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.

Archaeological Field and Lab Research

This is another one of my promotional pieces for the archaeological field class that I'll be running this summer.  But, I'm adding another piece here.  For those who have signed up, as well as those thinking of signing up, I wanted to also alert you to the possibility of doing some directed lab research over next fall and spring. 

During the field project, we will be recovering artifacts.  Most of the artifacts, however, we will not be able to clearly identify while we are in the field...that will have to wait until the lab when we have more time and resources to focus on the artifacts themselves.  After identification, there are a number of research questions we can ask and hopefully answer using the artifacts.

This can be fascinating in its own right, but it can also provide valuable experience to students. As you move through your academic career, you will face increasingly competitive situations.  The more varied and intensive academic experience you can get early, the better.  As a freshman or sophomore with experience doing real research, collecting real data will have a definite leg up on another student that has simply taken classes without any real research experience. 

Even if you don't plan on further pursuing archaeology, the experience can serve you well in many different future venues.  Please feel free to contact me if you are interested or have any questions.

Kinship as Basis for Social Action

Just a quick post as I'm prepping for class this morning. In thinking about the group project on social media, one of the primary functions of social media (besides selling you things) is the establishment of social links between individuals.  These links can create either networks or groups.  Networks are defined by links between individuals and form a diffuse web of interaction emanating out from countless "centers." Groups, on the other hand, are more bounded social units that often have more of a collective or common purpose.

The formation of networks and groups is also one of the primary functions of human kinship.  It gives form and shape to human sociality. It provides avenues for the dissemination, negotiation and modification of symbols.

Of course, kinship is still important to us, but so are other forms of social interaction.  So, despite the fact that some of the societies often used as case studies in anthropological examinations of kinship seem very different than our own, there's a basic similarity between what they're doing and what you do.

I also just came across what seems to be a massive website, Kinship Studies, dedicated to assembling resources for the anthropological study of kinship.