Of Rocks and Dirt: Debates Around Archaeological Notions of Site (Sean & Beatrice)

We had some difficulty deciding on a topic for this week’s co-written blog assignment. We are both archaeologists with partially overlapping backgrounds, having both worked at Sustainable Archaeology at McMaster Innovation Park, and for the Stelida Naxos Archaeological Project. We also have very similar views on many aspects of our field. We do, however, have very different specializations, Beatrice in soil chemistry and Sean in lithic studies. We hope that this area of contention allowed us to combine our voices in a way that allowed for distinction, while exploring the petal where our bedraggled daisies intertwine.

Introduction: Defining an Archaeological Site

In both of our experiences, archaeology has propelled us to become aware of a pressing need for a better way to identify and define archaeological sites, or “sites”. Sean’s knowledge of the techno-typological components of the chipped stone assemblages that many sites have been defined upon, and Beatrice’s involvement with attempting to identify potential sites based on chemical traces left in soils mesh well together, and both have the potential to contribute to these arguments. However, our differing approaches and knowledge allow us to explore this topic from different vantage points. Of particular interest are the different ways we define sites and challenge traditional perspectives.

Lithics for site prospection

Lithics have been used to define sites pretty much since the definitions of sites began. It is easy to understand why they have been relied upon so much, because they’re clearly the quickest and most reliable way to identify human presence. Eeeeeaaaasy now, I’m not offending any of the other material types (obviously this is Sean talking), I’m just saying that stone is one of the only things in the archaeological record that can pretty much last forever. Almost everything else does not last after a certain period of time barring unique preservation conditions. This loss of material culture is so limiting that the vast majority of our archaeological heritage is defined by the discovery of all manner of stone tools. I think this is still true for much of archaeology today. However, I also believe that we are at a point in the global archaeological trajectory (theoretical and methodological) where we can open things up a little to include wider definitions beyond the simple, “there are more than 10 flakes in this unit, so now we can officially call this a site”.

Alternative methods of site prospection

This point in the archaeological trajectory where wider definitions have been sought has opened up the potential to use alternative methods of site prospection. Some methods of geophysical survey have been fundamental in detecting sites based on features or landscape anomalies (Gaffney, 2008). However, these methods still rely on sites being defined by built environments. Like lithics, this can privilege physical evidence of particular ways of being on the landscape. I’ve tried to promote soil chemistry as a method of gaining greater insight into larger scopes of activity that may or may not involve stone tools, ceramics, or built environments. Multi-element analysis methods like XRF can define sites in more liberal ways and areas where chemical evidence indicates human activity. Studies have shown that this may extend beyond the built environment and highlight activities in structurally empty plaza areas or extend beyond built boundaries (Birch, 2016). To allow for this level of interpretation, suites of chemicals have been associated with specific activities such as food processing or lithic manufacturing. Though these new methods seem to promise a more complete picture of past activities, they aren’t without their challenges and limitations.

Challenges

Some of the challenges to face are fairly obvious, as they have plagued archaeologists for generations. Many materials simply do not preserve in most soils, and thus is why lithics have been relied upon so heavily. However, with new advances in soil sciences and instruments to measure with precision the minute characteristics that could indicate human presence there are possibilities that were not open to these previous generations. The major challenges will be to make this technology easily accessible, affordable, and the resulting data standardized across labs.  This also includes necessary advancements towards greater efficiency and less processing time for methods like soil chemical analysis. Other challenges will include matching our social theories of being with material records of existence. Given the clarity of these problems when considering both of our research programs, we are confident that addressing these problems will propel current archaeological projects.

Possibilities for Collaboration: Academic Research Problems

We can both find excitement in collaboration between lithics and soil chemistry. The efficiency and substantive research backing of lithic analysis provides a wonderful starting point when considering surface collections or excavations material. Lithics are always indicative of human activity and their analysis is reasonably efficient. Soil chemical analysis on the other hand is fraught with interpretation concerns. Not only is it time consuming, but anthropogenic chemical signatures must be separated from the background lithology of the area. Because theses methods address different scales and require different time investments, they can pair well under a single research banner. When combined, these methods can collectively provide more dynamic notions of where sites can be located or what (or even if) site boundaries actually exist. Despite many studies existing independently, the discussions we shared enforced our enthusiasm for combining methods to answer broader anthropological questions concerning behaviour. This potential for collaboration can even lead into further multi-disciplinary projects.

Potential for Public Archaeology in Site Definition

The issue of site identification has the potential to be benefitted by a campaign to promote public archaeology, or at least to increase the awareness of the public when it comes to picking up artifacts from the ground. Let’s face it, people have always done it, and people will always do it, so instead of telling them not to and having them ignore us completely, we should create platforms that allow people to pinpoint with GPS where they found certain artifacts, and perhaps they could let us look at those artifacts, and better yet they could also collect a soil sample from the area directly associated with the artifacts. What comes to mind is an app for mobile devices that could allow people to do this, and it automatically gets reported to the closest archaeological department for further investigation. I think something like this might exist already.

At the very least this could provide a map of artifacts/”sites” that would not be possible without the aid of the public. The stigma attached to the public ‘desecration’ of archaeological material must be washed away, because we will not be able to stop it. We might as well embrace it, and get as much data out of it as possible, because it would be lost otherwise. In the best case scenario, the soils would contain appropriate levels of phosphorus, potassium, or calcium to indicate past human presence, and a suitable database could be built up over time that would help legitimize the capabilities of these new applications in soil sciences so they can eventually be used to define sites where the reliance on stone tools is not possible (many occupied “sites” might not have any stone at all, or not enough stone, or the stone doesn’t tell any kind of story).

