Introduction to Archaeology
Course Description
This course surveyed the techniques, methods, and theories that archaeologists use to reconstruct the lives of past people and to understand their cultural adaptation to various environments.
In this course, I learned about the following topics:
In this course, I learned about the following topics:
- The disciplines of anthropology, archaeology, and their history.
- How archaeologists survey sites for evidence.
- Relative and chronological dating techniques.
- Subsistence strategies of people.
- The examination of past people's diet.
- Trade and exchange networks.
- The tools of social archeology, bio-archaeology and cognitive archaeology.
Coursework
Discussion topic: Cultural Relativism
I think that cultural relativism is the process of trying to consider a culture and its practices relative to its context instead of according to one's own context. I think that adopting a position of cultural relativism is an important technique and that it is relevant to the study of archaeology because by considering another culture's perspective it may help you to understand and appreciate their beliefs and practices more fully. Lacking cultural relativism can easily lead to misunderstandings. After giving it some thought, I am quite unsure how ethical relativism is much different than cultural relativism. I think that ethical relativism may just be a more specific version of cultural relativism.
I do think that there are limitations to cultural relativism. After studying the Canela in more detail I might be able to get a better understanding of why it is that they do what they do, but this will not eliminate my own personal enculturated biases, and I will be perhaps unable to fully accept their ways as rational or necessary even if they may be so from within their context.
As an example, consider the Wari' people of the western Brazilian rainforest. Following first contact, Christian Missionaries struggled for years to try and convince the Wari' to give their dead a proper Christian burial. To the Christians, the respectful and correct treatment of a dead body was thought to be one of the most basic essential aspects of civilized peoples. However, the missionaries failed to understand that the Wari' also had their own deeply held opinions on the correct treatment of dead bodies. When it comes to death, the Wari' cosmology is very complex and involves a complicated cyclical series of death and rebirth cycles.
The Wari' religious system believes that people are born and die and then they are reborn in an afterlife they die again and are reborn again on this earth with the whole process then resuming and circling until eternity. The entire birth/rebirth cycle is dependent upon the hunting and consumption of flesh. The Wari' believe that when they kill an animal such as the revered peccary, they then must eat the meat of the peccary. This process of consuming the peccary's flesh encourages the pecary's spirit to abandon its body and be reborn. Likewise, the Wari' believe that the same is true of humans and that a dead human body must be consumed by those that loved them for the person's spirit to then travel into the Wari's afterlife. When somebody dies, everything about a person's past life is destroyed to encourage their spirit to move on. The Wari' fear ghost's that they call the Jima who they believe are persons who have died but have not moved on. Also, the Wari' have elaborate taboos relating to the ground. They think that the soil is considered to be dirty, wet, cold, and polluted, and the Wari' people go to extreme lengths to avoid contact with the muddy earth especially with respect to their dead. (Conklin)
Therefore, when Christian missionaries insisted that the Wari' end their practice of mortuary cannibalism and instead bury their dead in the ground, they didn't fully appreciate how much of the Wari' they were asking. They were in effect insisting that the Wari must disrespect their deceased loved ones by abandoning them in the polluted wet earth and likewise condemn them to roam the earth for eternity, lost between the worlds as a Jima.
This idea may not at first seem like such a stretch until you also imagine the converse. If you were to use cultural relativism to think about the opposite situation, then you must consider the following. What if outsiders were to come uninvited and live in your home, and then when your grandmother died, they chastised you for attempting to give her a proper burial? What then if they dug up your grandma and forced you to eat her flesh, all the while claiming that it was necessary for you to be a good and civilized person? In this situation, who among us would not take offense?
Sources:
Conklin, Beth A. 1995. Thus Are Our Bodies, Thus Was Our Custom”:Mortuary Cannibalism in an Amazonian Society. American Ethnologist 76 (1995): 75-101
I think that cultural relativism is the process of trying to consider a culture and its practices relative to its context instead of according to one's own context. I think that adopting a position of cultural relativism is an important technique and that it is relevant to the study of archaeology because by considering another culture's perspective it may help you to understand and appreciate their beliefs and practices more fully. Lacking cultural relativism can easily lead to misunderstandings. After giving it some thought, I am quite unsure how ethical relativism is much different than cultural relativism. I think that ethical relativism may just be a more specific version of cultural relativism.
I do think that there are limitations to cultural relativism. After studying the Canela in more detail I might be able to get a better understanding of why it is that they do what they do, but this will not eliminate my own personal enculturated biases, and I will be perhaps unable to fully accept their ways as rational or necessary even if they may be so from within their context.
As an example, consider the Wari' people of the western Brazilian rainforest. Following first contact, Christian Missionaries struggled for years to try and convince the Wari' to give their dead a proper Christian burial. To the Christians, the respectful and correct treatment of a dead body was thought to be one of the most basic essential aspects of civilized peoples. However, the missionaries failed to understand that the Wari' also had their own deeply held opinions on the correct treatment of dead bodies. When it comes to death, the Wari' cosmology is very complex and involves a complicated cyclical series of death and rebirth cycles.
