified materials from materials that are unaltered from their natural state.

In supporting such argument Kowta (1980:1) mentions four major forms through which artifacts can be modified;

First, natural objects may be purposefully modified or moved by man to serve some end. Tools, utensils, and weapons are familiar artifacts of this kind.

Second, natural objects may become modified in physical form as the incidental result of use. The worn surface of a cobble pestle or the dulling of the sharp edge ofa stone flake used as a knife represents examples of modification of this kind.

Third, the processes of manufacture, preparation or use may result in waste materials which may not be used further but which nevertheless reveal human activity. Flakes removed in shaping a stone tool, the discarded shells of seeds ground for food, the ash remaining from a log burned for heat all represent this form of modification.

Fourth, objects may be modified with respect to provenience with or without physical form. This kind of modification is represented by, for example, an otherwise unmodified quartz crystal found in a dead shaman's ceremonial pouch or a river cobble located on a ridge top.

On the other hand ecofacts have the property of not being modified or used by human beings at all. It should be noted, however, when an ecofact is intentionally or unintentionally used by human it tends to move from the category of ecofacts into artifacts (Algeo : 1988:345).

Artifacts and ecofacts also differ in the type of archaeological and historical information that each of them provides. Fagan and Beck (1996) argues that artifacts preserved in the site provide information on the length of occupations and the range of activities performed at the site. Artifacts provide reliable information about past human activities, and they may also be able to provide information about the environment in which such artifacts existed.

An example of information provided by artifacts can be obtained from archaeological excavations conducted at Southern Guatemala, specifically at Cotzumalhuapa. The excavations led to the discovery of obsidian debris recovered in the El Baúl workshop area. Such obsidian debris confirmed the existence of a large-scale obsidian industry, which included the manufacture of both prismatic blades and projectile points. Raw materials were imported mainly from the El Chayal and San Martín Jilotepeque sources in highland Guatemala, and there are indications that a small amount came from the San Bartolomé Milpas Altas source. (Oswaldo:2004)

On the contrary, ecofacts provides somewhat different information.  Common type of ecofacts includes plant seed and other plant remains. Plant remains often referred to as macro botanicals, provide a variety of information ranging from diet to medicine to textile production. Pollens found on archaeological sites inform researchers on the environmental and dietary changes. A seed can be linked to the species of plant that produced it; if massive numbers of seeds of a cultivated species are found at a site, it may be inferred that the species may have been grown for food or other products that are useful to humans, such as clothing, bedding or building materials.

Another type of ecofact (biofact) is wood. Wood is made up cellulose, carbohydrates, and lignin. Every year that passes a new ring is added to the trunk of tree allowing for dendochronological dating. Charcoal is burned wood that archaeologist are able to extract. It can be dated using carbon-14, and through other methods, information such as local environment and human adaptation can be revealed from the charcoal. Wagner, G. A. (1998). To help determine the date during which a site was occupied, Dendochronological analysis can be used on wood samples. It should be noted that when such wood is modified and or used by humans it becomes an artifact and not an ecofact. (Renfrew & Bahn: 2008).

Dating methods that are used to date artifacts are somewhat different from those that are used to date ecofacts. In this aspect it should be noted that in most cases the dating of artifacts brings about relative date as opposed to absolute date that is normally obtained when dating an ecofact. The major reasons for differences in dating methods have to do with the nature of materials i.e. inorganic (artifacts) versus organic (ecofacts). Dig argues that most dating methods that archaeologists use are radiometric--that means they measure the rate of decay, or change, of particular radioactive elements that materials might contain. In such a way most organic materials which are likely to decay can be measured by most decaying related methods.

 As such, methods that can be used to date ecofacts respectively include radiocarbon dating or Carbon 14. This method works on the principle of decay i.e decay happens because the carbon is unstable, radioactive carbon decays to nitrogen with a half-life of 5568 years. In dead material, the decayed carbon 14 is not replaced and its concentrations in the object decreases slowly. To obtain a truly absolute chronology, corrections must be made, provided by measurements on samples of know age.

The most suitable types of sample for radiocarbon dating are charcoal and well-preserved wood, although leather, cloth, paper, peat, shell and bone can also be used. Because of the somewhat short half-life of 14C, radiocarbon dating is not applicable to samples with ages greater than about 50,000 years, because the remaining concentration would be too small for accurate measurement. On the contrary non decaying materials like minerals and stiff rocks make it impossible to use Carbon 14 methods.

Some ecofacts like trees and woods can be dated using a relatively simple method called dendochronology or tree-ring dating. Tree-ring dating is a method that is less difficult to understand. Tree rings grow annually--in sensitive trees like oak, rings varying thickness from year to year, depending on growing conditions. Using many trees, scientists have built up tree-ring sequence going back beyond 7,500 B.C.

