Anthropologists and archaeologists often talk about "groups" of people. What do we mean by "groups"?
this is a slippery concept, more than it initially appears
even more slippery is how we can (or cannot) recognize them in the archaeological record
Two general categories of "groups", really different concepts
Residential groups
live together in the same physical area and feel associated with each other
almost, but not quite, the same concept as "corporate" groups, which are those that at least sometimes get together physically as one body
and sometimes may act as a single entity
as in defending the town against attackers
submitting to the rule of a single government
etc.
examples of residential or corporate groups:
family units
villages
neighborhoods
cities
nations (this might be pushing the margins of what is really "corporate" or "residential", but one could argue that nations do fit here)
Non-residential groups
These are categories of people who share common interests or conditions, but may not live in the same physical area and may not actually ever act as a coordinated group
even though their individual actions may tend to be similar to other members of the same group
men, women
Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus...
Republicans, Democrats, Greens...
age-sets (informal in our society, formal in some others)
professions or guilds
etc.
some groups may fit in both categories, depending on the circumstances
ethnic groups may be residential and/or corporate and/or neither
kin groups (people who recognize common ancestors and intermarriages) may or may not be residential, may or may not be corporate, may or may not have a significant effect on members' behavior
groups may also be nested as subdivisions of others, or may cross-cut each other
several residential groups (villages) may be subdivisions of one chiefdom
under some circumstances, the people act as villages, maybe even in opposition to other villages
under other circumstances, the same people may act as a unified chiefdom
to repel attackers, build a regional ceremonial center, etc.
groups may cross-cut each other
not a severe problem with residential groups, since they have physical boundaries on the ground
but an ethnic group or a political faction might have members in several towns, while other people in those same towns belong to different ethnic groups or factions.
how might we recognized "groups" archaeologically?
residential groups should not be too hard, given enough excavation
we should be able to identify a bunch of houses in a bounded area, which probably constitutes a residential group of some sort
but how can you tell that people at a bunch of sites considered themselves to be members of the same chiefdom (a corporate group), or the same ethnicity?
shared artifact styles may help, but there may be many different interpretations of why a bunch of sites have, say, the same pottery style
bioarchaeology can help, but not solve, this problem
if people at a bunch of sites are physically closely related, they must be intermarrying (or did so recently)
which suggests a residential and/or corporate group identity
but not all groups necessarily exchange marriage partners internally; there may be barriers to marriage across class, ethnic, or other subdivisions
and some distinct groups, as defined by ethnicity, residence, government, etc. may exchange marriage partners frequently
Within groups, individuals will fall into many subcategories or "statuses"
defined along many different axes
age, sex, family relationships
wealth
rank
education
etc.
these cross-cut each other, so that each individual has a combination of statuses according to each of many different axes (age, sex, rank, wealth, etc.)
the total combination of all these statuses is sometimes called one's "social persona"
such as someone who is young, male, well-educated, economically middle-class, etc.
often people focus on a single axis of generalized social standing, from "low status" to "high status", based on a vague conglomeration of wealth, power, and prestige
this is often useful, but is probably almost always a severe oversimplification
so we should use concepts of "high status", "low status", etc. as analytical tools, but not take them as literal representations of real social positions in the past
which were undoubtedly more complex
ways in which social statuses are assigned:
ascribed vs. achieved status
ascribed status: a status one is born into, by virtue of one's parents
achieved status: a status that one acquires through one's actions, character, luck, etc. during one's life
kinds of societies according to the distribution of statuses
egalitarian society: relatively equal access to resources and power
ranked society: unequal access to resources and power.
