Darwinian Evolution

Mini Written Essay on Darwinian Evolution Case Studies

In the paper offered by Diehl, principles of behavioral ecology and a description of late archaeic land use and subsistence are given. Some theories about the late archaic subsistence are tested againstmacrobotanical datain the Great Tucson basin between 1500Bc and AD 200. There are trhree models of late archaic land use. One model seeks to explain the adoption of agriculture şn the low desert as a consequence of systemic relationships between foraging and horticulture. It is suggestted that the adoption of agriculture by the occupants of the low desert ocurred as a strategy for generating stored food that culd be used in long distance hunting forays. Another model describes the groups as dependent of agricultural cropsas well as of cactus fruits and animals. ın another model, the horticulturalists are defined as seasonally sedentary foragers. The behavioral ecology studies optimization as a consequence of rational choices between behavioral alternatives. Tenets of optimizations are:

There’s imminent threat of starvation

Specific nutrients are in short supply

There are time constraints on foraging

Risks are involved while foraging

Excess food  or time may be used to enhance reproductive fitness.

The relation of behavioral ecology and LD hunting model- paleobotanical evidence shows that the occupants of Tucson basin optimized resourceprocurement. The very long distance hunting model proposed by Willsis an energetically inefficient strategy for obtaining calories. There is meticulous calculation showing that much energy is required to carry food to this distance.

Behavioral ecology and classically sedentary model- the main diet was maize. But looking from behavioral ecology lens there is reason to think that the two subsistence strategies differed greatly. It is suggested that Cienega phase occupants from the Tucson Basi were less dependent on agriculture than their Hohokan period descendants then wild plants are replaced with domesticated plants like maize, beans, squash, cotton... Late archaic horticulturalists as seasonally sedentary foragers- in this model the place of seasonal settlements, the season of foraging and resources used are not mentioned. But the model fits best with the macrobotanical record.

On Conspicious consumption and wasteful advertising, there is a rising interest on the spatial distribution of terminal monument dates, and the scale of political competition that preceded it. the dated stone monuments can be used to monitor ancient phenomena. But there is a lack of theoretical account of the causal mechanisms that link between the collapse of the monuments and social collapse. Instead there has been too much empirical generalization. Recent work of Triggerlinks between monumental architecture and complexity of power relationship. The model uses Zipf’s principle of least effort and Veblen’s notion of conspicious consumption. Zipf emphasizes the necessity of economizing in order to sustain human life, while Veblen shows how wasteful spending enhances social prestige. Trigger states that conspicious consumption was a symbol of power, because it implies control over the workers, and monuments are seen as embodiments of this huge human energy.

According to Darwinian perspective, advertizing is wasteful because it represents fitness costs that have no compensatory fitness benefit.

According to Zahavi’s model, waste is a signal tht conveys information about some hidden quantity of the sender who incurred a fitness cost in order to send the signal. Accordingly, the receiver will behave in a way that benefits the sender. It is in fact the ability of an individual to win political contest that depends on the smartness of conspicious consumption. If the two parties differ significally from each other in competitive ability, communication will avoid a contest where there is a nonefficient conclusion.

The model created uses three factors: the competitive ability of the worst advertizer, the variance of the competitive ability of the group, the payoff of a given investmant in advertising.

The Darwinian theory is a causal explanation for why monumental architecture should scale with the range of payoffs to advertize. The model uses a N distribution and a loess regreeion model . then we hear a long course on statistics. There are some explaination tested, like invasion, drought, ecpological disaster... finally the author discovered a surprising relationship between mean annual rainfall and terminal monument dates. So the terminaiton of the monument building has to o with an ecological disaster.

Ceremonial architecture in Polynesia is, according to one view, some form of cultural explanation of social complexity. In a contextual and behavioral approach, ceremonial architecture represents the location at which rituals are performed. In general, Polynesian ceremonial architecture includes partially or completely paved courts with altars. Different levels of sociopolitical organization in Polynesia reflected the particular adaptation resulting from the interplay of environment and technology. For Sahlins, environmental diversity and productivitycorrelate with complexity of social stratification. Goldman emphasizes status rivalry in the development of varying levels of social stratifcation among pPolynesian societies.

Apert forom cultural evolution, selectionist models should describe the operation of dynamic principles and extract from this patterns of material behavior variation.wasteful consumptionis again mentioned, and we have the importance of “superflous” behaviours underlined. According to Dunnell, superflous behaviours are fixed by a selection and in fact contribute to the increased fitness through lower population numbers.

As a result, the author finds that large and monumental ceremonial architecture is not a result of environmental productivity. Alternatively, there is a selectionist model showing that there is advantages in superflous consumption like the construction of a ceremonial architecture which would result in population dampening with selectional results.

Darwin and Archaeology

Contextual and Post-Processual Archaeology

The articles written by Binford and Hodder seem to completely contradict each other. Yet the two archaeologists blame each other of being value-laden and consider each other’s statements as “imposed as self-evident truth”. Here I will try to outline Hodder’s basic assumptions about his point of view, altogether with Binford’s criticisms, with my personal criticism to both.

According to Hodder, the main idea behind archaeology is to infer past cultural meanings. The archaeologist must deal with constructing symbolic meaning in the past. He claims that, (and I think, correctly) to be interested in artifacts out of their context is pure antiquarianism. Hodder differentiates two main types of meaning, those are functional interrelationships and ideological and symbolic meanings. The first meaning is given to the object with regard to how it functions in relation to economical and social structures. According to Hodder, previous theories and Processual Archaeology dealt too much with the first meaning of the object and ignored its symbolic meaning; it if faulted, because these two meanings are necessarily interwoven according to Hodder.  However, finding symbolic meanings in an artifact would be, in my opinion, extremely difficult. Hodder assumes that there are some very basic rules underlying the ways in which the human being gives meanings to things: in antiquity and now. He uses the term “contextual”, as placing of items “with their texts” and claims that the archaeologist should “read” those texts.

