Anthropology Times

Homo Erectus and Later Middle Pleistocene Humans
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 17: 239-259 (Volume publication date October 1988)
G P Rightmire
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

Many of the site names in this review were immediately familiar to me, Olduvai Gorge, Zhoukoudian, the Koobi Fora Formation.  Still, my mind glazed over just a little reading some of the finer details of identifying Homo erectus — I found myself longing for illustrations. With a quick consult of a more recently written textbook, I learned that the discussion of whether sets of individuals found in Africa and Asia that are both commonly referred to as Homo erectus should be grouped together in that fashion or labeled separate species continues.

Reading of Olduvai Gorge, I was put in mind of how the Leakeys were probably the archaeologists/anthropologists who made the biggest impression of me when I was younger.  Mary Leakey stood out to me because she was a woman doing exciting work in exotic locales.  I probably first heard her name in association with the Lucy and with the Laetoli footprints and most likely on some PBS broadcast.  She was just the kind of woman I was encouraged to like — talented, strong, spirited, freedom-loving, adventurous (As a little girl, I watched reruns of “The Big Valley” with my Granny, and I listened to her sing the praises of Victoria Barkley.).  Of the male Leakeys, I remember Richard the most from childhood, again, probably from some PBS special.

I will put a biography of Mary Leakey on my reading list for this year.  I would not of have thought to do so had I not read this article.  Now, I’m looking forward to it.

Yours truly,
S.

Theoretical Issues in Contemporary Soviet Paleolithic Archaeology
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 12: 403-428 (Volume publication date October 1983)
R S Davis
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

I was likely drawn to this article because I have been watching early episodes of MacGyver, a TV show that ran from 1985 to 1991. It seems very much to be a Cold War era show. Remember when there used to be talk of defectors left and right? So far I’ve seen a couple episodes that covered finding creative ways to get out of East Berlin, one involving a coffin that transformed into a jet ski. I watched the show during its original airing, but I’m finding that I may remember the pop culture references to the show more than I do the actual show. The show seems an interesting commentary on Americans and our view of our place in the world at the time; it’s not the most flattering view from an anti-imperialist perspective. I’m curious to see how the show develops and how it handles the fall of the Iron Curtain.

And then I come to this article with its talk of paleolithic archaeology in the the good ole USSR with its centralized organizational structure with headquaters in Leningrad, and it takes me back. I hadn’t thought recently of how Cold War era politics may have affected cross-cultural communication in the academic community at the time. Although Davis writes of how ideological differences between the USSR and the West translated into differences in theoretical orientations, he says that the main barrier to information sharing on Paleolithic research had to do with language. He mentions a forthcoming dissertation on Upper Paleolithic research from Olga Soffer-Bobyshev, who also mentions the language barrier. In a 1986 interview with the Mammoth Trumpet, Soffer said, “The data base there is so incredibly rich, and other than Richard Klein’s Ice-Age Hunters of the Ukraine, there was really nothing in the west for our non-Russian reading colleagues.” Soffer talks about her dissertation research in the interview with the Mammoth Trumpet.

The article left me wanting to read more on the concept of archaeological culture. Davis writes that the West was further along than the USSR in its thinking that cultures are the relevant units of analysis in Paleolithic archaeology. He writes that scientists in the USSR spent a long time divesting themselves of the concept that stages of development (Pre-Clan society, Era of Clan Organization, Decomposition of the Clan and Emergence of Class Society) based on Marxists ideology were the relevant unit – this made for an interesting commentary on the conservatism in academia and how it can be difficult to move away from a popular theoretical model even after it has been largely abandoned. Davies writes of how some archaeologists in the USSR took to publishing “basically descriptive, data-oriented excavation reports” in an effort to avoid dealing with the theoretical void created after abandoning a model that held sway for time.

I was about to say, “Enough time travel,” but then thought maybe I’ll take a look at how MacGyver manages to make a quiet exit from Bulgaria.   And this note comes with a theme song… Beatles “Back in the U.S.S.R.”

Ever true,

S.

Contemporary Hunter-Gatherers: Current Theoretical Issues in Ecology and Social Organization
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 12: 193-214 (Volume publication date October 1983)
A Barnard
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

No particular thoughts jumped out at me while reading this article. I think it’s mostly that my thoughts are elsewhere at the moment. I made quick notes of things that I would like to read more on later. It also occurred to me that I should come up with a concrete list of books that I would like to read before the end of the year. The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture by Marvin Harris is now high-up on that list. This work wasn’t specifically referenced, but Marvin Harris was mentioned. Before, during and after reading an article I tend to Google (capitalized?) people and concepts, and I was reminded that I would like to read more Harris.

