Introduction to Archaeology: Spring 2023 Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 Lecture 9: How were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. Notes and images compiled by Gregory Mumford (© 2023) Contents: 5. How were societies organized? Social archaeology. 1. Introduction 5 2. Establishing the nature & scale of society Classification of societies: Type of past societies: a. Bands, b. tribes, c. chiefdoms, d. states 7 9 10+ 3. Determining the scale of past societies: Survey of past-present societies using settlement patterning a. Central Place Theory b. Site Hierarchy c. Thiessen polygons d. Xtent Modelling 19 20 23 25 28 30 4. Determining the scale of past societies: Other sources: a. Other sources: Written records b. Other sources: Oral tradition c. Other sources: Ethnoarchaeology 33 36 44 46 5. 52 53 Techniques for studying the nature of past-present societies: a. Past bands (hunter-gatherers) … Activities at sites … Territories of bands … Contents: 5. Techniques for studying the nature of past-present societies: b. Techniques for assessing segmentary societies (tribes) … Settlements; burial ranking; community works; crafts; etc. c. Techniques for assessing chiefdoms and states: Identifying primary centres Functions of the centre Administration beyond the primary centre Investigating social ranking Investigating economic specialization Relationships between centralized societies 53 63 86 88 91 101 103 113 116 6. The archaeology of the individual and identity - Cognitivist approach versus phenomenological approach - Concept of Habitus 118 120 121 7. Emergence of individuals and the community 124 8. 127 Investigating gender and childhood 9. The molecular genetics of social groups and lineages 141 10. Summary 145 11. CASE STUDY: Ancient Egypt & Ancient Europe 147+175 Instructor tips for lectures, etc.: (1). Attend class regularly (& listen) … → Many clarifications, tips, announcements, reinforcement & reviews of materials/concepts. (2). Take notes on lectures, etc. … → The act of writing down notes, even with most course materials and instructions online, serves as an invaluable aid to one focusing on a class topic and retaining information better. (3). Complete the required textbook readings, and/or review the ppt., prior to the specific class day … → This will provide greater clarity and comprehension of the material, and will enable asking focused questions where something may be less clear (in the textbook or lecture). (4). Ask questions during the class if you are confused/wish more data → The class is an ideal place to ask for more clarity or further information not contained in the textbook, ppt., and/or lecture (If nobody asks questions, the lecture proceeds …). (5). Complete optional materials: → Additional reinforcement, studying & bonus? https://howtostudyincollege.com/how-to-get-good-grades/note-taking-strategies/ Renfrew and Bahn 2019 (8th. Ed.) 1. Chapter 5: How were societies organized? Social archaeology. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 1.1. Introduction: Social archaeology = assessing past peoples: • Relations between individuals and groups • Soc. hierarchy (age; gender; rank) • Nature & application of power (social pressures; law; punishment) • Nature of social organization • Scale/size of social organization (band → state society) - Prehistoric & historic societies without writing require appropriate questions Ask social size/scale? (re: one site) • Is it a single campsite (H & G) • Is it an independent city state? • Is it a satellite site (province/empire) Question: dominant vs. subordinate role Capital? prov. capital? town? village? Mohenjo-daro Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. Internal organization: Assess the type of society top-down: • Egalitarian society • Diverse social stratification? (rank/status/prestige) • Different social classes? (caste system) • Occupation type (craftsmen, etc.) • Centralized control? (palace; free trade; etc.) Assess society bottom-up: =individuals • Social roles (gender; age; status) • Identity in society (e.g., ethnicity) The type of society dictates the form of investigation and questions: E.g., Hunter & gatherers: campsite Complex society: city state Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.1. Establishing the nature & scale of the society: → ASK … • What is the scale/size of the largest social unit (polity)? • What is the type of society? (in general/broad terms) • Polity: City state, H & G band, farming community, empire. -E.g., It is an independent entity & may have smaller sub-units. Questions: • Might diff. communities = federation? • How are decisions made? → Difficult to answer in archaeology. Answers: • From assessing individual sites settlement patterns written records oral tradition ethnoarchaeology City state: Byblos (Lebanon) Baked clay tablet Cuneiform script 2. Classification of past-(present) societies: Determining the basic type of social organization … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.2. Classification of societies: • E. Service adopted 4 types of societies (useful; now modified): Bands; tribes; chiefdoms; states. 2.2.a. Mobile hunter-gatherer groups: “Tribes” = ‘segmentary societies’ • “Band” now • Usually less than 100 • Seasonal movement pursuing wild crops & game. • > all = related by blood or marriage • They > lack designated leaders • Status = essentially the same • Seasonally occupied campsites (temporary huts/long term seasonal) • Other sites: kill & butchery; worksites • Paleolithic 12,000 BP = 100% bands • Terminology: “Mobile hunter-gatherer groups” versus “bands” Summary table: in textbook Classification of past-(present) societies: Determining the basic type of social organization … 2.a. BANDS (H+G) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.2. Classification of societies: • E. Service adopted 4 types of societies (useful; now modified): Bands; tribes; chiefdoms; states. 2.2.a. Mobile hunter-gatherer groups: • “Band” • Usually less than 100 • Seasonal movement pursuing wild crops & game. • > all = related by blood or marriage • They > lack designated leaders • Status = essentially the same: skill • Seasonally occupied campsites (temporary huts/long term seasonal) • Other sites: kill & butchery; worksites • Paleolithic 12,000 BP = 100% bands • Terminology: “Mobile hunter-gatherer groups” versus “bands” Summary table: in textbook Classification of past-(present) societies: Determining the basic type of social organization … 2.b. Segmentary soc. (tribes …) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.2.b. Segmentary societies (tribes). • Up to a few 100 • Cultivating plants: agriculture; herding • Herding domesticated animals • Usually = settled farmers • Sometimes = nomadic pastoralists (focused on herds) • Contain several communities linked by blood ties (kinship). • Sometimes have a central “capital” with appointed leaders & ‘officials’ • Small villages or homesteads Isolated houses = dispersed pattern Perm. villages = nucleated pattern Adjoining houses = agglomerate “ • A “tribe” assumes a unified cultural identity (which is not common) • Segmentary society = relatively small independent group, usually agricultural (may unite to form a “tribe”) Classification of past-(present) societies: Determining the basic type of social organization … 2.c. Chiefdoms … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.2.c. Chiefdoms: • Greater difference in rank (social status) • Different lineages with diff. prestige (chief → tribesperson) • Rank = affiliation with chief • Usually craft specialists • Surplus food & products paid to chief • Re-dispersal of produce • Special central housing (for the chief & his entourage) • Size approx. 5,000 – 20,000 • Note: prominent ritual and ceremonial center for chiefdom a. within site Chief Paul Payakan (Kayapo, Brazil) b. amongst sites Classification of past-(present) societies: Determining the basic type of social organization … 2.d. Early State Complex Societies Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.2.d. Early States: • Led by a ruler who makes laws often enforced by military force. • Less kin relationships • Greater class stratification • Agricultural & other labor (= lower class) • Craftsmen (middle class) • Priests & nobility (upper class) • Distinct ruler & palace • Central administration & tax • Cities (e.g., 5000+) dominate society • Settlement hierarchy: cities, towns, villages Archaeology: • Seeks processes of change: emergence • Complex societies reveal greater craft specialization • Food prod. intensifies →supply cities • Greater disparity of wealth & status 3. SURVEY of past-(present) societies: Determining the scale / form of social organization … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.3. Scale of the Society: • Question = Scale of society? • Pre-12,000 BP most people are mobile hunter-gatherers. • Later: Major urban centers = “states” • Lesser centers may reflect chiefdoms. • Potential mobile group requires intensive survey work owing to minimal data. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.4. The Survey: • Field surveys have different purposes. • One aims to determine the hierarchy of settlement: - the main cities:e.g.Mohenjo-daro - the lesser sites: Towns, villages+ • A systematic surface survey of selected transects is more manageable: Different techniques • One aims to find the center for the affiliated settlements - Usually chosen by size & remains (+unique features) - It usually is the wealthiest site. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.5. Settlement Patterning: • Need to classify survey data: • Sites may include: - Regional center - Local center - Nucleated village - Dispersed village - Hamlet • Isolate social & political sphere around centers. • Different approaches exist: (a) Central place theory is limited It promotes scaled site rankings, BUT secondary centers may be larger. E.g., religious center. Determining types of past-(present) societies: Determining the structure of social organization … 3.a. Central Place Theory Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.5.a. Central Place Theory: • W. Christaller 1930s: • He promoted a regular spacing of settlements in a “uniform landscape.” • Central towns/cities are a. Equidistant b. Surrounded by secondary centers c. Satellite communities are smaller in-turn • They display “hexagonal” layout • Their nature is quite different usually (i.e., theory vs. reality). • BUT, central place theory is a useful concept (Mesopotamia) Determining types of past-(present) societies: Determining the structure of social organization … 3.b. Site Hierarchy … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.5.b. Site Hierarchy. • Site size ranking is a useful indicator. • Normally sites increase in number from the largest to the smallest communities. • Histograms enable comparisons through space and time. • Minimal differences appear in bands (H+G) • Major differences occur within state societies • Site hierarchy normally reflects society. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.5.b. Site Hierarchy. • Site size ranking is a useful indicator. • Normally sites increase in number from the largest to the smallest communities. • Histograms enable comparisons through space and time. • Minimal differences appear in bands • Major differences occur within state societies • Site hierarchy normally reflects society. Determining types of past-(present) societies: Determining the structure of social organization … 3.c. Thiessen Polygons … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.5.c. Thiessen Polygons: • Areas are subdivided according to halfway points placed between each site. • BUT, this is arbitrary, normally ignoring site size (in relation to hinterland) • It should be applied only to similarly sized cities. • Also essential to ensure all sites are contemporary with one another. Ancient Greece Determining types of past-(present) societies: Determining the structure of social organization … 3.d. XTENT modelling … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.5.d. XTENT modeling: • Attempts to minimize the drawbacks of other systems. • Tries to link areas to large centers via “dominance” (i.e., absorbs smaller sites) • It scales hinterland area to site size. • However, it only approximates political reality → Hypothetical -political map -administrative map Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 2.5.d. XTENT modeling: • Attempts to minimize the drawbacks of other systems. • Tries to link areas to large centers via “dominance” (i.e., absorbs smaller sites) • It scales hinterland area to site size. • However, it only approximates political reality → Hypothetical -political map -administrative map 4. Determining types of past-(present) societies: Determining the structure of social organization … Other sources … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 3.1. Further sources of information for social organization: Sources: • Consult inscriptional sources • Oral tradition • Ethnoarchaeology • “middle range theory” (Binford) • Analogy (some scholars), filling gaps from other more complete and similar systems. Only helpful if one generally avoids specific details. Inca kept records using knotted strings: i.e., a quipu (accounting; transactions). Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 3.1. Further sources of information for social organization: Sources: • Consult inscriptional sources • Oral tradition • Ethnoarchaeology • “middle range theory” (Binford) • Analogy (some scholars), filling gaps from other more complete and similar systems: E.g., Zimbabwe Only helpful if one generally avoids specific details. Determining types of past-(present) societies: Determining the structure of social organization … 4. Other sources: a. Written records Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 3.2.a. Written records: • Some civilizations/cultures have sufficient texts regarding their social structure • One’s main aim should be finding such texts • Writing is used variously by different societies - Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce) - Greeks & Romans (marble decrees) - Coinage → individual city state mints → imperial rule - Mayan glyphs also have hist. events - Indus Valley script awaits decipherment - Mesopotamia has innumerable texts of many types. E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info) Economic texts Law code of Hammurabi • Maintain objectivity with all evidence Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 3.2.a. Written records: • Some civilizations have sufficient texts regarding their social structure • One’s main aim should be finding such texts • Writing is used variously by different societies - Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce) - Greeks & Romans (marble decrees) - Coinage → individual city state mints → imperial rule - Mayan glyphs also have hist. events - Indus Valley script awaits decipherment - Mesopotamia has innumerable texts of many types. E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info) Economic texts Law code of Hammurabi • Maintain objectivity with all evidence (each source has its own biases) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 3.2.a. Written records: Viking silver hoard, with coins. • Some civilizations have sufficient texts regarding their social structure • One’s main aim should be finding such texts • Writing is used variously by different societies - Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce) - Greeks & Romans (marble decrees) - Coinage → individual city state mints → imperial rule - Mayan glyphs also have hist. events - Indus Valley script awaits decipherment - Mesopotamia has innumerable texts of many types. E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info) Economic texts Law code of Hammurabi • Maintain objectivity with all evidence (each source has its own biases) These coins = AD 870/871 + Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 3.2.a. Written records: • Some civilizations have sufficient texts regarding their social structure • One’s main aim should be finding such texts • Writing is used variously by different societies - Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce) - Greeks & Romans (marble decrees) - Coinage → individual city state mints → imperial rule - Maya glyphs also have hist. events - Indus Valley script awaits decipherment - Mesopotamia has innumerable texts of many types. E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info) Economic texts Law code of Hammurabi • Maintain objectivity with all evidence (each source has its own biases) Cascajal Block: Ca. 900 B.C.: Undeciphered Olmec writing Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 3.2.a. Written records: Cylinder seal & seal impression • Some civilizations have sufficient - ca. 2,400 B.C. texts regarding their social structure • One’s main aim should be finding such texts • Writing is used variously by different societies - Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce) - Greeks & Romans (marble decrees) - Coinage → individual city state mints → imperial rule - Mayan glyphs also have hist. events - Indus Valley script awaits decipherment - Mesopotamia has innumerable texts of many types. E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info) Economic texts “Law code” of Hammurabi • Maintain objectivity with all evidence (each source has its own biases) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 3.2.a. Written records: Law Code of Hammurabi • Some civilizations have sufficient 1750 BC texts regarding their social structure • One’s main aim should be finding such texts • Writing is used variously by different societies - Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce) - Greeks & Romans (marble decrees) - Coinage → individual city state mints → imperial rule - Mayan glyphs also have hist. events - Indus Valley script awaits decipherment - Mesopotamia has innumerable texts of many types. E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info) Economic texts “Law