Hodder suggests that the archaeologist should go beyond typological similarities, and ask questions about the context and the meaning of the artifact. Rather than direct comparison of forms, the artifact should be treated both in similarities/ differences and in four dimensions (those are Temporal, Spatial, Depositional and Typological). However, relevance of these dimensions is important: Hodder states that some kind of a guideline is needed for the types and similarities/differences although he doesn’t tell how such a scale could be made.

Another important point in Hodder’s statements is his understanding of explanation and description: explanation comes from description by successive question and answer. However, all description involves” theories, description, subjectivity, generalization and historical imagination”. Hodder’s subjectivity is violently criticized by Binford. Another amply criticized point is that, Hodder suggests one can compare a present society with one in the past, by reconstructing the past society within the present. Binford claims that (by using Hodder’s own words); in order to do such a thing one should have a priori information about the past world, and that this is impossible.

In the later parts of his essay, Hodder criticizes Binford’s mathematical approach. As Binford does not give an emphasis on meaning, the ability of the individual to create change in the society is minimized (and Binford blames Hodder’s view as ‘egocentric’). On the other hand, Hodder criticizes, rightfully, the mathematical approach’s fallacy in its “ceteris paribus” assumption: “other things” are never “equal” in real life. Hodder also states that, cultural reality is an assortment of varied perspectives, so there cannot be one true version of events.

Binford ‘s main argument in his criticism is Hodder’s subjectivity issue. The subjective thoughts of the archaeologist would become the source of knowledge, since this empathy comes from “ humanness”. Binford is right in claiming that this would be deriving from archaeological record and hence, nonsense. But I think Hodder’s writings offer more questions than answers, and his emphasis on symbolic and ideological meaning is a big step that Binford completely ignored. Hodder believes that, what we see in archaeological record is what we want to see and hence paradigm-dependent, and subjective. Binford is archi-against this suggestion, claiming that a first-hand observation is objective. His example of 243 blue glazed pottery and 109 brown pottery in fact both betray the missing part in his theory, and imply what Hodder wanted to say: it’s just an observation, and does not reflect anything else than the number of a certain pottery in a certain site. And scientific approaches can also be paradigm-laden, and even politics-laden. It all depends on how one wants to distort the current data: just change the mathematical model. The examples given by Binford are too simplistic to be able to kill Hodder’s ideas, no matter how subjective the latter is. Binford’s Cartesian graph he created between the frequency of pottery shards and frequency of burned rocks is a pity: most probably, there would be a positive relationship between the two. It’s self-evident. However there can be a one-by-one relationship between the price of a hamburger in Turkey and the population in India. What I mean is, how will the archaeologist deal with less self-evident, complex parameters in the archaeological record? How does the archaeologist choose the lenses through which he/she looks upon the artifact? Besides criticizing what Hodder says, Binford’s paradigm doesn’t offer an alternative answer to those questions.

I think Binford has some missing points in his treatise about testing theories as well. On page 36, he says:” ... Theories must be directed toward anticipating relationships among variables, and such relationships may be monitored by scientists”. Binford doesn’t explain according to which criteria one will monitor the theories, neither gives a comment about how all theories can be monitored (that is, verified by “science” I assume) by science.

One must also agree that Hodder’s relativism leaves no space for a proper understanding of archaeology; if everyone feels free to interpret the data the way he/she wants, then where would archaeology go as a discipline? And values that one gives to an object might be different in antiquity and in present. A simplistic example: a small oblong pot may mean to me a perfect container for planting a flower; my friend may think about putting his pencils in; some antique person may use it as a drinking cup. Unlike what Hodder says, that there is no one “true” version of the story, actually there is a true version, but it may not be preserved to us. On the other hand, it is still possible that we still did not discover the method of seeing the event, as it took place in the antiquity.

Although one can say that Hodder’s relativist view doesn’t help too much to the aim of discovering the past as it is, his contribution in emphasizing symbols and ideologies is enormous. These concepts, are important components of a society, be it in the past or in present, and “scientific” theories like Processual Archaeology unfortunately cannot say too much about them.

Contextual Archaeology

Contextual and Post-Processual Archaeology

The articles written by Binford and Hodder seem to completely contradict each other. Yet the two archaeologists blame each other of being value-laden and consider each other’s statements as “imposed as self-evident truth”. Here I will try to outline Hodder’s basic assumptions about his point of view, altogether with Binford’s criticisms, with my personal criticism to both.

According to Hodder, the main idea behind archaeology is to infer past cultural meanings. The archaeologist must deal with constructing symbolic meaning in the past. He claims that, (and I think, correctly) to be interested in artifacts out of their context is pure antiquarianism. Hodder differentiates two main types of meaning, those are functional interrelationships and ideological and symbolic meanings. The first meaning is given to the object with regard to how it functions in relation to economical and social structures. According to Hodder, previous theories and Processual Archaeology dealt too much with the first meaning of the object and ignored its symbolic meaning; it if faulted, because these two meanings are necessarily interwoven according to Hodder.  However, finding symbolic meanings in an artifact would be, in my opinion, extremely difficult. Hodder assumes that there are some very basic rules underlying the ways in which the human being gives meanings to things: in antiquity and now. He uses the term “contextual”, as placing of items “with their texts” and claims that the archaeologist should “read” those texts.

Hodder suggests that the archaeologist should go beyond typological similarities, and ask questions about the context and the meaning of the artifact. Rather than direct comparison of forms, the artifact should be treated both in similarities/ differences and in four dimensions (those are Temporal, Spatial, Depositional and Typological). However, relevance of these dimensions is important: Hodder states that some kind of a guideline is needed for the types and similarities/differences although he doesn’t tell how such a scale could be made.