The Wari' religious system believes that people are born and die and then they are reborn in an afterlife they die again and are reborn again on this earth with the whole process then resuming and circling until eternity. The entire birth/rebirth cycle is dependent upon the hunting and consumption of flesh. The Wari' believe that when they kill an animal such as the revered peccary, they then must eat the meat of the peccary. This process of consuming the peccary's flesh encourages the pecary's spirit to abandon its body and be reborn. Likewise, the Wari' believe that the same is true of humans and that a dead human body must be consumed by those that loved them for the person's spirit to then travel into the Wari's afterlife. When somebody dies, everything about a person's past life is destroyed to encourage their spirit to move on. The Wari' fear ghost's that they call the Jima who they believe are persons who have died but have not moved on. Also, the Wari' have elaborate taboos relating to the ground. They think that the soil is considered to be dirty, wet, cold, and polluted, and the Wari' people go to extreme lengths to avoid contact with the muddy earth especially with respect to their dead. (Conklin)
Therefore, when Christian missionaries insisted that the Wari' end their practice of mortuary cannibalism and instead bury their dead in the ground, they didn't fully appreciate how much of the Wari' they were asking. They were in effect insisting that the Wari must disrespect their deceased loved ones by abandoning them in the polluted wet earth and likewise condemn them to roam the earth for eternity, lost between the worlds as a Jima.
This idea may not at first seem like such a stretch until you also imagine the converse. If you were to use cultural relativism to think about the opposite situation, then you must consider the following. What if outsiders were to come uninvited and live in your home, and then when your grandmother died, they chastised you for attempting to give her a proper burial? What then if they dug up your grandma and forced you to eat her flesh, all the while claiming that it was necessary for you to be a good and civilized person? In this situation, who among us would not take offense?
Sources:
Conklin, Beth A. 1995. Thus Are Our Bodies, Thus Was Our Custom”:Mortuary Cannibalism in an Amazonian Society. American Ethnologist 76 (1995): 75-101
Discussion Topic: Approaches to Archaeology
I think that the best way to summarize the approaches to archaeology is to describe their intentions:
I'm not particularly enamored with either approach, but I do think that each has its merits. I've heard it said that anthropology is the most scientific of the humanities, while likewise being the most human of the sciences. I think this is a good thing. It seems that over the past 70 years archeologists have been uncomfortable with this position.
Processual archaeology's emphasis appears to be on quantitative data; for example, how many milligrams of pollen did we find in one stratum compared to another. Quantitative data is marvelous because it lets you make all kinds of exciting interpretations that you can also back up scientifically and mathematically. We can actually know stuff with relatively high confidence because the data tells us so. This is a good thing! However, processual archaeology makes a major mistake in its total rejection of qualitative data because it is difficult to test against.
In the same way, post-processual archeology's embraces of qualitative data, for example, what is the importance of the female form in fertility cults? Qualitative data may be the most interesting of all and lets you ask the questions that really strike at the human soul. And this is a good thing! But post-processual archeology's rejection of quantitative data, because of it being too "sciency" or stuffy or whatever, is a massive mistake.
Without skepticism, archeology is nothing but a fuzzy guessing game that would look like lousy science-fiction. But without speculation, archeology would be a dreary waste of time because it wouldn't bother asking any questions that anybody even cares about.
I think that the best way to summarize the approaches to archaeology is to describe their intentions:
- Classical archaeology seemed to focus on reconstructing a missing and lost history. It mainly attempted to gather data and document and describe the past.
- Processual archaeology wanted to go further, so it sought to focus on the scientific method to try and explain the past.
- Post-processual archaeology's goal was to use many perspectives to try and mentally understand and then to attempt to interpret the past.
I'm not particularly enamored with either approach, but I do think that each has its merits. I've heard it said that anthropology is the most scientific of the humanities, while likewise being the most human of the sciences. I think this is a good thing. It seems that over the past 70 years archeologists have been uncomfortable with this position.
Processual archaeology's emphasis appears to be on quantitative data; for example, how many milligrams of pollen did we find in one stratum compared to another. Quantitative data is marvelous because it lets you make all kinds of exciting interpretations that you can also back up scientifically and mathematically. We can actually know stuff with relatively high confidence because the data tells us so. This is a good thing! However, processual archaeology makes a major mistake in its total rejection of qualitative data because it is difficult to test against.
In the same way, post-processual archeology's embraces of qualitative data, for example, what is the importance of the female form in fertility cults? Qualitative data may be the most interesting of all and lets you ask the questions that really strike at the human soul. And this is a good thing! But post-processual archeology's rejection of quantitative data, because of it being too "sciency" or stuffy or whatever, is a massive mistake.
Without skepticism, archeology is nothing but a fuzzy guessing game that would look like lousy science-fiction. But without speculation, archeology would be a dreary waste of time because it wouldn't bother asking any questions that anybody even cares about.