Conclusion

The exercise of discussing our research and exploring areas of agreement or contention was a useful one. We found many areas of overlap and significant potential for collaboration. What was most interesting was that our collaboration was catalyzed by discussions of sites, human activity, and the use of space. These anthropological questions of behaviour cross cut each of the anthropological sub-disciplines in one way or another. If anything has come out of this experience, it is understanding the importance of stepping back and finding common ground in broader questions. When the intersecting petal of your bedraggled daisy is found, collaborations suddenly seem much more manageable.


References

Birch, Jennifer. 2016. Interpreting Iroquoian site structure through geophysical prospection and soil chemistry: Insights from a coalescent community in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Archaeological Science. Reports: 102-111.
Gaffney, C. 2008. Detecting Trends in the Prediction of the Buried Past: A Review of Geophysical Techniques in Archaeology. Archaeometry. 50.2: 313-336.

A Journey with Kenneth Sassaman

This week’s task takes a departure from written work and instead considers the content, structure, and style of a presentation. To accomplish this task, I’ve decided to compare two back to back lectures given by Kenneth Sassaman at the University of Colorado in 2014. Kenneth Sassaman is an Archaeology professor at the University of Florida who specialized in coastal landscapes and Archaic/Woodland archaeology. These lectures discuss his work in the American Southeast with reference to his notions of temporality, futurescapes, and responses to climate change. The two lectures were directed at the same audience and delivered on consecutive days. Given this structure, I though it would be inappropriate to discuss one without reference to the other.

In this blog post, I’d like to outline the structure and content of Sassaman’s lectures while exploring why, in spite of adopting different styles, both lectures work. As I’ve begun my research on landscapes and hunter-gatherers, Sassaman’s work has come to stand out as an example of imaginative theoretically driven hunter-gatherer research. I’ve also become enamoured by time theory. Driven by my own struggles to grasp large time periods, I’ve found utility and pleasure in working through concepts including time perspectivism, non-linear time, palimpsests, and scale. Listening to Sassaman’s two talks brought together many of the ideas I’ve always found fascinating including hunter-gatherers, deep time, past bodies, and climate change policy. In the remainder of my blog post I’d like to discuss the elements that added to my enjoyment along with the areas where improvements might have been made.

Structure

Sassaman’s talks began with an outline of purpose. He explained that in his first talk he’d be addressing his theoretical framework by drawing on phenomenology, public possibilities and the notion of the inevitable future. In his second talk, he would change gears and explore archaeological case studies from his own research. Sassaman explained that his first talk would begin with a discussion of what he terms ‘sensual archaeology’, something influenced by the concept of bodies touted in phenomenology. In turn, this would be connected to explorations of social experience, social bodies, and place-based entities. Despite presenting a complex theoretical framework. Sassaman’s ability to clearly sign post the path his talk would take allowed me to follow along with his argument. I believe that, without this clarity, much of the nuance in the talk would have been difficult to connect to Sassaman’s larger arguments.

The structure of Sassaman’s second talk was easier to follow as it simply explored how Poverty Point, his Southeastern Gulf archaeological survey, and select excavated shell middens illustrated his previously presented theoretical perspective. He also attempted to illustrate the parallels between climate adaptations in these dynamic landscapes and the climate adaptations that await us in the present and near future. This allows for an acknowledgement of ingenious indigenous ways of knowing and being while promoting a longer-term perspectives towards current problems.

I found it interesting that Sassaman chose to split his lectures this way. Pragmatically, with each talk lasting about an hour, the amount of content might have been difficult to cover in a single manageable talk. However, I also feel as though each talk was pitched differently. Though each lecture aimed to illustrate the value of hunter-gatherer studies to modern climate challenges and public policy, one argued via theory while the other argued via practice. The first lecture was structured in a complex fashion that was aimed at challenging and stimulating those with an interest in theory. Meanwhile, the second, simply structured lecture, was aimed at satisfying those with a desire for data. The second talk could have been observed independently as it did not rely on any information disseminated in the first talk. However, for individuals present at both lectures, they were complementary with little repetition. This is some of the subtlest yet brilliant code switching I’ve seen. I found that Sassaman’s first talk excited me theoretically while his second was able to make me excited about his projects and the archaeology of the Southeast. In each case, the talk was pitched at slightly different, albeit not mutually exclusive, academic audiences.

Style

Though I found the structure and content of Sassaman’s talks to be phenomenal, I found the style of his first talk to be somewhat problematic. Sassaman’s first talk was read from a written script. After apologizing for the script, Sassaman noted that it was necessary to properly convey the complex theoretical journey of the talk. Since he was reading from the script, Sassaman was also very stationary for the talk. He stood, positioned behind a podium, glancing up towards the audience and over towards his slides periodically. He also spoke at a slower calculated speed that was focused on reading clearly rather than dynamically. This caused me to have to rewind the lecture a few times as I became distracted. I also found that many of the images associated with this lecture weren’t particularly necessary. Some images, like the maps and landscapes were helpful. However, others, like road signs, sunsets, clocks, and book covers felt like filler. The design of the slides was also uninspiring as most were simply photographs placed on slides without title or transition. Overall, I would have also liked to see a typed road-map at the beginning of the talk. Though Sassaman clearly laid out his talk in speech, it might have been nice to see a visual counterpart.

