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 15^th-16^th 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.