On the Shoulders of Giants

Well, it's hard to believe, but my internship at the American Museum of Natural History is drawing to a close! In a weird, dysfunctional way, I'm almost going to miss my daily commute into and out of the city from NJ (a fun-filled 2 hours, doorstep to doorstep). But I'm certainly grateful to the Dickinson Career Center's internship grant for covering that transportation! My alternative (paddling across the Hudson River) would not have been well suited to all of the papers and books I carried around with me. And if I never got to the museum, well, how in the world would I have begun to investigate the mystery of the chiefdoms in the prehistoric Upper Xingu?

In the last post, I mentioned that I finally--finally!--compiled a Chiefdom Chart. That's such an exciting step towards organizing the paper that Dr. Carneiro and I will be writing! And before I move on with this post, I just want to update you: We've come up with a working title: "Did chiefdoms once exist in the Upper Xingu?" Nice, right? Dr. Carneiro concocted it, and I really like how it kind of perpetuates that detective/mystery approach. Plus, on Wednesday I wrote up an abstract for the paper submission process! Dr. Carneiro is looking over it as we speak, and as soon as we make the (what I'm sure will be necessary) modifications, we'll submit it (I'll put a link to it on here!) and be that much closer to possibly presenting the paper! We'll find out in December, so I'll keep you posted.

Anyway, back to the excitement of chiefdom charts. Of course, I'm incredibly excited about the one I've compiled, and I think that, after a few tweaks, it's on its way to being the greatest thing since sliced bread. However, it would be remiss to not point out that such an initiative has been taken before. Indeed, in 1973, Colin Renfrew created a similar chart listing about 20 features that could be considered characteristic of a chiefdom. Even though I came across this after I had made the initial categories of my own chart, there were several areas of overlap, as I have highlighted in this excerpt from Renfrew's 1975 article "Beyond a Subsistence Economy: The Evolution of Social Organization in Prehistoric Europe" (page 73):

"The accompanying features frequently seen in chiefdoms may be set out as follows:
1. A ranked society
2. The redistribution of produce organized by the chief
3. Greater population density
4. Increase in the total number in the society
5. Increase in the size of individual residence groups
6. Greater productivity
7. More clearly defined territorial boundaries or borders
8. A more integrated society with a greater number of socio-centric statuses
9. Centers which coordinate social and religious as well as economic activity
10. Frequent ceremonies and rituals serving wide social purposes
11. Rise of priesthood
12. Relation to a total environment (and hence redistribution)--i.e., to some ecological diversity
13. Specialization, not only regional or ecological but also through the pooling of individual skills in large cooperative endeavors
14. Organization and deployment of public labor, sometimes for agricultural work (e.g. irrigation) and/or for building temples, temple mounds, or pyramids
15. Improvement in craft specialization
16. Potential for territorial expansion--associated with the "rise and fall" of chiefdoms
17. Reduction of internal strife
18. Pervasive inequality of persons or groups in the society associated with permanent leadership, effective in fields other than the economic
19. Distinctive dress or ornament for those of high status
20. No true government to back up decisions by legalized force

As you can see, there are multiple instances in which Renfrew and my chart cite similar characteristics. However, there are several ways in which our lists diverge significantly. For instance, of the five features that I had reported as being particularly indicative of a chiefdom, only one of them--"Substantial populations"--appears on Renfrew's chart (number 4). Number 3 on Renfrew's list, "Greater population density," is a logical effect of the important "Resource Concentration" factor that is on my list, but Renfrew refrains from making any conjectures as to the cause of this increase. Indeed, nowhere in Renfrew's list does he mention the importance of establishing that there are multiple villages with connections among them to promote communication--one of the surest indications of a chiefdom! This lack prompts a reflection of the usefulness of such charts. Lists like Renfrew's seem to be particularly involved and detail-oriented, and as such do not offer much insight into the more general investigation of the presence of chiefdoms. This narrowness thus disinclines its application to a variety of regions. It becomes even clearer, then, that organizing my chart according to the strength of the degree to which each feature suggests a chiefdom will be especially effective in enabling this chart to become a universal tool.

And as much as some social scientists may be inclined to focus only on the lifeways of one culture instead of considering them in a comparative light, Renfrew's account in particular demonstrates the importance of the latter: On page 75, he discusses the chiefdoms of southern Britain c. 3000 b.c. as having constructed "large circular ditch-and-bank enclosures, known as 'henges.'" We saw ditches in the Upper Xingu--a completely different continent, over 3000 years later! Really, the parallels are astounding!

Embarking on a research project like this one has been different from any paper that I've written. It really felt like I was working as a detective--I had a case and some (archaeological) evidence, and there were multiple theories that I had to evaluate. Sometimes these theories led me to new questions regarding my initial hypotheses; at other times such theories made me even more sure of my initial thoughts, whether because I outright disagreed with them or because they supported my own observations. Take the case of Renfrew's article, for instance. I do not fully agree with the details he has included in his list of chiefdom features. However, I greatly appreciate the fact that he has championed not only the cause of the creation of one, but the broader cause of defining "chiefdom" itself well. Frequently I have come across social scientists who are adamantly opposed to such charts and definitions, asserting that they will serve to trivialize a culture by stripping it of its individuality. Such disrespect, they argue, comes in the form of treating cultural traditions as data to be used to fill a mathematical "check list," or, on the other extreme, simply using one term as a "catch-all" so as to avoid distinguishing different lifestyles. On page 73, Renfrew passionately contends this opposition, suggesting that such developments would permit "a whole new range of insights into the societies under study."

After reading so much literature and so many diverse opinions on issues presented from slightly different angles, I feel as if there is a cacophony of voices bickering in my head. But I am also continually reminded of Isaac Newton's timeless testament: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Whether two opinions are aligned or in contrast, both contribute an important element to the ongoing conversation and enable progress in the future. As anyone who has ever talked with me about the Writing Center will know, I'm a huge fan of the idea of "writing as a conversation," and I'm beyond excited to be breaking into this discussion of archaeology and culture and chiefdoms, and it's especially humbling to be able to engage in a dialogue with such a vibrant scholastic community. I'm so grateful for all of the opportunities that this internship has presented me, and I can't wait to further them with this paper!

After I post the abstract (like I promised!), the next posts will most likely concern my adventure in Peru. I leave on August 27th, so GET READY!
Look out world, here I come.