 On the other hand, artifacts can be dated using dating methods like Typological sequence that considers things that were made at the same time to be similar and viceversa. For example, typology in 1899 by Flinders Petrie for the objects (mainly pottery) found in 900 prehistoric Egyptian graves. This typology formed the basis for his manual seriation of the graves. (Kendall: 1971). While most of the non decaying artifacts can be dated through other methods like stratigraphy and superposition, some artifacts made from organic materials like animal and plant remains can still be dated through Carbon 14 method and dendrochronology

Artifacts are in most cases used as a principle means of archaeological survey as opposed to ecofacts.  Thomas (2009:44) argued that because artifacts constitute most constituents of sites, one of the clues being looked for in the process of site survey is simply the presence of artifact. Although whether the presence of artifacts on surface area reflects their presence in subsurface area is a matter of debate, many archaeologists agree that artifacts as opposed to ecofacts are more likely to be found in archaeological sites.

To many archaeologists, this argument has been linked to the question of availability of artifacts. In most cases artifacts are available more than ecofacts, and given the non-decaying nature of some artifacts it goes without saying that artifacts can endure surviving in the surface area for a long period of time. According to Linda (2010:608), discovery of archaeological site is a function of the number of artifacts in the site matrix and the size of subsurface tests.

Another difference has to do with influence of artifacts and ecofacts on culture. Archaeologists agree that ecofacts have less cultural evidence than artifact. In this aspect, it is strongly argued that artifacts are great cultural reflections because they reflect what humans did through their own efforts. Artifacts are cultural; they give information about culture of a person or a certain group of people. On the contrary most of the ecofacts are in most cases human themselves, and given the state of decaying, it might not even be possible to closely examine the influence of culture on such material remains. Most artifacts are kept in museums and are used to reflect people’s culture.

Although, artifacts and ecofacts are different material remains, there are some aspects that are similar among them. They include the following:

Both ecofacts and artifacts talk about past events, activities and environment; they are essential and helpful features in finding out about past culture. For example, artifacts can help archaeologists to understand more about the status of people who lived on a site. For example, if records indicate that porcelain was extraordinarily expensive during the early eighteenth century and a soil layer dating to that period contains a lot of porcelain, the occupant of the site was probably quite wealthy. If, in a privy dating to that same time period, seeds or pollen from imported (and therefore expensive) spices are discovered, the case is further strengthened. Conversely, if food and bones found on the site indicate that the occupants were eating mostly stews rather than individual cuts of meat, it might suggest that they were attempting to stretch their meat as far as possible.

 Less expensive ceramics and well-worn utensils are additional indications that the site was occupied by poorer people. Of course, not everyone spends money in the same way. Someone with very little money and a love for exotic spices might scrimp and save to buy spices to satisfy that craving. It is possible that a poorer person had been given spices as a gift. All these information can be obtained by using artifacts.

Both of them result from archaeological research. The relationship between them can be observed in archaeological sites which are locations for past human activities. For example, the remains of a long time ago abandoned village or the place where an ancient hunter skinned and butchered a buffalo. Generally they arise when archaeologists conduct researches about various past events. In conducting research archaeologists needs to analyze artifacts and ecofacts recovered from a site to determine the approximate time of occupation, occupational sequence, site activities, and site function(s). Site activities include animal hide processing, cooking, and tool making. Site function is the overall use of the site.

Examples of function include temporary camps, permanent villages, and special purpose sites such as cemeteries or bead manufacturing sites. Archaeologists may also research to know how sites interrelate in order to determine how prehistoric populations operated across the landscape. For example, by plotting the locations of sites exhibiting similar distinctive (diagnostic) artifacts, archaeologists figured out the connections among the Indian groups. As such it is from archaeological researches that the need for both artifacts and ecofacts arise.

Both of them are helpful in understanding spatial distribution and organization of human activities. The artifact assemblage resulting from household activities looks very different than an assemblage excavated from a blacksmith's shop. Artifacts from a household site usually include primarily wine bottle glass, nails, ceramic shards, animal bones, oyster shells, and tobacco pipe fragments. Artifacts from the site of a blacksmith's shop would include lots of iron (much of it unidentifiable, since it never made it out of the shop). There would also be fewer artifacts relating to cooking or eating, since a blacksmith's shop is a workplace, not a site where people lived. Dairying, brick making, gardening, tavern keeping-just about any activity one can imagine-had some impact on the artifacts found on a site. They also show spatial distribution of people in relation to climatic condition, economic specialization and geographical zones.

