Talking Up the Field School

Last night, I had the opportunity to present about the 2012 summer field school--both the class and its initial findings--at the Wisner Library in Warwick.  One of the great results of such public presentations is getting to talk to folks with expertise and knowledge you didn't previously have.  I believe some of the leads will prove productive in future field seasons.

Holistic Connections

This post primarily stems from Friday's discussion in the Archaeology course, but it's relevant for the Cultural one as well.

Shedding Light on Early Homo

This week, the news of new fossil finds northern Kenya hit the anthropological scene.  You can find a good summary by Kate Wong here, and at Hominid Hunting here.  For further, bloggy, but knowledgeable commentary, check out Adam Van Ardsdale's post.  These fossils have special importance because they fit into the time period just around two million years ago, which marks the beginning of our genus, Homo, and has been characterized by a relatively fragmentary fossil record.

In the News: Early Pottery and Presidential Politics.

A couple of things caught my eye this week in the world of anthropology.

Modern Genetics and Ancient Humans

Yet again, a new study seems to have found evidence of the interbreeding of ancient human populations.

Early Immigrants and the Politics of Archaeology

For the past century, one of the most fascinating questions in archaeology, especially American archaeology, has been that surrounding the first human migrations into North and South America.  For most of the last half of the 20th Century, most archaeologists agreed that the first settlement happened around 12,000 years ago and that the first residents were the Clovis culture, distinctive by their fluted spear points.  During the past 30 years, however, that model has come under sustained attack by new data.  The archaeological consensus has now shifted to an earlier occupation of the hemisphere and that the Clovis people were not first and not alone.

The Catalog is Done, Dude...

Joe and I completed the initial catalog of artifacts today.  About 1166 recovered in our four weeks on site.  There's still a lot of research and writing to do, but I hadn't expected to find the diversity or abundance of artifacts prior to the field season.  I still feel we're looking at a late 19th Century occupation, but the specific nature of the activities at the site are still not clear...though they were smoking.

Here's a few more shots of the artifacts...many more details to come.

Toddlers, Tarsiers and Teeth

I just returned from taking my two small sons to the dentist.  By the way, if I had known the costs of something like dentistry before having kids...I don't know if they'd be here now. 

This visit marked the first time my four year old had x-rays taken. When we viewed the images, I was struck by how much his mandibular incisors (bottom front teeth) looked like that of a prosimian dental comb. Primates are noted for their lack of dental specialization (to take advantage of varied and flexible food sources), but the dental comb is a classic example of some specialized dentition that does occur in non-human primates.

Despite the adaptive specialization found in dental combs, I still found the common ancestry apparent.  My son and a lemur may look very different now, but that x-ray reminded me in a visceral way how they do share grandparents from about 50 million years ago.

My oldest son

Human Mandibular Incisors, not my son (disregard B and C)

Lemur Dental Comb (also mandibular incisors, plus modified canines)

Not my son

Almost Famous

We made the local paper.  I'll just add that I think our gear in the background of the photo looks like a mess and I really wish we had some crew who would have kept it organized.

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120709/NEWS/207090328

Engage Cataloging

Maybe it's the day alone in my office with nothing but artifacts and I feel I must seek out some human connection...so here's another post.  As noted earlier (yes, today), all artifacts recovered from the 2012 season have been washed.  This afternoon, I began the cataloging process and have gotten through 133 individual artifacts (and there's many more to do, my guess is that I got through about 10% today).

I've included some quick pictures, including of a pipe bowl fragment that seems to have an eagle wing and neck design on it.

Pipe Bowl Fragment (you can't really see the design in this image)

Final Clean Up

The transition out of the field is almost complete.  Today, I hope to finish the last of the basic washing of the remaining artifacts we recovered.  Here's an exciting shot of sherds (yes, that is how you spell it) and sundry rocks (likely nothing) drying in the bright July sun on the porch of the Christine Morrison House (side note: my department recently moved buildings on campus and as far as space goes, we've experienced a significant downgrade.  However, the porch is a nice consolation prize).

Science!!!

Once the cleaning is done, I, and hopefully some students in the fall, will begin analysis to get a fuller sense of the dating and functions of the artifacts.  After that's complete, we'll be in a much better position to say what was really going on at the site.

