[Skill] Archaeology (Peer Review)

[Eleret]

HD Approval Workshop Listing Reviews: 4/5 Archaeology is the study of past cultures through the artifacts and other material evidence they have left behind. The general process of archaeology is to survey the site, carefully excavate and catalog its contents, and draw conclusions about the origin culture from that evidence. Remnants of past societies may include buildings, pottery, gravesites, statues, and more fragile materials such as paper or cloth. Additionally, the context in which each artifact is found can provide important information. Archaeology is not a skill which stands alone, but requires a synthesis of knowledge and experience to be practiced successfully. Prerequisites and Related Skills History and Anthropology are needed to put any archaeological findings into context. To what culture do the artifacts belong? Is a particular set of ruined walls a former temple, a storehouse, or a tavern? Not only does knowledge of the original society help in identifying artifacts, but it also guides the experienced archaeologist in deducing the scope of a site and determining where best to dig. Observation and Investigation are paramount skills for any archaeologist, as they enable the researcher to extract information from a site. However, information is only as good as its record; Drawing, Copying, and Writing are equally critical, as every archaeological finding must be documented and ultimately incorporated into a larger body of knowledge. Planning, Organization, and Leadership are essential for putting together expeditions, orchestrating the process of a site's investigation, and ensuring that all information which can be had is successfully taken away from a particular excavation. Failures in planning or organization can lead to problems as diverse as supply shortages, overlooking parts of a site, loss of context and detail during the dig process, improper care and storage of artifacts, and the inability to transport intriguing findings back to civilization. Finally, Wilderness Survival, Land Navigation, and related skills can also be quite important to an expedition, even if not directly involved in the actual archaeology. Any expedition into the wilderness will need to reach its destination and survive there -- to cope with the hazards of wild animals, inclement weather, and geography; to ensure shelter for its personnel, equipment, and supplies; and likely to forage and hunt for subsistence as well, there being finite limits to what a crew may carry with them. An Archaeologist's Tools Archaeology requires a diverse assortment of tools. The most obvious are those used in excavating ruins and artifacts, from knives and saws for the removal of overgrown foliage to shovels, picks, chisels, and brushes for clearing away various amounts of dirt. Other tools such as crowbars, rope, and tweezers are also extremely useful in excavation, while hammers, nails, saws, and the like are needed for building scaffolding and platforms. Loose-woven baskets or fabric screens in frames are used to sift small items from dirt. Tools for surveying and measuring are essential for accurately recording the layout of a site and its geographical context; these include measuring lines and rods, plumb lines and plumb squares, shadow squares, reference triangles, and even compass and sextant if they can be afforded. Of equal importance with the physical tools are those needed for recording what is observed and uncovered. These may include paper, ink, charcoal, pens and brushes, straight-edges, and similar items. Whole reams of paper are used in making casts, rubbings, drawings, and transcriptions of artifacts; gypsum plaster and wax can also be used for casts. Waxes, resin, and hide glue are important for cleaning and stabilizing artifacts. Finally, supplies for safely packaging and transporting artifacts, or the equipment and knowledge by which to make such things on site, are also critical for the conclusion of the expedition. Determining Where to Look An archaeologist's investigation must begin somewhere. When available, ancient maps provide a wealth of likely destinations; essentially any historical city, town, or outpost has the potential to be a treasure trove. Ancient travelogues are also useful references, often describing at least direction and distance between locations; they may mention important landmarks. Stories and songs can also provide clues to direct an archaeologist's attention. Some can be traced back to pre-Valterrian inspirations; through careful study of different versions, along with the history of the culture they came from, a researcher might deduce likely locations for the sites referenced. Similarly, some more modern tales allude to ruins which have been rediscovered, often accidentally or in adversity. If one is lucky, tracing these tales back to their origins may lead to a guide who can take the archaeologist directly to the place in question; at other times, locating the actual site involves deduction, experience, and a measure of luck. The archaeologist must also consider how likely a prospective site is to yield informative discoveries, based upon such factors as the type of site (e.g. city or town), how well-known it is, and its proximity to a population center or well-traveled route. The more experienced the archaeologist, and the more informed they are about the culture being studied, the better their deductions will be. But unless a guide with direct experience of the area can be found, luck is always a factor in choosing and reaching a research site. The archaeological community is rife with cautionary tales about researchers who made the wrong deduction, misinterpreted a passage, failed to account for a post-Valterrian landscape change, just plain got themselves lost, or were gullible enough to be led astray by a talespinner's mischievous streak. Recognizing a Site In many situations, ancient brick and stone may have been worn down to little more than dirt mounds, lie masked beneath lush foliage, or have been buried by windblown dust and sand. This doesn't even consider sites now inundated by water, which can also have been buried in sand or colonized by coral, shellfish, and seaweeds to a point where artificial structures are nearly indistinguishable from the natural surroundings. The lucky archaeologist might find a ruin with walls still standing, albeit eroded and decayed, and so have prominent signs by which to orient their dig. Without such visible evidence, the archaeologist must rely on other indications. The cues by which an archaeologist may determine the scope of a site are many, from the overt to the very subtle, and full interpretation is something which comes only with experience. Knowledge of a culture's habits and conventions is also a great aid in predicting a site's layout -- for example, if structures are always grouped in a particular pattern, or aligned in a specific orientation. Earthen mounds laid out in an organized manner can indicate a town whose buildings have eroded down into dirt heaps. Slight differences in vegetation provide clues to the positions of buried walls and filled spaces. The rates at which snow or frost melts can hint at underlying structures; even better is to examine the earth after a rainstorm, where thin dirt over a buried wall dries more quickly than deeper soil. The passage of people and