Another important point in Hodder’s statements is his understanding of explanation and description: explanation comes from description by successive question and answer. However, all description involves” theories, description, subjectivity, generalization and historical imagination”. Hodder’s subjectivity is violently criticized by Binford. Another amply criticized point is that, Hodder suggests one can compare a present society with one in the past, by reconstructing the past society within the present. Binford claims that (by using Hodder’s own words); in order to do such a thing one should have a priori information about the past world, and that this is impossible.

In the later parts of his essay, Hodder criticizes Binford’s mathematical approach. As Binford does not give an emphasis on meaning, the ability of the individual to create change in the society is minimized (and Binford blames Hodder’s view as ‘egocentric’). On the other hand, Hodder criticizes, rightfully, the mathematical approach’s fallacy in its “ceteris paribus” assumption: “other things” are never “equal” in real life. Hodder also states that, cultural reality is an assortment of varied perspectives, so there cannot be one true version of events.

Binford ‘s main argument in his criticism is Hodder’s subjectivity issue. The subjective thoughts of the archaeologist would become the source of knowledge, since this empathy comes from “ humanness”. Binford is right in claiming that this would be deriving from archaeological record and hence, nonsense. But I think Hodder’s writings offer more questions than answers, and his emphasis on symbolic and ideological meaning is a big step that Binford completely ignored. Hodder believes that, what we see in archaeological record is what we want to see and hence paradigm-dependent, and subjective. Binford is archi-against this suggestion, claiming that a first-hand observation is objective. His example of 243 blue glazed pottery and 109 brown pottery in fact both betray the missing part in his theory, and imply what Hodder wanted to say: it’s just an observation, and does not reflect anything else than the number of a certain pottery in a certain site. And scientific approaches can also be paradigm-laden, and even politics-laden. It all depends on how one wants to distort the current data: just change the mathematical model. The examples given by Binford are too simplistic to be able to kill Hodder’s ideas, no matter how subjective the latter is. Binford’s Cartesian graph he created between the frequency of pottery shards and frequency of burned rocks is a pity: most probably, there would be a positive relationship between the two. It’s self-evident. However there can be a one-by-one relationship between the price of a hamburger in Turkey and the population in India. What I mean is, how will the archaeologist deal with less self-evident, complex parameters in the archaeological record? How does the archaeologist choose the lenses through which he/she looks upon the artifact? Besides criticizing what Hodder says, Binford’s paradigm doesn’t offer an alternative answer to those questions.

I think Binford has some missing points in his treatise about testing theories as well. On page 36, he says:” ... Theories must be directed toward anticipating relationships among variables, and such relationships may be monitored by scientists”. Binford doesn’t explain according to which criteria one will monitor the theories, neither gives a comment about how all theories can be monitored (that is, verified by “science” I assume) by science.

One must also agree that Hodder’s relativism leaves no space for a proper understanding of archaeology; if everyone feels free to interpret the data the way he/she wants, then where would archaeology go as a discipline? And values that one gives to an object might be different in antiquity and in present. A simplistic example: a small oblong pot may mean to me a perfect container for planting a flower; my friend may think about putting his pencils in; some antique person may use it as a drinking cup. Unlike what Hodder says, that there is no one “true” version of the story, actually there is a true version, but it may not be preserved to us. On the other hand, it is still possible that we still did not discover the method of seeing the event, as it took place in the antiquity.

Although one can say that Hodder’s relativist view doesn’t help too much to the aim of discovering the past as it is, his contribution in emphasizing symbols and ideologies is enormous. These concepts, are important components of a society, be it in the past or in present, and “scientific” theories like Processual Archaeology unfortunately cannot say too much about them.

Current issues on Archaeological theory

Current Issues in Archaeological Theory

                                                          

Written Account

Topic 3: Cognitive Archaeology

Cognitive archaeology is “the archaeology of the mind”, especially of the ancient mind as it is seen from the title of Renfrew and Zubrow’s important book. Renfrew describes it as “the study of the ways of thought of past societies (and sometimes of individuals in those societies) based upon the surviving material remains” (1993, 248). The reason that Renfrew focuses on the material remains is his critique of the post processual archaeology. In the opening essay of The Ancient Mind, he evaluates the archaeological history. According to him, for years, archaeologists speculated about the past beliefs and thoughts very freely until the New Archaeology which brought a stricter methodology and a more scientific character. Processual theorists later tried to make the observations more positivist yet focused only to the economic and technical aspects of human life, disregarding, or, at least, paying less attention to the cognitive aspect, such as belief systems, ideologies, and symbolisms. This aspect was left for the observation of the palaeopsychology. Renfrew names this as the functional processual tendency. The post processuals, who regarded themselves as a new school of archaeology criticized the purely positivist of the processuals and they employed a hermeneutic and interpretive approach. They focused on meaning of the archaeological material and the symbols of human cognition they pursued through them. For Renfrew, this was a meta-archaeology rather than applied archaeology and since they are relativist, he calls them as the anti-processuals (1994, 3).  Instead of this idealist approach, Renfrew offers cognitive archaeology which follows from where processual archaeology left and which amends the criticisms that post processuals and Renfrew made about them. Cognitive archaeology is a synthesis of the scientific aspect of processualism and the philosophical stance of the cognitive approach. He says, “here we are instead concerned further to develop an approach, which will, so far as possible, use the existing methods of archaeological inquiry to investigate the early use of the symbols and the development of cognitive processes” (1994, 4).

Renfrew proposes the use of inference to understand how people used their minds in the early societies. The best place to look for an answer to this is the symbols used by those people. He categorizes how these symbols were used in his essay in six titles: design (coherently structured, purposive behavior), planning (time scheduling and schema), measurement (devices and units), social relations (to regulate interpersonal behavior) supernatural (symbols to mediate between the human and the world beyond) and representation (depictions and embodiments of reality). 