I would also like to read more on James Woodburn’s immediate-return and delayed return systems. Barnard writes that “immediate-return economic systems are characterized by a behavior and attitude which rejects the notion of surplus,” while “delayed-return systems, in contrast, allow for planning ahead.” Woodburn was mentioned in a discussion of new typologies to characterize modern hunter-gatherer societies, but Barnard makes the point that this typology can be applied to all societies. I thought of the stories told in childhood that taught that hoarding behavior is good and virtuous. “The Ant and the Grasshopper” was a frequently repeated story in my elementary school. The ant spent the summer hoarding food for the winter while the grasshopper spent the summer singing and dancing. The story was not taught with nuance in my school. The ant was unquestionably good and responsible and the grasshopper was reckless and bad. The message seemed to be hoard or die – or be helplessly dependent on the kindness of strangers. The Wikipedia article on the tale seemed a good starting place for a discussion of the responses to and various versions and nuances of the tale.  I would like to read more on Woodburn’s typology with fables like this one in mind.

It’s late and I’m tired, so I’ll leave you with that.

Ever yours,

S.

Language and World View
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 21: 381-404 (Volume publication date October 1992)
Jane H. Hill and Bruce Mannheim
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest lady,

It’s approaching the one-year mark on my friend’s death. May is the month of his birth and his death. For the last several months I’ve found myself repeating more frequently the phrase, “I feel his presence.” I have a feeling associated with saying those words. I find that I’m unsure what those words mean or what that feeling means. I don’t have the same feeling in saying, “I remember him,” or “This reminds me of him.” I wonder whether I have the same facial expressions and intonation as the people I observed saying those words in my childhood. Is the feeling the same feeling they had?

I am fascinated by the conversations people have without thinking, with how much of life is scripted. There are so many intimate and personal moments and interactions that have these settled upon words. When I was younger, I made bigger efforts to avoid the scripts with a surprising amount of “success.” I now often feel that I am missing shared cultural “stuff” because I didn’t wholly internalize some of the scripted phrases.

I do feel a certain comfort in saying, “I feel his presence,” despite not knowing what it means. I wonder what all goes into which scripted phrases are heavily internalized and which are not? We all have certain popular words and phrases with which we don’t identify, right?

In elementary school, kids often had discussions about confusing words/meanings in common cultural expressions. It seemed that by middle school, these conversations dried up. Kids were less concerned about what the expressions meant and more concerned with using them correctly.

I read “Language and World View” to get a sense of what types of things were being said and which names were being mentioned (the same as with every article). Of course there was much mention of Boas, Sapir ad Whorf – all on my to-read list for this topic. There was also mentioned of someone else who more recently made my to-read list, George Lakoff. Some time ago, I bookmarked a YouTube video of a lecture he gave somewhere (George Lakoff “The Brain and Its Politics”).   Haven’t watched it, yet.  I even checked out some of his books from the local public library, but I didn’t get around to reading them (still working on regaining the ability to devour books). Anyway, one of the nice things about reading these review articles is that I not only get a brief discussion of some of ideas put forth by Lakoff, the authors also pointed me toward someone, Naomi Quinn, who offers criticisms of Lakoff. So, there was a little bump in my excitement to read both scholars.

I’ve been saying for quite some time that I need to widen my reading. This is becoming more pressing. I enjoy reading the review articles, but I find that I’m growing more and more bored with the way that I interact with the text. I feel as though I’m having the same five thoughts over and over. I’m trying not to be overly harsh with myself since I said that I was giving myself a year to casually graze in anthropology. And, there is something building from doing this reading… I trust.

Ever enjoying the sweetness and light of you,
S.

Trends in the Study of Later European Prehistory
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 16: 365-382 (Volume publication date October 1987)
S J Shennan
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

Reading “Trends in the Study of Later European Prehistory” I felt a poke in the direction of actually getting caught up on current events. And lucky me, I have several great newspapers on my desk at the moment. I tend to prefer thinking in terms of trends and types, but it’s good sometimes to take note of the current particulars.

A comment about the thinking of Gordon Childe seemed to me a commentary on current trends in Western cultures or at least U.S. culture. The comment contrasts cultures of the Near East with then emerging European cultures: “The Near East was the ultimate source of innovations and ideas; but after the growth of civilization, Near Eastern society became stagnant and oppressive; superstition ruled technology and suppressed innovation; society became totalitarian. European society, however, was open. Technological innovation was not subject to social control…” This type of thinking sticks out to me as something to toss around when viewing trends in the interactions between politics and academia in America as well the changing relationship between West and East, but I don’t feel that I have a lot of particulars to which to point

Is there some relationship between bursts of technological advancement and growing desires to turn to superstition and oppression? Will stagnation in one part of the world encourage innovation in another part of the world, and will that encouragement lead to greater freedom in that part of the world? Thinking of the West as a declining power and the East as an emerging power… Are declining powers more suspicious of innovation because they are afraid that new technologies will bring further decline, while emerging powers are more welcoming of innovation because they believe that new technologies will bring further progress? And how does all this work itself out culturally?

The article speaks of applying new approaches (in this case, structuralism, French neo-Marxism and German critical theory) to data and to fields of study (in this case data and archaeology having to do with later European prehistory). The discussion speaks to the fact that it’s so easy to highlight information that fits a certain theoretical framework while ignoring significant information that doesn’t happen to fit. I find sometimes that the purest fun can be had by tossing around ideas within the framework of some debunked theory. There’s no obsession with “rightness” or “truth.” There just the fun of bringing a new perspective to familiar ideas and seeing what new thoughts spring from that.

I’ll end with that.

S.