animals over time can pack down looser fill dirt, causing the tops of walls to stand out in slight relief. The angle of light at sunrise and sunset is useful for identifying variations in level and slope, which also provide information on the underlying terrain. Even the tones made by footsteps beating on the ground can be an important diagnostic tool when scoping out a site. Placing a site in temporal context requires prior knowledge of the culture and the environment, and is another skill which hinges on experience. For example, in some situations a site might be dated fairly accurately by the decay of brick walls and the depth to which dirt has piled up over them, if one knows the general trends of erosion in the local climate. Most often, a site's precise age is deduced from the artifacts found in it and their comparison with other items known to have been made by the same culture. Styles of common tools and of ornamentation such as beads are highly useful in this regard, but pottery is perhaps the best diagnostic of all -- highly abundant, fragile enough to often break and be discarded, changing rapidly in style over time, and yet also relatively resistant to decay and erosion. This method of site dating also requires that a body of lore exist for the culture in question, in order to place a new finding in historical context. Carrying Out the Excavation Personnel Any archaeological exploration, if it's to be properly thorough, requires a great deal of labor. A small team can be adequate for small sites, and may be preferred for extreme environments or remote locations. However, small expeditions may need a great deal of time to unearth and catalog the site, adding considerably to their risk. Ideally, the expedition should have many people along to assist, whether in moving earth, sifting for small items, recording observations and copying inscriptions, carpentry, cleaning and treating recovered artifacts, and even the non-archaeological tasks of cooking, hunting or foraging if necessary, maintaining animals and supplies, guarding against predators and monsters, and any number of other support roles. Balancing the recruitment and supply of personnel, the risk of spending greater time in the field, and the completeness of a site's study is a preeminent concern for any expedition. Method of Excavation A relatively rapid method of excavation is simply to dig trial pits in various places, searching for anything noteworthy in the soil. Excavation then proceeds around and between those pits which yield results. This method is advantageous when personnel or time (or both) is limited for an expedition. However, artifacts in trial pits are more likely to be damaged -- particularly items larger than the pit itself -- and when removed from the pit are also removed from their context with respect to the larger site. A much more intensive method, but often considered superior for maintaining provenance, is parallel trenching. In this method, a long trench is dug out and any artifacts in that space documented and removed, then the next line over excavated. The spatial context of artifacts is readily preserved, large items can be more easily worked around, and the entire volume of earth is thoroughly turned over. Soil from later trenches may be folded into earlier ones, in which case this is also a relatively tidy approach to site excavation. If labor is abundant, a large area can be dug out as a single unit. In this case, soil and unwanted debris must be deposited somewhere off-site. This method is most useful for superimposed buildings, where each level of construction must be studied individually. It is also likely to be employed for large settlements, where there is potentially a great deal of material to be studied and recovered -- but again requires large numbers of personnel, a great deal of time to commit to the process, or both. Disposal of Waste Dirt, shrubbery and tree boughs, inconvenient stones, and all other manner of detritus are inevitably cleared away over the course of an excavation -- which leaves the archaeologist with the question of where to put it. Upon deciding the excavation plan, the archaeologist should make an estimate of how much material will need to be removed and what places around the site will accommodate its disposal. The ideal dumping ground will not impede excavation progress in later stages, is close by and easily accessed, and will not result in a pile which falls back towards the dig as it gets larger. Frequently, as excavation progresses, dump sites are adjusted to fit the changing layout of the work. Documentation of Findings Documentation is paramount for an archaeologist. Once a site is excavated, it is forever changed, if not utterly demolished. There is no way to readily recover lost information. Ideally, an archaeologist records everything having to do with the site, the excavation, and all artifacts. Yet while documentation is absolutely necessary to preserve information for later study and synthesis, it is also time-consuming, and while an artifact's situational provenance is being recorded, that immediate area of the dig remains at a standstill. It is up to the archaeologist to decide what details are trivial and what are critically important, a skill which comes with experience and general familiarity with the culture being studied. Generally, individual archaeologists will also develop a system of coding and shorthand which helps reduce the time spent in notation without also omitting important information. The relative position of an artifact, and what was found around it, is something that always needs to be recorded. This is true for everything from the smallest of trinkets up to buildings and the entire site as a whole. Most expeditions will assign some sort of notation for denoting features and objects, whether a combination of letters and numbers linking objects to the buildings they are found in, a coordinate grid and numbered artifacts, or some other system entirely. This only captures the most basic of provenance, however; it is best augmented with maps and sketches of context as deemed appropriate. Many artifacts are also sketched individually as a matter of course; it is generally easier to use a visual catalog to inventory items recovered than a set of written descriptions. In addition to written and drawn records, rubbings and castings are frequently used for everything from coins to wall inscriptions. Rubbings simply involve layering paper over an inscription or relief and rubbing the surface with charcoal to capture its contours. Impressions in firm soil may be used directly as plaster or wax molds. Small artifacts are generally impressed into wax, from which plaster copies can be cast. Larger objects, including surface carvings, can be cast by wet-paper molding, in which the artifact is soaked, then layered over with strips or sheets of sodden paper which is as close to pulped as possible. The paper is beaten into crevices and contours, then usually left in place to dry. Once removed, the paper may be kept as a record in its own right, or used as a mold for plaster casts. Condition and Preservation of Artifacts in the Field Archaeology doesn't end with just finding artifacts. These objects are virtually always in some state of decay, a far cry from their original solidarity, and often need to be stabilized before even removing them from