Burial of Joe

I'm in the unusual situation of my kids being occupied and me having run out of small projects to complete around the house.  So, I'll add another post in honor of the end of the 2012 season.

As we (who am I kidding? I didn't backfill, I made the students do it) backfilled the final excavation unit, it seemed appropriate to return something to the earth since we'd removed so many artifacts.  I give you that dedication.

End of Field Season 2012

Yesterday, we finished up the first field season for the SUNY-Orange archaeological field school.  The last day was full of last minute profiles (four of them, most with standing stone walls on top), photos and finally backfilling of the last feature.  All in all, we excavated 49 shovel test pits and four excavation units.  I now have an office full of artifacts to catalog, identify and analyze...which I am looking forward to. 

I'm still largely in the dark about what exactly what was going on at the site, but we already know a lot more than we did a month ago.  Once the artifact analysis really gets going, we will get a good sense of the when and what of the site.

The site did have a number of features visible on ground surface, but very few surface artifacts (one barrel ring).  Prior to the field class, my doomsday scenario was that we would find no artifacts (a sure fire way to make students uninterested in archaeology).  Fortunately, that was not the case.  I haven't yet tallied, but my ballpark estimate is that we recovered somewhere around 300 artifacts.  Almost every excavation unit was positive for artifacts.   The bulk of the recovered artifacts were historic ceramics, glass and metal, though we do have at least one clear lithic flake (there's a few questionable that are awaiting a date with a toothbrush).

All in all, I'm very pleased with how things went for this inaugural year, and hope and intend to continue for many years to come. 

I'd like to thank the Orange County Land Trust for their permission and enthusiastic support of the project.  Their help is essential to this and future projects.  Having a cooperating land owner/manager makes all the difference in the world.  Of course, the project also wouldn't be anything without the students involved, so thanks (in no particular order) Brandon, Leah, Sean, Sean, Jordan, Daisy, Mike, Rich, and Joe.

Artifact Washing and Rapid Research

Washing Day

As seems to always be the case, I called an artifact washing day today because of a rainy weather forecast.  As you can see from the photo down below, that's not what we ran into for most of the day.  I've convinced myself, though, that the site really needed to dry out.

Hard Rubber Button

Bottle Neck

Stone Floor of Feature where Bottle Uncovered

Beautiful, Sunny Blue Skies

Regardless, in addition to washing our assemblage to date, the students also spent much of the morning engaged in some very preliminary, rapid-fire research on two artifacts that possess diagnostic characteristics.  At the moment, both are pointing toward a mid to late 19th Century occupation for the site.  One hard rubber button with a readable (though very tiny) "Goodyear" and "N.R. Co." and one bottle neck both sit in that time frame.  We've also recovered somewhere around 50 small, whiteware sherds, but so far, they don't seem to indicate much temporal information other than post-dating 1820.

Week 1

On Tuesday, we finally got going after our rain delay, so only a total of three days in the field. So far, we've completed all the shovel test pits of the smaller of two areas we'll be testing this season. Some artifacts have been recovered, but no unknown features were found. Next week, we'll begin excavating the two visible surface features.

Class on the first day, clean and awkwardly taken by surprise with unexpected photo.

First shovel test of the day.  Here, I'm trying to impart good technique.

Examining first potential artifact of project

Feature 1 with surface accumulation cleared (twine borders funky due to lack of good spots for nails)

First run through with screening.

Washout

Today became quite the bummer.  June 4 was supposed to be the first day of the first SUNY-Orange archaeological field project, but the rain would not cooperate.

The rain was falling as I was driving my kids to their daycare, but seemed to lighten up as I dropped them off.  But, driving south correlated with increasing rain intensity...almost like the project site was a magnet for it.

All the students showed, or called, but the rain was just too much.  The students and I held a quick meeting under the awning of a Rite Aid and then I drank too much coffee.  Thankfully, the rain has continued since I made the weather cancellation call. 

Here's hoping for better luck tomorrow.

Setting Out the Grid

Feature 2 in Locus A

The groundwork has been laid for next week.  We will begin our excavations in the smaller of two areas, one that I've labeled Locus A.  There we will excavate 18 systematically placed shovel test pits (and likely a few judgmental as well) around at least two features.  Additionally, we should excavate two or more 1x1 meter excavation units near the features.