Discussion Topic: Stratigraphy Assignment
What is the most detailed archaeological sequence that can be established from the evidence?
I don’t understand this question. There are 35 different types of cultural artifacts and at least 20 or more different strata in sequence in this site. So, I think that the most detailed sequence that somebody could establish would be a sequence of 35 objects. Depending on your interpretation of sterile Layer E, which does not super impose all of layer F, you could speculate that E is evidence that there were at least two separate habitations of this site, But because Layer E does not cover all of F, that isn’t necessarily the case. I cannot say if there were multiple separate cultures who inhabited this site at different times or if there was only one or a few who continuous cultures who themselves changed their artistic styles and technologies over time. It is clear that people did and created different things with different styles at different times at this site.
Is there any evidence for the occurrence of mixing, filling, collecting, or unconformities? If so, what is the evidence, and where?
Yes, layer “I” appears to be mixed and filled. There are unconformities between the left and right side of the wall. Perhaps the left side of the wall was sheltered for long periods of time and this prevented deposition of soil. There are also several artifacts that seem to be evidence of collecting. Especially the Punctuated and applique decorated pottery that seems to disappear and then reappear at multiple points in the matrix. Also, the grave good bowls do not seem to align. One bowl uses a far older artistic style than the other bowl. I think one bowl may have been a family heirloom or a found antique, and the other bowl that uses the newer painting patter may have been a newer bowl.
What was the relationship of the wall with respect to the ground level at the time it was built?
Common sense says that most of the wall would have been above ground. At least on the left side of the wall. However, the right side of the wall may have been dug into a hill or cliff on the right. I’m unsure if the foundation of the wall would have been laid at ground level or not. If so then if the wall was constructed at the end of layer P, then it would have been laid on top of a slope, which would have been a bad idea.
What are the relative ages of the depositional units on the right side of the wall compared with those on the left side?
I do not really understand how this section was labeled. The instructions say that they are not contemporaneous, but they used the same letters of the alphabet to label them. This has me confused. Because the strata are mixed, and also the artifacts are also mixed, I cannot answer this question.
The layering of the left side of the wall is quite different that the right side of the wall. The layers of the left side of the wall are uniform and level and they include cement flooring there are 8 layers. The layers of the right side of the wall are not uniform and are sloped and look natural except that they include the strata “I” that does not appear to be natural al all, there are only 4 layers. To figure out which layers are contemporary I think you would need to compare the artistic styles of the artifacts. However, these seem to be quite mixed as well. For example, red painted bands show up at the beginning of the wall’s life but are also found at the end of its life. There are several artifacts that are found to the right of the wall but only a very few that are found at the left of the wall. These artifacts are not associated with each other. Meaning, I cannot ever find the same artifact on both sides of the wall. This makes me unable to say that any one layer on the left is actually contemporaneous with any one layer on the right.
Which strata bracket the construction of the wall?
I am unsure exactly what this question is asking by “bracketing,” so instead I will answer with what I have observed about the Wall.
The stratum of the Wall makes interpreting it quite confusing
The remains of the Wall are found in the stratum H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O.
Assuming that the wall was first built at ground level, then the earliest that the wall could have been constructed would be in Stratum O. However, if the foundation of the Wall was dug into the earth, which is common practice for supporting heavy walls, then the wall could have been constructed at a later date.
Stratum “I” (right) does not match the pattern of any of the other stratum, or the other stratum tabled “I”, but instead spans the entire height of the Wall. Stratum I has also been heaped over the top of Stratum J. It is also found beneath the wall suggesting that stratum I was intentionally placed there. Stratum I interrupts all of the other stratum. The profile illustration makes it appear that stratum I was placed against the wall at some point as back-fill.
It is also unclear if the wall may have had multiple phases of construction, repair, or re-purpose. Left of the wall are found four different layers of cement flooring, this suggests that the wall may have had four different times of construction. Perhaps one large tall wall of a human height was created at the end of stratum P and the beginning of stratum O. This might suggest some time of dwelling with a roof. Over time as sediment was laid down, people simply created additional floors. However if this was the case the height of the wall would no longer be adequate and would need to be made much taller than it is.
Another possibility is that the wall was used as a retaining wall or as a barrier. Perhaps it’s height was increased multiple times. As soil levels increased over time, the height of the wall was increased. This would make sense according to the stratum of the left of the wall, but the patter to the right does not because of stratum “I”. I think that the wall’s purpose may have changed at the point that stratum “I” was laid down.
What is the sequence of burial types encountered in the excavation?
This site appears to include three distinct mortuary customs that appear to be sequential. They appear in different stratum and they also have distinctly different characteristics. The first (oldest) from stratum P is a flexed burial with no mortuary artifacts, the second is an extended burial that includes bowls as mortuary artifacts, the third is a shaft tomb with a child’s remains that are stored in a mortuary vessel.
What is the most detailed archaeological sequence that can be established from the evidence?