the field. Presented here are some concerns which can impact a material's condition and longevity, and some methods for addressing them. Neither list is exhaustive. Precious metals: Gold weathers well, unless alloyed with silver; silver degrades considerably over time. Tarnished silver can be cleaned by immersing it with iron in weak vinegar, and corroded silver can be cleaned by immersing in ammonia, but nothing can be done to salvage badly corroded silver. Copper scales at the surface but usually remains intact underneath, if thick enough, and can be cleaned by careful chiseling of the surface. Bronze and brass: Most bronze and brass alloys corrode in the same way copper and can be similarly cleaned. More brittle alloys can be cleaned with vinegar as long as their surfaces show no cracking. If cracked, the artifact is not sound enough to withstand any cleaning. Bronze may also develop a green rust, which can be stopped from progressing with turpentine. Iron and steel: If iron is superficially rusted, it can be cleaned with vinegar. However, in most cases nothing can be done to clean and restore iron artifacts; further decay can be prevented by soaking the item in water, baking it dry, and then coating it thoroughly with wax. Stone: In addition to general wind and water erosion, stonework is particularly susceptible to the effects of salt, whether that be salt in water or salt present in the soil and surroundings which over time has permeated the stone. Salt will cause stone to flake apart from the outside in, particularly in any non-desert environment, and a thoughtless archaeologist can easily hasten this process by moving the stone to a damper climate. The only effective recourse for removing salt is to submerge the artifact for an extended period, leaching the salt from the stone; however, not all types of stone can stand immersion in water. Stone which is very badly flaked and has little solidarity left cannot be soaked, but may be saturated with hot wax instead as both protectant and binder. Pottery: Ceramics are frequently very soft when first uncovered, and can be easily damaged in attempts to clean or even simply handle them if not first permitted to dry out. Pottery is susceptible to salt, much as stonework is, and treated the same way. Glazed pottery is much more difficult to purge of salt than unglazed, frequently taking weeks of immersion. Glazes often lose their colors over time due to oxidation, regardless of conditions. Some glazes, particularly clear ones, may decompose and turn brown; these can be scraped off to reveal the colors protected beneath. Once dried out and cleaned, pottery tends to be among the more stable of artifacts. Glass: Glass artifacts are usually stable, but prone to decomposing in humid environments. Glass is also especially at risk in underwater environments. Decomposed glass has a characteristic 'frosty' appearance, is fragile and porous, and may show surface pitting or crazing. Glass artifacts are generally soaked like pottery, and may be treated with resin to prevent further degradation; however, this process generally renders it opaque, may affect color, and can weaken the piece even beyond its original damage. Wood: Wood is most affected by rot and insects. Degraded wood which is also dry can be stabilized by coating it in hot wax. The hotter the wax, the deeper it will soak into the wood. Large objects can be painted with coatings of wax and turpentine to protect their surface. However, waterlogged wood is best kept submerged; there is no way to dry it out without causing further damage. Ivory and bone: Ivory and bone both tend to be flaky and fragile when excavated. The best practice is to dig out a block of earth around the artifact and allow it to dry for seven days or more before carefully brushing and picking away the soil. Flaking ivory can be stabilized by soaking in melted wax. For more severely rotted ivory, the entire block of earth should be saturated in hot wax, then the dirt carefully cleaned away. Hide glue can also be used to stabilize ivory, particularly if the ivory is saturated with salt, but fragile artifacts can be entirely destroyed by this treatment. Cloth and leather: In dry climates, cloth may be preserved but becomes very fragile and prone to crumbling when handled. Leather is somewhat more durable, but still highly prone to decay. In damp climates, both cloth and leather tend to rot, and little more than degraded fragments might be expected. Soaking with wax, thin resin, or oil may help prevent further decay, but these materials are generally among the most difficult to preserve. Paper and parchment: In humid climates, paper or parchment will generally mold and rot at least as readily as cloth, and little can be recovered after any length of time. In dry climates, these materials become brittle and fragile, liable to disintegrate with any handling, and are generally difficult to preserve. Pliability can be somewhat restored by covering the paper overnight with a slightly damp cloth to rehydrate it, then blotting moisture back out to a normal level. Large scrolls may need to be cut into pieces for this treatment. Considerations in Different Environments Dangers posed by wild animals, monsters, antagonistic races, and simple subsistance away from civilization go without saying; any traveler in any region can expect to be met with those. Each region also poses its own unique challenges to archaeological endeavors in particular, whether due to terrain, environment, the differential preservation of materials, or the availability of resources. These considerations impact what an expedition might expect to find, how an excavation should be approached, and the logistics of what must be brought or left behind in order to effectively study a site. Of course, any magical or divine protection of a location or artifact may radically change circumstances. Cyphrus: Between the low terrain and the lack of woody vegetation in the Sea, sites in Cyphrus are generally very exposed and suffer considerably from the effects of wind erosion, water erosion, freeze-thaw cycling, and sunbleaching. Brick, stone, iron, copper, bronze, and any exposed artwork are likely to be strongly affected by these processes. However, the flatness of the terrain makes it relatively easy to spot ruins if standing walls still remain -- and if an expedition can successfully navigate the trackless Sea to them in the first place. Note that the scarcity of wood also impacts an expedition's ability to construct scaffolds, crates, replacement handles for tools, and any number of other items on-site. Eyktol: The deserts of Eyktol are one of the few environments where organic materials are likely to persist in salvageable, albeit highly desiccated and fragile, condition; even paper, parchment, and textiles can be found preserved by the desert, if an archaeologist is fortunate. Salt and windblown sand are the major eroding elements in Eyktol, degrading stone, brick, and anything else left exposed. In more sandy desert regions, dunes might over time completely bury a site, which can help protect it from erosion but conversely makes it much more difficult to find. As with Cyphrus, wood is scarce throughout the desert, which severely hampers the operations of any archaeological expedition. In addition, water is a highly limited or even unavailable resource, affecting excavation and