My chosen site is a flint nodule, which on one face had an interesting set of crater-like features arranged almost circularly. The arrangement of these craters is what I found most significant about the site, almost as if it were a piece of rock art or stone circle markings, so I decide to map them accurately enough to show the pattern they made. Inspired by the early maps of the antiquaries, particularly the early maps of Avebury by Aubery, I wanted to treat this site as if I were recording my own stone circle or megalithic site.
I began with a photograph to capture how you would find this flint nodule naturally (I nicked it from a field some time ago). This resulted in a top down plan view being exposed. The importance was to capture the distances accurately, so I used a fine pencil, protractor and ruler to plot out from one edge of the stone to the next, like a makeshift sextant. These are usually tools I would be using quite far down the graphic design stage after roughs. This first map was about recording the essential details: distances, angles, crater length and width (I would have like to do depth but couldn’t accurately measure-too small!), chalk boundaries and exposed flint areas. This is quite a culture history approach but I think it’s the most relevant for a site that is part of the landscape (imagining the rock is the landscape). Since the rock was smaller than A4 1:1 scale was logical. Moving film would not be appropriate for analysing the crater positions as it would be impossible to measure, and sound not applicable on such scale. Another more focused illustration just showing the constellation and crater sites would also be very useful for interpreting the site in a more processual archaeology way. For this I switched medium to digital for top tier measurement accuracy, and it also meant I could instil some hierarchy on the features, as for me the importance of the site is: First the pattern or constellation of the craters, second the crater positions and third the material boundaries like where the chalk becomes flint.
The implication of my focused way of seeing is that other details in the rock may be lost, but you have to start with the important bits I suppose. I just really wanted to see if the craters were symmetrically arranged, and if they appeared less so on the real stone as apposed to the drawing or even the digital map. To me, I saw more detail every time, and you can see on the digital map that the right side ones are almost arranged in an equilateral triangle, as are the left three, but these two triangles are not symmetrical or evenly positioned across the stone. Not sure what this means but its cool I think.
Someone else would probably not take it to the digital map stage, that quite a graphic designer mindset of production line like creative development. An artist might be more interested in the colour patterns rather than craters too, and an archaeologist might be interested in the other side of the stone?
https://megalithicmaps.com/avebury-maps-and-plans/
Descending order Maps of Snowdonia:
1592, 1662, 1888, 1919, 1964
The oldest map takes most trouble to note what obstacles may be face travelling like big mountain ranges and potential sea monsters, whilst including what could be useful for trade like rivers and villages. Since this map still has medieval influences it is likely to support influences from regional powers, but does emit local nobility and fiefdoms which indicates the cartographer wanted Wales to appear settled or perhaps conquered by England. The next map does include these, perhaps indicating increasing resistance to outside powers. This map seems to be more about who owns what land, so I would assume it was produced for nobility or royalty to read. In 1888 the map becomes entirely geographical, and the main interest is now the mountain and how to navigate it. There is an impressive amount of detail on the landscape, trees and fields, but bright colours and illumination like flourishes are now gone. This being around the age of enlightenment the maps have become a scientific tool and accuracy is now what makes you a rich cartographer.
What became interesting about my walk around the local long barrow was the use of paths. It’s not a tourist attraction, its not even on the map, so the only paths had been manufactured by the sheep in the field. Following their path felt a bit like cross species interaction, even though I didn’t get close enough to the actual sheep to do so. The sheep path itself was interesting, the rest of the field was perfectly flat but they still wanted to climb the peak. It made me think about how paths and routes for maps (I was also doing the mapping task in the other module) are synthetic. The cartographer makes a choice on where they think you should go. They make the rules, go this way. I suppose some people don’t want to navigate, but paths are only an invention of civilisation. Think about the other two million years of hominin experience, no paths or maps, just animal trails, but you’ll never find niche survival resources following those.
Locale
I think the first step to creatively addressing scale is recognition that the consequences of cumulative failures are already underway. I think if art stated to say ‘we are already in extinction’ instead of ‘the climate is changing’, then more people would make individual effort. The problem with big scale statistics is it’s a bit like a group project, if everyone is involved at a very small scale then no one wants to do their work first. Its easy to put off because were constantly being told climate change has a ‘due date’ where its too late. So you see that and think hmm someone better do something soon. In relation to the other modules, scale of site and maps are often small archeologically. They also follow a similar context, the bigger scales has less details and therefore individuals on the map have less effect. So archeologically scales are quite small, the effect of one site or one artifact has a massive impact on the interpretation of the site. But when you connect sites in a culture history way you lose a lot of detail, which I receive is the main reason for post-processionalism appearing.
Tour
This tour focuses on my freshly used flint knapping site/workshop. I started this task having left everything where it was the day before, which was a big knapping day. What I wanted to show and fond out more about was how things got distributed in a knapping workspace, it’s a tight area, so will be interesting to explore how the area has been assigned to different bits based purely on intuition. I have never seen another or real knapping site. From left to right:
- Overall view. Here you can see the ramshackle setup, a mix of modern and prehistoric materials. There are no walls, flint dust ain’t good for your lungs, but sometimes I do have to work in the rain so there’s a roof. Flint knappers in Victorian times (making gun flints- very different process) used to die very young of silicosis, often knapping 8 hours a day in closed rooms with several other knappers. So much that the common name for silicosis is Knapper’s Rot!