code” of Hammurabi • Maintain objectivity with all evidence (each source has its own biases) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 3.2.a. Written records: • Some civilizations have sufficient texts regarding their social structure • One’s main aim should be finding such texts • Writing is used variously by different societies - Mycenaeans (i.e., commerce) - Greeks & Romans (marble decrees) - Coinage → individual city state mints → imperial rule - Mayan glyphs also have hist. events - Indus Valley script awaits decipherment - Mesopotamia has innumerable texts of many types. E.g., Self-perception (cognitive info) Economic texts Law code of Hammurabi • Maintain objectivity with all evidence (each source has its own biases) Bayeux Tapestry: 11th cent. AD Determining types of past-(present) societies: Determining the structure of social organization … 4. Other sources: b. Oral tradition … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 3.2.b. Oral tradition: • Non-literate people often retain knowledge via memorization. • Poems/hymns/sayings: E.g., Indian Rigveda (written in mid-1st. Mill. AD) E.g., Homer’s Trojan War (1200 – 8th cent. BC) • In assessing different regions, examine the local oral traditions. See Michael Wood, 1985. BBC documentary: In Search of the Trojan War, episode on bards Determining types of past-(present) societies: Determining the structure of social organization … 4. Other sources: c. Ethnoarchaeology Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 3.2.c. Ethnoarchaeology: Indirect approach: • Examine current use & meanings of objects, buildings, & system in the study region to interpret past processes. • This technique = used in 19th-20th cent. AD • Revised in last 25 years E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G to interpret Prehist. Mousterian society. • Looked at use & abandonment of bones & tools • Seasonal movements • Drop & toss zones around a hearth (applying mechanisms to similar past patterns) • Isolate specific functions/actions common to all hunter-gatherers. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G • Toss zone patterns → infer number of persons at a hearth • This allowed Binford to re-interpret other archaeological reconstructions (a “tent” vs. wind, smoke, & hearth patterns). • Other studies revealed that the preserved material culture cannot always distinguish individual regional cultures. • There are other factors … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G • Toss zone patterns → infer number of persons at a hearth • This allowed Binford to re-interpret other archaeological reconstructions (a “tent” vs. wind, smoke, & hearth patterns). • Other studies revealed that the preserved material culture cannot always distinguish individual regional cultures. • There are other factors … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. Njemps tribe (Kenya) … E.g., Binford studied Nunamiut H&G • Toss zone patterns → infer number of persons at a hearth • This allowed Binford to re-interpret other archaeological reconstructions (a “tent” vs. wind, smoke, & hearth patterns). • Other studies revealed that the preserved material culture cannot always distinguish individual regional cultures. • There are other factors … Female ear flap ornament dispersal: Used in asserting tribal identities within & outside . Looking at more recent Venda, Shona, & other cultures & oral traditions, to inform us more on features found in the past Zimbabwe culture (i.e., no texts) 5. Techniques for studying past-(present) societies: Determining the nature of past social organization … 5. Techniques for studying past-(present) societies: Determining the nature of past social organization … a. Bands (H+G) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 4.1. Techniques of study for mobile hunter-gatherer societies: • H&G economy & politics are local (= egalitarian societies) 4.2. Investigating activities at a site: • Focus on determining different activities at a H&G site: E.g., Cave sites: • Occupation debris = generally deep • Seasonal activity over 1000s to 10s of 1000s of years • Excavating each layer carefully • 3-D recording of all artifact and bone locations in strata. • Sieving all soil Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. E.g., Open sites: • Less protection & shallow deposits • Assess distribution of artifacts & debris inside and outside structures and features (hut bases; hearths) • Toss zones by hearth • Often evidence is mixed over time (repeated seasonal use) • Possible secondary re-depositing by water flows. • Possible re-dispersal of bones by animals. G. Isaac study of Early Paleolithic site Koobi Fora: - Studying find spots & patterns of joining bones & stone tools. - Camp population size estimates - Kinship relations & space in H&G camps. Conjoining bones = Extracting marrow Conjoining flints = Flint knapping Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 4.3. Investigating territories in mobile societies: • Study region to assess seasonal activity & movement of mobile H&G (annual life cycle) • Ethnoarchaeology reveals H&G have annual home territories: - Home base camp - Transitory camps - Hunting blinds - Butchery / kill sites - Storage pits / caches • Need to find large sites (> items) off/non-sites (< items) (1-2 items in 10 m sq.) • R. Foley Amboseli region, Kenya: 8,531 stone tools from 257 sample areas in 600 sq. km (25 x 25 km) area Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. • Another ethnographic study: Determined a discard rate for stone tools across different environmental & vegetative areas. - Band of 25 persons discarded 163,000 items in their territory in one year (18 items/day/person). - These items concentrated at their home base & transitory camps. • Need to assess entire annual region for hunter-gatherers • One site is only part of a larger annual pattern/activities. • H&G groups: - Huts of kin are placed closer - Tested this hypothesis by ethnoarchaeology. Huntergatherers (band) Assessing camps of hunter-gatherers: - Space usage - Density of pop. Kalahari Desert Assessing space & density in hunter-gatherer camps: e.g., !Kung San H+G a. Dry season: large camps for entire band: 35 – 60 persons b. Wet season: several small camps for nuclear families;marriage-linked families SPACE: Huts & hearths belonging to same ext.-family = close to one another. 5. Techniques for studying past-(present) societies: Determining the nature of past social organization … b. Segmentary societies (tribes) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 5.1. Techniques of study for segmentary societies: • Farmers generally live in permanent, sedentary villages • Examine housing cemeteries public areas craft specialization 5.2. Investigating settlements in sedentary societies: • Ideally need to excavate fully one period at a site. • Conduct intense surface survey • Sampling large excavation area • 1st excavate structures & determine area functions • 2nd assess site catchment area Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 5.1. Techniques of study for segmentary societies: • Farmers generally live in permanent, sedentary villages • Examine housing cemeteries public areas craft specialization 5.2. Investigating settlements in sedentary societies: • Ideally need to excavate fully one period at a site. • Conduct intense surface survey • Sampling large excavation area • 1st excavate structures& determine area functions • 2nd assess site catchment area Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. Binford 1963: Hatchery West: • Collected items from plow zone in 6 meter squares • Generated surf. distribution map • Middens: > cluster of sherds • Houses: < density of sherds • Tested by excavation • Examined by remote sensing (magnetometer) • Large sites require sampling • Structures are either a. agglomerate (joined) b. dispersed (separate) Pueblo Indians: 3 room types • Domestic (cooking; eating; sleeping) • Storage • Ceremonial - Gender differences (male/female rms) - Architecture significant for study - Publish fully to allow re-assessment Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 5.3. The study of ranking from individual burials: • Skeletal or cremation burials accompanied by artifacts often yield clues to individual persons and their status. • Bones = gender = age at death = health • Group burials are more complex Often difficult to assign artifacts • Burials in segmentary societies (or others with min. soc. Strat.), allow a closer insight to the deceased, social status, and those burying the deceased. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. • Gender diff. - wealth - status • Age diff. - status • Achieved status: in egalitarian societies • Ascribed status: in birth right/lineages • Burial wealth accompanying a child often indicates ascribed (earned) status. • Need to analyze graves by period, wealth, status, age, gender. E.g., S. Shennan study of Branc in Slovakia E.g., J. Tainter study 18 variables in Illinois river valley (cult. spec.) Studying ranking within and between individual burials: a. Types: cremated/uncremated, articulated/unarticulated, extended/flexed, supine/not supine, single/multiple, etc. b. Grave: Earth/log walls, other wall types, ramps/no ramps, surface/sub-suface, slabs in graves/none, log/slab-covered, not covered, central loc./other. c. Goods: Ochre/hematite/none, animal bones/none, imports, local items, tools, Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 5.4. Collective works and communal action: • Segmentary societies sometimes lack cemeteries. • Settlements are sometimes not found or preserved. • This may leave only public monuments to assess: E.g., “Megaliths” of W. Europe E.g., Stone statues of Easter Island. Neolithic Megaliths of Western Europe: - Early Neolithic phase ca. 4000-3000 BC e.g., Burial mounds - Later Neolithic phase ca. 3000-2000 BC e.g., Various henges Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 5.4.a. How much labor was invested in the monuments? • Can measure the scale of the monument in labor hours • Experimental archaeology E.g., Early Neolithic England: - 100,000 hours to build causewayed enclosures. - 250 persons in 6 weeks → within capabilities of tribal segmented societies. E.g., Late Neolithic great mound at Silbury Hill: - 18 million hours to build - 2 years of labor - 3000 persons → centralized chiefdom society required. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 5.4.a. How much labor was invested in the monuments? • Can measure the scale of the monument in labor hours • Experimental archaeology E.g., Early Neolithic England: - 100,000 hours to build causewayed enclosures. - 250 persons in 6 weeks → within capabilities of tribal segmented societies. period Silbury Hill: Neolithic E.g., Late Neolithic great mound at Silbury Hill: - 18 million hours to build - 2 years of labor - 3000 persons → centralized chiefdom society required. The increasing labour demands in Wessex from early–late Neolithic → Suggests an emerging larger, more hierarchical population: i.e., chiefdom. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 5.4.b. How are the monuments distributed in the landscape? • Assess distribution of monuments across the landscape E.g., SE Britain 3500 – 2800 BC: - Burial mounds = in spec. region - Lighter chalk soils (good crops) - Well spaced - May = Symbolic community center? → implies connection to specific land (i.e., ancestral burial place). → territorial markers of a segmentary society. • Visibility-intervisibility of monuments - GIS map of data - Viewshed map - Some size implications regarding proximity & visibility from Stonehenge - Lost forests? Other explanations? Early Neolithic: 4,000 – 3,000 B.C. Late Neolithic: 3,000 – 2,000 B.C. Ea. burial mound reflects focus for farming group i.e., Henges probably reflect chiefdom society Segmentary “tribal” society Chiefdom Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 5.4.b. How are the monuments distributed in the landscape? • Assess distribution of monuments across the landscape E.g., SE Britain 3500 – 2800 BC: - Burial mounds in spec. region - Lighter chalk soils (good crops) - Well spaced - Symbolic community center? → implies connection to specific land (ancestral burial place). → territorial markers of segmentary society. Visibility-intervisibility of monuments - GIS map of data - Viewshed map - Some size implications regarding proximity & visibility from Stonehenge - Lost forests? Other explanations? Line of sight between Stonehenge barrows: - Results suggest more emphasis on line of sight btw. barrows than poss. by chance! Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 5.4.c. Which individuals are associated with the monuments? Tombs: • 1 person per monument = high rank → centralized society? • Multiple persons per monument may = segmentary society (lineage?; sacrifices?) E.g., Orkney island: 390 Ritual monuments: • Cultic site Agricultural projects: • Irrigation canals Defensive works: • Ditches, palisades, etc. Bluestonehenge: i.e., 2 km SE of Stonehenge - Aubrey hole for bluestone. Theoretical “place of the ancestors” vs. Living. Stonehenge theory-2: - Timothy Darvill and Geoff Wainwright promote it as “a place of healing” and “rites of passage”: a. Stonehenge is “unique” in its usage of “bluestones” from W. Wales (220 km). b. The water from Preseli Hills (= bluestones’ source) is ascribed healing powers & promotion of good health (in Bronze Age beliefs). c. Same beliefs ascribed to Stonehenge in 12th cent.AD and later (pieces taken from Stonehenge as amulets). d. Stonehenge continued to be a centre for ceremonies & rituals into modern times. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 5.5. Relationships between Segmentary societies: • Assessing ties between segmentary societies • Locate ritual centers that facilitated periodic group meetings. • Study different sources, forms, & decoration of artifacts → spatial range. E.g., S. Britain stone axe dispersal. • It is hard to define ethnicity in archaeological record. - See foodways - See jewelry - See other indicators Askut, 2000-1080 BC Residue analysis -Nubian & Egyptian cooking pots Ethnicity. → distinct differences in fatty acid profiles for Egyptian & Nubian pots. = Favours presence of Nubian foodways at Askut. Egyptian cooking pot residue: - Fish (MK) - Pigs(?) - Chickens(?) (NK+) - Beans - Fauna: birds & pigs = rare! Nubian cooking pot residue: - Deer - Cattle - Fauna: cattle, sheep, goats. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 5.6. Farming methods & craft specialists: • Segmentary societies have - Permanent villages, - cemeteries, - public monuments, - ritual centers. - More soc. stratification • Assess farming & crafts 10,000 BP: • Many societies → gradually intensifying food production (time & labor intensive) - Plowing, - Terracing - Irrigation - Expansion into poorer land - Domestic animals (meat) - Secondary prod. (milk; wool) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 10,000 BP: Seg. Soc. cont. Effort required: • Calculate hours & labor force in food production, etc. • Seg. Society versus chiefdom? Craft specialization: • Seg. societies reveal more evidence at household (domestic) level: E.g., village kilns & furnaces • Centralized societies yield more evidence of centralization E.g., discrete urban areas for craft production. 5. Techniques for studying past-(present) societies: Determining the nature of past social organization … c. Chf-Early State Complex societies Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.1. Techniques of study for Mississippi chiefdom chiefdoms & states: • Similar approaches may be taken to chiefdoms & states E.g., Household Rural villages Farming • Different approaches are needed in assessing … - centralized society - Site hierarchy - Organizational system - Interactions Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.2. Identifying primary centers: • Assess site sizes • Assess site distance from center (national & regional capital) • Determine site ranking (dominance) • Determine site hinterland size • State societies often have written documentation: → information on sites, ranking, administration, etc. • May use multidimensional scaling to reconstruct hierarchies & relative locations in site list. - Frequency of co-occurrence in lists E.g., Pylos & its hinterland (Greece) E.g., Homer’s Catalogue of Ships • Archaeological data: E.g., location of archives, admin seals, literacy, status symbols, palaces, ziggurats, wall cones, fortifications, etc. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.2. Identifying primary centers: • Assess site sizes • Assess site distance from center (national & regional capital) • Determine site ranking (dominance) • Determine site hinterland size • State societies often have written documentation: → information on sites, ranking, administration, etc. • May use multidimensional scaling to reconstruct hierarchies & relative locations in site list → ranked by mentions - Frequency of co-occurrence in lists E.g., Pylos & its hinterland (Greece) E.g., Homer’s Catalogue of Ships • Archaeological data: E.g., location of archives, admin seals, literacy, status symbols, palaces, ziggurats, wall cones, fortifications, etc. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.2. Identifying primary centers: • Assess site sizes • Assess site distance from center (national & regional capital) • Determine site ranking (dominance) • Determine site hinterland size • State societies often have written documentation: → information on sites, ranking, administration, etc. • May use multidimensional scaling to reconstruct hierarchies & relative locations in site list. - Frequency of co-occurrence in lists E.g., Pylos & its hinterland (Greece) E.g., Homer’s Catalogue of Ships • Archaeological data: E.g., location of archives, admin seals, literacy, status symbols, palaces, ziggurats, wall cones, fortifications, etc. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.3. Functions of the center: • Assess the function of a center/capital: E.g., kingship administration redistribution storage facilities ritual craft specialization trade • Conduct detailed site survey of a center & its hinterland. • Conduct large-scale excavation • Apply sampling strategy: Maximize time, funds and comprehensive coverage. Identifying primary centres in archaeology. Identifying primary centres in Central America: AD 790 Classic Maya. States of Tikal & Calakmul: = actually very powerful Boundaries: E.g., Yaxchilan & Piedras Negras Some Classic Maya states & centres = known from Maya glyphs Studying political boundaries: Piedras Negras & Yaxchilan border def. by fortified sites Tecolote defensive system: PIEDRAS NEDRAS Putative 8th cent. AD border YAXCHILAN Border between Piedras Negras & Yaxchilan: A stone wall foundation for a wooden palisade (defense) = lay across a valley between two hills north of Tecolote. States: differences in material culture, rituals & daily practices E.g., Pottery & technology differ across borders E.g., 30 distinct Maya languages still: Anc. Polities. Identifying secondary centre in a state: e.g., Tecolote in Yaxchilan (a). Secondary centre at Tecolote -Differences in types, scale, quality and details in architecture, designs & artifacts between a secondary centre and a primary centre. - Yet = similarities in overall culture. Lintel from La Pasadita: 8th cent. AD. - Captive from Piedras Negras kneeling before ruler of Yaxchilan: Bird-Jaguar IV. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.3.a. Abandoned sites: • Ancient-former sites without current habitation remains. • Many-most are likely under threat by cultivation/urban exp. • Others may be protected sites • → Topographic map (1:1000) -Locate all surface structures etc. -Detail plans if needed. -Incorporate earlier results. • Determine site’s function: - Intense sample of surf. artifacts. - Infer settlement date(s) & pattern. - Combined sampling & excav. - Study major ritual & public buildings Changing ideas regarding the function(s) industrial & residential areas, disparity in housing (rich-poor), etc. of Machu Picchu –in late Inca Empire: Also the site remained not completed … Abandoned sites: e.g., Ancient Akrotiri on island of Thera/Santorini E.g., Volcanic eruption at island’s centre buried anc. town at periphery of island. ca., 1600 B.C. Aegean (Minoan) → 1575 – 1525 BC (revised C14) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.3.b. Occupied sites. • Problems of accessibility to underlying ancient occupation. • Adapt to local circumstances • Investigate: -Existing open areas (lots; etc.) -Construction areas (e.g., foundation trenches) • Sometimes land is purchased to expand discoveries of major monuments. • Some land owners allow archaeologists to excavate on their property (rental/free). Winchester (S. UK): - The city’s development from 1st cent. BC to AD 1400. - Cathedral from 7th-9th centuries AD – present. Reconstructing a mostly obscured series of settlements Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.4. Administration beyond the primary center: • Surveying/excavating multiple sites enable a study of centrally organized admin. • One needs to find administrative artifacts: - Clay sealings, imperial seals, cartouches, Roman milestone, - Standard weights & measures (i.e., central authority; other?) - Broad transportation network: Roads in land-based territory - Military fortifications (securing borders; regions; etc.) - Etc. Roman road system: - Part of the Appian Way outside Rome (312 BC+). - The surviving Roman road system provides a definite clue to the existence of a central administrative system dictating the building of roads throughout the empire. - Indicates Roman territory versus areas outside empire. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.5. Investigating social ranking: • Most centralized gov./soc. display discrepancies between classes: - Wealth - Resource access - Housing - Status 6.5.a. Elite residences. • Large structures may not necessarily be “palaces” • Other functions? Administrative centers versus residences. • Housing for ruler vs. elite • Excavation & architectural and artifact analyses may resolve questions on function. Tell el-Amarna: elite house 14th cent. BC (Egypt) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.5.b. Great wealth: • Normally great wealth is an indicator of an individual person’s status • E.g., Tutankhamun’s tomb Non-royal in architectural style Royal in artifact types & wealth Inscriptions also reveal royalty • Natural or human-engineered disasters may seal artifacts in housing contexts: Study relative wealth of individuals/families across a site (e.g., Pompeii) Ur: Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.5.c. Depictions of the elite: • Many cultures may yield depictions of the elite & others • Either the presence or nature (i.e., quality) of the work will indicate status. • Each culture will have its own symbols and variants indicating status and power • E.g., Egyptian smiting motif for ruler subjugating enemies and potential enemies. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.5.d. Burials: • The nature and wealth of a burial often indicates status: - Grave/tomb size - Wealth (number & nature of items) - Labor expenditure on tomb E.g., Pyramids versus other tombs in Egypt per reign • Place each tomb in temporal perspective E.g., Dyns.3-6 exhibits a decline after in pyramid size & quality. Wealth growing in provinces in Dyns.5-6 (larger, better tombs) • Sacrificial burials associated with rulers - Sumeria (royal tombs of Ur) - Egypt (Dynasty 1 tombs at Abydos) • Study full range of burial types per period 17th cent. BC Nubian Sacrificial burials Palenque (Mexico): - Burial chamber of Pakal ca. AD 683 - 1952 discovery of hidden burial chamber Part of tomb of 1st emperor of China: Qin Shi Huangdi … - 8,000 life-size terracotta warriors, etc., placed in surrounding chambers. Moundville (Alabama): (1). AD 1050-1250: single mound at site. (2). AD 1250-1400?: Major regional centre. (3). AD 1400?-1550: Declining (burials within site). (4). AD 1550+: No dominant centre in region. → Assess burials from main phase of prosperity. Analyzing social organization at Moundville, Alabama: - Assessing var. burials at the site from AD 1200 – 1450 (i.e., peak) - 150 hectares (370 acres) site in palisade by Black Warrior River (Mississippian culture cer. centre) Moundville (Alabama): Social organization: - Cluster analysis of 2,053 burials to obtain social rankings. 1. Central loc.+spec. obj. 2. Nearby + elite items 3. Non-mounds, no Cu. 4. Periphery, few items 5. Most had no items Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.6. Investigating economic specialization: • The greater the degree of centralization → More economic specialization → Greater productivity (surplus) 6.6.a. Intensified farming: • Innovations in farming enabling greater food production E.g., Plowing *(state society) Irrigation canals (labor pool) Land divisions (central auth.) Terracing (central authority?) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.6.b. Taxation, storage & redistribution: • Large long term storage facilities (food & products) = centralized &/or state control. Redistribution of resources (agricultural & industrial) to urban & other settings. Administration (keeping track of taxation & re-dispersal of agricultural and other products). Ceremonial aspect of admin. may be important: E.g., receipt of tribute oaths of allegiance demonstration of power gift giving, sharing food, etc. Askut: Egyptian fort in northern Nubia Middle Kingdom to New Kingdom Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.6.c. Craft specialists: • An emphasis upon spec. craft production reveals centralized authority (craftsmen = supported by others) • Industrial complexes for production: beer; clothing; pottery; metal; glass; etc. -May have restricted entryways -Size & intensity revealed by refuse heaps (population) -E.g., Egyptian temple bakeries -E.g., Egyptian workmen’s communities (Deir el-Medineh) Tell el-Amarna (1340s BC): Temple bakeries repeating units Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 6.7. Relationships between centralized societies: • There is a social aspect to international relations. • Traditional domination models = main center vs. secondary center a. Trade (reciprocity; etc.) b. Warfare for different reasons: Mayans required sacrifices Egyptians expanded territory to pacify & obtain wealth. c. Competition: ball courts; Olympics d. Emulation: adoption of dominant culture; but sometimes complex: Egypt dominated Syria-Palestine politically (esp. 1550-1150 BC) but adopted foreign language in trade (dominated by Syria) Conflict & warfare btw. past societies - Depictions, burning, and massacres. 