Anthropology Times

Archaeological Research on Style
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 21: 517-536 (Volume publication date October 1992)
Michelle Hegmon
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

This review caught my eye because it was written by a woman in archaeology. It seems I’ve been bumping into the work of Mary Leakey all over the place, so I had female archaeologists on the brain. Michelle Hegmon teaches at Arizona State University. A high school classmate of mine completed her doctoral work in archaeology at ASU. I’ve been wanting to ask my former classmate about her current work. This whole little bit of kizmet may just prompt me to call her up.

Hegmon says that there is enough agreement among archaeologists as to what style is to be able to have meaningful discussions across various theoretical perspectives. She writes that there is basic agreement that “first, style is a way of doing something and second, style involves a choice among various alternatives.” Disagreement comes with discussion of the finer details, but Hegmon’s discussion left me with the impression that disagreements about style are still in some kind of kinder, gentler phase of academic dispute. Though one camp may mostly reject the perspective of another, they each are able to see value and sometimes even analytical usefulness in the rejected view. Or it could just be that Hegmon’s diplomacy is showing.

Hegmon mentions another Annual Review article on style written in 1983 by Stephen Plog titled “Analysis of Style in Artifacts.” I didn’t get a chance to read that one this week. I will read it next week and see what I come away with having read both. I do like the general movement away from considering style simply in relation to patterns of formal variation and toward considering that style also may include cultural and functional components. I look forward to reading what Plog has to add to the discussion of the problems in considering the cultural/functional components when looking at the archaeological record. It’s so easy for bias and wild storytelling to creep in. Hegmon writes of the “long, and sometimes notorious” practice among archaeologists of “correlating styles of material culture and social groups, such as the European Neolithic Beaker Folk and Hohokam Red-on-Buff Culture.” Naming and framing can go a long way toward creating a less than accurate view of the archaeological record. Hegmon writes that “no longer is the association between material culture and living cultures taken for granted. Instead, the archaeological interpretation of cultural identity is an active topic of research.”

Until next week?

Ever yours,

S.

What’s New in African Paleoanthropology?
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 17: 391-426 (Volume publication date October 1988)
Russell H Tuttle
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

Mr. Tuttle made for a spirited read. I don’t think I’ve read as many pop culture references in any other review. In speaking about how some “attempts to erect novel genera” often failed and resulted in the groups being lumped together, he wrote that the new genera (Bodvapithecus, Graecopithecus …) were lost “faster than Zsa Zsa changes mates.” He goes on to refer to the trend of splitting/creating new genera as “splitomania.” In closing out a discussion of hotly contested issues he writes, “For now, recalling our radio days, only ‘The Shadow knows.’” When writing on whether the individuals unearthed at Hadar represented more than one species, Tuttle makes use of a Biblical reference: “ Truly, that a flash flood sealed two species of hominids (and few other vertebrates) together in Hadar sediments is scarcely more likely than our finding righteous Israelites among Pharaoh’s finest under the Red Sea (Exodus 14).” Perhaps adding to this vibe was the fact that Tuttle refers to himself in the first person. The writer of the previous review, also published in 1988, did the same. Was all this a trend in the 1980s?

The section that discusses the Laetoli footprints is titled, “The Laetoli Trails: Facts, Fabrications, Phantoms and Folderol.”

folderol: (from Wiktionary)
1. (uncountable) Nonsense or foolishness.
2. (countable) A decorative object of little value; a trifle or gewgaw.

Tuttle writes about an academic dispute in this section. He had been invited by Mary Leakey to study the Laetoli prints. He writes that(Tim) White and (Gen) Suwa “bumptiously” accused him of academic shenanigans regarding his conclusions about the footprints.

bumptious: Obtrusively pushy; self-assertive to a pretentious extreme. (From Wiktionary)

Others join in with “invidious” public statements and “umbrageous” sources. Tuttle’s language and style in this section left me LOL. It seemed such a good example of the academic dispute language and style that I noted when reading Dean Falk’s review (“Hominid Paleoneurology” and the Dispute That’s All Inside the Taung Baby’s Head).

invidious: Prompted by or expressing or adapted to excite envious dislike or ill will; offensively or unfairly discriminating. (From Wiktionary)
umbrageous: Having shade; shady. (From Wiktionary)

I read in a short bio that Tuttle’s interest include social prejudice in physical anthropology. That interest seemed apparent in this review in several instances including a short remark regarding “man the hunter.” He writes that “observations of hunting, meat-eating, tool-making, and tool-assisted foraging by chimpanzees … and documentation that females are more adept and persistent tool-users, slew the ‘man the hunter’ hypothesis, which, in retrospect, appears to be little more than a corporate male fantasy.”

So, it’s late and I don’t really have a pithy way to wrap this up, so I’ll leave it. Perhaps I will try again next week to write a little earlier.

Ever yours,

S.

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.

Status and Style in Language
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 14: 557-581 (Volume publication date October 1985)
J T Irvine
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor…

My dearest Simone,

My mind was instantly filled with various language experiences just from reading the title of this article. I am learning that I will likely continue reading articles on linguistics after my year of self-study, so I could stand to read some type of basic introduction to linguistics.

