Backdirting: Theorizing Backdirt through Time, Place, and Process

ABSTRACT

Backdirts, as the byproducts of excavation, are necessary but often overlooked parts of archaeological practice. However, current definitions of backdirt essentialize dynamic matter into a static byproduct. Drawing from Alfred North Whitehead’s process metaphysic, we contend that no two backdirts are the same, as backdirts are engaged in active placemaking, bundling of temporalities, and always in process. In theorizing backdirt, we argue that backdirts have agency, are inherently archaeologically produced, and can only be instantiated by archaeologists. As excavating emphasizes what is removed during archaeological work, we introduce backdirting, which elicits the value of what remains. In two case studies from the Peruvian Central Andes, we follow backdirts from previously excavated archaeological sites and others instantiated from modern and historical changes to sites. We contend a more thoughtful and robust archaeological practice exists through tracing the histories of various backdirts in action and in process—following various instantiations of backdirtings.

Los backdirts, como subproductos de la excavación, son partes necesarias, pero a menudo pasadas por alto de la práctica arqueológica. Sin embargo, las definiciones actuales de backdirt esencializan la materia dinámica en un subproducto estático. Partiendo de “la metafísica del proceso” (Process Metaphysic) de Alfred North Whitehead, sostenemos que no hay dos backdirts iguales, ya que las backdirts participa activamente en la creación de lugares, la agrupación de temporalidades, y siempre en proceso. Al teorizar sobre el backdirt, argumentamos que las backdirts tienen agencia, son inherentemente producidas arqueológicamente y solo pueden ser instanciadas por arqueólogues. Como excavando enfatiza lo que se elimina durante el trabajo arqueológico, introducimos backdirting que revela el valor de lo que queda. En dos estudios de caso de los Andes centrales de Perú, seguimos el backdirt de sitios arqueológicos ya excavados y otros ejemplificados a partir de cambios modernos e históricos en los sitios. Sostenemos que existe una práctica arqueológica más reflexiva y sólida a través del rastreo de las historias de varios backdirtings en acción y en proceso, siguiendo varias instancias de backdirtings.

KEYWORDS:

• Backdirt
• process metaphysic
• temporality
• placemaking
• Central Andes
• community-based archaeology

PALABRAS CLAVE:

• Backdirt
• proceso metafísico
• temporalidad
• placemaking
• Andes centrales
• arqueología comunitaria

Acknowledgements

Note: la versión en español del artículo se encuentra disponible en la página de web personal de J. A. R. P.

We both sincerely thank Dr. Susan Gillespie for her thoughtful mentorship and teaching. Without her seminars and discussions in and out of class, we would not have the theoretical foundation to write this paper. We also thank Ariel Charro, Anthony P. Farace, Rocío López Cabral, Dr. Marit Tolo Østebø, Dr. Daniel B. Turner, Aldo Watanave, Charlotte Williams, editors Dr. Allison Mickel and Dr. Christina Luke, and our anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and feedback on earlier versions of our article.

A. B. M. thanks the Misión Arqueológica Italiana Proyecto Antonio Raimondi (PIORQAN), PIs Dr. Carolina Orsini, Dr. Elisa Bennozzi, and Lic. José Samuel Querevalú for the opportunity to participate in the PIORQAN project in 2022 and witness their collaborations with the Caraz community. J. A. R. P. and A. B. M. are both very grateful for PIORQAN’s permission to include a small part of their community work at Tumshukaiko. A. B. M. additionally thanks Mariano Araya (Caraz), Marco Reyes, and Elias Cano (Huaylas) for sharing their stories. Information about Tumshukaiko excavations collected through public observations and personal communication. Interviews conducted with members of the Huaylas community approved by UF Institutional Review Board #IRB202102576.

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship program under Award #1842473 (J. A. R. P.), the Ford Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship (J. A. R. P.), and Fulbright-Hays Program (A. B. M.). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the Ford Foundation, U.S. Fulbright Program, or the Comisión de Fulbright Perú.

Disclosure Statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Geolocation Information

OmoM10: 290500E 8093100N; Case Study 1

Puémape: 661880.04E 9168189.67N; Case Study 1

Caballo Muerto: 730278.38E 9107242.43N; Case Study 1

Chupacoto: 182206.2E 9018483.86N; Case Study 2

Tumshikaiko: 8999748.05E 190534.9N; Case Study 2

Notes

1 The Society for American Archaeology defines an archaeological site as: “any place where there are physical remains of past human activities” (https://www.saa.org/about-archaeology/what-is-archaeology, accessed 29 December 2022).

2 Although we are Spanish bilingual, we restricted our search to English, as there is ambiguity in “relleno,” which literally translates to “fill” or “filling.” In Spanish publications, it was difficult to be certain whether the authors were talking about the fill between occupational levels or the backdirt. This word ambiguity highlights another instance in which backdirt lacks specificity.

3 We highlight Joyce’s (2021) definition of site ontologies, which is ontologically complementary in the context of this article. Joyce sees sites as a process and defines them as flows of matter, energy, and forms, rather than a bounded space or locale (e.g., a bounded site on a map).

4 Notably, the sources we include in our case studies are related to Ph.D. dissertations. We found this interesting, as this observation indirectly supports our assertion that backdirt is passive, in the background, and unimportant to archaeological data (i.e., filtered out of publications). Perhaps backdirts are rarely mentioned or explicitly discussed in detail unless there is sufficient room to expand upon observations. That is, especially when working with strict article word limits, backdirts do not appear to be important to maintain in descriptions of archaeological findings.

5 See publications by Carolina Orsini, Elisa Bennozzi, and José Samuel Querevalú for more detailed information on PIORQAN’s collaborative work with the Caraz community at Tumshukaiko and the history of the community’s relationship with the site.

6 See Mickel (2020) for examples where even paid archaeological workers from the community are not considered producers of valid archaeological knowledge. We contend Mickel’s work is another example of what we call “excavating memories.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jordi A. Rivera Prince

Jordi A. Rivera Prince (Ph.D. 2023, University of Florida) is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Anthropology at Brown University. She specializes in bioarchaeology and mortuary archaeology of the Andes pre-colonization. Her research and publications focus on coastal fishing communities, social inequality, materiality of the body, critical knowledge production, and equity issues in archaeological practice. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8865-3011.

Amanda Brock Morales

Amanda Brock Morales (M.A. 2019, University of Florida) is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Florida. She specializes in place-making, GIS, geoarchaeology, and monumentality in the Andes. Her research and publications focus on landscape, disaster, materiality, memory, and community-based archaeology. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2384-1892.