6. Techniques for studying past-(present) societies: Determining the role of individuals and identity within social organization … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 7. The Archaeology of the individual and of identity: • First need to develop perspective on the nature of a society and its organization (top-down) Tell Amarna: Princesses showing affection • Next focus on individual within this society (bottom-up), in their - role - gender - status - time period - social context • Can assess other factors: E.g. kinship & social relations - nuclear family - extended family - Community • Assess ETHNICITY as well Amarna: royal family Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. • See Chp. 10: a. Cognitivist approach: mental representations of social structures; hierarchy … b. Phenomonological approach: Interrelationship between people & their environment (and the individual). Ecological … • Avoid pigeon-holing gender/social roles by current cultural & individual perceptions • Caution regarding ethnocentrism! Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. P. Bourdieu’s concept: habitus • Each person’s ideological framework and cultural upbringing = expressed via socialization/enculturation (viewed through material culture). • Each person = a product of their environment, culture, etc. and some artifacts reflect the “individual” versus “culture” • Buildings, rituals, culture, etc. shape the habitus of community & individuals • Culture shapes groups/individuals, who in-turn maintain & shape culture. - Prob. recognizing prestige & high status detecting ethnicity within culture - Studies in social inequality (poverty) - Sensitive issues in excavation: E.g., African-American burial ground 1750s New York, L. Manhattan African burial ground: Excavation of an African burial ground in New York, located on 1755 plan of the city. 1991 rescue excavations created anger in the African-American comm. i.e., felt = not consulted. → NY City created a Museum of AfricanAmerican History. Excavation findings: a. No grave markers b. Simple wooden coffins c. Some shroud pins d. Very few grave goods e. 2003 reburial of 419 f. Analysis: DNA, diet, health, metrics, origins. 5 Points New York: excavation of a 19th cent. AD slum and brothel cellar → Prostitutes had better possessions & conditions than the slum vs. 19th cent. tales! 7. Techniques for studying past-(present) societies: Determining the role of individuals & community within social organization … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 8. Emergence of identity & society: • Indicators of personal identity = personal adornments E.g., Paleolithic beads, etc. • Such indicators increase over time (Upper Paleolithic burials) • Ritual activities (e.g., monuments) → changes in lifeways & cultures → modified socio-economic aspects between people (Jericho) • “Framing” the way in which humans, artifacts, actions are segregated by non-domestic ritual settings = setting apart (a “special club”) • Shared activities → form a social / group identity (shared mindset) • Individual & group ID reinforced by personal items, rituals, community, … Shared activities ➔ social group identity (shared mindset) Pre-Pottery Neolithic B ritual: Jericho. a. Interactions between individuals in a shared activity, such as burial rites or building public structure (city wall), creates →social identities & groups. b. The shared activities contain: - “ideational role” (shared belief / rite) - functional role (labour requirement) E.g., PPNB Jericho: a. Individual / household ritual/role: → 1.Vitality (i.e., domestication, fertility, life-force of livestock/animals); → 2.Human-animal linkage (herding); → 3.Dominant symbolism (herds) → 4.Communality (group effort) b. Public ritual: → Links to and between all four components (above). i.e., Linking separate households i.e., Linking all individuals (via the household and separately). PPNB Jericho: Individual → household → community participation: interlinked and shared activities within/btw all community members 8. Techniques for studying past-(present) societies: Determining the role of gender/sex and children within social organization … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 9. Investigating gender & childhood: • Gender studies in archaeology: (a). Initially overlapping with feminist archaeology, correcting male bias (androcentrism) in research. (b). Focusing on women’s roles in past societies (correcting biases) Biological sex versus gender: • Osteological examination → Sex = biological male & female. • “Gender” = a social construct: gender roles differ greatly per society & individuals in time-space • Gimbutas = criticized for stressing Neolithic female links with nature (mother goddess) in Prehist. Europe & replacement by male warrior culture. i.e., Other factors & more complex A great fertility Mother Goddess? Options: Ancestor figures vs. deities? - Marija Gimbutas argued for a female-dominated NeolithicChalcolithic SE Europe-Anatolia i.e., Mostly female figurines. - She also argued a Bronze Age shift to mostly Indo-European warrior male-dominated society BUT → other data & options(!) i.e., too simplistic an explanation. Male-owned fig.? Many generic! Lynn Meskell critique of “Mother Goddess”: → calls this theory “reverse sexism,” etc. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. (c). 3rd phase in gender archaeology: • More complex than male vs. female • Recognizing other differences E.g., Status of “children” versus male/female children. E.g., Greeks use “IT” for children (at puberty → male & female) Gender also contains differences • Social status • age • wealth • religion • ethnicity • changes over time (praxis of daily life) →Careful assessment of archaeological record is needed: Meskell: male-related rooms at DEM female-related rooms at DEM DEM = Deir el-Medineh Gender roles: Theories on “Princess of Vix” burial in France (5th cent. B.C.) Skeletal remains seem “female,” but various grave items seem “male” → theories Theories: 1st “Transvestite priest” (excav.) → “Elite female” (re-assess Iron Age gender roles) Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. (c). 3rd phase in gender archaeology: • More complex than male vs. female • Recognizing other differences E.g., Status of “children” versus male/female children. E.g., Greeks use “IT” for children (at puberty → male & female) Gender also contains differences • Social status • age • wealth • religion • ethnicity • changes over time (praxis of daily life) →Careful assessment of archaeological record is needed: Meskell: male-related rooms at DEM female-related rooms at DEM DEM = Deir el-Medineh HOUSEHOLD CULTS Queyash Alto (Peru): Early .Int. Per. 200 BC – AD 600. Found 3 distinct area functions within the site / household Queyash Alto (Peru): Early Int. Per. 200 BC–AD 600 (1). Domestic occupation: a. Upper terrace held high status artifacts: i.e., → decorated pottery, figurines, imported shells (spiny oyster), copper tupu-pins. b. Tupu-pins applied as clothes fasteners only by women. c. Both copper material & item = high status associations. d. Spindle whorls = > women. Queyash Alto (Peru): Early Int. Per. 200 BC–AD 600 (2). Non-domestic activities: Male & female jars are equally elab. & distinct ! a. Ridge top contained nondomestic activities: e.g., Beer production & storage; Feasting (i.e., pottery vessels; stone tools [meat prep.]) = Communal feasting. b. Inclusion of female assoc. items (tupu-pins & whorls) revealed females = present. c. Formal architecture layout suggests competitive feasts! Prob. political feasts Emerging hierarchy? + High Status women i.e., suggests separate & complex gender roles Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. (c). 3rd phase in gender archaeology: • More complex than male vs. female • Recognizing other differences E.g., Status of “children” versus male/female children. E.g., Greeks use “IT” for children (at puberty → male & female) Gender also contains differences • Social status • age • wealth • religion • ethnicity • changes over time (praxis of daily life) Back to studying “children” in past societies →Careful assessment of archaeological record is needed: Meskell: male-related rooms at DEM female-related rooms at DEM DEM = Deir el-Medineh Aspects of childhood in the past? - Only rel. recently has greater study begun to focus on the role of children in past societies: - Tracing the “learning curve” in the past: Poorly made artifacts: - Are they made by a child learning from, or imitating, an adult? - Is it made by an older apprentice, or novice, training under a master craftsperson. E.g., An Upper Paleolithic site: Solvieux (France): - Re-fitting flakes extracted from a nearby core revealed numerous errors in manufacture compared to better made flint tools: - Overly large flake extractions. 9. Techniques for studying past-(present) societies: f. Molecular genetics of social groups & lineages … Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 10. The molecular genetics of social groups & lineages: Archaeology • Applying genetics at individual level • Looking at long-term genetic background of a group (tribe). Ancient DNA • > results in soc. arch. of burials DNA → sex → family relationships a. mother-child/child-mother link mitochondrial DNA b. Father (Y-chromosome studies) DNA → reconstructing living communities 306 Jewish priestly (Cohanim) families had spec. Y-chromosomal haplotype (patrilineal descent since 2650 BC?) DNA → population studies & tracing links DNA: Molecular genetics Aim: assess J.