The object of archaeology?

What does an archaeologist do? What, exactly, is it that one studies? More poignantly, why do we care? This is seemingly at the core of a self-reflective archaeology as alluded to by Ian Hodder in "Archaeological Theory in Contemporary European Societies; the Emergence of Competing Traditions" and Ann Brower Stahl's "Introduction: Changing Perspectives on Africa's Past."

Importantly, Hodder concludes that there is a certain level of objectivity whereby our understanding of the past in the present time is informed by the remains from the past: "...the experience of the archaeological data and the patterning observed in the past do more than resist our ideas; they help create them" (22). However, is this a satisfying response to his previous statement that "The past is undeniably social, as is the practice of archaeology" (20)? He seems to claim that there is indeed some middle ground between the objective presence of material remains from a past existence and the socially-affected discipline of archaeology. However, with considerations such as "...the history of theories used in archaeology cannot be separated from the concrete conditions of practical research or from the social functions of archaeology in society" (21), how in fact can this objective-subjective dichotomy be mediated? Hodder claims that "The continuities we claim with the past have in part been created by that past. Archaeological science involves a dialectical relationship between past and present. The hermeneutic circle is not a vicious one" (22). This seems to be a logical fallacy, however, if the continuities we claim to have with a given past are in fact up to an interpretation of that past. Where does the science come into archaeology? How is that dialectic any different than the discourse that Said discusses on the matter of Orientalism?

If the object of archaeology is a past that is uncovered and interpreted in the present, is not any continuity drawn between this present and that past merely a structure of rhetoric and interpretation? The process that Hodder seems to rectify as in some way objective is anything but. It is a reflexive discourse, as is Said's Orientalism. We are the present, they are the past. We observe and study them through our lens. As the speakers for the past, we describe it and analyze it. Where, exactly does the data come in? How is this any different than an Orientalist discourse?

To be fair to Hodder, he does acknowledge this to an extent by inscribing: "The attempt to embed material events within the whole framework of meaning in which they were once situated clearly involves the analyst in a double hermeneutic in which 'their' and 'our' understandings are gradually accommodated in a moving double circle. This process of double reading has to be critically aware" (18). Is this not a method of navigating the vicious hermeneutic circle that Hodder eventually rejects? Poignantly, the process of archaeology is, indeed, a moving, reflexive discourse. It seems that there is no mere moment of archaeological objectiveness, but more so an ongoing, reflexive, discursive, hermeneutic enterprise. Is this not the history that Hodder so sensitively describes of his account of European archaeology?

So, this does not give an answer to any question asked originally as to what and why archaeologists study. There is seemingly no object of archaeology. The only objective to be found here is that it is a discourse among as many interpreted evidences as possible, characterized as 'data,' and with that to define, redefine, and question a past that is interpreted in the present. Likewise, these are the sorts of systematic problems that Stahl faces in prefacing an account of African archaeology. She considers knowledge to be always interested; i.e., the object of an analysis is determined "... by the social, political, and economic contexts..." of the subject (2). The conclusions drawn from such analyses are presented as universal, objective conditions, or 'knowledge,' but really "...the universal emerges NOT from widely documented shared features, as we might at first imagine, but rather from the elevation of a shared instance or example to stand for the universal" (6).

As for a capacity for archaeologists to do some study of worth, as heretofore they have been perhaps unfairly treated in this reflection, they consider sources--or perhaps objects--of a past, some of which are privileged over others. The direct sources are those privileged over indirect ones, having been produced in the temporal realm of concern. These data points that Hodder perhaps designates too much of an objectivity for, are by no means such. However, their presence and usage in an archaeological endeavor is not to be unsubstantiated, but reconsidered. To reckon with these qualms, Stahl wisely places such archaeological 'data' in its rightful place by claiming, "Archaeological sources...provide valuable independent evidence against which to assess models of the past." The insistence here is on her use of the term models. To bring this discussion to a more hopeful end with regards to the place and function of archaeology, if we are to study 'the past' as models of such rather than an objective sort, and the evidence from which as artifacts to be questioned, analyzed, and interpreted for or against certain models, than in fact archaeology can have an exuberant worth insofar as it acquires and exploits data while questioning it and the meaning thereof.