I don’t understand this question. There are 35 different types of cultural artifacts and at least 20 or more different strata in sequence in this site. So, I think that the most detailed sequence that somebody could establish would be a sequence of 35 objects. Depending on your interpretation of sterile Layer E, which does not super impose all of layer F, you could speculate that E is evidence that there were at least two separate habitations of this site, But because Layer E does not cover all of F, that isn’t necessarily the case. I cannot say if there were multiple separate cultures who inhabited this site at different times or if there was only one or a few who continuous cultures who themselves changed their artistic styles and technologies over time. It is clear that people did and created different things with different styles at different times at this site.
Is there any evidence for the occurrence of mixing, filling, collecting, or unconformities? If so, what is the evidence, and where?
Yes, layer “I” appears to be mixed and filled. There are unconformities between the left and right side of the wall. Perhaps the left side of the wall was sheltered for long periods of time and this prevented deposition of soil. There are also several artifacts that seem to be evidence of collecting. Especially the Punctuated and applique decorated pottery that seems to disappear and then reappear at multiple points in the matrix. Also, the grave good bowls do not seem to align. One bowl uses a far older artistic style than the other bowl. I think one bowl may have been a family heirloom or a found antique, and the other bowl that uses the newer painting patter may have been a newer bowl.
What was the relationship of the wall with respect to the ground level at the time it was built?
Common sense says that most of the wall would have been above ground. At least on the left side of the wall. However, the right side of the wall may have been dug into a hill or cliff on the right. I’m unsure if the foundation of the wall would have been laid at ground level or not. If so then if the wall was constructed at the end of layer P, then it would have been laid on top of a slope, which would have been a bad idea.
What are the relative ages of the depositional units on the right side of the wall compared with those on the left side?
I do not really understand how this section was labeled. The instructions say that they are not contemporaneous, but they used the same letters of the alphabet to label them. This has me confused. Because the strata are mixed, and also the artifacts are also mixed, I cannot answer this question.
The layering of the left side of the wall is quite different that the right side of the wall. The layers of the left side of the wall are uniform and level and they include cement flooring there are 8 layers. The layers of the right side of the wall are not uniform and are sloped and look natural except that they include the strata “I” that does not appear to be natural al all, there are only 4 layers. To figure out which layers are contemporary I think you would need to compare the artistic styles of the artifacts. However, these seem to be quite mixed as well. For example, red painted bands show up at the beginning of the wall’s life but are also found at the end of its life. There are several artifacts that are found to the right of the wall but only a very few that are found at the left of the wall. These artifacts are not associated with each other. Meaning, I cannot ever find the same artifact on both sides of the wall. This makes me unable to say that any one layer on the left is actually contemporaneous with any one layer on the right.
Which strata bracket the construction of the wall?
I am unsure exactly what this question is asking by “bracketing,” so instead I will answer with what I have observed about the Wall.
The stratum of the Wall makes interpreting it quite confusing
The remains of the Wall are found in the stratum H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and O.
Assuming that the wall was first built at ground level, then the earliest that the wall could have been constructed would be in Stratum O. However, if the foundation of the Wall was dug into the earth, which is common practice for supporting heavy walls, then the wall could have been constructed at a later date.
Stratum “I” (right) does not match the pattern of any of the other stratum, or the other stratum tabled “I”, but instead spans the entire height of the Wall. Stratum I has also been heaped over the top of Stratum J. It is also found beneath the wall suggesting that stratum I was intentionally placed there. Stratum I interrupts all of the other stratum. The profile illustration makes it appear that stratum I was placed against the wall at some point as back-fill.
It is also unclear if the wall may have had multiple phases of construction, repair, or re-purpose. Left of the wall are found four different layers of cement flooring, this suggests that the wall may have had four different times of construction. Perhaps one large tall wall of a human height was created at the end of stratum P and the beginning of stratum O. This might suggest some time of dwelling with a roof. Over time as sediment was laid down, people simply created additional floors. However if this was the case the height of the wall would no longer be adequate and would need to be made much taller than it is.
Another possibility is that the wall was used as a retaining wall or as a barrier. Perhaps it’s height was increased multiple times. As soil levels increased over time, the height of the wall was increased. This would make sense according to the stratum of the left of the wall, but the patter to the right does not because of stratum “I”. I think that the wall’s purpose may have changed at the point that stratum “I” was laid down.
What is the sequence of burial types encountered in the excavation?
This site appears to include three distinct mortuary customs that appear to be sequential. They appear in different stratum and they also have distinctly different characteristics. The first (oldest) from stratum P is a flexed burial with no mortuary artifacts, the second is an extended burial that includes bowls as mortuary artifacts, the third is a shaft tomb with a child’s remains that are stored in a mortuary vessel.