I preferred the style of Sassaman’s second talk. Here each of his slides consisted on an image accompanied by brief bullet points. When I create a presentation, I often worry that text on my slides is distracting. However, I found that, since Sassaman paraphrased each point before elaborating, the text was a benefit and not a hindrance. Furthermore, speaking directly to his slides allowed Sassaman to stand next to the projector and motion dynamically towards what he was addressing. His more conversational and varied tone was also more engaging. Though I noticed that the pace had increased noticeably from the first talk, I felt as though the tone and excitement it conveyed added to my engagement.  Immediately, I felt as though there was more room for conversation (some members of the audience did interject) than there was when Sassaman read a script. In this script-less talk, I also felt as though Sassaman was more confident in his material as he was seemingly able to adapt his talk as the conversation progressed.

Conclusions

It was interesting to review two closely associated talks delivered by the same presenter. I found it fascinating how widely the style varied between the talks. I was left wondering if the content of a talk naturally necessitates different forms. Despite my critiques, I found that both forms worked. I found that the content and structure of both lectures was well planned and executed. I had never thought about how different forms of talks may benefit both the audience and the presenter. In this case I think audiences benefitted from differently structured arguments in each talk. Meanwhile, I feel as though Sassaman was able to work through new ideas more efficiently using his first format. Overall, these talks inspired me to think of my own research differently. If anything, Sassaman’s conviction that hunter-gatherer archaeology has a contribution to make to modern policy encouraged me to explore how my own elevator conversations might have a social “so-what?” factor.


References

Dr. Kenneth Sassaman’s talk “The Temporality of Ancient Experience, Archaeological Practice, and Modern Living in the Human Challenges of Global Climate Change”. Presented at the University of Colorado: January 24th 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXYBa8dTc-w

Dr. Kenneth Sassaman’s talk “Futurescapes of the Late Archaic: How Humans Dealt with Sea-Level Rise in the Long Term”. Presented at the University of Colorado, January 25th 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hkwHj8KLHY

Hunter-Gatherer Ritual, Mobility, Settlements- Reviews of Very Different Academic Articles

My task for this week’s blog post is to evaluate two academic articles: one that I found lacking and one that I thought succeeded. I’ve selected Paul Mellar’s “Moonshine Over Starr Carr: Post-Processualism, Mesolithic Myths, and Archaeological Realities” as the article I would like to critique and William Lovis, Randolf Donahue, and Margaret Holtman’s article “Long-Distance Logistic Mobility as an Organizing Principle among Northern Hunter-Gatherers: A Great Lakes Middle Holocene Settlement System” as the article I will celebrate. I selected these articles because they both discuss significant debates concerning Mesolithic/Archaic hunter-gatherers with preference for more parsimonious, pragmatic, and functional perspectives. Mellar’s article casts doubt on some of the ritualized narratives that have been suggested for the famed site of Starr Carr in England while Lovis, Donahue and Holtman adopt a Binfordian approach to characterizing movement and explaining the archaeological record of Middle Archaic peoples. I can’t say that I totally agree with the theoretical perspectives of either authors here. I am currently pursuing more non-site, phenomenological perspectives in my research. However, I found that the content, organization, and writing styles of these articles influenced my enjoyment and engagement. Both articles, despite my like or dislike, have contributed to my understanding of hunter-gatherer activity.

A Not Entirely Pleasant Moonlit Stroll

In this article, Mellar tackles presumptions of ritual associated with the well-preserved antlers and artefacts at the English Mesolithic site of Starr Carr. This article is best characterized as a rebuttal to post-processual scholars such as Chatterton, who have argued for highly ritualized deposition of antler points in waterlogged areas of the site. Mellar argues that simpler, functional interpretations exist for the clusters of seemingly high density artefact deposits. This argument is logically presented. However, the structure, style, and supporting content of this paper rendered my reading experience less than ideal.

Structure

Mellar’s paper contained too many elements of a mystery novel for my liking. He often alludes to conclusions the reader will be able to draw later in the piece. This became rather frustrating as some of the points were not explicitly addressed and instead left for the reader to interpret. Simply claiming that a perspective will “become clear” left me scrambling to fill in the details and draw conclusions. Though I agree that intellectual engagement is necessary when reading papers, I don’t think that by obscuring their perspective, an author detracts from rather than adding to intellectual discourse. I also found that the sub-headings beyond the introduction and conclusion were not particularly helpful. In this article, each sub-heading represented the flaws Mellar found in ritual interpretation. However, there was no indication of what the flaws may be prior to the subheadings. Furthermore, I am still unclear as the logical flow from one concern to another. Though Mellar’s argument seems founded, I would have appreciated more direction and explanation in the introduction to the paper.

Style

This paper opened with establishing Mellar’s authority in very explicit terms. Though I believe that it is important for authors to situate themselves intellectually, I find it a bit excessive for Mellar to tout his occupation of “the office adjacent to Ian Hodder” while also listing the numerous students he has supervised. This, coupled with bracketed asides such as “(self-styled)” convey a self-assured attitude that I found somewhat off-putting. I’m not arguing that Mellar is not a renowned authority. However, Mellar’s chosen style seemed to lord his intellectual superiority over the reader in such a way that I found distanced himself and his work. I did find that despite a palpable sense of attitude and consistent use of pointed descriptors, Mellar’s writing remained clear.

Content

Finally, I was frustrated by the amount of re-hashed content in this paper. Since it functions as a rebuttal to another theoretical perspective, I would have liked to see fewer references to Mellar and Dark’s 1998 co-edited volume. In many instances, Mellar relies on the evidence and arguments he has previously published without adding any new data or perspectives. This left me believing that if I desired a more detailed account of his position, I need only read Mellar’s 1998 publication. I found this qualm of mine particularly interesting as I have never had an issue with author’s self citing before. However, I feel as though this article, though it presented a well reasoned argument didn’t present anything new. Particularly in research or review papers, I am interested in the appropriate balance between novel ideas and reiteration of important research.