Too Awesome Not to Post

This image has little direct relevance to the field class that begins next week, but it's just such an awesome artifact that I had to post it. In graduate school, I worked on a couple of Hohokam sites, so their material culture is near and dear to my heart, though I have to say that I was never aware of this one.

Here's the caption that accompanied the image on the Arizona State Museum's website:

This Hohokam rabbit net, about 165 ft long by 3.6 ft wide, is made of knotted human hair! This photo is from 1967 (by Helga Teiwes) and shows E. Leavitt and R. Medieiars laying it out on the sidewalk adjacent to the museum.

Feeling Soil Texture

This video will likely seem strange and boring to you field students right now, but it will serve as a good reference as we go through the season.

Equipment is arriving.  Your $50 is being put to good use.  June 4 is a go.

Race, Social Construction and Mortality

Thanks to many of the posts examining race over at Living Anthropologically , I got turned onto Lance Gravlee’s 2009 article, “Race Becomes Biology.” There are a lot of reasons to like the article, but in particular, he brings attention to a recurrent problem I have when talking about race to students. Students definitely do usually interpret the traditional anthropological critique of race as “oh, anthropologists say race doesn’t exist, so it’s not important.” And while that’s clearly not what I’m arguing in class, it’s painstakingly difficult to clearly articulate the nuance.

Old Fire

Wonderwerk Cave, South Africa

Thanks to Molly for the initial heads up on this.  News in the archaeological world is all about a site in South Africa that seems to show convincing evidence for the use of fire by about one million years ago.  This is about 300,000 years earlier than we had discussed in the archaeology class.  As the linked article describes, the antiquity of the use of fire illustrates even more the long history of biological and cultural change that has characterized the story of our species.

Mapping, Day 2

Rake Triage

Today, we were able to finish up the base map for the site and this summer's field project.  Currently, we have two distinct loci of features with a total of at least six features.  Several of the features seem to have grown as we went to town with more raking today.

Feature 4

Thus far, very few artifacts have been noted on the surface of the site.  This seems a bit unusual, but there also is a good amount of deposition at the site, despite it being between two bedrock outcrops.  I'm hoping the deposition is covering a decent collection of artifacts. As I was telling the team today, though, negative evidence tells us something too, though most won't find that that rewarding when excavating.

Rakers at Work

As with yesterday, I continue to be impressed with the value of rakes in archaeology. Taking of the cover of leaf litter and exposing stone underneath really is analogous to troweling down in an excavation unit on features and artifacts.

Extension of Wall Uncovered Through Raking

Orange Archaeology, Day 1 (Mapping)

Today, myself and a handful of very helpful volunteers begin the preparations for this summer's field project. For the most part, today was about getting familiar with the site and starting the base field map that will serve as a summary reference for excavation units completed this summer.

Stone Walls

Corner Uncovered with Rake

It was a good day, hot (for March), but good.  The central place of rakes in archaeology was reinforced as one of the most often said phrases was, "get the rake!"  I'll post raking action shots later this week.

Our Mapping Instrument

Earthen Berm (it's difficult to see in this image)

Geographies of Gender

As usual, this is my place to reemphasize, and hopefully clarify aspects of class discussion. In Wednesday's class, I attempted to outline how I see the construction of gender in the US and many other Western societies. That's when I put forth that gender in the US is binary, mutually exclusive, ascribed and static.

 Many of you rightly noted the role of self-identity and variation on gender roles based on people you know from your own experience. Those are important facets of gender (and culture in general) since all individuals and groups internalize and express culture in partly idiosyncratic ways.


 I'm a big fan of metaphors to help explain and understand concepts. Taking an idea from one domain of experience to another can at times, facilitate the establishment of connections that might be unclear otherwise. Here, I think the metaphor of a map is helpful. Maps try depict spatial information by simplifying. That's what I was trying to do with gender. What's the basic gender road map that folks use in US culture? While people can and do go "off road," their path is more difficult than those following the pre-established paths. And, in many ways, their particular route is defined largely by its deviation from the major road. I hope that helps some.

Levels of Archaeological Theory

I made this point in class quickly, so I think it bears repeating.  In archaeology, one can conceive of at least three levels of archaeological theory (and these three levels weave into the three goals of archaeology we've talked about many times--culture history, reconstructing activities, explaining social change).