Discussion Topic: Agriculture
In his article, The Worst Mistake in the history of the human race, Professor Jared Diamond considers agriculture and the conventional wisdom suggesting that its adoption was the greatest marker of progress in human history. As he compares the lives and evidence of Hunter/Gathering groups to that of agricultural societies, he argues that rather than it being our best achievement, it may instead have been our worst mistake. I think that Professor Diamond raises some excellent points in his article; points that I am unable to refute. I think, above all, which position you take on this question depends upon how you interpret the idea of “progress.”
Professor Diamond acknowledges the fact that after the spread of agriculture, human population, technology, and cultural complexity has indeed spiked massively. We certainly owe our current way of life to its invention and its success. Nobody can argue that agriculture hasn’t been drastically influential to humanity. And, if these are the metrics by which we should measure progress, it is undeniable that a reasonable person must concede that agriculture has delivered, and delivered abundantly.
However, he also points out that other metrics have been affected by agriculture, many of whom’s relationship to it hasn’t been considered quite as much until more recently.
These metrics that he points out, (and many many others that I can think of) include many additional factors such as:
Social and economic stratification, sexual inequality, despotism, highly organized violence and warfare (I’m talking standing armies, world wars and nukes here not raids and domestic abuse), general mortality rates, life expectancy, leisure time, happiness, repetitive stress injuries, toil and strife, spinal degeneration, exhaustion and sleep deprivation, property disputes, serfdom and slavery, factory farming, animal abuse, disease, malnutrition and anemia, body heights weights and bone density, obesity, meaningless consumption and waste, dental health, decay, and enamel defects, diversity of diet, resistance to famine, extinction, as well as the health of our entire planet’s ecosystem and climate!
Archeology is also showing us that if agriculture hasn’t directly enabled, or maybe even in some cases caused these things, it has undoubtedly indirectly influenced them much. When we look at these metrics through this darker lens, a reasonable person could also conclude that perhaps humanity may not be on some predestined path of progress sparked by the invention of agriculture, but instead that maybe we are in a cult of progress, rapidly accelerating and descending towards the inevitable destruction that it has enabled.
The film, “Stories from the Stone Age: Daily Bread,” looks at the origins of agriculture and how the Natufian culture may have developed it. It considers the archeological evidence and presents a sequence of how generations of foragers acquired the skills and improved upon them as we transitioned from a hunter/gatherer lifestyle to a sedentary lifestyle. The film doesn’t regard the benefits of agriculture but mainly focuses on its theory of development. For example, it showed how seed selection didn’t affect the phenotypes of barley in a natural wild grass environment. This was because the native grasses were so abundant that our artificial selection of them couldn't overwhelm the genetics. But then later, the Natufian culture was forced by climate change to migrate. They then had to transplant the wild plants to grow in an artificial environment where there were fewer/none of the other native species to compete with. This event may have functioned as geographic isolation and therefore accelerated selection. Overall the film was mainly objective and didn’t argue for the benefits or costs of agriculture. If anything it spent more time examining how the health of the Natufians suffered as a result of them supplementing more and more of their diet with grasses while at the same time enabling their populations to increase than the article did discussing any advantages.
The film and the article were very different. Both were quite excellent but they were neither complementary nor opposed in my opinion, each had different aims. The article’s goal was to make us reconsider the traditional progressivist interpretation of agriculture and consider its costs, and the film’s goal was to inspire us to wonder at and examine agriculture’s origins.
As to which I agree with more, I will redefine the question because I don’t think the film was making any arguments. I think that the heart of the debate is, Is agriculture progress or not? I think this comes down to a couple of points.
What do we mean by progress? Webster’s defines the word in two ways, either as onward movement or as betterment. Agriculture obviously satisfies the first but there are unanswered questions to the second. The idea of betterment is qualitative, subjective and situationally dependent. Is population increase a good thing? Well, that depends on who you ask and in what context. How much population increase is good? How much increase is bad? And who is it that makes this determination and can they be trusted? I think that agriculture, or progress, doesn’t really fit in a boolean. Either or is a false choice. Agriculture has had countless, literally unquantifiable benefits. At the same time it has had countless costs that are quite literally unquantifiable. How many of these benefits can we attribute directly to agriculture? How many of the costs? And of those, what percentage can it really make claim to? Can I blame 100% of war’s invention on the development of agriculture when chimps murder each other? Can I attribute 100% of art’s invention to it when the incredible horses of Lascaux Cave precede its invention? I cannot take either position. The results of agriculture’s invention are simultaneously amazing and terrible. But, indeed, they are great. Maybe even the greatest.
In his article, The Worst Mistake in the history of the human race, Professor Jared Diamond considers agriculture and the conventional wisdom suggesting that its adoption was the greatest marker of progress in human history. As he compares the lives and evidence of Hunter/Gathering groups to that of agricultural societies, he argues that rather than it being our best achievement, it may instead have been our worst mistake. I think that Professor Diamond raises some excellent points in his article; points that I am unable to refute. I think, above all, which position you take on this question depends upon how you interpret the idea of “progress.”