Finally, I found that Mellar’s paper took a staunchly functional stance. I was also frustrated by his acknowledgement that past experience likely lies between his perspective and the post-processual perspective he so strongly combats. I would have liked to see him explore new research avenues that explore this melding of ritual and function rather than simply acknowledging it without discussion. If this paper had gone in this direction, I believe I would have found it more inspirational.

A Well Marked Trek Through Archaic Michigan

In this article, Lovis, Donahue and Holtman apply Binford’s definition of logistic mobility to explain the spare representation of Middle Archaic sites in Michigan State. This article was particularly useful to me as it deals with the time period I am investigating in a region with very similar archaeology to Southern Ontario. Though this article became dry at times, it clearly conveyed its findings and perspectives while supporting its assertions with detailed examples. Though not particularly inspired, I appreciated the clarity and substantive content of this paper.

Structure

This paper clearly lays out the premises of logistic mobility and links processes of logistic mobility to limited residential sites and more dynamic landscape use. The sub-headings clearly illustrate the environmental, ethnographic, and archaeological prongs of the argument. I found this structure somewhat formulaic. However, it was clear and easy to follow.

Style

This paper is written in a rather impersonal way. This provide clarity as all statements served as support for articulated arguments. This contrasted Mellar’s paper, where statements often reflected the author’s perspective and were not necessarily supported within the text. This style was not particularly engaging. However, I find myself returning to the detailed writing for information. I appreciated how each author contributed their expertise in paleo-environmental reconstruction, ethnographic study, and British Mesolithic archaeology to the paper. However, the impersonal tone seamlessly blends the contributions of each author.

Content

The content of this paper is where I find its strength. The examples presented include sufficient background and contextual information for readers with limited familiarity in Archaic Michigan archaeology. The arguments are also presented in a large to small sequence gradually increasing in detail as readers become more familiar with the sparse archaeological record. It was nice to find an article that explicitly adopted a Binfordian concept and applied it with detail and nuance. Though I do not employ a Binfordian perspective myself, I often I find references to Binford without sufficient exploration of his ideas. It was refreshing to find such a well executed alternate perspective. The theoretical examples employed in this article were all well developed and expanded upon. Though other articles mention multiple theorists and works, there are occasions where they do not elaborate on their relevance or provide specific context. Thankfully, this was a fault that I did not find in this article. Despite a potentially predictable style, the content of this piece redeems it- and then some.

Conclusions

Going through this exercise I found that I began to question what were initially strong opinions. However, I think this speaks to the experience and accomplishments of the academics I discussed in this post. Where I had initially seen “failure” or “brilliance”, I began to see conscious choices and individual style. I am inspired by the security of both styles presented here. However, I would argue that Lovis, Donahue, and Holtman’s style, albeit less surprising, was well executed piece that conveyed information in a clearer way than Mellar’s riskier narrative style.

References

Lovis, William A., Donahue, Randolph E., and Margaret B. Holtman. 2005. Long-Distance Logistic Mobility as an Organizing Principle among Northern Hunter-Gatherers: A Great Lakes Middle Holocene Settlement System. American Antiquity. 70.4: 669-693.

Mellar, Paul. 2009. Moonshine Over Starr Carr: Post-Processualism, Mesolithic Myths, and Archaeological Realities. Antiquity. 83: 502-517.

 

Three Academic Voices

This blog post will contain evaluations of three anthropological journal articles. My goal here was to explore the writing styles employed in light of their intended audiences. I attempted to select very different articles that still somehow related to either my interests in soil chemistry or hunter-gatherer landscape use. I have ended up with an eclectic combination of articles from Antiquity, Current Anthropology, and the Journal of Archaeological Science. I found that this exercise led me to read differently. Generally, I read for content, focusing exclusively on what the author(s) intend to convey. However, this exercise got me to consider the reasons for particular formats, inclusions, exclusions, or vocabulary that extend beyond conveying content. I was surprised by how integral ‘hearing’ the author’s voice was to my enjoyment of their work. I hope this post will illuminate elements favoured by different journals while evaluating the writing elements that make each article either work well or work to read.


Fleisher, Jeffrey and Federica Sulas. 2015. Deciphering public spaces in urban contexts: geophysical survey, multi-element soil analysis, and artifact distributions at the 15th-16th century AD Swahili settlement of Songo Mnara, Tanzania. Journal of Archaeological Science. 55:55-70.

I selected this article as a representation of many of the articles I consider in the course of my research into methods in archaeological soil chemistry. Though I’m investigating a different context, the multi-element ICP-MS investigation here is representative of many other multi-element studies.

Skeleton & Summary:

  1. Introduction
    • The anthropological question: defining an open space and establishing their relevance to past social organization, experiences, and domestic activities
  2. Methods
    • Geophysical surveys
    • Geochemical testing
    • The benefits to multi-pronged investigations
  3. Project Details
    • Swahili culture-history & general understanding of urban spaces
    • Site details: Songo Mnara
    • Project sampling strategy
  4. Results
    • Detailed maps and explanations of chemical variability and
  5. Discussion
    • Need for further expansion and testing
    • Importance of open spaces in urban contexts

Evaluation of Writing Style:

This paper was published in a journal that is geared towards archaeological scientists. Reading through many of the articles and looking at citations I don’t think these articles are meant for a wider audience. The sheer volume of papers published annually coupled with the incredible specificity of each article really suggests a specialized audience. I’ve often found these types of papers incredibly dense and difficult to get through. The purposeful use of the passive voice, coupled with long strings of technical details make it easy to lose your place. Despite these flaws, I find that this scientific style conveys objectivity and authority.

