Copy of Lab 8 - Archaeological Analysis

docx

School

University of North Texas *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2800

Subject

Anthropology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SuperLightning12625

ARCH 2800 - Archaeological Science Dr. Kara Fulton Lab 8 - Archaeological Analysis Your Team Name: Your Team Motto: Remember: this is a team assignment, so anything you write here should be the voice of the team (i.e., use “we” NOT “I”) Tip: As you read through the introductory material in this lab, highlight important information as you go. Resource : How to Use a Highlighter to Improve Your Grades. Classification The process of classification is a fundamental analytical procedure employed in archeology. Classification involves the sorting and grouping of copious quantities of artifacts into a smaller number of classes, or types , which have the ability to inform archeologists about past lifeways. The resulting series of types is referred to as a typology . For example, imagine an archeological excavation in which thousands, or even tens of thousands, of ceramic sherds are recovered (Figure 1a). By themselves, the sherds are chaotic and overwhelming in their sheer quantity. Before they can be studied in any meaningful way, they must be sorted into recurring types based on shared physical attributes such as color, surface decoration, and construction method (Figure 1b-c). Other common physical attributes include size, shape, and raw material (e.g., obsidian, chert, metal, etc.).Remember, the purpose of classification is to understand the people that used the artifacts , not to understand the artifacts themselves. Figure 1. Hypothetical example illustrating the classification of ceramic sherds (a, b) into four distinct ceramic types (c). Anthropologists and archaeologists also classify people, not just artifacts. Like ceramic sherds,

ARCH 2800 - Archaeological Science the large quantity and great diversity of human cultures (in both time and space) has prompted archeologists to construct cultural typologies as well. The most common in use today is Elman Service's (1962) “bands-tribes-chiefdom-states” typology, which groups human societies according to attributes such as population size, subsistence mode (i.e., how they get their food), settlement pattern (i.e., isolated village vs. network of cities), architecture type (i.e., small ephemeral grass huts vs. grandiose stone temples), and economic, sociopolitical, and religious organization (see Figure 2c). While this typology is not without problems, it does help organize a large amount of diversity into a few manageable types, which is crucial for both communication and research. Figure 2. Two nineteenth-century typologies based on technical attributes: Thomsen (1836, a), Morgan (1877, b), and Service’s (1962) typology in common use today (c). 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Classification Classification offers several advantages. First and foremost, it creates order out of chaos, thereby facilitating communication among professionals. It is certainly much easier to talk about a 1 Morgan, L. H. (1877). Ancient Society: Or, Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery, through Barbarism to Civilization. New York: H. Holt. Service, E. (1962). Primitive Social Organization. New York: Random House. Thomsen, C. J. (1836). “Kortfattet udsigt over mindesmærker og oldsager fra Nordens fortid.” In Ledetraad til nordisk oldkyndighed, 27-90. Copenhagen: S. L. Møllers.

ARCH 2800 - Archaeological Science greater proportion of “Type B” pottery than this tongue twister: “cord-marked, grit-tempered pottery constructed from kaolinitic clay using the coil method characterized by a body wider than its spout and exhibiting stirrup handles on either side” (Yikes! What was that again?). Second, constructing typologies based on shared physical attributes enables us to create relative chronologies. One you may already be familiar with is Thomsenn's (1836) famous “three-age” typology which is still in use today: Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age (Figure 2a). Despite these advantages, we must be careful when working with typologies, since there are several disadvantages as well. For example, look at Thomsenn’s three-age typology again: this seems like a very convenient way to divide time, since we do generally see a shift from the use of stone, to bronze, to iron throughout prehistory. But are these types mutually exclusive? Consider the gunflints (stone) used in (metal) guns until about World War I -- or onyx (stone) mortars and pestles used today in India and elsewhere (including many American chefs who feel stone is superior to other materials). This, then, is one of the main disadvantages of typologies: they tend to pigeonhole artifacts into one type when, in reality, they may have characteristics of more than one type. Another set of problems as illustrated by anthropologist Morgan’s (1877) typology, illustrated in Figure 2b, which classifies cultures into the categories of “savagery,” “barbarism,” and “civilization.” The first problem may be obvious: Morgan's hierarchy is clearly a politically motivated typology designed to justify the mistreatment of cultures deemed “inferior” to Westerners, people who lived on land they wanted to exploit and colonize. Moreover, Morgan constructed this typology based on the attributes valued by Western cultures, such as agriculture, metallurgy, and written language. These are etic attributes that are not necessarily those valued by a band of hunter-gatherers or tribe of mountain pastoralists for whom farming, metal tools, and written language have little, if any, value. Service’s (1962) typology (Figure 2c) attempts to overcome some of these problems by using less subjective attributions and less derogatory type names, but it still suffers from the use of etic attributes (i.e., valued by those doing the classifying, not those being classified) and the creation of a progressive timeline in which societies are thought to evolve from less complex (bands) to more complex (states). We now know this is not true; in fact, many societies have done just the opposite and shifted from greater to lesser complexity over time because of changing climate, warfare, and resource (over)exploitation. The Scenario Important: Before continuing, rewatch the video from this week’s module that walks you through an archaeological classification example. This activity is designed to illustrate how tricky (and etic) classification can be. Your team has an