Professor Diamond acknowledges the fact that after the spread of agriculture, human population, technology, and cultural complexity has indeed spiked massively. We certainly owe our current way of life to its invention and its success. Nobody can argue that agriculture hasn’t been drastically influential to humanity. And, if these are the metrics by which we should measure progress, it is undeniable that a reasonable person must concede that agriculture has delivered, and delivered abundantly.
However, he also points out that other metrics have been affected by agriculture, many of whom’s relationship to it hasn’t been considered quite as much until more recently.
These metrics that he points out, (and many many others that I can think of) include many additional factors such as:
Social and economic stratification, sexual inequality, despotism, highly organized violence and warfare (I’m talking standing armies, world wars and nukes here not raids and domestic abuse), general mortality rates, life expectancy, leisure time, happiness, repetitive stress injuries, toil and strife, spinal degeneration, exhaustion and sleep deprivation, property disputes, serfdom and slavery, factory farming, animal abuse, disease, malnutrition and anemia, body heights weights and bone density, obesity, meaningless consumption and waste, dental health, decay, and enamel defects, diversity of diet, resistance to famine, extinction, as well as the health of our entire planet’s ecosystem and climate!
Archeology is also showing us that if agriculture hasn’t directly enabled, or maybe even in some cases caused these things, it has undoubtedly indirectly influenced them much. When we look at these metrics through this darker lens, a reasonable person could also conclude that perhaps humanity may not be on some predestined path of progress sparked by the invention of agriculture, but instead that maybe we are in a cult of progress, rapidly accelerating and descending towards the inevitable destruction that it has enabled.
The film, “Stories from the Stone Age: Daily Bread,” looks at the origins of agriculture and how the Natufian culture may have developed it. It considers the archeological evidence and presents a sequence of how generations of foragers acquired the skills and improved upon them as we transitioned from a hunter/gatherer lifestyle to a sedentary lifestyle. The film doesn’t regard the benefits of agriculture but mainly focuses on its theory of development. For example, it showed how seed selection didn’t affect the phenotypes of barley in a natural wild grass environment. This was because the native grasses were so abundant that our artificial selection of them couldn't overwhelm the genetics. But then later, the Natufian culture was forced by climate change to migrate. They then had to transplant the wild plants to grow in an artificial environment where there were fewer/none of the other native species to compete with. This event may have functioned as geographic isolation and therefore accelerated selection. Overall the film was mainly objective and didn’t argue for the benefits or costs of agriculture. If anything it spent more time examining how the health of the Natufians suffered as a result of them supplementing more and more of their diet with grasses while at the same time enabling their populations to increase than the article did discussing any advantages.
The film and the article were very different. Both were quite excellent but they were neither complementary nor opposed in my opinion, each had different aims. The article’s goal was to make us reconsider the traditional progressivist interpretation of agriculture and consider its costs, and the film’s goal was to inspire us to wonder at and examine agriculture’s origins.
As to which I agree with more, I will redefine the question because I don’t think the film was making any arguments. I think that the heart of the debate is, Is agriculture progress or not? I think this comes down to a couple of points.
What do we mean by progress? Webster’s defines the word in two ways, either as onward movement or as betterment. Agriculture obviously satisfies the first but there are unanswered questions to the second. The idea of betterment is qualitative, subjective and situationally dependent. Is population increase a good thing? Well, that depends on who you ask and in what context. How much population increase is good? How much increase is bad? And who is it that makes this determination and can they be trusted? I think that agriculture, or progress, doesn’t really fit in a boolean. Either or is a false choice. Agriculture has had countless, literally unquantifiable benefits. At the same time it has had countless costs that are quite literally unquantifiable. How many of these benefits can we attribute directly to agriculture? How many of the costs? And of those, what percentage can it really make claim to? Can I blame 100% of war’s invention on the development of agriculture when chimps murder each other? Can I attribute 100% of art’s invention to it when the incredible horses of Lascaux Cave precede its invention? I cannot take either position. The results of agriculture’s invention are simultaneously amazing and terrible. But, indeed, they are great. Maybe even the greatest.
Discussion Topic: Diet Analysis Assignment
Using the information provided on the table, what can you conclude about both Grauballe Woman’s diet and her last meal? Why? Justify your response.
Because the pollen content in her stomach came from plants that flower in the spring, I think that she likely died in the spring. She had a meal of porridge and rabbit before she died.
Using your book, suggest some further scientific analyses or methodologies that could be used to find out more about Grauballe Woman’s diet.
I would be interested to know the frequencies of the the contents of her stomach. Was her last meal large? Her bone health suggests that she was malnourished. Perhaps you could run microflaural analysis on the fibers of the rope to find out more about what it was made of.
Using the information provided on the table, what can you conclude about both Grauballe Woman’s diet and her last meal? Why? Justify your response.
Because the pollen content in her stomach came from plants that flower in the spring, I think that she likely died in the spring. She had a meal of porridge and rabbit before she died.
Using your book, suggest some further scientific analyses or methodologies that could be used to find out more about Grauballe Woman’s diet.
