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.