artifact processing methods as well as the survival of personnel. Falyndar: The humid environment of Falyndar promotes rapid decay of all organic materials, from textiles to leather to wood; only those maintained in a sheltered, dry context out of contact with soil are likely to endure. Stone is more persistent, though highly prone to water erosion and damage from the roots of vines or other clinging plants. The abundant moisture also thoroughly corrodes glass and reactive metals, and over time can soften and wear away pottery. Wood and water are at least plentiful, but the dense growth makes it very difficult to bring anything to or from a research site. Kalea: The high peaks of Kalea can provide an arid, cold environment which helps preserve artifacts. Although rain and snow are prevalent throughout the mountains, water damage is slowed by cooler temperatures. On the other hand, strong winds, rain, and extremes of temperature can do considerable damage, as can repeated freezing and thawing. Artifacts in caves and other sheltered locales are more likely to persist in good condition. Moving anything, be it resources in or discoveries out, is made extremely difficult by the mountains. Sylira: The relatively balanced climate found throughout most of Sylira promotes gradual deterioration of materials. Fragments of organic and other sensitive materials are likely to persist, though still prone to degradation. Overgrowth is common in forested areas, and root growth can damage brick and stone, though not as rapidly as occurs in Falyndar. Southern Sylira features a monsoonal climate, with all the disadvantages of high humidity and water exposure but only for part of the year. Taldera: The deep cold of northern Taldera helps preserve artifacts; however, accumulated snow and ice has generally buried sites in this region, placing them beyond the ready access or even identification of researchers. Expeditions to northern Taldera would also be severely hampered by lack of on-site resources. Southern Taldera is less cold and more humid, more hospitable but also more damaging to artifacts, in much the same fashion as Sylira's climate. Submerged Areas: Regardless of whether water is fresh or salt, it is not a kind environment to artifacts. Fragile organic materials (e.g. cloth, parchment) will generally have degraded completely, while sturdier organics (e.g. wood) are likely to be severely deteriorated. Pottery, brick, glass, and iron are also particularly susceptible to water damage. Artifacts which have been submerged often deteriorate rapidly upon removal if not handled with special care. The single greatest difficulty with underwater archaeology is finding a site, followed by getting researchers to it. Another problem is the changeable nature of aquatic environments; currents, storms, and tides all exert considerable force, and can greatly scatter items as time progresses. Sites can be buried or exposed by these influences, and accessibility may depend upon the time of year. Shellfish and weeds may also have thoroughly colonized surfaces. Urban Areas: Archaeological studies may also be conducted within populated cities, examining antique buildings or layers of past occupation. In such a case, the researcher has the advantage of the city's resources close to hand, and needs much less advance planning regarding supplies or labor. However, urban sites do not often survive unaffected by the people who live in and around them. Over the centuries, any artifacts which remained in urban areas have likely been picked over by opportunists and scavengers, with anything remotely useful or valuable removed. Historical structures may be repurposed, with as little change as a new coat of whitewash or as much as a complete restructuring of their interiors. They may be torn down in whole or in part to provide building materials, or to clear land for new construction. Lower floors and basements may be filled in to provide foundations for new buildings; these can be among the best of urban sites, however, as artifacts buried in the fill are likely to have gone undisturbed. For buildings which remain standing, the architecture itself and any surviving ornamentation are often the most informative items an urban archaeologist can expect to find. Even this is important, however, as the structure alone may provide information on such things as construction methods, use patterns, and art styles. Skill Progression Novice The novice archaeologist spends at least as much time with books as in the field. They are still learning the existing body of work, if any, around their subject culture, as well as the basic principles of archaeology. In a group expedition, novices will often be tasked with cataloging and packing artifacts, making copies of texts and images, and drawing maps or diagrams. When excavating, a novice will generally be supervised by a more experienced mentor to keep records and prevent serious damage to artifacts if possible. If left to keep their own records, novices generally either document too little, losing information, or too much, producing a morass of details which is later difficult to wade through. Only artifacts which are innately stable are likely to be preserved in a novice's hands. Competent A competent archaeologist has achieved working familiarity with their culture of study, recognizing common features and possessing a general sense of their history. They can recognize more obvious sites, having trained their eye to pick out manmade rubble from more natural surroundings. They are familiar with basic cataloging and notation techniques, but often miss elements of provenance, and have difficulty determining what to record for unusual artifacts. Competent archaeologists understand the principles of excavation, but are often too eager to make great finds and plow through more subtle or fragile items. At this level, the archaeologist is still learning techniques for the preservation and handling of artifacts. Expert An expert archaeologist has a solid background in the culture they study, and may have started branching out into others as well. They have learned to distinguish moderately subtle site indicators, such as differences in vegetative cover and mound shapes. Experts generally have a preferred method of cataloging and notation which serves most purposes, but is still open to improvement. An expert is familiar with methods for handling many artifact types, and can make a best guess at how to treat material they haven't handled before. Experts also have some success at adapting to unusual research environments. Master The master archaeologist is intimately familiar with the artefactual record of the culture they study, and may have solid knowledge of other cultures as well. They have a keen ability to discern a site's features and extent, utilizing even subtle indicators of light, texture, and sound. At this level, the archaeologist has fully refined methods of cataloging and notation so that few to no details of provenance are lost. A master is highly capable in the preservation of artifacts, and can handle even the most delicate or unusual of items with good chance of success. This includes heavily protected magical artifacts, though even a master is wise to handle those with care. Finally, master archaeologists can readily adapt their techniques to suit extreme environments and locations if needed.