This paper also flows very predictably. The movement from background to methods, to results, to discussion makes it easy to locate the elements of information that may be pertinent to your investigation. I’ve found this incredibly useful when, like in this case, I am more concerned with the methods than the context. In this article, I particularly appreciated the photographs, graphs, and maps. The maps allowed me to appreciate the density and complexity of Swahili urban space while the graphs made complex data digestible. Though this style isn’t my favourite for interest or readability, it does what is intended and contains all the necessary pieces in a predictable order.


Davies, P., Robb, John G. and Dave Ladbrook. 2005. Woodland clearance in the Mesolithic: the social aspects. Antiquity. 79: 280-288.

I selected this article based on my interest in hunter-gatherer life ways. I am particularly interested in questions of mobility and landscape interaction. This article nicely addresses both issues through the topic of forest clearances.

Skeleton & Summary:

  1. Introduction: Clearings and food procurement
    • Addressing the issues of woodland clearances during the British Mesolithic (pre-agriculture hunter-gatherers)
    • Tackling the conflation between hunter-gatherers and subsistence
  2. Where is the sociality?
    • Addressing the lack of social narratives in Mesolithic research (Mesolithic people have simply been cast as subsistence focused and completely in-tune with nature)
  3. Alternative Narratives
    • Wilderness and Fear: Meaningful places as protection from the anxiety of the unknown
    • Paths and Clearings: understanding social meaning and memory in mobile populations
  4. Implications of Alternative Narratives in the Land Clearings Debate
    • Regardless of the degree to which land clearings are anthropogenic, they could have held more meaning then simply those associated with food procurement
  5. Future Directions
    • Land clearings should be considered as monuments rather than tools in future research

Evaluation of Writing Style:

I was intrigued by this piece’s style. The first-person voice (we) only enters the writing at select points, however the authors’ voice and perspective is clear throughout. Of all the articles, I am evaluating this week, this one was by far the easiest to read. From the central question “how did Mesolithic people regard the wilderness” to the focus around the singular issue of woodland clearing, this paper’s scope was easily digestible. I think this was important because it allowed for a detailed and creative investigation in a short paper. Focusing the paper on a suggestion and imaging possibilities also opens space for further research as dialogues. Unlike the Journal of Archaeological Science papers, Davies, Robb and Ladbrook’s goal was not to disseminate findings, but to encourage research.

Perhaps the more general audience of Antiquity contributed to the accessible style of this article. However, the broader anthropological and theoretical references still allude to the indented audience of academic anthropologists. In spite of this, I enjoyed the way in which references augmented the reading without rendering the article’s ideas inaccessible to those unfamiliar with Tuan or Tilley. Overall, I enjoyed the open ended flow of ideas in this paper and the clear creative voice that was maintained throughout.


Holliday, Vance T. and David J. Meltzer. 2010. The 12.9-ka ET Impact Hypothesis and North American Paleoindians. Current Anthropology. 51.5: 575-607.

I selected this article in order to have an opportunity to explore response papers. Though this paper deals broadly with hunter-gatherers, deep time, and discontinuous archaeological records, it isn’t exactly in my area of research. This article captured my attention while browsing through Current Anthropology because of its clear response format coupled with the capacity for conversation afforded by the journal’s format.

Skeleton & Summary:

  1. Establishing the extraterrestrial claim (Firestone et. al, 2007).
    • This section served as a hook. Many people have heard of the claim that a meteor (or other extra-terrestrial object) wiped out the North American Clovis people. Opening by discussing this claim draws readers into the debate and invites them to challenge popular conceptions.
  2. Refuting/ Challenging the ET claim
    • Changes in behavior (may not be as drastic as previously assumed)
    • Population discontinuities/ sharp declines (are not supported in all contexts)
    • Stratigraphy and Dating (do not clearly connect different areas)
    • Direct evidence for the ET event (could represent other natural events)
  3. Discussion & Conclusion
    • Acted primarily as a summary and called for additional investigation

Evaluation of Writing Style:

This article’s hook really worked for me. It isn’t every day that a popular conversation neatly meshes with your research interests. I was excited to find an article that took advantage of the opportunity. The idea of an extra-terrestrial impact alludes to the extinction of the dinosaurs and adds interest and intrigue to Younger Dryas and Paleoindian research. This article had a very simple structure and was wholly focused on refuting Firestone’s claims. In this case, the intended audience was Firestone et. al along with the proponents of his perspectives. This made for a clearly structured article that refutes each line of evidence in a systematic fashion. Though this became rather predictable, the authors’ voice throughout placed opinions and assertions in their place.

Finally, this article was of added interest given the Current Anthropology format. Like the review articles we looked at last week, Current Anthropology synthesizes the current perspectives on a given issue. However, I prefer this format as authors argue for the perspectives they hold rather than present the leading perspectives somewhat objectively. In many ways, this article was not only intended for Firestone, but also directed at the community of academics that study Paleoindians. This allows for responding voices to be pitted directly against the original article. Michael Water’s response is a perfect example of one where another academic was able to add evidence and challenge assertions in a dialogue that engages the reader and draws attention to points that may have initially been missed. Though I did not like this format as much, styling your writing in the form of a debate is an alternative to narrative that also engages wider audiences.