Sometimes "ranked" is used specifically to mean that unequal statuses are by birth (ascribed)
hierarchical society: unequal access to resources and power, emphasizing the position of some people above others
often visualized as a triangular arrangement with a small, high-status group at the top, and more and more people in each "stratum" as you go down the hierarchy
how might we recognize "statuses" in the archaeological record?
different sizes and qualities of residential architecture
bigger and finer residences were presumably occupied by people of generally higher status
which might be wealth, inherited rank, prestige, etc.
different kinds of materials in household garbage should reflect status
people who ate more prized kinds of foods or had fancier pottery were presumably of generally higher status
burials
probably the most widely used kind of evidence about status
useful because a burial contains one individual with objects specifically associated with that person
with decent preservation, we can tell the age and sex of the individual from the physical remains of the body
and maybe some things about his or her diet, activities, health, injuries, descent from one or another population, etc.
versus architecture and midden evidence, which cannot usually be connected to a specific person of known sex, age, condition, etc.
one specific claim: rich burials of infants and children suggest ascribed, rather than achieved, status
that is, kids have not had time to achieve much
their burials reflect inherited social personae
so if they are lavishly buried, status must be inherited
is this necessarily always true?
The simple view: burials reflect the social persona of the deceased in life, and "populations" of burials reflect the social organization of the society in which the people lived
generally true at some level
but not completely, not always
But burials are not a simple as they might seem
the objects in a burial are placed there by the survivors, not by the deceased
so they may have a lot to do with the impressions that the survivors want to make on others
their own agendas, rather than the deceased person's actual life
they may or may not be things that the person actually used in life
they may be things made specifically for burials, like Egyptian copper cutouts representing objects, rather than the objects themselves
they may be selected based on ideals, rather than reality
in our society, one should be buried in formal dress, even if one almost never wore it in life
and based on ideas of the supernatural, rather than daily life
people are never buried with their televisions, video games, or skis, even if those were very important in their lives
because those are seen as inappropriate for burial ceremonies
and even if we get all that right, grave goods presumably reflect much or all of the deceased's social persona
that is, they are influenced by a combination of the person's age, sex, ancestry, personal relationships in life, activities or specializations, group memberships, etc.
how can we separate all these things out?
why do we want to?
because to understand a society, we want to understand all these different, cross-cutting groups and status systems
for example, to understand 19th century England, you would need to understand several systems:
aristocracy (descent-based)
wealth (partly achieved through commercial activities)
the farming sector, as opposed to the manufacturing sector, as opposed to the merchant sector
gender relations
etc.
one approach: statistical analyses of burials
for simple patterns, just divide the burials according to one category and compare the other variables
divide by sex; are certain goods found more with males than females?
divide by age categories (infant, child, young adult, old adult) and compare goods found with each
this is fine in simple societies in which only a few variables like age and sex account for most of the variation
but when there are more different cross-cutting status systems, the patterns may become too confusing to detect
imagine a society in which males are generally buried with more goods than females
but both males and females may be shamans, which might increase the wealth of goods in their burials
and the wealth of both males and females might be influenced by the family they were born into
the net result is a wide, overlapping range of wealth in burials; any one of these patterns may be very hard to detect
for these complex cases: fancy statistical techniques like principal component analysis, cluster analysis, or discriminant analysis
these essentially plot a large number of variables in multidimensional space, then "rotate" the "view" of the data to find "angles" that most clearly show clusters
this helps in discovering variables that tend to covary
for example, in a cemetery population I analyzed:
the main differences in overall quantities of goods were clearly explained by dividing the burials by age and sex
subadults had generally fewer grave goods than adults
with one exception
but does one rich child burial necessarily imply ascribed status?
males generally had more grave goods than females
no particular items were associated with either sex
right there we have a clue about gender roles and ideology in this society
maybe the genders were not too drastically different in their activities
but beyond that, there was a broad tendency for some burials of adults to contain multiple different plant and animal foods
versus others that contained fewer or none
and a broad tendency for other burials of adults to contain a larger number and variety of textile items
versus others that contained fewer
but the food-rich and textile-rich burials were not necessarily the same burials
this suggests that there may have been some social role associated with food production, versus a different one more associated with textile use
both were found mostly, but not only, with males
and mostly, but not only, with individuals of higher status (more goods overall)
maybe suggesting that some males owed their status more to production, and others more to something involving fancier dress and display, like diplomacy, politics, ritual, trade...?