-requirement that priests (Cohanim) only follow patrilineal inheritance Technique: use living DNA Investigators assessing the Y-chromosome haplotype from 306 male Jews in Israel, Canada, and UK. Findings: ALL the Cohanim from the sample displayed a specific Y-chromosomal haplotype: i.e., they all had a common ancestral chromosome (which mutated over time), that could be dated back to ca. 2,650 years ago. → Some suggest 586 BC dispersal of priesthood. Very comprehensive ancient DNA analysis = at Oneota cemetery, AD 1300: - Assessed sufficient mtDNA from 70% of samples from 260 skeletal remains - Obtained nuclear DNA (Y-chromosome) from 15% of sample → sex ID. - They re-assessed diverse ideas on how/when North America was populated: → Pref. “single wave” hypothesis & expansion ca. 37,000 – 23,000 years BP 10. SUMMARY: Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2019 (8th ed.): chp.5 5. How Were Societies Organized? Social Archaeology. 8. Summary: • Many techniques have been developed to assess soc. org. of early Societies. • Augmented potential for state societies. • Site hierarchies & urban centers → reveal more data on soc. org. • Theoretically archaeology could detect national capital without texts. • Assessing administrative & other evidence from national capital sharpens information on elite, soc., political, & economic org. • Other data includes elite structures & tombs, officials, admin. artifacts, etc. • Tomb size, wealth, number of burials, etc. → rank/status. • Gender and the individual in society. Gender rank in Old Kingdom Egypt CASE STUDY: Ancient Egyptian society. Bottom-Up, Top-down: Micro-level. Pharaoh’s workers, slaves and foreigners. • Social structure Mainly Early Dyn.-Old Kingdom (Dyns.1-6) Putting workers & slaves in perspective • Foreigners Egyptian view of foreigners & interactions • Occupations Workers and slaves (including foreigners) Selected examples • Settlements i.e., daily life: Different types Elite versus micro • Shrines/temples i.e., religion: Different types Elite versus micro • Cemeteries Different types Elite versus micro • Summary i.e., burial: Old Kingdom Society: Can we reconstruct the Old Kingdom’s social infrastructure? • Sporadic evidence from royal court & bureaucracy, allowing various models. • Inscriptional-archaeological evidence suggest pyramidal, hierarchical society. • Less information on relative ranks of women (especially in this period) 1% = 10,000? 5% = 50,000? 95%? 1 million Women in Old Kingdom society: • What do we know about the role of women in Old Kingdom society? • Old Kingdom: Much less data for women. • Ancient Egypt: Position of most women related to husband’s/parents’ social status. • Royal & private statuary: often portray males larger than females for married couples • Mistress of the House: Many women had occupations associated with the household.. • Scribal training rarely provided to women: barring women from entering bureaucracy. • A few women held courtly/priestly positions ranked slightly lower than males in such jobs. Old Kingdom Society: Some polygamy (multiple wives) occurs. Dyn. 8 (Tomb of Mery-aa of Hagarsa): Mery-aa depicted with six wives & their children KING: Focal point: Old Kingdom society, religion, & government. Mediator: Divine & human aspects. Uncertain whether populace viewed king as “divine” Sanctity of name: Names of kings & gods in many private names. E.g., Pepyankh (“Pepy-lives”); Ankhmare (“Living-with-Re”) Divine titles: “Horus, Beloved by the Two Ladies, Son of Re, the good god, ...” Divine scenes: Only the king accompanies gods; shown the same size as deities. Earthy role: “good god” & deputy of the god Horus. Afterlife role: Became deity of choice (usually Re or Osiris); ruled over deities. Entitled to become “imperishable star” Royal/god-king cult: Pyramid mortuary temple (offerings during & after king’s life). (King’s temples increased in size & much larger than gods’ temples) KING: Solar cult: Dyn.5: adopted title “Son of Re”; built Sun temples. Chief Priest: Priests = king’s deputies; builds & maintains cults. Guarantor of Maat: Held daily services in temples maintaing “Maat” Supreme judge: E.g., king interceded directly for Rawer’s infraction. Public appearances: Rare events (recorded). Limited access: Courtiers boast of being “known to the king” or being seen daily by king. Veneration: Some officials allowed to kiss king’s feet vs. the ground. Prohibitions: Touching or blocking the king invited swift punishment. Relationships: Marriage; relatives; friendship; prof. ties; trusted officials. Vulnerability: Assassination: e.g., royal bodyguard killed King Tety I. QUEEN: Queens (wives): • No evidence for harim in Old Kingdom. • Lived in king’s household with royal family and male children of favoured officials. • Some religious & courtly titles. Commoners & half-sisters (sisters = rare) • Some had political power: Title “Everything she says is done for her” • Duty: to provide a male heir partner to the king represented Hathor (king = Horus) priestess in state religion (also of Thoth and bull-deities) priestess in royal mortuary temple • Late Dyn.6: Pyramid Texts for queens. QUEEN: Queen mothers: • Widow and mother of reigning king. • Often queen-regents (could be an aunt) • Elaborate tombs often mark their status. (Often with satellite pyramid complex) • Mid-Dyn..4: Vulture cap headdress and often holding ankh or w3s/w3d-sceptre. • Dyn.5: Uraeus cobra on brow of crown. QUEEN MOTHER: • vulture headdress VIZIER: • Highest official wearing the king’s seal around his neck. • DID NOT oversee military matters, trade, or mining ventures. • Dyn.1-4: - Son of the king (fewest titles in Dyn.4). • Dyn.5-6: - Not related to royal family. • Dyn.5-6: - Sometimes two viziers (N. & S. Egypt). - Memphite vizier had more prestige & larger tomb. - New title: “Overseer of the Royal Scribes” • Dyn.6: - Controlled all key administrative posts. - New title linking vizier to king’s pyramid. - Adopted title “Overseer of Upper Egypt” Dyn.5 Vizier Kai VIZIER: Titles: • “He-of-the-Curtain” → Screening king from admin. minutiae • “Judge and vizier” → Perhaps overseeing courts “Overseer of the 6 great courts” “Ov. of all the works of the king” → All building projects. “Ov. of the Scribes of the Royal Documents” → Secular & religious legal documents. “Ov. of the 2 Granaries” → Provisioning workers. “Ov. of the 2 Houses of the Treasury” → Taxation and financing projects. Other titles: “Hereditary prince”; “Count”; “Sole companion”; “Seal-bearer of the north”; “chamberlain”; sometimes “King’s son.” Dyn.5 Vizier Kai FEMALE VIZIER: Female Vizier Nebet: • Ranked below queen & king. • May date to Pepy I (or FIP?). Titles: “the vizier of Egypt” “Hereditary Princess” “Female companion of the King of Lower Egypt” “Countess” “Daughter of Geb” “Daughter of the Merhu Bull” “Daughter of Thoth” “Daughter of Horus” Note: Titles “daughter of” various gods is rare, even for queens. • Others argue that her position was purely “honorific” (like one Dyn.26 female vizier). • Married to a man called Khui. • Son called Idi NOMARCHS (provincial governors): Nomarchs 20 nomes in N. Egypt (Lower Egypt) 22 nomes in S. Egypt (Upper Egypt) Dyns.3-5: Nomarchs resided at the capital (Memphis). Late Dyns.5-6: Nomarchs residing in provinces (assisting vizier). Nomarchs gaining more influence in their nomes. Post-Dyn.6: Nomarchs became provincial rulers/kinglets. ROYAL PRINCESSES: Royal princesses: • Usually daughters of the king • Married to high officials, kings, etc. • Some = priestess of Hathor & Neith • None = priestess of a male god • Some = priestess for mortuary cult of grandfather king • Other titles Titular princesses: • Some commoners granted this title (e.g.,commoner marrying a prince?) High officials (“nobles”): • Served vizier(s) & pharaonic bureaucracy Rise through ranks & by birth-right. Broadly qualified High Officials: • Could carry out any duty required by king. E.g., Weni of Abydos officiated as a Judge, Army Commander, Expedition Leader, Supervisor of Engineering Works, Tax Collector. Specialized High Officials: • Specialized in specific careers. E.g., Harkhuf, “Seal-bearer of the God”, led many expeditions to Sudan (Nubia). • Some specialized officials got high promotions. E.g., Qar, a long-time judge, → vizier. Royal patronage: • Received honorific titles through status as courtiers, friendship with king, or royal blood. E.g. Ptahshepses, High Priest of Ptah, Controller of the affairs of all the Craftsmen married King Shepseskaf’s daughter. He received honorific titles: “Sole companion”, “Master of Secrets” (councillor), “One known to the king.” FEMALE COURTIERS: Female courtiers: • Married to middle to high-ranking officials. • Based at central court & provinces Titles: “She whom the king knows” “Sole Royal Ornament” “Royal Ornament” “Companion” Priestesses Provincial courtiers’ titles: “The wife of the god Min” “The attendant