Final Thoughts:

Overall, these three articles illustrated three very different writing styles. Fleisher & Sulas presented the objective, methods driven scientific approach to writing. Davies, Robb, and Ladbrook provided a narrative style consideration of Mesolithic landscapes. While Holliday and Meltzer provided a direct, supported argument. Each style has its strengths and appropriate audiences. However, I found that I was most stimulated by the theoretically driven narrative provided by Davies, Robb, and Ladbrook. I found their paper highly imaginative and theoretically grounded while maintaining clarity. I’ve found that each paper type has its purpose. I’ve often referenced papers in the Journal of Archaeological Science for clear methods. Similarly, though somewhat predictable, response papers such as Holliday and Meltzer’s clearly outline the points of contention in ongoing debates. I think that this exercise has formed a good foundation for the critical evaluations of my next blog post.

Reviewing the Review

This week, my review will explore Mark Pollard and Peter Bray’s 2007 article entitled: A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientific Techniques into Archaeological Interpretation. This annual review article seemed at first like an unorthodox choice. It does not cover a specific region, technique, research question, or theoretical perspective. Instead, it addresses the progress of and potential for integrating scientific methods into archaeology. I selected this article because my research falls squarely into the category of applying a scientific method to an archaeological question. While perusing the Annual Review of Anthropology journal, I did not find any articles that dealt with soil chemistry in archaeology. I hoped that exploring this more general article would help me understand why no geoarchaeological review has been solicited while challenging me to think about my own research differently. I found that even my limited experiences helped me relate to the process of archaeological science discussed in this article. I will assess the aims, structure, content, and style of Pollard and Bray’s review in this blog post.

Aims

Pollard and Bray wanted to avoid reiterating widespread critiques and instead engage with the history and success of collaborations between anthropological archaeology and the sciences (p. 246). Tackling this kind of problem is rather challenging in a review article because it is such a broad topic that it risks quickly becoming theoretical. Pollard and Bray attempted to avoid this by featuring case studies and focusing on the transferable aspects of their expertise in British and European archaeology.  I am intrigued by these aims as I have not read a paper with this type of goal before. In part, the paper’s aim of encouraging interdisciplinary study was part of the reason I chose to review this article.

Structure

This paper was organized in a way that paralleled many science publications:


Introduction

  • History
  • Paper Aims
  • Methods

Case Studies

  • Fieldwork
  • Scientific Instruments
  • Research Questions
  • Education

General Critiques

Responses to Critiques


This structure, including the sub-headings made the paper easy to follow. The mirroring of the scientific paper organization seemed like a smart choice given the topic. However, I didn’t feel as though the critiques section was fully integrated into the paper. Many of the critiques such as increased specialization and micro-focus of scientific investigations were acknowledged but not directly addressed. This may have been a pitfall of having to cover such a broad topic in a review. I also found that arranging a review in this way minimized the authors’ voices. There was no section that featured the authors’ specific contributions to a scientific approach in archaeology. Structuring the paper in this way gave it an objective feel despite other stylistic choices.

Content

I found the content to be quite eclectic. I often strive to make as many connections as possible in my writing and I admire the broad range of relevant connections Pollard and Bray made. However, for a non-archaeologist or non-anthropologist many of the theoretical references were made without much explanation. This was probably a conscious choice made with an understanding of the audience. However, given the topic, I wonder if adding more context would have been beneficial for those coming from the sciences. However, even given the limited scope I found some points quite interesting.

Pollard and Bray’s reference to encouraging and focusing on encouraging shared language seemed to connect well with this course. The notion of having to learn to communicate differently for different audiences is something that we have reiterated and it is nice to see this re-emphasized in a specific case study. However, I don’t know that this paper managed to depart from anthropological language and references. The emphasis on concepts like materiality, surveying, chronologies, and social theory still staunchly ground this paper in anthropology.

The case study section of this paper also confused me. I would have liked to see more focus on the author’s own experience and contributions and some type of overarching example explored for each of the specified stages. I think selecting one example and riding the metaphorical bicycle through each phase of that example would have created a better narrative arc. As it stands, it is nice to see that multiple examples of good collaboration exist. However, I feel as though each example in this paper is fleeting and cursory.

My final comment on content concerns the presented solutions. The idea that the iterative process produces results is simultaneously comforting and alarming. It is comforting in that all stages of production contribute to the outcome. However, it also feels as though we are doomed to repeat redundant steps and cannot increase efficiency despite being aware of the process. This paper, for all its positivity, seems to re-enforce the status quo. I did not anticipate a review paper that simply affirm what has and is happening. It is interesting to see that one was published.

Style

I found it interesting to read a co-published review article. Seeing the authors find common ground and speak in a unified voice is something I haven’t taken time to consider before. This increased the cohesion and clarity of the piece. However, with a lack of interplay between the authors and an omission of personal research and experience, the authorial voice took on an air of objectivity. I did not particularly like this as I don’t feel as though there is a single process or experience that propels archaeological science. However, it was interesting to see how despite using the first person. The authors were still able to achieve an clear and concise objective voice.

As mentioned above, I would have liked to see a little more narrative structure. The case studies seemed less like examples of individual projects but examples of how projects exhibited a particular stages of scientific collaboration. I wonder if the case study section is one where an author can adopt a less objective, narrative style. By explaining the relevance of a case and exploring it in greater depth, perhaps the monotony of a more objective scientific piece could be broken up. I hope to use this article as a starting point to explore different styles of writing when conveying background content.

Conclusions

Reading this article, I was torn. I was engaged by the positivity and clear language used throughout. Yet, I was left at a loss for how to proceed differently and produce better integrated archaeological science. Despite some content shortcomings, I found it refreshing to find a review article that deals exclusively with practical solutions to a problem that I’ve often found relegated to theoretical debates. This review presents a good example of collaborative writing while still cultivating a single voice. I also hope that others take on methodological and practical challenges in review articles and continue to highlight successes for broader academic audiences. Reviewing this article helped me explore what content, styles, and forms I appreciate in an article while encouraging me to continue to pursue interdisciplinary research.