Kent V. Flannery and Joyce Marcus employ a similar categorization of symbols into their description of the approach in their clear essay “Cognitive Archaeology”.  Cognitive archaeology is an approach which is concerned with the aspects of ancient human mind and its products. The four main categories they propose are cosmology (perception of the universe by people), religion (perception of the supernatural), ideology (principles), and iconography (representation of human values). Here they exclude all subsistence and settlement behaviors claming that otherwise, there would be no difference between cognitive archaeology and archaeology.

One last example to categorization of cognition from the articles we have read is Hodder’s, which is critical of the approach, too. Hodder distinguishes three types of cognition. These are language-like processes in which the signs and symbols are developed in order to communicate; practical knowledge which has to do with technical improvement and its conveyance to the new generations; and finally the archaeologist’s own cognition of the past and how he or she organizes the knowledge. Therefore, in Hodder’s article we see that cognitive archaeology has the risk of being relativist and subjective, too. Because we can say that the final product of the archaeologist will not only reflect the past people’s cognition but also that of the archaeologist. (1993, 255-256)

However, an answer to this criticism comes from another article from the same journal, that of Flannery and Marcus. They definitely state that cognitive archaeology should not be formed as a separate branch of archaeology, because if it becomes so, it risks to slip from scientific discipline to the archaeologist’s mental fantasies and even to charlatanism. According to them, the task of the cognitive archaeology must be the task of the “well-rounded archaeologist” who wants to add a holistic dimension to his or her work besides strengthening the products that are drawn from the data and the evidence. Besides, while defending the cognitive approach, Flannery and Marcus recognize why many of the processual archaeologists view the cognitive approach with skepticism and that there must be some limits to its application: that is, the cognitive approach can be used only when there is a body of data rich enough to support it. If the background information to support the inferences from the symbols are lacking, then the cognitive reconstruction would be nothing but “science fiction”. It would turn into speculation, and “an esoteric subdivision”. (1993, 267)

            Renfrew gives some examples to how the data would be rich enough to support the cognitive approach for the case of religion in his essay “The Archaeology of Religion”. He gives 17 indicators of ritual under 4 subtitles, respectively the focusing of attention (about detecting the relation of a place or building to ritual), boundary zone between this world und the next (about the indicators of sacredness such as cleanliness or the abundance of public display), presence of the deity (cult images, representations or ritualistic symbols) and participation and offering (sacrifice, food and drink residues or offerings). Yet, he also states that even these indicators are not definitely pointing at the existence of a religion and therefore alongside with these numerous physical evidence, the observation should also be free of a terrestrial element, taking many different data from the similar places from a larger geography. Otherwise the function of the site or the place may be concluded subjectively. He ends his essay at a problematic position asking what is “the extent to which evidence from different sites may justifiably be brought together under simultaneous consideration to provide a corpus material sufficient to allow of systematic analysis” (53). Besides, Renfrew also talks about the “play” which can have the same indicators yet have nothing to do with rituals or religion. Therefore, the question of how a scientific method can be applied to a cognitive faculty, or how ideology, philosophy or beliefs can be drawn from archaeological artifacts remains as a challenge for the cognitive archaeologist. As Zubrow writes in the concluding article in The Ancient Mind, the archaeologist should ask fundamental questions about what it means to be human in order to answer more technical questions about the methodology or the approach.

Humble Biblioteca on Archeological theory

Bibliography:

Brettell, C.B& Sargent, C.F. 1993 Gender in Cross Cultural Perspective. New York: Prentice Hall.

 This edited volume offers a wide variety of research on the field of gender, with a cross-cultural perspective. The book is mainly an anthropological study, but offers engendered perspectives on evolution, maternity, prehistory as well as several aspects of gender( labor, class diision, politics, religion, colonialism) from today’s world, with contributions from both industrialized and industrializing countries.

Brumfiel, E.M. 1992 “ Distinguished Lecture in Archaeology: Breaking and Entering the Ecosystem- Gender, Class and Faction Steal the Show” American Anthropologist 94: 551-567.

 The paper criticizes the Ecosystem approach that was prominent in the field of anthropology for longtime, for that it takes whole populations and whole systems as unit of analysis and underestimates the effect of singular agents on bringing about social change. the author explains first the Ecosystem approach, then studies the elements ignored by this method- gender, class and faction relationships.

Cameron, A. & Kuhrt, A. (eds.) 1983  Images of Women in Antiquity Sydney: Croom Helm.

This collection offers women’s studies within a broad spectrum of topics over a wide geography in historical times. There are eighteen articles compiled about household, female biology, economy and religion. The articles offer both textual and archaeological evidence and show women’s stiuation in Rome, Ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Byzantium.

Claassen, C. (ed) 1994 Women in Archaeology. Philadelpiha: University of Pennsylvania Press.

This collection includes two main discussions: the first chapters offer a historical outline of women’s contributions to archaeology in the 20^th century. The second part is about present-day female archaeologists and examines their situation in terms of employment, salary, publications and citations. The book shows how women were gradually marginalized in archaeology and how it results as a bias in archaeological knowledge.

Conkey, M. & Gero, J.  1997 “ Programme to practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology” Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 411-437.

This paper gives a programme to gender archaeology, and seems to be one of the keystones for the beginner in this study. It studies different approaches to gender in different theoretical frameworks. The authors, while sticking on a feminist point of view, define gender archaeology as a feminist-inspired archaeology. The paper also offers a historical background and some comments on the current state of gender archaeology.

Dahlberg, F. (ed) 1981 Woman the Gatherer New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

As a response to the tradtional “man the hunter”, contributors to the book study women within and anthropological framework. Articles examine evolution in general, with case studies from Australia and Africa. This volume takes the question of “womanhood “to the very beginnings of human evolution.