[Eleret]

Raien Ironarm Pitrius critiqued the now-lost original review thread for this article. I'm including here the text from a cached version of his remarks. Raien's Review : Eleret wrote: Remnants of past societies may include buildings, pottery, gravesites, statues, more fragile materials such as paper or cloth, and ultimately the context in which each is found. Archaeology is not a skill which stands alone, but requires a synthesis of knowledge and experience to be practiced successfully. An honest mistake, I do believe you've left out a word here, as it stands it takes a minute to process, or even to assume it was a mistake. I'd suggest rewording the article to say. "-and ultimately depends on the context in which each is found." Eleret wrote: Planning and Organization are essential to putting together expeditions, to orchestrating the process of a site's investigation, and ensuring that all information which can be had is successfully taken away from a particular excavation. Failures of planning and/or organization can lead to problems as diverse as supply shortages, overlooking parts of a site, loss of context and detail during the dig process, improper care and storage of artifacts, and the inability to transport intriguing findings back to civilization. Just saying, Leadership would also be essential to doing these things, and just directing the dig in general if your the lead-archaeologist. Add it if you want, don't if you don't. Eleret wrote: History and Anthropology are needed to put any archaeological findings in context. To what culture do the artifacts belong? Is a particular set of ruined walls a former temple, a storehouse, or a tavern? Not only does knowledge of the original society help in identifying artifacts, but it also guides the experienced archaeologist in surveying the site and determining where best to dig according to what is known of the culture's conventions. It makes sense, but is a little nerve racking. I think it would sound better if you phrased it as such. "History and Anthropology are needed to put any archaeological findings into context." Eleret wrote: Planning and Organization are essential to putting together expeditions, to orchestrating the process of a site's investigation, and ensuring that all information which can be had is successfully taken away from a particular excavation. Your repeating yourself there, and while repetition can be useful sometimes. I think it just makes it sound odd in this case. Perhaps remove the the second to, or better yet replace it with "for". Eleret wrote: Failures of planning and or organization can lead to problems as diverse as supply shortages, overlooking parts of a site, loss of context and detail during the dig process, improper care and storage of artifacts, and the inability to transport intriguing findings back to civilization. This is just a stylistic preference, so please take it as such. I think the article would flow better, and be an easier read altogether. If you replace the highlighted "of" with "in" instead. Eleret wrote: Finally, Wilderness Survival, Land Navigation, and related skills "are" also quite important to an expedition, even if not involved directly in the actual archaeology itself. WS is not always important in archaeology, only in situations where your excavating in the wilderness would it be. What if your digging under a city? Hardly need to go to the local bar and call for WS guides, just to go down to the town square do you? . Though it is still worth mentioning, so I'd suggest replacing the "are" with "can be". Eleret wrote: Dirt, shrubbery and tree boughs, inconvenient stones, and all other manner of detritus is inevitably cleared away over the course of an excavation Maybe I'm wrong here. But I do think "are" should replace the "is". It just sounds and flows better, in my opinion. Eleret wrote: Upon deciding the excavation plan, the archaeologist should estimate of how much material will need to be removed and what places around the site will accommodate its disposal. That "of" is entirely unnecessary and flow-breaking. You have two options to fix this as far as I see it. Option one is to change the sentence structure as follows. "the archaeologist should take an estimate of-." Or you can just remove the word entirely and fix everything that way, its a matter of taste. But I do prefer the former over the latter myself. Eleret wrote: It is up to the archaeologist to decide what details are trivial and what are critically important, something which comes with experience and general familiarity with the culture being studied. Sounds a little odd. I'd replace that "something" with "a skill" instead. Eleret wrote: Generally, archaeologists will also develop a system of coding and shorthand which helps reduce the time spent in notation without also omitting important information. Perhaps add the word "individual" right before archaeologists and "or archaeological teams" right after? Popped into my head while reading. I think it sounds better, and is certainly more detailed and fleshed-out. Eleret wrote: Pottery is susceptible to salt the same as stonework, and treated the same way. That part just seems too... to the point and blunt, and just kinda out of place in general. Perhaps reword it as such, or in a similar manner. "Pottery is susceptible to salt, in a similar manner as stonework is-." Eleret wrote: Glass artifacts are usually stable, but prone to decomposing in humid environments and especially underwater. "Glass artifacts are usually stable, but prone to decomposing in humid environments and are especially at risk in underwater environments." Eleret wrote: Sylira: The relatively balanced climate found throughout most of Sylira promotes gradual deterioration of material.s Now I know that "s" should not be behind the period. Eleret wrote: Competent archaeologists understand the principles of excavation, but are often eager to make great finds and plow through more subtle or fragile items. A "too" needs to be between "often" and "eager". Without one it sounds very odd. Eleret wrote: A master is deft at the preservation of artifacts, and can handle even the most delicate or unusual of items with good chance of success. I think you meant "adept" not "deft". Eleret wrote: Master archaeologists can also readily adapt their techniques to suit extreme environments and locations. Too much "also", it makes the sentence sounds almost like it was pasted on. Try something like this, or don't, its really just preference. "Finally, master archaeologists can easily and readily adapt their techniques to suit extreme environments and locations if needed." Conclusion: An amazingly well-written piece of lore. I learned things about not only archaeology, but certain bits about the regions themselves. I love it, I enjoyed reading it, and I hope to see more from you. My Reply : Thank you very much for the review, Raien! Good catches, all. I've incorporated your suggestions into the article above.