Citation:

Pollard, Mark A. and Peter Bray. 2007. A Bicycle Made for Two? The Integration of Scientific Techniques into Archaeological Interpretation. Annual Review of Anthropology. 36: 245-259.

Onward and Upward: My Writing Goals

I’m going to open this blog post with a confession: I am already behind in the research and writing process this semester. In this course, I hope to produce a paper for the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) conference at the end of March. Given that the conference occurs on the last weekend of March, I should have had a plan in place last semester and all my data analysis should completed. Neither of these tasks are completed. However, in this post I will outline my goals and my plan for achieving them in the limited time remaining.

My Output: My Private and Public Products for the Winter 2017 Semester

In brief, I hope that my final product successfully occupies the intersection between methodology and theory. As it stands, the chemical composition results that I’ve produced are inconsistent with my expectations of anthropogenic impacts. These expectations were founded on existing research aims and suggestions of potential that abound in the field of archaeological geochemistry. I hope to begin this paper with a presentation of ITRAX core scanning as a novel method for archaeological soil analysis. My focus will be on situating my method within an archaeological movement towards increased resolution and efficient sampling protocols. I wish to continue by describing the limited evidence for hunter-gatherer occupations that I’ve observed on traditionally identified sites. Referencing data from my study sites in Ontario, I wish to illustrate the minimal evidence that seems to exist for Archaic occupations. By considering questions about residential impacts and mobility, I wish to highlight the impacts of site-centric archaeology and commonplace notions of residential and logistic mobility. I hope this discussion will highlight the ability for scientific methods to contribute to narratives about the past while highlighting my preliminary results.

As you can see, I only have a rough idea of what my final product will achieve. I intend to produce a series of private and public works over the course of the next few months to develop my ideas.  By engaging in an extensive drafting and peer editing process, I will produce more than simply a final product in this course. I will begin by free-writing about my findings as I collect and process them. I hope that allowing myself to write informally and privately before finalizing my results will help address the necessity of writing early despite having incomplete data. By writing something that will not be shared, I hope to become comfortable documenting my mistakes, identifying weaknesses, addressing confusion, and celebrating the strengths in my research and writing.  I also hope to be able to track the evolution of my ideas as I collect resources and results. This type of personal writing still falls within my comfort zone. Many of my fears and anxieties concerning writing stem from the realization that I am writing for other people. I hope to challenge myself by also creating public products that will be read by small groups of peers as I progress towards a final public product. I hope to begin this process with a depiction of my methods.

I have selected methods as my starting point for public writing because I believe that this section will require significant work prior to becoming clear and concise. I do not wish to spend exorbitant amounts of time depicting my methods. However, I wish to present sufficient information to welcome discussion around potential modifications, applications, and complementary methods. I hope to provide multiple opportunities for my peers to comment and challenge me to create an engaging depiction of methods. After producing this section, I will proceed to integrate my results and discussion in smaller sections that will be circulated for review by select peer editors. I plan on having my drafting process culminate in the production of two full drafts that will be circulated among various editors. I hope the production of these semi-public drafts will encourage me to write consistently and review scrupulously.

I have some questions concerning the differences between conference papers and published articles. With this being my first conference paper, I’m not sure how to integrate materials such as diagrams and results tables in a clear and engaging manner. In many cases, I recognize that simply reading published papers would make for dull or incomprehensible presentations. I hope to benefit from the knowledge possessed by my peers to identify tangible characteristics that distinguish good conference presentations from forgettable or incomprehensible ones. By producing partial and full drafts early enough to solicit opinions and address feedback, I hope to develop my own voice and play with different structures and strategies for conference presentations. Additionally, as I would like this paper to eventually develop into a publishable article, I would like to identify the different elements that work for in presentations and papers.

Finally, I hope to have to opportunity to practice my presentation and gain feedback on my presentation skills and organization. Though this is not a writing goal, I think it is important to identify effective ways of communicating in alternate formats. I would also like to begin identifying a personal presentation style that I will be able to refine at future conferences and talks. I am not the biggest fan of public speaking, and I hope to become more comfortable by practicing my presentation in an environment where I can welcome constructive criticism and correct my mistakes. Ideally, this will help me manage my nerves when I finally present my paper.

My Schedule: Staying Accountable to Deadlines

Given the many of goals I hope to accomplish, I have laid out the following schedule:

  • 6 Days a Week:  30 minutes of Free Writing
  • February 12th:    Complete Data Collection & Partial Draft
  • February 19th:    Additional Partial Draft
  • February 26th:    First Full Paper Draft
  • March 5th:           First Presentation Draft
  • March 12th:         Second Paper Draft
  • March 19th:         Second Presentation Draft
  • March 26th:         Final Paper Completion & Final Presentation Completion
  • March 31st:         Presentation Date
  • April 6th:              Class Presentation Date

I hope that by simply making this schedule public, I will be encouraged to hold myself accountable. Ideally, the experience of adhering to a structured process will help develop a more productive and fulfilling writing ethic. This conference presentation is also an example of an instance where my work will not stop after delivering a paper. I hope that the conversations I have at the conference will  assist me in working through the problems I am currently encountering and will experience as my thesis progresses. After writing this blog post, I’m optimistic that this semester will present an opportunity to develop new work habits while producing meaningful academic products.