Following from above it can be said that both artifacts and ecofacts have archaeological importance. As such their preservation has been faced by several challenges as follows;

Constant environmental changes may lead to destruction and disappearance of ecofacts and artifacts in undiscovered archaeological sites.  Natural calamities like flood, volcanic eruption, and soil erosion are noted as having the largest influence in destroying archaeological sources like artifacts and ecofacts especially in areas where such materials have never been discovered.

Human activities also threaten the preservation of artifacts and ecofacts. This can be due to both accidental and intentional activities of man that may lead to destruction and disappearance of artifacts and ecofacts. Such human activities include reoccupation of archaeological site. This may cause earlier artifacts and ecofacts to be destroyed and being mixed around. Also large scale human events like war. Development of antiquity market has influenced looting of artifacts and ecofacts. Reuse of materials such as whalebone or wood house rafters also destroys artifacts and ecofacts. Also disturbance processes in recent times also helps to change the context of materials in the archaeological site. This includes development that are influenced by technological changes such construction of physical infrastructures, creation of nuclear bombs.

Improper care on artifacts and ecofacts that have already been discovered also threatens preservation of both artifacts and ecofacts. Many archaeologists agree that housing the artifacts is also a challenge towards preservation of most archaeological remains. Most museums lack skilled expert’s techniques and equipments that may aid preservation of archaeological for a long period of time.

Financial problems also face preservation of both artifacts and ecofacts. It should be noted that for museums to ensure effective preservation of both artifacts and ecofacts. Financial resources are necessary to ensure availability of modern technology and equipments. Financial resources are also important in paying the skilled experts and supporting researches for better ways of preserving artifacts and ecofacts.

The problems that face preservation of artifacts and ecofacts can be solved if the respective authorities will embark on long term programmes of educating the people about the importance of archaeological remains in preserving culture of society for the present and coming generations. This should be fortified with creation of various acts and laws that enforces archaeological sites to be preserved.

In preserving artifacts and ecofacts conservators should work closely with archaeologists to determine the best care for them.  They should assess objects and decide the best treatment while keeping the integrity of the artifacts and ecofacts intact.  Light, humidity, insects, and mold can damage an artifact. Artifacts and ecofacts should be stored in a climate and light controlled case if it is to be viewed in a museum.

It should be noted that when artifacts and ecofacts are unearthed, they must re-assimilate to the new environment.  In most cases artifacts and ecofacts are used to their surroundings, therefore when artifacts and ecofacts are exposed to a different environment, damage may occur. To avoid such damage intensive measures should be employed when accommodating artifacts and ecofacts to new environment. In addition,artifacts and ecofacts should be packaged or stored in special boxes to prevent further damage or decay (Busch 2013: 25).

It should be emphasized that preservation of artifacts and ecofacts takes a lot of time and care, both of which cost money. The preservation methods of artifacts and ecofacts are also specific to each type of artifact and ecofacts, even within the same collection. Therefore, museums first must understand how each specific artifact and ecofact will deteriorate before they can acquire the materials necessary to preserve them (Busch 2013: 30).

Finally, it should be argued that both artifacts and ecofacts are important in providing information about culture of particular society as well as supporting various archaeological researches. Artifacts and ecofacts can be used to provide information about the approximate time of occupation of certain people in a particular society, changes in climatic conditions, and cultural evidence of past humans. Discovered artifacts and ecofacts are kept in museums for storage and viewing.

    REFERENCES

Algeo J. & Algeo A (1988) American Speech Vol. 63, No. 4

Brian M Fagan (2009) Archaeology: A brief introduction. California. Prentice Hall press.

Brian M Fagan, Charlotte Beck (1996) The oxford companion to archaeology, New York, Oxford University press.

Busch, Emily, (2013) Preserving Artifacts: A Survey and Research into the Struggle of Smaller Institutions' Need for Budgeting.Museum Studies Theses. Paper 2.

Charles Robin Ewen(2003), Artifacts Volume 4 of Archaeologist's toolkit. Rowman Altamira,

John Hines, (2004). Voices in the Past: English Literature and Archaeology. D.S Brewer press.

Kendall, D.G. (1971). "Seriation from abundance matrices". In Hodson, F.R.; Kendall, D.G.; Tautu, P. Mathematics in the Archaeological and Historical Sciences. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Kenneth Feder (2007) Linking to the past: A brief introduction to archaeology. Oxford University press

Linda Ellis (2010) Archaeological methods and theory: An Encyclopedia, Routledge.

Makoto Kowta (1980) Recognizing artifacts. Sacramento.

Oswaldo Chinchilla (2004) Analysis of Archaeological Artifacts from Cotzumalhuapa, Guatemala

Peter Drewett (2012) Field Archaeology: An introduction. Routledge,

Renfrew, Bahn (2008). Where? Survey and Excavation of Sites and Features. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. London: Thames & Hudson

Sharer R. J and Ashmore.W “Archaeology: Discovering of our past”.