[Emissary]

Archaeology is the study of past lifestyles and cultures through the artifacts and other material evidence they have left behind.

While ‘lifestyles’ and ‘cultures’ are different, it’s often the case that concept of culture already includes ‘lifestyles’ and so stating both is somewhat redundant.

The general process of archaeology is to survey a site, carefully excavate and catalog its contents, and analyze the evidence to make conclusions about the culture which produced it.

‘Make a conclusion’ might be better stated as ‘draw a conclusion’, we tend to ‘make’ inferences.

Here, I reworded the whole sentence...
“The general process of archeology is to survey a site, carefully excavate and catalog the contents, and analyze evidence to draw conclusions about the origin culture.”

The reason I did this is the sentence lacks parallelism to begin with. By making each successive prepositional phrase longer than the previous you make the sentence seem increasingly longer, which in a story is an execellant narrative tool but in an explanation it begins to seem arduous to the reader. Conversly the opposite effect can be achieved by beginning with the longest prepositional phrase and moving to shorter ones, this will make the sentence seem to speed up.


In addition, the original sentence flowed between general pronouns and specific pronouns, ie ‘a’ and ‘its’, this can create a jarring effect on the reader.

Not only does knowledge of the original society help in identifying artifacts, but it also guides the experienced archaeologist in surveying the site and determining where best to dig according to what is known of the culture's conventions.

‘surveying the site /to/ determine where best to dig...’ You’re surveying the site for a purpose and that is to determine, the two should not be equally weighted in this context.

Failures in planning and/or organization can lead to problems as diverse as supply shortages, overlooking parts of a site, loss of context and detail during the dig process, improper care and storage of artifacts, and the inability to transport intriguing findings back to civilization.

‘and/or’ is legal speak and if at all possible should be avoided in writing that is meant for consumption.

These may include paper and/or parchment, ink and/or charcoal, pens and brushes, straight-edges, and similar items.

Ink and Charcoal aren’t mutually exclusive, this is another example of ‘and/or’

Finally, supplies for safely packaging and transporting artifacts, from crates and nails to awls and files to padding material -- or the equipment and knowledge by which to make such things on site -- are also critical for the conclusion of the expedition.

There’s just a bunch going on this sentence, and it could really use to be broken apart into multiple statements or slimmed down somehow. It just difficult to follow.

Identifying a site

I think it would be helpful to take a stpe back form teh site identification to the very first step, which would be knowing where to look for potential sites. Discussing the use of ancient maps to old fables that imply a village was in that spot. Also a number of Mizaharian cities are built directly on the ruins of Alahean and Suvan cities, so perhaps in addition to information about fidning sites in the widlerness also discuss how to find sites in a city?

Otherwise this section reads nicely.

Ideally, an archaeologist records everything having to do with the site, the excavation, and all things discovered in it.

Perhaps just say discoveries? “...the cite, the excavation, and any discoveries.”

The single greatest difficulty with underwater archaeology is finding a site, followed by getting researchers to it; most are only readily accessible to water-breathers.

Even aquatic creatures breath air they just filter it through their gills to get the oxygen. It might be more appropriate to say ‘aquatic or amphibious races’


Overall, this is one thing I would like to see added here. That is the excavation and preservation of potential magic artifacts as a master level ability. For example some magic artifacts may only be reached by a Shielder, Leecher, or Aurist because they are heavily protected behind immensely powerful shields. Just a small mention somewhere in the Master skill write up would be nice.

[Eleret]

Thank you very much for your comments, Emissary! I've finished editing the article per your suggestions.

[Orin Fenix]

Hey! First of all this is an incredibly well written and informative article. I'm super impressed with all the work you've put in and the research you've done. Makes me feel a little bad about my own skill write-up. So, keep it up! A few of my comments are nitpicks or personal opinions so feel free to disregard them if you disagree. the inability to transport intriguing findings back to civilization. Not sure you need the word intriguing since I'd imagine all findings are intriguing. Finally, Wilderness Survival, Land Navigation, and related skills can also be quite important to an expedition I assume you mean the skills that fall under the purview of Wilderness Survival and Land Navigation but seeing as this is under the Prerequisites and Related Skills section it is a bit confusing. Maybe "and all the skills necessary to survive in the wilds of Mizahar" or something along those lines would be better. This doesn't even count sites now inundated by water I think you meant "this doesn't even take into account" or "that's not even counting." Many places of interest to archaeologists, however, are far less obvious. I don't think you need this sentence since you just spent the last paragraph pointing this out. Yet while documentation is absolutely necessary to preserve information for later study and synthesis, it is also time-consuming... The ellipses feels out of place. Use a period or a comma. Dangers posed by wild animals, monsters, antagonistic races, and simply surviving away from civilization go without saying I think it should read "or simply surviving away" but I'm not one hundred percent sure on that one. Those are the grammatical or sentence structure comments, although I might have missed a few. I still have a few more broader questions. First off, I'm not sure how important the Urban Architecture section is. While in real life urban excavations are important, the peoples of Mizahar spent 200 years after the Valterrian underground or scrambling around for survival, and presumably immediately after they started settling down, they put up whatever buildings they could, then tore them down. I guess what I'm saying is, the oldest surviving building that's not a pre-Valterrian ruin is going to be 300 years old, and it would survive me if it was that. So, I guess I'm questioning whether there would be any urban buildings old enough that people wouldn't know the origins of or wanted to study. Also, I'm questioning whether you have enough prerequisites or related skills. I don't want you to go crazy here, but it seems as if at least a passing knowledge of Construction, Architecture, and maybe even Gadgeteering would be immensely helpful to a archaeologist. Also, this following sentence leads me to believe that Geology (or the appropriate skill for this knowledge) would be pretty helpful as well: if one knows the general trends of erosion in the local climate Also, in the Condition and Preservation of Artifacts in the field section, you list a whole lot of materials which have their own skills. Pottery or Glassworking for instance. It seems that caring and refurbishing remains or artifacts would require basic knowledge of those fields applicable to those artifacts. Maybe you should add a caveat saying that additional skills might be necessary in order to gain the knowledge necessary to clean and store artifacts? Just a thought. Finally I hate to be this person, especially after you did such a well written article, but modern archaeological practices didn't start until the 1800s and weren't widespread until the late 1800s. Even then they were fairly primitive as compared to present day practices. Do you really think that Mizahar which is so lacking in other modern techniques would be so advanced in a relatively obscure field? Where does your funding come from unless it's personal money? Who came up with such a scientific method? Would knowledge really be shared that easily, since with most other instances it seems to be hoarded by most people? Would a person on Mizahar realize that removing an artifact from a archaeological site without documenting it is destroying the integrity of the site and tainting any findings? Or be aware of the fragile nature of remains? I mean, I'm not saying that none of the above are true, but I personally would be surprised. Again, though, I think you've done such a wonderful job with this that it's perfectly reasonable that Mizahar would consider archaeology to be incredibly important. Especially since they do know that there is a lot of knowledge that was lost in the past that could be regained. Again I think you did a fantastic job with this. I hope none of my comments were too much, and if you have any questions, please ask.