I would be interested to know the frequencies of the the contents of her stomach. Was her last meal large? Her bone health suggests that she was malnourished. Perhaps you could run microflaural analysis on the fibers of the rope to find out more about what it was made of.
Discussion Topic: Exchange
What is symbolic exchange and what are some major interaction spheres?
Symbolic exchange is when something that holds symbolic value is passed from group to group. It could be a tangible artifacts that communicates a symbolic meaning, for example a crucifix, or it could be an intangible thing such as an idea or a way of doing or communicating something, for example a new word or adopting a different fashion to emulate somebody else.
I don't understand what an interaction sphere for symbolic exchange would be. I imagine that anytime people interact, there is probably some time of symbolic exchange that takes place, even if the parties were not aware that they were doing so.
What is characterization and how does it relate to the study of traded goods?
Characterization describes the unique character of an artifact or a resource. We look for something that is special or characteristic of a thing so that we can try to locate it to a specific place where it is sourced from, for example a unique isotopic signature shows where a specific ore is naturally available. For the study of traded goods that allows us to make assumptions that the raw material was abundant there and that it is likely its starting place.
What are some of the scientific characterization methods that may have been used on the artifacts recovered from the Uluburun Wreck?
I think they would have looked at isotope analysis of the metals and petrological examination of the pottery. They may have been able to do trace element analysis on the amphora to discover what goods had been stored inside of them.
What is symbolic exchange and what are some major interaction spheres?
Symbolic exchange is when something that holds symbolic value is passed from group to group. It could be a tangible artifacts that communicates a symbolic meaning, for example a crucifix, or it could be an intangible thing such as an idea or a way of doing or communicating something, for example a new word or adopting a different fashion to emulate somebody else.
I don't understand what an interaction sphere for symbolic exchange would be. I imagine that anytime people interact, there is probably some time of symbolic exchange that takes place, even if the parties were not aware that they were doing so.
What is characterization and how does it relate to the study of traded goods?
Characterization describes the unique character of an artifact or a resource. We look for something that is special or characteristic of a thing so that we can try to locate it to a specific place where it is sourced from, for example a unique isotopic signature shows where a specific ore is naturally available. For the study of traded goods that allows us to make assumptions that the raw material was abundant there and that it is likely its starting place.
What are some of the scientific characterization methods that may have been used on the artifacts recovered from the Uluburun Wreck?
I think they would have looked at isotope analysis of the metals and petrological examination of the pottery. They may have been able to do trace element analysis on the amphora to discover what goods had been stored inside of them.
Discussion Topic: Forensic Reconstruction of Body Heights and Ethnicity
I formatted the closest estimates in BOLD typeface, and I highlighted anything that was within the margin of error in Green Font.
The backwards calculations are under the column, "Mathematical (L).:
Based on this exercise, I observed the following:
I formatted the closest estimates in BOLD typeface, and I highlighted anything that was within the margin of error in Green Font.
The backwards calculations are under the column, "Mathematical (L).:
Based on this exercise, I observed the following:
- Almost all of the formulas underestimated my height.
- The most accurate estimate was for the Tibia. It was also the closest measurement to the mathematically predicted measurement.
- The formula that was most accurate was the one for European/Caucasian Male. It was the best predictor of my height 5/6 times.
- It is challenging to measure the bone length when it is attached to a body, moving, and covered in ticklish skin and muscle. 2/6 measurements were not within the margin of error. This suggests we made mistakes in our measurements.
- It is also possible, although mathematically unlikely that we did measure correctly and I have different bone lengths.
Discussion Topic: Lascaux Cave Art
My main reaction was to the scale. WOW! Both to the scale of the cave art but also to the web site. I wasn't able to spend as much time exploring the site as I really want to, but I will definitely return. This will keep me busy for hours! I cannot believe the level of resolution in the images. I've been zooming in and out on every creature in the Hall of bulls now for a long while now and realize that I'm going to need alot more time with this one. I'm excited.
I've no idea as to the meaning of the work. Not really. But what I think is obvious is that of its importance to its makers. These paintings are huge. There are bajillions of them. They are everywhere. This took a ton of time and effort and thought. They all carefully follow the lines of the rock. Somebody was thinking about composition when they chose each spot. They are not just doodles scrawled in convienent places but huge and detailed graphics in places that would have been difficult and dangerous to access. Many seem to follow one another in a flow. This makes me think that are stories here. I wonder what they would have looked like in flickering firelight. Just entering this place would have taken courage. It is like going into a different reality. They emphasize that concept when they exit the tour at the shaft and return you to the blinding sunlight.
I wonder if these paintings were created by one person or many. There looks to be several different qualities of line. Were these paintings meant to be seen? I don't know. It seems silly to create art without the belief that it will viewed, and yet, they chose to put it deep into the earth. Maybe they were only meant to be seen by a select few. Those who had been granted access, or had the courage to enter the cave.