My Writing Woes

Alright, I’m going to allow myself the luxury of taking a deep breath before getting started. Writing about anything personal, particularly my experiences and feelings, has never been the most comfortable thing. It has always been much easier to write about something far removed that can be forgotten as quickly as printer ink dries. However, as my education has progressed, projects that meet this criterion have become rather scarce. As Howard Becker succinctly noted, writing as a scholar is different from writing as a student (Writing for Social Scientists, 2007). Increasingly, I’m finding that all of my writing is becoming personal, whether due to the amount of work involved or stakes I have in the subject matter. In short, all of my writing is becoming terrifying. So, having to write this first blog post concerning the insecurities, frustrations, and anxieties that plague my writing process at the start of my graduate studies seems appropriate. In this post, I will try to confront my writing process and express the problems I most commonly encounter along the way.

The Comfort of Research

My writing journey begins with extended periods of research. I prefer reading from printed copies with my pen and highlighter in hand. I find something comforting about being able to physically organize my papers and books and easily switch between multiple resources at once. This process usually takes place at home where I can create a fire hazard comprised of resources strewn across every flat surface in my apartment. As I read, I jot down quick notes, thesis ideas, and place scribbled post-its on important references. I also begin to amass bibliographies and create annotations for each of the resources I have read. I do not currently write in this phase of my work. It often seems more appropriate, and appealing to write a quick note and continue to investigate a concept or theme. However, this physical process often results in piles of disjointed notes and marginalia that do not benefit from the Ctrl F function.

Throughout my research phase I also explore writing possibilities. I enjoy creating outlines and road-maps for my work. The process of slotting pertinent papers into sections and laying out point form arguments is rather cathartic. I can spend countless hours moving ideas around, tweaking sections, and estimating the numbers of examples and amount of writing I’ll need to convey a point. However, I find that my preferred organization changes from day to day, often with my mood or reflecting my most recent research discovery. My outlines are rarely adhered to in the submitted piece. However, they provide me with a place to start and topics to begin discussing when embarking on my caffeine-fueled writing escapades.

The Pain of Beginning to Write

The bulk of my writing anxieties first appear in that strange state between sleep and consciousness. In this state, my fears of being incomprehensible, misconstrued, making inappropriate interpretations, presenting clearly non-cogent arguments, submitting embarrassing typos, and being a full-fledged disappointment all appear in vivid detail. These uncomfortable lucid dreams usually precede being jolted awake in a panic brought on by the realization that an impending deadline is best expressed in hours rather than in days or weeks. My writing generally begins shortly after this moment when I’m confronted by the reality that, if I don’t start now, there aren’t enough hours to physically pen the piece. I realize that my habit of procrastination prohibits me from enjoying the benefits of a leisurely, multi-stage review process. However, prior to being forced into writing, I experience paralyzing feelings of inadequacy that send me back into research and prevent me from setting pen to paper.

I don’t procrastinate because I enjoy the feelings of sheer panic and self-loathing that accompany each experience. I don’t think anyone willingly chooses to procrastinate. However, something about the stress, need to move forward, and inability to fuss over details allows me to overcome mt struggles and create output (albeit output of questionable quality). Prior to the last-minute crunch, my writer’s block often emerges from an insecurity surrounding the material. I often feel as though I have not adequately researched or interpreted the findings. I feel as though other important examples still need to be found and that my understanding does not account for the situation’s myriad of complexities. Often, I consider myself too conceptually confused, theoretically ignorant, and insufficiently well-read to contemplate writing my own perspective. The research stage represents comfort and possibility. If I could, I would happily remain in a state where I perpetually read and collect data. It is only when necessary that I produce some form of writing and I’m always insecure about the product I’ve produced.

Creating the Final Product

Once I finally begin to write, I tend to start with the introduction and conclusion. I find that laying out my intentions, main arguments, and take-away messages places me in a focused frame of mind. I then tend to write the paper from start to finish, filling in sections from my outline. Each time I take a break, I re-read what I have written and then continue where I left off. I tend to write constantly with the only interruptions being periodic references to hand-written or external research notes. Once I have written my paper, I then re-read it and alter the introduction and conclusion if necessary. Shamefully, this is generally where my process stops and the work I’ve created is submitted.

The notable omission from my writing process is the editing step. Usually, this regretful omission is a product of my procrastination. However, even if, by some miracle, time permits, I often feel too ashamed of my hurriedly crafted piece of writing to have any desire to revisit it. I find that even if my work is finished early, I rarely take pride in what I’ve created or have any desire to revisit it. It is only weeks later, after receiving feedback, that I can look at what I’ve created. When this happens, I’m often frustrated by careless errors, poor organizational choices, and shallow analyses. However, by this point I’ve usually moved on to the next project. So, in the interest of efficiency, I file the critiques away for future application, rarely revisiting or altering my original piece of writing.

Final Thoughts Concerning My Writing

Writing for me has always been a struggle. Somehow, during my barely memorable 3 am adventures I’m able to create an semi-comprehensible, passably English piece of academic work. However, through this course I’d like to begin to enjoy or at least take some pride in my writing process. As it stands, I feel as though the work I submit is incomplete. This manifests itself in a reticence to share my work with peers or superiors.  Often, when looking back at my work, I feel as though I needed more research, a more dynamic thesis, or a better foundation. I hope that this writing course will help me overcome some of my hurdles. I am particularly interested in exploring the idea presented by Kristin Luker that writing itself can be a learning process (Salsa Dancing into the Social Sciences, 2008). Towards this end, I’d like to begin my transition into scholarly writing by taking more time with my work and exploring what the writing process can teach me. Hopefully, this will enable me to write in an engaging voice that also conveys the content I wish to discuss.