[Eleret]

Thank you very much for the review, Orin! You've made some excellent points. I've made some edits according to your suggestions. One comment regarding "intriguing" findings: I left that as it was for two reasons. One, in fact, not all findings are intriguing. If a lot of potsherds have been catalogued, then another one is likely to be unremarkable. Two, field expeditions will often have to make hard decisions about what they bring back. I could say 'selected' findings, or 'selected' artifacts, but I happen to like this phrasing because it inherently implies something about the selection process. We could disagree on whether that's appropriate, or whether that should be given its own section, but I'm going to go with what I prefer here and now. On the more major comments: 1. Urban archaeology: As Emissary pointed out, there are sites in or immediately nearby to cities which may merit archaeological investigation. Several cities were built on top of the remnants of prior occupation; examples which come immediately to mind are Zeltiva, Sunberth, and Nyka. Zeltiva's Old Quarter consists of reasonably intact pre-Valterrian buildings which are thoroughly occupied. Sunberth's above-ground structures were "almost completely destroyed" in the Valterrian -- but that's only almost, and there is also the potential of subterranean locations which have been better-preserved. And Nyka is built on top of even older ruins. I think those ruins are chiefly underground or otherwise built-over, but the considerations about human impact during the last 300 years may still apply. Also, buildings that are 200-300 years old may still merit study, perhaps as a training project, or by a researcher who is interested in how their own city has changed over that period. One doesn't only have to study cultures that have gone before, and even places with a solid internal historical record will have omissions in that record. They don't even have to be deliberate omissions; simply put, history is written by people and filtered through their perspectives. In short, urban archaeology does merit mention -- at least as much as aquatic archaeology, which is unlikely to be much pursued even though there are a wealth of ruins underwater. 2. Related skills: Yes, there are a bucket-load of potential associated skills. Other academic or scientific skills like Geology, and even things like Persuasion and Rhetoric apply to particular situations or in particular pieces of knowledge, but may not be universal. I didn't get into magics, either, a number of which could have uses. Almost any skill could have associated knowledge which has relevance to archaeological study. Ultimately, I focused on the ones which really directly affect the practice of Archaeology and are almost universal, the minimum required set if you will. Those other things, a dedicated archaeologist PC will simply pick up as their studies play out. In many cases, an archaeologist is really only likely to collect L1 points in these extra skills. Conversely, they are likely to need high level skill in those I've highlighted. Additionally, I disagree that craft skills like Pottery or Glassworking are necessary for archaeology. An archaeologist does not need to be able to make pots in order to classify potsherds. They do need some associated lores, but that's a matter of academic knowledge, not necessarily skill. 3. Regarding degree of advancement, documentation, and preservation techniques: The short answer: Yes, I think serious archaeologists -- those people who get up to Expert and Master levels -- would be well aware of these things. And skill articles should be written to provide useful information at those levels of practice as well as at Novice and Competent. Mizahar is distinct from RL in that their cultures know those who went before had greater technology and understanding than modern peoples do now. Some may not care, but it is nonetheless broadly known. At no point IRL has the degree of difference between any civilization and its precursors been so pronounced in that direction. Ergo, RL societies had much less impetus to develop any understanding of prior cultures, and it's only when it became something of a fashion that the discipline really took off. In Mizahar, the likely quickest route to increasing resources, technologies, and plain knowledge is to study the past, so yes, I think this article is overall reasonable for the setting. The people who perform archaeology professionally are likely to be associated with or at least trained by the University of Zeltiva, the Antiquities Society in Riverfall, or perhaps the Seekers over in Lhavit (although I believe they are going to be revised). These institutions have had a couple hundred years or so to develop their practices, will value documentation and proper preservation of artifacts, and they may very well provide funding for expeditions they are interested in. It's also possible city governments or interested wealthy individuals will provide funds -- the Syka expedition was a very large case in point for the latter. Individuals or bands of relic hunters, it's true, are less likely to have all of these things. Their actions and their lores should reflect that, and ultimately, they probably should not earn much above L2 in the skill -- they're competent to find many artifacts, but they likely don't practice the full breadth of the discipline. As far as artifact preservation goes, honestly, the techniques mostly amount to "clean it" and "seal it with wax or maybe oil". Which are pretty basic. I verified that the few other solutions I mentioned are available at Mizahar's general technological level. Furthermore, that section is as much information to players about things to consider when describing an artifact their character finds as it is IC information about how to preserve it. For example, I knew going in that freeze-thaw would degrade stone, but I never thought about salt. Nor was I aware that burying ivory made it soft and flaky; ivory is teeth, teeth are hard, and bones are found all the time by archaeologists, so they should be pretty solid, right? Now I do know! Should every archaeology-minded PC know all these details and methods? No. In many cases they should be taught them, or make mistakes and refine their methods by trial-and-error. As with every skill, it falls to the player to portray their IC knowledge and capabilities appropriately, and to be creative in their exploration of the field.