Dahlberg, F. 1981 “Introduction” pp. 1-35 in Woman the Gatherer ed. by Dahlberg, F.New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

Di Leonardo, M. (ed)  1991 Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Post Modern Era. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

The book is presented as an introductory collection of essays about feminist anthropology. The book offers writings of many important contributors like Silberblatt, Sperling, Rapp, Conkey and covers main topics of the feminist anthropological discourse: history, politics, labor, gender and reproduction.

Engelstad, E.         1991“Images of power and Contradiction: Feminist Theory and Post Processual Archaeology” Antiquity 65: 502-514.

The article studies post-processual archaeology as seen by the feminists. The author treats the post-processualism as a reflection of post-modernism into archaeology, and offers a critique in terms of interpretation, gender and power relations. Last she criticizes post-processual archaeologists’ unawareness and lack of understanding of gender issues.

Fagan, B. 1992 “A Sexist View of Prehistory” Archaeology 45: 15-18 & 66.

Fagan attacks on Gimbutas and the followers of the goddess trend, by condemning their view as “ethnocentric and sexist”. He creates a link between Gimbutas’Old Europe and 19^th century image of the Noble Savage. On the other hand, Fagan praises Hastorf’s essay in  éengendered Archaeology” by Gero and Conkey, and states that this study shows that gender relations are too complex to be interpreted from clay pots and figurines.

Fotiadis, M. 1994 “What is Archaeology’s ‘Mitigated Objectivism’ Mitigated by: Comments on Wylie” American Antiquity 59: 545-555.

Fotiadis criticizes Wylie’s Mitigated objectivism and states that one cannot separate between politics and truth. Fotiadis uses the same bibliography than Wylie in his research, but comes to a different result and calls for the application of Foucault’s epistemology into gender archaeology.

Gero, J. & Conkey, M(eds.) 1991 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory Oxford: Blackwell Ltd.

Being the bible of gender archaeology, this volume calls for and archaeology of gender using feminist theory. Most of the articles state the key tenets of this theory, and the book puts together some theoretical questions, as well as investigating the traces of gender in archaeological material, and in aspects of ancient social life, like economy, use of space, food production systems, and gender imagery. This volume was compiled after a conference on “Women abd Production in Prehistory” held at Georgetown in 1988.

Gero, J. 1985 “Socio-Politics and Women-at-Home Ideology” American Antiquity 50: 342-350.

The paper focuses on the sociology of archaeology. It basically asserts that, since archaeology is already value-laden, and because it is supported by current social-political interests of the state, it must also serve the ideology of th state. Gero states that archaeology misinterprets the past, s if it was a logical preceent of the present. Gero presents gender ideology in archaeology as a case study and gives a set of misinterpretation and implicit asumptions of male-oriented mentalities. How gender stereotypes affect archaeological research is another area of discussion in the paper: stereotypes of male vs female archaeologist as a reflection of woman-at-home ideology, with statistics of males and females on conducting field based, non-field based research, on acquiring research funds etc.

Gilchrist, R. 1991 “Women’s Archaeology? Political Feminism, Gender Theory and Historical Revision” Antiquity 65: 495-501.

Gilchrist first questions why gender archaeological theory remained unproductive for years, and hindered by the debate between archaeology, women, feminism and gender. The author approaches political feminism in archaeology from an “equal opportunities of profession” point of view. She studies gender theory with respect to processualism and structuralism, and concludes that gender is not a problem of methodology and that both feminists and non-feminists can conduct gender studies, within the current methodologies.

Gilchrist, R. 1999 Gender and Archaeology: Contesting the Past  New York: Routledge.

 This recent essay traces the development of gender archaeology over fifteen years. It studies major concepts like feminist critique of science, division of labor, gender identity and the methodology of gender archaeology. Gilchrist also offers an interesting case study about medieval gardens and women as well.

Gimbutas, M. 1991 The Civilization of the Goddess.  San Fransisco: HarperCollins.

In this volume Gimbutas studies several aspects of what she calls “Old Europe”, like the spread of agriculture,  Neolithic cultures of East-Central Europe, North Europe, West Europe, Mediterannean(of course only North coasts are meant), religion of the goddess, intrusion of steppe pastoralists from South Russia. Because Gimbutas takes a radical feminist standing in her chapter on the goddesses, this book is included in the bibliography.

Gimbutas, M. 2001 Living Goddesses LA: University of California Press.

This very recent book shows that the Gimbutas myth is not over. In his book Gimbutas claims again the patriarchal Mother-Goddess cult. Gimbutas studies a number of figurines found in different sites accross Europe and Anatolia, and deduces a number of Goddess versions in many pan-European religions, from Germanic to Greek. Here Gimbutas takes again a very eurocentric and a radical feminist standing.

Gimbutas, M. Winn, S. Shimabuku, D. 1989 Achilleion: A Neolithic Settlement in Thessaly, Greece 6400-5600 BC. LA: University of California Press.

This volume is mainly an excavation report of the site Achilleion, a settlement dating to Neolithic times in Greece. Several aspects of the site are discussed, but my concern will be on the chapter written by Gimbutas on the figurines and cult equipment.

Hager, L.D. 1997 Women in Human Evolution  New York: Routledge.

This collection examines the gender issue with a paleoanthropological framework. The articles offer feminist critiques to the actual understanding of evolution, where women are ignored. There is also an article by Wylie commenting on the epistemology of paleoanthropology.

Hammel, A. Mason, C. Prater, A. Ludny, R. 1995 “Gender and the Academic Career in North American anthropology: Differentiating Intramarket from Extramarket Bias” Current Anthropology 36: 366-380.