During a discussion of studies on variance in language-use according to caste in India, Irvine writes that sometimes speakers would attempt to “caste-climb” by using speech forms associated with higher ranks and how this dynamic was “at odds with the stereotypical picture of Indian castes as rigid, immutable strata, unchallengeable and unmanipulable.” This idea of status climbing by changing the manor of speech put me in mind of several language experiences I had/observed while living in London. Several times before class or during breaks in law school lectures I heard a concern repeated. The speaker said to her group that they had to be careful not to socialize with Oxbridge people who hadn’t gone to the proper (pre-university) schools, in other words, those who weren’t genuinely members of the upperclass. The speaker seemed concerned that a non-upperclass person might try to use the prestige of having gone to Oxbridge combined with having adopted an acceptable accent to “class-climb.” One of the most vocal speakers on this matter was an upperclass person from the Indian subcontinent. I wonder whether she had a special sensitivity due to experiences in India. (Note: Many applications for upper-level jobs required the applicant to list schools as far back as middle school for similar reasons.)

American movies sometimes show Londoners with widely different accents getting together as couples or being members of the same family without comment. The reality that I observed was much different. Several times I observed (middle class) Londoners who seemed to be from similar economic backgrounds, in similar places in their careers and otherwise compatible refuse to date each other because of a difference in accent – at times a level of difference that wouldn’t seem significant to an American ear. It seemed some couples made due if they had the same accent, but their parents had different accents; but it was a source of discomfort.

Part of legal study in the UK involved acquiring a two-year training contract with a law firm. Several of my classmates significantly shifted their speaking styles to match what might be expected at a perspective law firm. One friend  said that she did so unconsciously during a short internship at a law firm. She could not reproduce the same accent outside that law firm’s environment. She was from a well-to-do Taiwanese family which placed her outside the normal British accent scrutiny to a certain extent. It appeared that successfully adopting the right accent could make things a lot smoother for her than it would for a non-upperclass British person doing so.

Irvine didn’t engage in a detailed discussion of status and style in British English, but I believe she pointed to some relevant literature in the bibliography. I’m sure I will want to revisit her bibliography at a later date.

Thank you for your many kindnesses,

S.

The Past, Present, and Future of Flintknapping: An Anthropological Perspective
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 13: 187-203 (Volume publication date October 1984)
J J Flenniken
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor….

My dearest Simone,

This article left me thinking of the various ways we make connections to the past.  Flenniken says,“As an anthropological term, flintknapping is simply the manufacture of stone tools by the reductive processes of flaking or chipping.” He also writes that “..flintknapping constitutes an anthropological concept whereby the processes of prehistoric flintknapping are better understood by modern flintknapping experiments.” He distinguished between people who simple make stone tools, artificers, and people like Donald Crabtree who are replicators, those who use the same tools, materials and methods employed by people of old (producing similar products and debris).

Shortly after reading this article, I was lost in thought about how magical it is to touch history in the way that replicators do. It’s one thing to visit the British Museum and gaze upon things that were used by such and such historical figure or to visit an historical site and touch structures and items that were used by early peoples. It’s quite a different thing to go through a similar process, to have the same considerations running through one’s mind, to make the same movements.

This connection to the past is one of the reasons that despite being tomboyish/bohemian as a child, I always loved wearing long dresses, hooped dresses, formal wear. In fifth or sixth grade I played the old woman on the “Old Woman in the Shoe” parade float. Yes, not exactly an historical figure, but … The music teacher loaned me a prairie-styled dress and bonnet to wear. I didn’t want to take the dress off. I loved gently lifting the skirt to walk up stairs. I loved the feel of the fabric brushing back against my legs with every stride. And somehow the feeling of being a bit out of place when walking among people in normal dress also highlighted the connection to a past time when most women wore such dresses and made such movements.

This connection is one of the great parts of reading your diaries. You share so many of your simple and grand thoughts, your simple and grand movements.

I’ll leave you with that.

S.

Shamanisms Today
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 21: 307-330 (Volume publication date October 1992)
Jane Monnig Atkinson
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to My Tutor….

My dearest Simone,

I’ve used the word “shaman” without much depth of thought as to what shaped the meaning of that word for me. When I think shaman, I think of someone who is especially observant, skilled at mediation (person to person or person to “spirit”) and less bound by the popular cultural rituals while at the same time putting off a sense of a greater awareness of the heart of the culture. I have little connection to Atkinson’s statement that “the identification so shamanism with altered states of consciousness has become so strong that indeed the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.” It’s not as though I have no association between shaman and person who engages in trance-like states; the one just doesn’t immediately call to mind the other. And while I associate shamanisms – the plural in use to say that definitions of shamanism vary by culture – with healing and spirituality, I don’t have a strong sense of those characteristics being absolutely required for use of the term. Perhaps this is because I haven’t had much contact with some of the early writing on shamanism?

Atkinson says that D. Holmberg and M. Taussig argue that shamans “engage in the disruption of order (conceptual, psychic, social), but shamans create and sustain order as well – the coherence and viability of their patient’s beings, the continuity of a community, or the well-being of a household.” This statement speaks well to my view of shamans being in touch with the heart of the culture, any culture. I don’t think of shamanism being a term to be applied to non-Western cultures exclusively. Even some of the more exoticized descriptions of shamanism aren’t that exotic to me because there was a lot of those types of behaviors integrated into the Christian practices where I grew up (Mississippi) – trance-like states involving communion with the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, holy dancing, laying of hands to heal and the like. I think in rural Mississippi, Catholicism was a lot more exotic than most varieties of shamanism.

So it looks like I must stop here if I am to publish this before heading out to do my bit of volunteer work. This is a good change of pace from my usual mad dash to publish before midnight after returning home. Now if I could only be a little better about integrating outside reading…

S.