With this in mind, Stahl puts it far better than I could attempt to here, and will therefore end as she does. Her considerations are universal, however. For archaeology to succeed and have relevancy, it must be a subjective study of the subjective. As one would advise the insecure and miserable pubescent boy, accept and pride in who you are. For archaeology to reach the level of adulthood, it must accept what it is and what it is not. It is an anarchical endeavor, no right or wrong, this or that, us or them. Archaeology is, indeed, the study of everything. It is only different insofar of its perspective. Thus, perhaps archaeology is more suited as a frame of mind than a discipline unto itself. Anyway, rather than belabor this point, Stahl has some words to comfort us all in the throes of archaeological existential crises:

"Africa's pasts speak to us--conceived as an encompassing 'circle of we'--not for what they tell us about teleologically conceived universal progress, or quintessential difference and diversity conceived as a departure from an ever-present phantom standard of 'us-ness.' Rather they offer insight into our humanness; to the struggles of humans as social actors to feed and care for family, to express commonalities and differences, to impose or resist power and hegemony, in short, to make our way in a world of entangled and changing natural and cultural circumstances" (16).

Hybridity within the Archaeological Record

            Based on Edward Said’s characterization of colonialist thought in Orientalism and Matthew Liebmann’s definitions of postcolonialism in the introductory chapter of Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, the primary difference to me between these two paradigms is the tendency to dichotomize versus hybridize the cultures of colonizer and colonized.

            According to Said, encounters of Western colonists with “the Orient,” which he defines in this book as India and the Levant, caused them to assert their distinctive Western-ness. Of course, the distinction of “Western” is vague and arbitrary and, by definition, can only be made relationally; something/someone can only be “Western” with respect to something/someone else. Therefore, “the Orient” is a concept developed by Western colonists as a foil for themselves. It existed only as an Other by which they could define the Self. Orientalism as a field of study, then, is problematic not only because of the outright racism expressed in some of the literature, but because it is inherently Eurocentric. Indian and Levantine cultures are studied as a means by which “the West” can be understood rather than as an end in of themselves. Said expresses the positive feedback cycle that dichotomization initiates:

            When one uses categories like Oriental and Western as both the starting and

            the end points of analysis, research, public policy…the result is usually to

            polarize the distinction – the Oriental becomes more Oriental, the Westerner

            more Western – and limit the human encounter between different cultures,

            traditions and societies (45-6).

            However, the act of colonizing did the exact opposite; rather than isolating the cultures of “East” and “West,” it brought them into constant contact. To me, refutation of this binary in favor of cultural interaction is one of the most important contributions of postcolonalism. Liebmann identifies this “investigation of hybridity in the constitution of postcolonial cultural formations” as one of the three major tenets of this theoretical framework (4). I am interested in how the archaeological record can be used to explore this notion of hybridity, which Liebmann defines as “the new, transcultural forms produced through colonization that cannot be neatly classified into a single cultural or ethnic category” (5). Thus, the whole is greater than the some of its parts and, as Liebmann emphasizes, these parts can be in constant conflict, resulting in instances of anticolonial resistance.

            A zooarchaeological study I am currently working on can be used as one lens through which hybridity can be identified archaeologically. The site of Dixon, New Mexico was first occupied by the Spanish in 1725; however, it had been inhabited by the Tiwa people for centuries prior to European arrival. The entire assemblage is believed to date from the post-colonial period, and yet there is evidence of traditional indigenous hunting techniques occurring contemporaneously with traditionally European domesticates such as sheep, goat, cattle and pig. It is unclear whether or not the coexistence of these two distinct subsistence strategies is due to Spanish appropriation of indigenous techniques, indigenous appropriation of Spanish domestication, or cohabitation, as all have seemingly occurred at other Spanish colonial sites in the area; likely, it is a combination of the three. Regardless, each is a form of hybridity that can be explored within a postcolonial theoretical framework.

            This is just one of the many ways in which archaeology can be used in combination with postcolonial theory to identify instances of hybridity and reconstruct the history of colonization in a non-binary fashion. In fact, in the second chapter of Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique, Liebmann identifies additional material examples of hybridity from the Spanish colonial Southwest, focusing on the fusion of Catholicism with Puebloan traditions. All of these remarkable histories of confluence and conflict, much more interesting and varied than the colonial “East” versus “West” archetype, would be missed if not for the rejection of these binaries by postcolonial theory.

References:

Liebmann, M. and Rizvi, U. Z., eds. 2008. Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique. Lanham, MD: 

            AltaMira Press.

Said, E. 1979. Orientalism. New York: Random House. 

Archaeology, the Sex Pistols, etc.