- This paleolithic style spear is on display outside the shack. It makes me wonder how many other spears just got left out for later, because they have an inspiring presence when out.
- Know we know that handaxes got left out like this. Why is it here? I made it at a show, I suppose its out waiting for a purpose. The joy of stone tools is you can do that, just leave it outside wherever, it’ll still be good on ten thousand years. I’m sure prehistoric people did this too, made nice things for no reason. Probably the great irony of archeology that we would never know, it’s probably why things like this get attributed to spiritual practice or belief.
- Big debitage, mallet and punch. Big debitage tells a most evocative story in knapping, ive had a few occasions of seeing real abandoned rough outs and I feel closer to the maker than seeing a finished tool. You can understand the struggle and challenges when someone gives up. Maybe there was a better stone they had? That’s usually why I give up. The mallet and punch, which I use for blade core reduction, tells the story that I don’t know what I’m doing. That’s why I made my own mallet, its why my punch is a bit too small. Blade core is a personal struggle, I’ve been through 2 other mallet and punches!
- Chair legs and debitage. It’s a wonder to me that the chair took so long to invent. You can’t knap standing up, Working material with flint tools takes hours, and if you sit on the floor you’re now part of the debitage pile. Maybe I just don’t have the hominin squat.
- Nice flake pile. Now I’m starting to notice a pattern, things that are more important get placed higher up. I’m reserving the very space I could use to sit for this flake pile, that’s how important they are. I use them for arrowheads, knapping kits, spears, scrapers, blades and knives.
- Pressure flaking kit. These are the tools for arrowhead making, specifically barbed and tanged arrowheads. These are bronze age, and require an immense amount of work. I once put myself out of action for a week making these. I also once managed to pressure flake my wrist directly, still have the scar. But I do feel a link to bronze age knappers, as they were clearly artisans making art pieces rather than tool makers.
- Hammer stones. I wonder if prehistoric people got attached to hammerstones? I’ve had the same ones nearly a year. I know them better than myself. Which is interesting, because an archaeologist wouldn’t see that. They are just regular stones, quartzite and unremarkable. But I’d bury myself with them, and then they’d be interested. I suppose emotional value is not always visual, and an artefact does not have to be beautiful to have great meaning to its culture.
- Antler hammers and leg pad. In the same way, the antler hammers have a great value to me. But that’s less surprising when natural shed antlers are so bloody hard to get, so they have a monetary value too. In terms of space usage, these don’t actually live here, they move around all over the place.
- Debitage pile. This pile is crap. The prehistoric persons recycling. It’s incredible, and I thin often understated, just how much raw material is processed by a knapper. If everyone today wanted to have a go, I’d be in trouble. I clean out the pile every few months, and have bags of debitage from several trips. It’s one of the challenges that a modern knapper has, moving material a long way just to get it somewhere safe to work.
- Stump of nice things. When I finish something, it goes on the stump. It’s like a trophy pedestal, the summit of the area. Sometime things sit here a while, but mostly they get sent to their new owners promptly. I wonder if there’s something intrinsicality human about moving something up. Its close to my eyes, more important, I want to see it, I like it, It’s art.
Binford
Outline
Binford was a leading figure in the emergence of processual archaeology. Binford was influenced by his time in the military excavating Okinawan sites, and working as an anthropologist with displaced communities. His seminal 1962 work Archeology as Anthropology outlined his problems with the current archeology, believing that the focus should be not only on the artifact, but the processes of peoples involved with them, and believed this perspective could be gratified by acting as an ethnographer and engaging in experimental archeology. He believed that current culture history approach and explanations for the movements of peoples, like diffusion, were inadequate. Culture history involved the recording of sites and artefacts, and cultures were decided on repeated artefact presence at multiple sites.
He developed middle range theory, a tool that could be used for scientifically proving hypothesis in archaeological contexts. His ethnographic work with the Nunamiut peoples became the foundation of zooarcheology, and provided significant contribution to the study of hunter-gatherer societies and ultimately Human evolution.
Description
Binfords main contribution comes from his questioning of archeology as a purpose. What is archeology and what is it for? He would say that recovering an artifact is just the beginning of the archeologists work – quite contrary to the culture historians – and that artifacts need to be used to learn about processes that cultures used, and therefore exploring their narrative. Exploring these processes and collecting large data sets could then be applied to big picture hypothesis about the human story.
The idea is to gain knowledge that is independent from archological observation, and develop replicable ways of assessing artefacts. Using middle range theory, Binford created influential models on the Nunamiut people, movement around the landscape, toll manufacture and use, butchering and movement of game, and the scientific methods he used to understand these processes.