Put as simply as I can, theory refers to an interrelated set of models (which are themselves composed of hypotheses) that together form a coherent, relatively concise explanation for some phenomenon.  It is not a "hunch" or a "guess."

The first level of theory in archaeology focuses on establishing culture history, or arranging material culture in time and space. This is relatively "basic" theory in that it often relies on fairly straightforward principles like the law of association and superposition.

The second level of theory is sometimes called middle-range theory. I didn't use this term in class, but you should already be familiar with the concept.  Middle-range theory includes all those models and hypotheses used to reconstruct ancient human activities from the static remains of the archaeological record.  I've expanded further on the idea of middle range theory here...though I don't use the term "middle range."

The third (or, top?) level of theory is what we've recently been talking about in our discussion for models of the origins of the Neolithic. This sort of theory can be thought of as anthropological or sociological theory.  Theories that attempt to provide a guiding, consistent explanation for human behavior.  Different theoretical approaches, however, consider different variables as more important than others.  In this sense then, this level of archaeology theory is no different than what is used in sociology or cultural anthropology. 

Processual archaeology offers explanations based on variables like population density and environmental change.  Processualists see human society and culture as ultimately adaptive in nature.  Subsequently, processualists emphasize objective data, such as those that can indicate human population or subsistence.

Postprocessual archaeology, on the other hand, believe that only seeing human society as adaptive misses a major point about the human experience. They wold claim that humans are social and symbolic creatures, and so accordingly live in worlds differently mediated by meaning and are in dynamic social relationships with other humans.  For postprocessualism, to understand ancient humans, we need to take such considerations into account.  However, getting at symbols and social dynamics can be more difficult than getting at subsistence.  Because of this, postprocessualists are often less reliant on strictly objective data and rely on more holistic interpretations that look at entire assemblages of artifacts, trying to piece together an ancient big picture that may be very foreign to modern eyes (wow, that's a confusing sentence).

Despite this being the longest post on this blog to date, I've simplified this discussion tremendously.  However, theory is a critical aspect of any scientific endeavor and so, it's important to have some understanding of it to really get a handle on any scientific field. Also, it's just cool stuff to think about.  Thinking back to what got me hooked on anthropology, I'm pretty sure theoretical discussions are to blame.

Domestication and Food Production

I don't think I emphasized enough today the connection between food production and domesticated products.

All of the socio-cultural consequences I spent the last couple of classes going over only really became manifest when certain species went through the process of domestication. Humans and domesticated species became entangled in mutually dependent relationships that allowed for the remarkable expansion of both.

The addition of these modified species to the subsistence base of human groups changed up those groups' environments in dramatic ways. Now, their subsistence context included species that were manageable whose production could be relatively easily increased. For the most part, food production almost always involves the participation of domesticated species.

Behold My Rachis

Just another reason the development of the Neolithic is anthropologically important.

Walking Marriages

Here's a youtube clip of the Mosou, who also practice the "walking marriage."  The clip provides an extended illustration of the practice, its consequences and changes into contemporary life.

Archaeological Politics

Today, we made our first foray into the archaeology of North and South America, which we'll be spending a lot of time in for the rest of the semester.  While the histories of residents of the Americas is fascinating, the study of the remains of those peoples brings up interesting conflicts between the archaeologists who have conducted research and the descendent communities (living Native Americans) that still have a stake in what happens to the remains of their ancestors.

The relationship between archaeologists and Native Americans has definitely not always been a friendly one. Throughout the rest of the semester, I'll do my best to bring these controversies to light, beginning on Friday with the infamous case of Kennewick Man.

Pair Bonds and Promiscuity

This is my attempt to retroactively make the end of class today in anthro 101 a bit more coherent.

What I was attempting to argue was that, as a biological species, human beings have both a heritage of pair bonding and promiscuity...and every possibility in between.  For those interested in a highly readable and complete review of some of the evidence for the biology of human sexual interactions, check out Patrick Clarkin's series of blog posts beginning here.

Our specific cultural background(s) then shape how that plastic/flexible sexual predisposition is expressed.  That's what we'll get into on Friday when we discuss the diversity of forms of marriage found in the ethnographic record.