This paper argues an explicit bias against female anthropologists in North America, in terms of finding a job as a researcher, and in terms of promoting. The paper offers some meticulous statistics, and graphs, showing that women are dramatically underemployed, underpromoted. The paper does not make any further discussion on how it effects anthropological study, but is a dramatic example of gender bias still lingering in anthropology.

Harding, S. 1986 The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

This volume written by Harding, one of the impostant feminist philosophers, covers a broad range of topics in social sciences from a feminist point of view. The book criticizes the androcentricism that is inherent in modern sciences. Harding constructs the epistemology of feminist empiricism, of feminism as a social event, and of feminist postmodernism, with a critical standing. The book stands against Western oriented, male-biased philosophies of science, and shows that even though  knowledge is subjective, feminist theory can re-invent and re-theorize science.

Hays-Gilpin, K. & Whitley, D. 1998 Reader in Gender Archaeology. New York: Routledge.

This reader is a compilation of influential articles about gender archaeology, put together under main topics such as theory, origins and evolution, division of labor, gender iconography, religion and social hierarchy. The case studies are carefully chosen from different continents, and there are large number of intriguing articles. At the end of each part, a list of further readings is also offered.

Hill, E. 1998 “Gender Informed Archaeology: the Priority  of Definition, the Use of Analogy, and the Multivariate Approach”  Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5: 99-128

The article states that, gender study in archaeology has not progressed for  certain reasons like the misuse of terms like gender, sex, and theory, the politicization of gender studies by the feminist politics and studies the place of gender in theoretical frameworks. The author states that feminist theory is isolating the gender archaeology from mainstream research, and states that political archaeology is problematic. Gender archaeology is treated within existing frameworks, i.e. processualism and contextualism. The article also offers a broad critique of Brumfiel’s article in “Engendered Archaeology”. The main claim of the author is that feminist theory is influenced by politics, and gender studies do not require a political commitment to feminism. The author offers some research prospects on gender archaeology, calls for a multivariate approach and study of gender at several levels.

Hurcombe, L. 1995 “Our own Engendered Species” Antiquity 69: 87-100.

The article studies the ‘Biased Interpretation of Gender’ problem ( abbreviated by the author as BIG) in archaeology. The wrong visualisation of the gender, and reflection of present values into past societies are criticized, while pointing at many interesting aspects of the language and style used both by feminist and non-feminist archaeologists. The author offers some cures for overcoming this problem: construction of a robust theory, more emphasis on studies pursued by women, and cleansing the academic language from androcentric words.

Knapp, A.B 1988 “ Boys Will Be Boys: Masculinist Approaches to Gendered Archaeology” pp. 365-373 in Hays-Gilpin, K. & Whitley, D. 1998 Reader in Gender Archaeology. New York: Routledge.

Knapp, A.B. 1996 “Archaeology without Gravity: Postmodernism and the Past” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 127-158.

Little, B.J. 1994 “Consider the Hermaphroditic Mind: Comment on ‘The Interplay of Evidential constraints and political Interests:Recent Archaeological Research on Gender’” American Antiquity 59: 539-544.

Little comments on Wylie (1992), who claims that feminist perspective will enhance objectivity in archaeology. According to Little, there is too much diversity in the feminist thought itself, and because feminism needs to defend and rationalize itself, it also brings a challenge. The author criticizes Wylie of being too radical and conservative, and states that feminism should bring integrity, not separatism.

Meskell, L.  1994 “ Goddesses, Gimbutas and ‘New Age’ Archaeology” Antiquity 69: 74-86.

The article basically criticizes Gimbutas, and states that the “gynocentric” approach uses the same sexist paradigms while reconstructing the past, so it doesn’t  provide a positive contribution to gender studies. The author blames Gimbutas of leading gender archaeology into historical fiction, parapsychology and gynocentricism, and of actually harming the gender informed approach, even if Gimbutas was considered as an icon in the feminist movement.

Nelson, S.M. 1997 Gender in Archaeology: Analyzing Power and Prestige. California: Altamira Press.

This essay is a thorough study of gender as a field of research in archaeology. The author discusses first the concept and meaning of gender archaeology, then she studies gender within the field of anthropology. The idea of gender is explored through prehistoric technologies, household organizations and religious/ideologic bodies. The author alsoinvestigates women as archaeologists and offers insights toward a gender archaeology as a conclusion. The androcentric interpretations of evolution, division of labor and social structure are criticized.

Stig-Sorensen, M.L. 2000 Gender Archaeology Cambridge: Polity Press.

This essay aboutngender archaeology follows a different path from the precedents and divides the subject into two parts: a theoretical part is followed by an account on the aspects that identify gender differences, like food, dress, space, contact. A chapter on gender in evolution is also included.

Sweely, T.L.  (ed) 1999 Manifesting Power: Gender and the Interpretation of power in Archaeology New York: Routledge.

 This volume approaches the gender question by studying gender-power relationship in historic and prehistoric societies. The articles argue that values of the people in the past can be quite different from the current Western values, and that archaeological and ethnographical work sometimes show that there was no hierarchical gender relationship.

Talalay, L. 1987 “Rethinking the Function of Clay Figurine Legs from Neolithic Greece: An argument by Analogy” American Journal of Archaeology 91: 161-169.

Talalay comments on some Greek Neolithic figurines and offers alternative views to the Mother Goddess approach. The author offers some archaeological, ethnohistoric and socio-economic evidences to support his claim.

Talalay, L. 1991 “Body Imagery of the Ancient Aegean” Archaeology 44: 47-49.

In this short essay Talalay studies the clay figurines of Greece and outlines some weaknesses of  the Mother Goddess explanation. He concludes that this view is no longer acceptable and proposes other purposes for the figurines- like tokens.