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

ARCH 2800 - Archaeological Science assemblage of modern buttons that you will arrange into different classes based on gender, age, socioeconomic status, and function. For each classification, explain what physical attributes you used and why. For example, if you placed a small, pink, bunny-shaped button in the “child” type when classifying by “age,” then you would write down the attributes of color (pink is more commonly worn by children), size (children have small buttons for small fingers), and irregular shape (adults tend to have more circular buttons) - see Table 1. These may be modern artifacts, but don't scoff! Modern artifacts, perhaps even better than historic or prehistoric artifacts, illustrate the advantages and disadvantages of classification and that our typologies can be very much clouded by our own cultural biases and assumptions. Table 1. Classification by Age (example) Type Buttons Physical attributes and explanations Child Color - pink and purple are more commonly worn by children Size - children have small buttons for small fingers Shape - adults tend to have more circular buttons whereas buttons for children are often shaped like characters, are oddly shaped, etc. While this exercise may initially seem silly, remember that buttons are an important class of material culture that can shed much light on site function (e.g., sewing houses, washrooms, etc.), as well as more esoteric themes such as gender roles and social ranking. Make a copy of this file: Button Assemblage. You will use this file for Questions 1-4. Note: Make sure to use all buttons from the assemblage. No single type should have less than 2 buttons in it. Q1. In the table below, create a button classification scheme based on gender. Classify the Button Assemblage into different types based on physical attributes (e.g., size, color, shape, surface decoration, raw material, etc.) and explain each type’s defining attributes (see example in Table 1). Tip: to add more rows, right click in the table, then select “Insert row above/below.” Classification by Gender Type Buttons Physical attributes and explanations

ARCH 2800 - Archaeological Science Men Men will like something that has a darkish color and is small in shape women Women will like something small but with a lighter color that most of them seem to like, such as pink. BOY Boys will also like something like dark blue but just more holes GIRL Girls will like something with a lighter shade of pink and a heart shape too. Q2. In the table below, create a button classification scheme based on age. Classify the Button Assemblage into different types based on physical attributes (e.g., size, color, shape, surface decoration, raw material, etc.) and explain each type’s defining attributes (see example in Table 1). Tip: to add more rows, right click in the table, then select “Insert row above/below.” Classification by Age Type Buttons Physical attributes and explanations 0-10 This age group will like something shiny and something that looks almost like a toy with different designs. 16-21 This age tends to start getting mature, so they'll like something with a bold and dark color with fewer holes, which could show their maturity level.

ARCH 2800 - Archaeological Science 30-40 This age group would like something really dark; you can tell that this group is rather getting old and aging. 50-60 This age group is fully pushing 70 years old, so they have to wear something that will not stand out too much or attract too much attention. Q3. In the table below, create a button classification scheme based on function. Note : For clothing, a function may be "formal", such as a wedding dress with grand embellishments - a person would not typically be seen wearing this cumbersome, elegant clothing type every day. Think of your own clothing and how it varies depending on context / where you’re going. Classify the Button Assemblage into different types based on physical attributes (e.g., size, color, shape, surface decoration, raw material, etc.) and explain each type’s defining attributes (see example in Table 1). Tip: to add more rows, right click in the table, then select “Insert row above/below.” Classification by Function Type Buttons Physical attributes and explanations COLL AR SHIRT This button mostly seems like the type used on cotton collar shirts for men or school shirts. DRES S Most dresses will have a design, and so will this button, so I think that this button will go well with a female dress. COTT ON UNDE RWEA R Most male cotton underwears have one button most of the time in the middle, and its usually a dark color.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

ARCH 2800 - Archaeological Science BACK PACK BUTT ON Some backpacks have extra compartments sometimes, and they usually have these types of buttons on them because they run a thread through the four holes. Q4. In the table below, create a button classification scheme based on socioeconomic status (e.g., wealth). Classify the Button Assemblage into different types based on physical attributes (e.g., size, color, shape, surface decoration, raw material, etc.) and explain each type’s defining attributes (see example in Table 1). Tip: to add more rows, right click in the table, then select “Insert row above/below.” Classification by Socioeconomic status (e.g., wealth) Type Buttons Physical attributes and explanations POOR It looks like its too affordable and cheap. AVER AGE It looks like a button anyone can find anywhere; it just looks basic RICH This looks classy because of the color blend all around the holes WEAL THY This is more like a statement piece; it's just one solid color that can really tell you a lot. Q5. What challenges did your team encounter when creating your typologies in Q1-4 (other than the fact that you can’t touch the artifacts)? Its honestly just hard to actually pick the buttons and think about the description to actually write down. Thinking about the type was also difficult, and the gender aspect gave me issues because I didn't

ARCH 2800 - Archaeological Science know what to actually put down. Q6. What classification schemes other than age, gender, function, and socioeconomic status might be useful for classifying buttons (either in relation to this specific assemblage or button assemblages in any archaeological context)? Why? I believe personality because some people use colors to determine their mood because they are either too bright or too dull. Extra Credit (optional): Read this article, which includes the archaeological analysis of buttons (you’ll need to log into the UNT library with your EUID to access the article): What the Warners Wore: An Archaeological Investigation of Visual Appearance EC1. What does the author find out about people and human behavior by including buttons (and similar classes of material culture) in their archaeological analysis?

Copy of Lab 8 - Archaeological Analysis

Related Documents