Module 4: The Archaeological Imagination II: Class Exercise

Reading: Deetz, pp. 89-100, 125-164

[I spend the first half of this class finishing a discussion of how Deetz moves from artifacts to reconstructions of culture. I spend the second half on a class exercise where students think about the information that could be generated from a collection of historical artifacts (in my case, bullets and shell cases from a farmer's field)].

What is the main issue in Deetz's book, and what position does Deetz take on this issue?
What evidence does he supply? To which of the main questions of the course does this book relate?

Last time we discussed how Deetz used attributes (i.e., observable characteristics of an artifact) and context (i.e., where it was used, in association with what other artifacts) to reconstruct culture (such things as cooking patterns, trade patterns, and socioeconomic status). But Deetz also makes inferences about changing cultural values and ideals. What evidence does he use? Ceramics, gravestones, and architecture.

Ceramics

Before 1660: few dishes or cups for individual place settings. The most common forms of serving vessels were communal trenchers and pots. Decorated ceramics were absent. Suggesting? Individualism suppressed, luxury suppressed, inequality suppressed; i.e. Puritanism!

1660-1760: individualized ceramic cups, mugs, and bowls are present. There are also a few elaborately decorated Delftware plates, which were used for? (display). And how do we know? Wear on the edge rather than the bottom. This suggests a loosening of Puritan morality—more recognition of the individual and greater tolerance for luxury and display.

1760-1825: chamber pots ("looking glasses") come into use, with connotations of sexuality, implying a further loosening of Puritan values and worldview. There are also full sets of dishes characterized by more formal rules of use, especially for tea sets, used in a formal English tea ceremony. The emphasis here is on formality, individuality, balance, control, and order. Deetz calls this a Georgian worldview—the worldview of the Enlightenment, a worldview suited to a capitalist economy characterized by social inequality: owners and workers, masters and slaves; a worldview and value system that characterizes WASP culture, maybe White culture today?

How are these values reflected in gravestones? Changes from death's-heads with emphasis on inevitability of death, to cherubs with emphasis on heavenly reward, to urn-and-willow designs with statements memorializing the deceased's worldly achievements.

How are these values reflected in architecture? Change from organic houses (asymmetrical, with rooms added as needed) with corporate living space and much regional variation to the more expensive, more standardized Georgian style, with a rigidly symmetrical and bilateral plan and individualized living space.

People think that Deetz is a genius because not only did he reconstruct economic patterns, he also reconstructed cultural values and ideals.

Class Exercise: Have groups of students examine a collection of historical artifacts and suggest what information you might gather about the people who used these artifacts based upon their study. For my exercise, I have students examine historical artifacts gathered out of a farmer's field, which consist almost entirely of bullets, lead shot, and shells. Almost always, students will see that they could ask questions about what guns were used for hunting, what animals were hunted, market patterns (for acquiring guns and ammunition), whether changes occurred in the types of game hunted over time, and whether changes occurred in the frequency of hunting over time (and if so, whether change occurred in the practical ends which hunting served, e.g., reducing pests or getting meat, or in recreational patterns or in ideology, e.g., animal rights).

It also demonstrates the need to work with local informants; in this case, people who hunt in rural Michigan, who know farming, animals, and guns.

Students love this class!!!