of Min” LOWER OFFICIALS: • Largest group in the bureaucracy. • Part-time employment mostly. • Honorific title sr (“magistrate”; “nobleman”): E.g., “Overseer of Property” (or “Steward”) for private landowners E.g., “Overseer” of minor departments for government or temples. E.g., “Overseer of the Storeroom” or other offices in Depts. Of the Treasury, Law, or Labour. Scribes: • All officials needed to read, write, and know mathematics. (LOWER) FEMALE COURTIERS: Female courtiers: Priestly post (part-time): • “Two mourners” accompany corpse in funeral (as Isis & Nephthys) • “Funerary priestess” (for friends & family) Official posts, including overseers of the following: • Physicians • Hairdressers • Manicurists • Stewards • Weavers • Singers • Dancers • Musicians Activities: • Women depicted baking, but lack the title “baker”. MICRO-SCALE: • Skilled CRAFTSMEN: crafts persons including mostly men and some women. • A broad range of crafts. FARMERS: • Backbone of Egyptian economy (e.g., food; wool & flax for textiles) • Small land-owners (OK?) to large land-owners with farm-workers. • Akhet: Flood season. • Peret: Planting & growing season. • Shemw: Summer harvesting. LOWEST CLASS: Merwt (“serfs”): • Non-landowning farmers (men & women) • Transferred with land sales. SLAVES: especially in New Kingdom. • POWs, retainers, criminals: - Domestic work: tutors, cooks, brewers, … - Estate workers: gardeners, field hands, … - Craftsmen: weavers, sandal-makers, - Hereditary slaves (children of slaves) • Self-enslavement (→ dependant): - Selling oneself/family to pay debt (LP) • Rights: - Own property, conduct transactions, - Receive food & clothing (for labour) • Liberation: - Freed by king, owner - Adopted by owner (i.e., son) - Marry owner’s daughter/son/etc. - Escape (pursued by owner/state) Stereotypes: New Kingdom symbols of foreigners in art. Libyan Nubian Asiatic Egyptian Old Kingdom: The lands beyond Egypt’s frontiers. BEDU: “He has been fighting ever since the time of Horus, He neither conquers, nor can he be conquered, He does not announce the day of fighting, But is like a thief whom society has expelled.” Old Kingdom official & “public” portrayals of smiting & dominating Asiatics, etc. Early Dynastic period: Dynasty 1 (3200-2890 BC): King Den. Smiting motif Dyn.3 Djoser Step Pyramid complex. • King’s statue standing on “9 bows” = symbolic subjugation of enemies of Egypt • Rekhyet birds in front of king = “subjects” “commoners” (protected by king) CASE STUDY: Prehistoric through Bronze Age and later Europe. (Late) Neolithic Europe: Southern region, focus ca.6000–3000 BC Elite burials (“chieftain”?): - A single interment of a 45-year old male. = very wealthy and probably a chieftain (or rep. a tribal society → chiefdom). - The burial lay in a late Neolithic cemetery at Varna on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria. - It dates to ca. 4000 BCE. - It had over 990 individual gold items (1,516 grammes) and various copper and flint weapons. (see Cunliffe 1994: 197) Neolithic Anatolia: 10,000–5,500 BC; Çatal Höyük 6400-5800 BC Architecture: i.e., tribal → chiefdom? • Çatal Höyük represents a proto-urban settlement containing blocks of houses placed mostly one against the other, with “shrines” contained within a larger adjacent structure. • None of the excavated buildings had a ground entry: all entered via rooftop. • This feature might be explained by: - Defense against potential attack; - Defense against high spring floods; - GM: better insulation in winter months (i.e., few cold exterior walls). - Enhanced socializing via rooftops. - Open courtyards did occur, but were enclosed by housing. • Mostly identical: i.e., more egalitarian Neolithic settlements: Ca.4000-2000 BCE Tribal societies (e.g., Britain): • Timber frame housing • Rectilinear housing common e.g., “log cabin”-style housing (4000-3000 BCE). • Circular huts are also known range of small to large structures (3300-2000+ BCE) • Much variance across Europe (see Celtic housing patterns). NOTE: somewhere between a tribal society en-route to a chiefdom. Neolithic populations in Prehistoric Europe: Ca.4000-2000 BCE • Clothes mainly hide garments • Jewellery = animal teeth and bone necklaces • Lifespan 35 years = males 30 years = females • Frequent occurrences of arthritis • Malnutrition evident Early Bronze Age: Ca.2000-1600+ BCE • Increasing social stratification with wealthy burials, etc. (e.g., chiefdoms & chieftains) Celtic Chieftain’s grave at Hochdorf • Late 6th cent. BC • Timber constructed inner chamber placed in outer timber-lined chamber. • Rocks filling the space between the inner & outer timber walls & roof. • The interior chamber yielded: -Bronze bed (with the body & items) -Bronze cauldron -Wooden wagon with iron sheathing -Weaponry -Containers -Textiles -Drinking horns, -Etc. Examples of rich funerary offerings: • Imported wine jars (amphorae) • Pottery kraters (food supply?) • Smaller pottery vessels (other liquids) • Bronze cauldrons • Bronze saucepan • Bronze ladle • Etc. Middle Minoan period: ca.2000-1525 BC Major MH-LH sites • The Middle Minoan period on Crete is represented by multiple city states, each of which is dominated by a massive stone and timber-built palace. • The rulers of each palace controlled their hinterland using a well-organized bureaucracy and written records. • Interactions between their hinterland, neighbouring palaces (city states), and foreign lands is apparent through the surviving materials and written records. • The power and wealth accumulated by these palaces is emphasized by their size, decoration, storerooms, contents, and regional & international relations. • Their competitive patronage of the arts Major centres & renown is attested by the widespread ‘Villa’ sites Other sites Minoan decoration of palaces in both Greece & foreign lands: Levant-Egypt Late Minoan phase of palace at Knossos Middle Minoan period: ca.2000-1525 BC Major MH-LH sites • The Middle Minoan period on Crete is represented by multiple city states, each of which is dominated by a massive stone and timber-built palace. • The rulers of each palace controlled their hinterland using a well-organized bureaucracy and written records. • Interactions between their hinterland, neighbouring palaces (city states), and foreign lands is apparent through the surviving materials and written records. • The power and wealth accumulated by these palaces is emphasized by their size, decoration, storerooms, contents, and regional & international relations. • Their competitive patronage of the arts Major centres & renown is attested by the widespread ‘Villa’ sites Other sites Minoan decoration of palaces in both Greece & foreign lands: Levant-Egypt Middle Minoan period: ca.2000-1525 BC Major palaces: • Knossos • Phaistos • Mallia • Khania Smaller palaces: • Katro Zakro / Zakros • Gournia • Etc. 150 x 150 m area = 22,500 sq.m Middle Minoan period: ca.2000-1525 BC Major palaces: • Knossos • Phaistos • Mallia • Khania Smaller palaces: • Katro Zakro / Zakros • Gournia • Etc. 14 x 27 m area = 378 sq.m Middle Minoan town plan: E.g., Gournia: • Palace: ruler-administration • Housing: elite to lesser • Public streets & alleys • Water & sewer drainage • Public court/plaza = market? • Etc. Middle Minoan period: ca.2000-1525 BC Private housing: • Example of an elite house in Mallia • Two storey housing with living quarters on the upper floor. • Stone and timber framing: i.e., earthquake-proofing. • Elite homes also contain decorated walls. Introduction to Archaeology: Renfrew & Bahn 2012 (6th ed.): Documentary: Ancient Greece. Complex state societies. Late Bronze Age = 1600 – 1150 BC: Early Dark Age Submycenaean Protogeometric Late Dark Age Early Geometric Middle Geometric = 1150 – 900 BC: Archaic Period Late Geometric = 750 – 490 BC: Classical Period = 490 – 323 BC : = 900 – 750 BC: Mycenaean city states Trojan war (1250-25 BC) Sea Peoples’ migrations → Mycenaeans destroyed Small chiefdoms Iron technology Dorian Greeks (1000 BC) Population increases New settlements & trade Major population growth Greeks → alphabet 1st Olympic games 776 BC City-states forming Colonization of West Lydians mint coins 600 BC Science & philosophy Classical style in architecture 480-479 battles against Persia Democracy in Athens 460s+ 399 BC Socrates executed Pylos: LH IIIB ca. 1300-1200 BC The megaron at Pylos: Fresco with one panel showing a Lyre player Mycenaean Tholos tomb: So-called “Treasury of Atreus” “Tomb of Agamemnon” = 13th cent. BC royal tomb at Mycenae Cretan lar nax coffins & Myc. Imitation. Athens: village → cultural centre • 800 BC = small villages here. • Persian wars: still small town; some buildings on acropolis. • 480+ BC: period of building Temple to Zeus, etc. (Built by Kimon → Perikles). Great Gate of Athens (acropolis) Later Roman Theater at Athens State/private housing: E.g., Olynthos large elite homes. Houses at Olynthos: 5th – 4th cent. BC 100 houses revealed built at one point, but modified individually. Mud brick walls Kitchen, bathroom, court, mosaic floors, bedrooms, etc.