Founded in London in 1975, the Sex Pistols are widely considered to be one of the best and most influential punk rock bands--perhaps even one of the most influential modern bands period--despite existing for less than four years and only releasing one full-length album. Their M.O. was to subvert everything--music, pop culture, politics especially--at all costs; thus, they’re still, in 2011, the posterboys for rebellion and angst. The band’s singer, John Lydon (better known as Johnny Rotten), has laced this contemporary rebellious through all his art--from his work with the Sex Pistols to his subsequent music with PiL to his butter commercials to his drawings. Some of the latter of these enterprises--the drawings, I mean--are currently, believe it or not, the subject of an archaeological debate.

Yes, Johnny Rotten is relevant right now in the world of archaeology--but as Guardian art writer Jonathan Jones stresses in a recently published polemic, he shouldn’t be. Archaeologists writing in the journal Antiquity have been urging that Rotten-scribbled graffiti (pictured above) in a London house be preserved; they liken his doodles, in fact, to paleolithic cave art and thus deem them necessary to save and cherish. But is using archaeology to talk about modern history a fresh approach to an oft-overlooked science? Or is it a desperate attempt to get the largely-apathetic public to care by using the archaeological skill set to examine things that are more “fun” and “relevant”?
James argues that the preservation status of Rotten's graffiti is a cop-out. “Their real agenda,” he writes, “is to provoke their own profession, to imply that archaeology should be about graffiti as much as it is about cave paintings. But here they are being the opposite of subversive.” They seem to think that by tying their cause to a subversive icon, Rotten, they can modernize their time-worn art. Appealing to the masses, however, is neither what Rotten is about nor what archaeology has ever been about. Many archaeologists have tried different tactics--such as writing essays for “lay people,” or talking about Indiana Jones using archaeology, etc. - to draw younger people in, but one has to think that doing so can corrupt the practice. It’s true that Rotten’s drawings (or Indiana Jones, for that matter) define an epoch just as rock art did--but the implications of such art, both why and how it was made, are completely different. Rock art is a cultural, sociological movement--a testament to the evolution of mankind. Rotten’s drawings, while cool and fun and everything, are just one man’s haphazard work. By suggesting that Rotten’s work is equitable to that of, say, the San people, these archaeologists are feeding into the hands of the modern-day folks who are uninterested in their work to begin with.
They are also feeding into the hands, meanwhile, of their Western archaeologist forefathers. In attributing preservation status to Rotten’s doodles, they are doing exactly what has been done throughout history: placing importance on the Western man’s work, glorifying the white man as a hero and a visionary. It’s unlikely that these same archaeologists would call for the preservation of King Sunny Ade’s doodles. Perhaps some Africans would, but it wouldn't be under the same auspices or authority, This notion that Western art is better and/or more important has pervaded archaeological history. That archaeologists frequently in the past thought that impressive findings in Africa had to have been imported some how by the Western world is a form of imperialism that isn’t all that different from what these archaeologists now are doing. While the Rotten ordeal is not on as large a scale and may not be that huge a deal in the scope of things, it stands as a signifier for Western self-importance in the field of archaeology.

Granted, Johnny Rotten is awesome (full disclosure: PiL is one of my favorite bands of all time), and these archaeologists are both entitled to do what they want and make their work “relevant.” But it’s a shame their framing Rotten’s graffiti in the context of archaeology, because it just gives the people whose attention they’re attracting the wrong idea.

Skull surgery, the hot new trend.

Examples of 16th century trepanation instruments.

There is a wealth of historical records of the presence of trepanation in many cultures. For the uninformed, trepanation is the (somewhat outdated) process of putting a hole in the skull of a living person, mostly for surgical practices, although the process tends to have more spiritualistic roots. It has been known for a while that the earliest signs of this skull-drilling have been found in numerous forms and in various parts of Europe, South America, the Middle East, and even some parts of Egypt and greater Africa, with findings dating as far back as 3000 B.C. in the Danube River basin, and as far back as 11,000 B.C. in modern-day Morocco. However, a recent archaeological study released this past August suggests evidence of trepanation in a previously unforeseen location.

Anthropologist Efthymia Nikita, along with her colleagues at the University of Cambridge, recently published a paper in the International Journal of Osteoarchaeology outlining the analysis of three skulls of Garamantian men, excavated by past researchers near the ancient capital of Garama (currently southwestern Libya). The skulls contained various styles and sizes of holes and indentations. The Garamantes were a people who thrived in the northern Sahara from around 1100 B.C. to 600 A.D. The paper can be found in its entirety here. *NOTE: a subscription to the journal may be required to view the paper. Columbia students can follow this link, and search for "Evidence of Trephinations among the Garamantes."