Methods. We can only use the known to speculate about the unknown. I think art forces the viewer to look back at themselves through the eyes of the other, and then to find that they themselves have been changed. They see differently. I think for this reason we will speculate about Lascaux forever.
My main reaction was to the scale. WOW! Both to the scale of the cave art but also to the web site. I wasn't able to spend as much time exploring the site as I really want to, but I will definitely return. This will keep me busy for hours! I cannot believe the level of resolution in the images. I've been zooming in and out on every creature in the Hall of bulls now for a long while now and realize that I'm going to need alot more time with this one. I'm excited.
I've no idea as to the meaning of the work. Not really. But what I think is obvious is that of its importance to its makers. These paintings are huge. There are bajillions of them. They are everywhere. This took a ton of time and effort and thought. They all carefully follow the lines of the rock. Somebody was thinking about composition when they chose each spot. They are not just doodles scrawled in convienent places but huge and detailed graphics in places that would have been difficult and dangerous to access. Many seem to follow one another in a flow. This makes me think that are stories here. I wonder what they would have looked like in flickering firelight. Just entering this place would have taken courage. It is like going into a different reality. They emphasize that concept when they exit the tour at the shaft and return you to the blinding sunlight.
I wonder if these paintings were created by one person or many. There looks to be several different qualities of line. Were these paintings meant to be seen? I don't know. It seems silly to create art without the belief that it will viewed, and yet, they chose to put it deep into the earth. Maybe they were only meant to be seen by a select few. Those who had been granted access, or had the courage to enter the cave.
Methods. We can only use the known to speculate about the unknown. I think art forces the viewer to look back at themselves through the eyes of the other, and then to find that they themselves have been changed. They see differently. I think for this reason we will speculate about Lascaux forever.
Discussion Topic: Reflection on archaeology class
My expectation for this class was to learn stuff.
I did! I looked forward to each lecture. It was nice to have a class with people who thought about these subjects as deeply as we did. It became clear that when it comes to investigating the human condition, ancient or otherwise, it is really a complex and challenging enigma and that there are no easy answers. Just like ourselves, our story is complicated and messy.
I began this course with two uncomfortable central questions which were posed by the juxtaposition of post-processual and processual archeology. As beings of the present, can we ever truly know the past? And if not, then what is the point? If the processual movement is correct, then why is it then that we seem to learn so very little and then agree on even less? And if the post-processualist are to be believed and we cannot, then what is the point of even trying? I think now that the answer to these questions is much less neat and tidy than I had expected.
If the fate of every question was certain, and it was merely a mathematical rat's nest requiring our carefully designed scientific disentanglement, then the work would be tedious and dull drudgery. Without risk. Without reward. Likewise, if every question were an impossible and unknowable ambiguity, then the work would be only overwhelming and hopeless speculation. Impossible. No point.
But I believe that by using the scientific method, there are some empirical truths that we can indeed uncover with certainty. There were people here. We have their things. But, certainly not all things are, certain. Some things in our past cannot be revealed and must always remain a mystery. It is the mystery that continues to nag at our minds, teasing and begging us to keep digging.
We cannot ever know the difference between the two, which secret is knowable and which one is not. Which will end in victory and which in failure. Because of this, with every new question the stakes are also renewed, and with this renewal so does our excitement and and our lust to know. To know in spite of the possibility that we may not even succeed. I think that this is the point. To seek to know the unknowable; regardless.
My expectation for this class was to learn stuff.
I did! I looked forward to each lecture. It was nice to have a class with people who thought about these subjects as deeply as we did. It became clear that when it comes to investigating the human condition, ancient or otherwise, it is really a complex and challenging enigma and that there are no easy answers. Just like ourselves, our story is complicated and messy.
I began this course with two uncomfortable central questions which were posed by the juxtaposition of post-processual and processual archeology. As beings of the present, can we ever truly know the past? And if not, then what is the point? If the processual movement is correct, then why is it then that we seem to learn so very little and then agree on even less? And if the post-processualist are to be believed and we cannot, then what is the point of even trying? I think now that the answer to these questions is much less neat and tidy than I had expected.
If the fate of every question was certain, and it was merely a mathematical rat's nest requiring our carefully designed scientific disentanglement, then the work would be tedious and dull drudgery. Without risk. Without reward. Likewise, if every question were an impossible and unknowable ambiguity, then the work would be only overwhelming and hopeless speculation. Impossible. No point.
But I believe that by using the scientific method, there are some empirical truths that we can indeed uncover with certainty. There were people here. We have their things. But, certainly not all things are, certain. Some things in our past cannot be revealed and must always remain a mystery. It is the mystery that continues to nag at our minds, teasing and begging us to keep digging.
We cannot ever know the difference between the two, which secret is knowable and which one is not. Which will end in victory and which in failure. Because of this, with every new question the stakes are also renewed, and with this renewal so does our excitement and and our lust to know. To know in spite of the possibility that we may not even succeed. I think that this is the point. To seek to know the unknowable; regardless.