The problem with this was that it lead to wide generalisations about the Human story, big hypothesis about the emergence of agriculture, civilisation and hominin evolution. That lead Binford into Middle range theory.
The positivist view came under increasing scrutiny in the 1980s, and the emergence of post-processualism sought to challenge this. Positivist views lead to binary conclusions, if things can be proven then they either are or aren’t. Applying this view to cultures was too much of big picture story, and so post-processualists would argue that culture is too complex for scientific conclusion. Post processualists fought for an archaeology with smaller scales, exploring the meanings in specific cultures or people as separate unique entities.
Binford would continue to argue his case, and particularly his ethnographic work on the resistance of agriculture in hunter gatherer societies, concluding that this produced predicable and simple reasons for mobile lifestyles “When im here in one place, I don’t know whats going on over there” .
Binford continued this hunter gatherer research late into his life, constructing a dataset of hunter gatherer societies around the world, which he could feed into his hypothesis about a big picture story of the emergence of farming. His final major work on this subject Frames, uses this data to produce increasingly small generalisations about the relationship between foraging peoples and their environment. He would conclude that reduction of habitat creates pressure and intensifies food sources, and that rate of movement and change is dependant on the capacity for population increase in the environment.
Assessment
It could be argued that Binford was the most influential archeolgist of the last century. Although his ideas were complex and controversial, you can only say that there have been two major movements in archeological theory, and Binford was a top player in one of them.
Archeology as anthropology was the catalyst for the paradigm shift into processual archeology, and in doing so pointed archeology at answering big questions about the human story. A massive attitude shift from culture history, this paper redefined how culture was described and recognised. Atefacts were also described differently, with new classifications Technomic (of the environment) sociotechnic (relationships) and Ideotechnic (religious), which sorted out the too general artefact comparisons of culture history.
Middle range theory has the biggest impact for me personally, as a modern flint knapper I often throw around the term ‘experiemntal archeologist’ and I have Binford to thank for that. The combination of ethnography and experimental archeology with artefacts produces a much more rounded view of cultures. It’s not about the opinion of the excavator anymore, we can take hypothesis about say stone tools, conduct experimental archeology and then view that in the context of modern hunter gatherer communities, which builds a kind of provenance for the story we produce.
His work on ethnography in archeology and on the nunamuit people
Perspectives gain on forager peoples
Influences
Lesie White was a large influence on Binford and oversaw his Phd, White’s major work in anthropology includes his culture evolution energy theory. A positivist thinker, he attempts to distil culture development into an equation where progress is equal to energy x tool efficiency. It’s easy to see how his rigorous application of scientific thinking influenced Binford to do the same in archeology and develop the processual movement.
Julian Steward
Radiocarbon revolution
Hi everyone,
I'm 22, diagnosed last year. I need some life advice and don't have anyone to talk to.
After I graduated in graphic design, I found a big passion in prehistory and wanted to get a masters so I didn’t have to work in an office. I started with my previous uni on an archeology department Mres (if you don’t know, its like a thesis at masters level- you get supervised and run your own research). I got a supervisor and developed an application to the academic board on cave art. Two months in my supervisor promised to submit it in a month, six months later she hadn’t done it so I walked away. She was never fit to oversee and the uni should have known that.
Then I knocked on every door in the UK to find another supervisor, and I got one at York. Another eight months of development (many good meetings) to submit the application and start in September, same thing- cave art. In august the uni contacted me to say they were no longer willing to let me sit in on lectures, and my supervisor said I could no longer do it. Really annoying as I put in literally months of work and reading, and the application was good, it’s not like I wasn’t smart enough my supervisor just changed his mind. I’m grateful to have never struggled academically at least, I just wish someone would give me a chance to prove it. My therapist was also appalled by the behaviour of both academic institutes, an he oversees Mres in his discipline.
They offered me a place on the taught course but my parents didn’t think I could handle moving so far away because of the autism, so they steered me onto an online taught course at UHI. I had a really hard time living in accommodation and definitely can’t do that again, so I can see why. That’s my autistic limitation, quiet living space.
Now I’m sitting here four weeks in, and the course just isn’t letting me learn about what I want. It’s art and archeology, which sounds perfect on paper but the content isn’t allowing me room to explore cave art. I know you guys will understand when you’ve got a special interest, it’s very frustrating to keep being led into things like this. I have tried twice to talk about this with the course lead but ive been brushed off both times. I think that she thinks if she answers truthfully then I will quit.
I don’t know what to do now. I feel like I’ve ended up here because of everyone else thinking I’m not good enough. I have two years worth of work on an Mres sitting on my desk right now, and I cant apply it to my current course. I’m thinking about walking away but it feels like there’s no where to go after this. I want to be able to move out and progress my life. I’m quite frustrated at my parents for holding me back, but I guess its my fault for letting them. They think that it’s best for me to stay in education and get an academic career, so if I quit out this masters that’s kind of ruined. Right now I feel like I have the wrong degree, I don’t want to be a graphic designer I want to be an archaeologist, and the masters was supposed to achieve that.
Maybe some of you older and wiser peeps might know what to do?