Wright, R. P. (ed.) 1996  Gender and Archaeology Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

This reader collects writings by prominent feminist archaeolgists under one volume. The chapters include gender and reproduction, gender and production, gender and representation, gender and prectice (being about gender archaeology pespectives today). Both theoretical, and practical issues are thoroughly examined in nine essays.

Wylie, A. 1994 “on Capturing Facts Alive in the Past (or present): Response to Fotiadis and to Little” American Antiquity 59: 556-560.

 In this short article Wylie answers both Fotiadis and Little, who question the objectivity of archaeological science and defends her proposal for a “mitigated objectivism”.

Wylie,A. 1992 “The Interplay of Evidential constraints and political Interests: Recent Archaeological Research on Gender”  American Antiquity  57: 15-35.

The paper claims that a feminist perspective on archaeology may improve the integrity of the archaeological knowledge, and that a set of questions should be asked and answered, like why gender archaeology emerges now, and how gender archaeology deals with recent theoretical frameworks like relativism, and post/anti processualism. Wylie also offers a tasteful discussion on the epistemology of gender archaeology.

Agency&Archaeology

Mini Written Account on Agency

   The general quantitative research has always been done in a way that it always looked for trends and ruled out individualities or differences as “variances”, or “noises”. This could make sense in quantitative analysis, but the social studies until recent times also operated inefficiently in a similar way. The emphasis on the agent, opens up new horizons to the social study, since it makes the unit of measurement smaller (individual, or group instead of mass or society), and thus increases the explanatory power of the inquiry.

   There seems to be no consensus on the definition of “agency”. There are several definitions offered by Dobres and Robb, and some of them overlap at some points. The agency can be briefly described as intentional choices made by the agent, in order to attain a goal within the society. Dobres and Robb give a historical account of the understanding of agency in social study: its origins can be traced back to Aristotle, if we consider agency as the “personhood”. Many formative, functionalist, formalist, utilitarian theories has been developed. agency has much to do with the social choice theory, which is individual decision making insituations constrained by macroscale institutions. Some applications of choice theory however, remind us the basic mathematical profit maximizing, with respect to certain numerical constraints. Sociologists like Garfinkel and Giddens stated that, social agents are not always omniscient and free-willed optimizers, rather they are impractical, sometimes irrational and socially constrained beings.

    In archaeology, the importance of agency was realized lately. For processualists, agency was of little importance. They were rather interested in overall systems and constructs. An interest in agency began with post-processualism –especially under the influence of Marxism-. Emphasis was given on the individual decision making, and individual bringing about change. In 80’s, the use of agency spread to gender studies, contextual archaeology, phenomenology, social inequality studies... as well.

   There are some difficulties in understanding the notion of agency, however. First is the definition problem. Several definitions are given, and I think an omnipotent definition of agency is impossible, but more than this, impractical. The main obstacles in defining agency are problems in the intentionality of the agency, the scale of agency and its role on social change. Intentionality refers to whether individual’s actions are deliberate, based on the individual’s own volition or not. The scale of intention can change from situation to situation. Sometimes, there is favorable social environment to bring about social change, by intention. Often there are several complex constraints. Some abrupt shifts in social behaviour can even be purely a result of reflexes. The scale of agency is also variable. In most of the articles, this scale is taken for granted as the ‘individual’. But in Joyce’s article on Monte Alban for example, there is actually an interaction between two groups (or classes): the commoners and the noble elites. There is also a difference between the individualistic exercises of an individual, and his/her efforts on becoming part of a social group. And seldom individuals are not included in a particular class or group within the society. Moore points at the fact that ethically we archaeologists assume the existence of societies and social structures in the past. Practically we have to, since the traces of individuals living outside the society (outside the borders of a certain village, city, dwelling etc.) would be very hard to find in the archaeological material, since the emphasis has always been on researching traces left by groups, hordes or societies, although there are individual surprises like the Iceman wandering on the summit of the Alps. In the statement made by the post-processualists that social change can occur through the effort of the individual, there is an emphasis on the capacity of the “discrete” individual o destabilize, and change the social system. I will oppose to this idea, because in my opinion it considers the ancient individual as a potential prehistoric anarchist who is willing, and who is always able to change the system. Another erroneous assumption about the agency is that change is always brought about by struggle. The past humans may not be as individualistic nor as politicized as we are today. Change may also have occured through the intentional or unintentional alliances of individuals, to form a group, and through a peaceful new equilibrium; there may be no opposition to change at all. I don’t think that the agent (I’m not considering the individual as the “hero” here), is always so willing, so intentional and so active in creating change. This overemphasis of individual also led to the confusion of agency with individuality. Brumfiel discusses the nature of this goal that the agent tries to reach. Did past agents work towards goals that are cross-culturally predictable, or were they cultural-, historical-specific values that do not happen in our current societies? In a Marxist sense, goals are defined by “socially constructed interests”, so similar societies will construct similar aims. Here, struggle is one important source for change. Another view states that goals are defined by cultural values. Here, the important elemant is the sense of identity.

There is an interesting case study by Joyce, about the change occuring in religious practicesin Oaxaca between 700-100BC. The Mesoamerican religion has two important factors: one is the pée, the animative force, and the other is the ancestor worshipping, which enabled the noble to legitimize their situation. In the stable system, elites provide gifts to the followers, in order to create alliances with other elites. The commoners were able to conduct individual rituals, but they could also contact the “sacred” by sacrificing goods and labor to the elites, in return of some mediumship. This situation emerges competition among nobles, which increase their demands. The commoners either accept higher demands or leave the area. Human sacrifice occured as a response to this crisis. Since traditional methods were not enough to appeal commoners, this new method was chosen, by the help of which the elites were showing their ritual power and generosity (in supplying captives by warfare). This way, commoners chose to subordinate the nobles. One wonders whether this choice was chosen as an alternative to attract the “customers” of it was a covert way of coercing the commoners to supply surplus to the elites. Perhaps the elite was not religiously motivated by the cult and deliberately chosen this new practice, or they thought that it was religiously necessary to spill more blood and sacrifice humans to activate pée. In this case, one would be doubtful whether this choice was intentional in increasing nobles’ wealth or it was a practice led by cultural values. 