but no other clusters that might suggest craft specialists, like potters versus basket weavers
maybe such specialization did not exist
or it did not play a major role in one's social persona
or it was not considered appropriate to indicate in a burial
as we have often seen, this analysis provides some answers, but even more it provides information on which to base further hypotheses
answer: not very marked status differences
answer: apparently a simple society in which most roles were determined by age and sex
hypotheses: little specialization?
hypotheses: two routes to higher adult status, one based on food production, and another based on social interactions like politics or trade?
Examples from Thomas
Peebles and Kus analysis of Moundville burials
a good, now-standard approach that found variations in the quantity and nature of grave goods
and inferred social organization from it
the richest burials in special locations, like in burial mounds, had esoteric items like copper axes and ornaments, pigments, beads, etc.
these included children
were interpeted as an upper stratum of society in which status was largely inherited
people buried away from these monuments had grave goods that mostly reflected age and sex
thus the older adults had more and nicer goods
these are interpreted as a commoner stratum of society, in which status was achieved during one's lifetime
McGuire Hohokam example
a more post-processual, even Marxist, example
McGuire notes that Hohokam (725-1100) housing looks very uniform
but burials are extremely variable, up to very rich ones with esoteric, fancy goods
he argues that this apparent contradiction indicates a tension in society between an egalitarian ideal and real differences in personal standing that were expressed in burials
he says we should not see burials as simply reflecting social organization (as Peebles and Kus supposedly did), but as part of the constant negotiation of relationships in a society: a manipulated tool in social organization, not a simple reflection of it
Sex and gender
sex: biological male vs. female
gender: the social categories constructed to accommodate variations in sex and associated behaviors
in some societies, gender closely parallels sex
with alternatives being suppressed or not considered to be distinctly different
others have "third" genders, which may be sexually neutral, homosexual, or other combinations
these roles have many components that are not biologically connected to sex
acceptable forms of dress, ways of speaking, etc.
acceptable jobs
roles such as being shamans, handling the dead, or other socially-charged tasks are sometimes restricted to certain genders, sometimes "third" genders
gender in archaeology
we should attempt to reconstruct, not assume, gender roles and ideologies in the past
research questions:
what different kinds of gender roles and ideologies have existed at different times and places
that is, what is the range of possibilities that humans have tried out?
how and when did our own (or other modern) society's gender roles and ideologies arise?
what roles have gender systems played in shaping other aspects of prehistory and the evolution of societies?
in practice (and in Thomas), much of this work has emphasized debunking assumptions
replacing them with rigorously supported alternatives has been much harder
typical: ridiculing old museum displays, textbooks, and popular culture documentaries
this has current political value
it denies that any one gender system (particularly one that is disadvantageous for females) is ancient, inherent, "right", or unchangeable
unfortunately, really sound gender archaeology will be extremely difficult, since gender categories are in people's heads and not necessarily material in any obvious way
a great but maybe unachievable goal
Thomas points out some problems with "sexing" skeletons as an example of how the evidence is not as objective as it appears
At Pecos pueblo, many supposed female skeletons are now considered male
Machu Picchu was long considered a city of women, even "virgins of the sun", based on inaccurate sexing of many burials when they were first excavated
recent work has shown a normal population with roughly equal numbers of males and females
this is basically a technical problem that can be resolved
Thomas also mentions work on sexing coprolites - wow! That opens up tremendous possibilities of looking at diet, use of medicinal or ritual plants, parasites and health status, etc. by sex
Example of gender issues in archaeology: sex roles and ideology at Çatal Hüyük
In Anatolia (Turkey), about 7400 - 6400 BC, calibrated
a neolithic town, densely packed rectangular rooms something like a southwestern pueblo