Perforation (arrow 1) and depression (arrow 2) in the skull of a Garamantian young adult male.  (Nikita et al, p3) 

In the article, Nikita and her team have surmised that the holes studied in two of the three skulls (Individuals GER011.T20 and TAG012.T3) are concrete evidence of the practice of trepanation in the northern Sahara (Nikita et al, p5). This is an important find for a number of reasons. First, it backs up the evidence of North African trade routes from 2000 - 3000 years ago, since the dates on these artifacts match up with those of other findings of trepanation in other parts of Africa and southern Europe/the Mediterranean. Second, it establishes the fact that humans and material goods were not the only things crossing trade borders during this era.

Trepanations (arrows 1 and 2) in individual GER011.T20. Through a lengthy analysis by Nikita's team, this was discovered to be the skull of a middle-aged man, around 55 years old. Noticeable signs of healing indicate a "successful" surgical procedure, in that the patient survived. (Nikita et al, p3)

According to this article about the finding from Science News, Nikita stated, given the evidence of these trade networks, that "the knowledge of cranial surgical techniques must have been among the cultural traits that spread among populations." This is a significant reveal with regards to the migration and mutation of culture in Africa. The expansion of certain medical practices, including this ancient form of skull surgery, contributes to the various other ideas spread through migration and trade, such as various forms of artisanship.

Most people in the medical community would say that trapanning, being the oldest form of surgery known to man, and once thought to cater an unbelievably wide range of medical circumstances, is somewhat of an obsolete practice. Despite this, there is a group that still thinks it to be a perfectly reasonable practice. The International Trepanation Advocacy Group (ITAG) firmly supports the practice, under the hypothesis that "making a[n] opening in the skull favorably alters the movement of blood through the brain and improves brain functions which are more important than ever before in history to adapt to an ever more rapidly changing world." That debate, however, is for another time.

(As a side note, the wonderfully cliché relaxing background music on ITAG's website provides a great distraction from their sub-par grammatical structure.)

Painting the Picture of the Past

Dr. Sada Mire is a department member of the institute of archaeology at the University College of London. Doctor Mire, focuses her research interests on culture heritage management, archaeological and anthropological theory and practice. In 2010,

Dr Mire headed a local team to Africa, where they uncovered cave paintings at over 100 different and unknown sites. Reporter Dalya Alberge of The Guardian in the United Kingdom, covered this story.

"UK archaeologist finds cave paintings at 100 new African Sites: Scientist unearths 5,000-year-old rock art, including drawing of a mounted hunter, in Somaliland." Some of the rock art found by Mire and her team has been dated back to 5,000 years ago. Interestingly, one of these pieces has been identified as one of the earliest depictions of a mounted hunter. Similar to many of the pieces that archaeologists have found up to this point, the cave paintings include animals such as antelopes, giraffes, and snakes. However, according to Alberge's interview, Dr. Mire was noted as saying, "These are among the best prehistoric paintings in the world." The clarity of these works are unmatched, but is that a matter of quality? Or the lack of their

exposure?

In the article, Mire is cited, "Yet Somaliland is a country whose history is totally hidden. With wars, droughts and piracy in Somalia, hardly anyone has researched the archaeology until now. But its absolutely full of extraordinary well-preserved rock art." But is it really Somalia's turmoil that has made Somaliland an archaeological black hole? This is a large issue in respect to the development of Africa's cultural history. So many areas of Africa have been left unexplored. Not only is it a detriment to the representation of African history, but also a downfall in the outside world's understanding of a truly brilliant culture. These examples of ancient artwork reflect the vast abilities of early human populations. Their ability to depict their surroundings, use artistic techniques such as a variance of mediums, use art as communication, these abilities should not be neglected.

As a Somali-native, Dr. Mire took some stabs as to the meanings of some of the rock art she and her team found. In Dhambalin, an area about 40 miles from the Red Sea, features different pastoral animals: cattle, sheep and goats. Mire notes that the animals "have distinctive bands around their backs and bellies, which suggests farming or ritual traditions." Additionally, some of the more recently dated pieces, are "more mysterious." These include images of the moon in different stages and other geometric signs. The doctor believes these images "depict the ancient artists' view of the world, time and space." Of course these interpretations could be wrong, but her discoveries could be the catalyst for a much needed expansion of archaeological Africa.