[Naiya]

Hello! I have been looking over your write up, and I have found it to be really interesting, and well written. I only have a few comments to make in a critical way, because my overall feelings about the write up is that this has become a coherent, helpful, and clear write up for a skill. My first is a question, "Additionally, the context in which each artifact is found can provide important information.", I wonder if this should be given more importance? My understanding (which, of course, could be wrong) is that the context of a find in some cases is more important in drawing conclusions than the actual item. Broken pots are only interesting the first few times you come across them in one dig, after that, isn't it the context that becomes the important part of a find? If so, should there be a small write up about how context might change or shape a find? Next, "Document, Document, Document". Personally I find this heading takes away from the text. Everything is well written and informative, and this seems to stand out as silly and playful. It doesn't fit into the surrounding text, and distracts from how much time and research likely went into your write up. Finally, The skill level break down is wonderful, detailed enough that I feel I could easily make up a PC with the skill. That said, should it break down similarly to wilderness survival with a specific number of techniques and cultures that could be understood at each level? That might help players to better understand what would constitute overplaying the skill. I can tell a lot of thought and effort has gone into this skill, I hope to see it in use soon!

[Eleret]

Thank you for your comments, Naiya! That's a good point about the "Document" heading. I've changed it to be more in line with the rest of the article. I'm not going to write a dedicated section on context, because what can be inferred is going to vary incredibly with artifacts, situations, cultures, and the propensity of a given character to wildly speculate. The most I could do would be to write up a scenario and say "here's what can be gleaned from this scene," but I actually feel like that would be limiting rather than illuminating, amounting to a lesson in "how to think like I do". I'm not going to itemize the progression in terms of techniques/cultures, either. There are a limited number of environment types a character can find themselves in. By contrast, archaeological techniques are as numerous as there are minds to think them up. This article doesn't even cover the application of magic to archaeological pursuits, and I expect any enterprising mage could come up with half a dozen such methods in short order. Cultures also come in practically infinite number; or at least, I cannot say there are no more to be discovered, and that means I can't put a cap on how many are known per level. It also doesn't make sense to do so, since this knowledge must always be discovered or taught. One can Master archaeology in Sylira but still know absolutely nothing about cultures in Falyndar. Ultimately, those things will both just be determined by the lores characters accrue. Thank you again!

[Revali]

Hello there!

First of all, amazing article. I feel like you did a great job finding the right words to make everything clear and descriptive, but not long-winded. Great work!

Of course, I do have several other comments to make, or I wouldn't be here. So let's get those sorted.

...draw conclusions about the origin culture from that evidence

"Origin" is a noun. "Original" would be a better fit, as an adjective, because it is describing the culture.

Remnants of past societies may include buildings, pottery, gravesites, statues, and more fragile materials such as paper or cloth.

This is nit-picky, and I apologize for that, but should the "and" be changed to an "or"? In my understanding, it is unlikely for an archaeologist to find all of these things in one location. The "and" implies that all listed clues would be found, to me.

Failures in planning or organization can lead to problems as diverse as supply shortages, overlooking parts of a site, loss of context and detail during the dig process, improper care and storage of artifacts, and the inability to transport intriguing findings back to civilization.

Same thing with the and/or toss-up.

...even if not directly involved in the actual archaeology.

I don't think the "actual" is necessary here, and somewhat breaks the professional tone of the text. If you do think it is necessary, it might fit better if you said "the archaeology itself" instead.

to cope with the hazards of wild animals, inclement weather, and geography; to ensure shelter for its personnel, equipment, and supplies; and likely to forage and hunt for subsistence as well, there being finite limits to what a crew may carry with them.

This portion sounds a little bit disjointed, and is somewhat confusing. I would end the sentence at "personnel, equipment, and supplies", starting a new sentence with "It is likely that an archaeologist would need to forage and hunt for subsistence as well..." etc, etc. If you can think of another way to fix this, by all means, use your method.

Other tools such as crowbars, rope, and tweezers are also extremely useful in excavation,

I would put a comma after "Other tools", but I believe this way is also correct, so this is probably more personal preference.

When available, ancient maps provide a wealth of likely destinations; essentially any historical city, town, or outpost has the potential to be a treasure trove. Ancient travelogues are also useful references, often describing at least direction and distance between locations; they may mention important landmarks.

You do a great job with using semi-colons correctly (which deserves major kudos), but this paragraph specifically, and this section in general, uses it very frequently. I would be more discriminant about when you use the semi-colon, as it draws attention to a sentence, and we don't want every sentence emphasized. That would be like writing the whole post in capitals, and would be horribly distracting. I would recommend breaking apart a few of these into either sentences with a dash for side info (i.e. Ancient travelogues- often descriptors of at least distance and direction between locations- may include landmarks), or breaking the sentences at the semi-colon.

which can also have been buried in sand or colonized by coral

Saying "which can also have been" sounds strange to me. Did you by any chance mean "Which could also have been"?

Generally, individual archaeologists will also develop a system of coding and shorthand which helps reduce the time spent in notation without also omitting important information.

I don't think the "also" is needed here.

The deserts of Eyktol are one of the few environments

"The deserts of Ekytol are" is plural, and you call them environmentsbut then you go on to say "one of the few". Correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't know for certain, but shouldn't this be "some of the few" to acknowledge the plurality?

If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to poke me, and I'll do my best to answer them. Thank you for taking the time to write this wonderful article.