Germany or the Story of a Forceful Immigration:

I have a question mark in my mind about how my condition is going to be called in Germany, where I apparently am going to spend quite a lot of time from now on since I am about to marry a German. An immigrant, accidental expat or simply a foreigner? Hopefully the Germans have a clear cut definition for this situation as well.

                  

Having travelled several times to Germany thanks to my work (rather than as an import bride), I cannot say that this country is totally foreign to me – although it remains as enigmatic as the first time. In the country of  engineering wonders, supacars and neat trottoirs, one always has the deja vu feeling, no matter in which town in Germany. Especially after six oclock.  Having been asked several times for it by the owner of this blog, I will try to write about a few observations concerning Germany and Germans. No offense here :O)

Getting there: Not too hard, but the German bureaucracy is simply not good for ya. Especially if you need getting a visa. I usually prepare a thick bundle of papers and documents every time I apply for a business visa. I wonder if a pale dude in the embassy really spends time reading them all, but if he does, the German Embassy probably knows more about me than my own State. How much money I have in my bank accounts, what  I own here and there. Whether my company evades tax or not. My parents, my grandparents and where they were born. Whether I have been previously misbehaving with laws or not. Everything translated, certified, duly notarized.

Apparently getting there by a family union is not any harder if not easy, however you must face petitesses like “it is of course helpful if you bring your skype logs, wedding photos and all material that helps you prove that, your marriage is genuine”. Apparently the embassy takes precautions against arranged marriages, however I wonder what sort of a felony you should commit in Germany, in order to submit your mail password and chatlogs to the authorities.  Other things asked: your husband’s shoe size, color of the walls in your prospective domicile, name of your prospective neighbours. Nah. If ethnic Germans were asked such questions for residence or citizenship, Austria would have to build a wall at the border.

Food and accomodation: The German cuisine comprises of rather rustic foods, such as the well renowned wurst, sorts of potatoes ( you can have it baked, as greasy chips or posh fries, or as Knödel which is a sort of dumpling, if you are creative enough), cabbages and other cold climate vegetables. Meat quality is not superior, but it works well with delicatessen. A beer house is the best place to taste old gold stuff, but international restaurants are available eveywhere, although the food there is pretty much assimilated to German taste. If you are a water afficinado, beware: it is impossible to find non-salty water there. You might be shell shocked to read on some bottles an inscription like: low sodium. Really!?

The German household usually sports a variety of domiciles, from a little two rooms appartment to country cottages. Prices and rents of housing vary a lot from region to region, and from city to city. You are free to negotiate your rent as warm or cold, which means including heating or not. Another aspect is that when an extra person moves in, the rent has to increase a little bit. Germans are usually attached to their homes and like cozy, homelike atmoshperes. Gardens are always well cared, and garden gnomes are not an urban legend. Family dads usually spend their sundays greasing and shining their cars. It looks like a popular sport over there. Which brings me to the next topic...

Driving around: I have learned with great surprise (with a negative connotation) that my driving license is not valid after six months of residence. Because it doesnt have an expiry date. If you have such a problem, you can present yourself to the authorities with your current license (translated, certified) and take a practical exam for a german license. The practical exam does not include drawing donuts on the asphalt with a bmw, although it could be stylish. The German traffic is absolutely orderly and robot-like subordination to rules is essential. In the long run, this is only safe and stress free but perhaps a bit boring for adrenaline freaks.

Cars are the cheapest things in Germany on the condition that you buy a German car. The State is a friend of yours when you are about to buy a car, but it starts hurting when you pay a tax for it. Tax is calculated by some calculus with the variables of age, combustion style, emission (depends heavily on the engine size). It is still much cheaper to keep a car in Germany than in my home country. And gas is still cheaper. A nice feature for making a good deal is to check out the Jahreswagen sites, where brand new but a bit used cars are sold at derisory prices. You might need a health check on the car, but good service facilities are available everywhere and if you have a few German friends, gathering up a delegate of car experts is not too hard.

The German Psyche: Germans are difficult people. Coined and hammered by a nineteenth century Romantism, the German is still much affected certain aspects of it. In the pursuit of unhappiness, it is not very hard to find the German complaining about a certain condition and yearning for another. Germans are avid travellers who “never get there”. Because a German is always busy thinking and pondering about important issues, it is not very easy to start a small talk. Most often they will think its useless chit chat. Knowledge and high culture are valued among germans, so if you have a bit of it, just show it. Bildung is another great German creation, and it has a meaning like education, or perhaps cultivation, but not exactly. The German likes to be cultivated and has simply no time for superficial stuff, z.B., I met my fiance by the help of a tirade in Latin and a response, and not by a simple can opener like weahter talk. An average German reads a lot, has some knowledge about what’s going on in the world and likes to experience a variety of different things. Although the German looks rather stiff and unfriendly from the outside,  the reality is that he has other preoccupations. The Germans might have developed a certain angst for some reason,  and it results in lack of self confidence. If nobody talks to you, the reason is highly likely because the German is afraid of his language levels, or if you are in a pub and no one lights your cigarette probably it is because they think it is rather gross. The German character is like a gourd flower that is really hard to open up, and with the mere faux pas it is ready to close and go back to its cocoon. Germans claim that they make good friends in the long run, but I did not have the chance so far to have a german friend for so long.  Angst, or worry is the main motive in the German psyche, and it shapes up the economy, social life and even behaviors towards foreigners. At the end of the day, the German is just a confused soul just like many of us.