How can we allow ourselves to overlook such a crucial part of evolution, the origins of our population? When it comes to exploring the origins of the African population and the evolution of the human population as a whole, it is not sufficient to only examine a selected few areas of a large and highly influential continent. Authors such as Diop and Posnansky have touched upon the need for the development of African Archaeology, and Dr. Sada Mire is on the right track. In my opinion, these findings are huge in the development of our archaeological knowledge. What we need is the further exploration of areas that are completely unknown. Extensive research has been done in some African states, like Egypt for example, which is a great start. However, it is the areas less known that may give us some of the answers we are looking for.

There is an incredible amount of information to uncover, but there are needs to be the desire from archaeologists willing to walk on paths unpaved.

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/17/cave-paintings-found-in-somaliland

2. http://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff59125.php

"The essential ingredient of feasting"

Although many students of archaeology may frequently think about beer, they most likely do not think about beer in the context of African archaeology. Luckily for those curious about both African archaeology and beer there is the enlightening article in the 2003 journal World Archaeology by John W. Arthur titled “Brewing beer: status, wealth and ceramic use alteration among Gamo of south-western Ethiopia”. In this article Arthur elaborates the importance of beer to many African cultures through an extensive literature review and his own ethnoarchaeological research of the ceramic pots of the Gamo people of south-western Ethiopia.

Ethnoarchaeology is defined by dictionary.com as “the branch of archaeology that studies contemporary primitive cultures and technologies as a way of providing analogies and thereby patterns for prehistoric cultures”. In Arthur’s research the ‘primitive culture’ (please excuse the offensive political incorrectness) is the Gamo people and their technology is the production of beer in large ceramic jugs. These jugs become extremely corroded on the inside by the acidity of the fermenting beer. Arthur makes the conclusion that this sort of ‘surface attrition’ found in ceramic jugs could be an indicator of beer production in other African archaeological sites. This finding is significant to archaeology because beer is argued earlier in the article to be important to the culture of the Gamo people as well as many other peoples present and past throughout Africa.

The production of beer requires a substantial amount of grain, bananas, or sorghum as well as many days work, usually done by women. Due to the land and labor-intensive requirements for production, beer is recognized as an important symbol of wealth. The Gamo people use beer in every single religious and political ceremony. This culture is dominated by a hierarchical caste system where the topmost caste, the mala, have complete control over agricultural land. The mala are the only group wealthy enough to produce beer and this subsequently gives them complete power over all religious and political rituals because they require beer. The richest of the mala is chosen by the community to be the ritual sacrificer who performs animal and beer sacrifices for the fertility and healthy the people, crops, and animals. Before the chosen rich mala is officially the ritual sacrificer he must provide two beer feast to all the people in his political district. These feast prove the ritual sacrificer’s wealth because they must produce enough beer and food for around 300 people. Through the beer feasts the community is brought together and the richest person must share his wealth with all. Consequently the Gamo avoid situations like Occupy Wall Street.

In conclusion, it is important to look for the production of beer in the archaeological record because this luxury good can indicate the social relations and wealth of the community. Evidence of ‘surface attrition’ or corrosion of large ceramic vessels indicates the production of beer. Many vessels could point to large-scale production of beer, which results from agricultural success. Large quantities of beer can potentially lead archaeologist to infer cultural qualities like trade, feasts, organization of work parties, taxes and wealth redistribution if paired with other archaeological finds or ethnographic evidence. Evidence of this important social lubricant could indicate complex cultures otherwise lost in the archaeological record.

This article makes me think differently about the significance of my own cultural practices surrounding beer consumption. In my college community as well as in the Gamo community beer brings people together. Although the alcohol content can have an affect on peoples' inhibitions, it can be argued that simply the act of sharing and participating in a common activity can enhance social interactions and strengthen community bonds. This concept reminds me of the classic scene in Judd Apatow's cult classic t.v. show "Freaks and Geeks". In the episode titled "Beers and Wiers" the dorky little brother, Sam, replaces the keg at his sister's house party with a keg of nonalcoholic beer. The party continues with normal high school debauchery and community building even without the interference of alcohol. I wonder if this social experiment would turn out similarly at my own house parties or even at the Gamo beer feasts.

Arthur, John. "Brewing Beer: Status, Wealth and Ceramic Use Alteration among the Gamo of South-western Ethiopia." World Archaeology 34.3 (2003): 516-28.