Dig This Feature

But this one had a whole section that’s just “Things on Toast”. Another that was all about putting crap in your oatmeal to make it better. Those are fairly pedestrian and don’t take forever.

I haven’t looked through the whole thing yet but so far it’s actually pretty practical. Also if you’re broke like me and don’t know how to make Dal, you should get on that. 

I also liked that there’s this at the beginning:

If I’m remembering correctly this was based on the author’s doctoral research.

look, i fully recognize that there are reasons to be skeptical of history and archaeology. i am very on board with criticizing academia as an oppressive institution, and the way that researchers take their bigotry and bias with them to their work. i also recognize that academia does a pretty bad job of communicating what it does to the public, and that’s a part of why people’s hostility to it is able to flourish.

but i am disturbed by the pervasive narrative in online leftist spaces that people who research the human past are ignorant and bigoted, and i think we need to do more to combat that narrative.

historians being homophobic has become a whole meme, and it feels like people are just using historians as a homophobia scapegoat, when in reality the humanities are overwhelmingly left-leaning. people also keep blaming historians for erasing the homoeroticism of fictional literary characters, which is just… not what historians do. homophobic biases and erasures in the interpretation of history over the past few hundred years are a very real thing that’s important to learn about, but scholars have radically shifted away from that approach in recent generations, and these memes are not helping people outside the field to understand history and reception. instead, a lot of people are coming away with the impression that…

(source… really? nobody?)

this thread gets bonus points for the comments claiming that modern historians argue about whether achilles was a top or a bottom using homophobic stereotypes, which i can only guess is a misunderstanding of the erastes/eromenos model (a relationship schema in classical greece; i think people have debated whether achilles and patroclus represent an early version of it). also a commenter claims that the movie troy invented the idea of achilles and patroclus being cousins when no, they were also cousins in lots of ancient sources.

there’s this post about roman dodecahedra (link includes explanation of why the original post is misleading).

there’s this thread about how some thin gold spirals from ancient denmark look exactly like materials used in gold embroidery to this day but archaeologists are stupid and don’t know that because they dont talk to embroiderers enough. in fact, the article says they were most likely used for decorating clothing, whether as a fringe, braided into hair, or embroidered. so the archaeologists in the article basically agree with the post, theyre just less certain about it, because an artifact looking similar to a modern device doesn’t necessarily mean they have identical uses.

this thread has a lot of people interpreting academic nuance as erasure. the museum label literally says that this kind of statue typically depicts a married couple, giving you the factual evidence so you can interpret it. it would be false to say “these two women are married” because there was no gay marriage in ancient egypt. (interpreting nuance as erasure or ignorance is a running theme here, and it points to a disconnect, a public ignorance of how history is studied, that we can very much remedy)

lots of other conspiracy theory-ish stuff about ancient egypt is common in social justice communities, which egyptologists on this site have done a good job of debunking

oh, and this kind of thing has been going around. the problem with it is that there are loads of marginalized academics who research things related to their own lives, and lived experience and rigorous research are different forms of expertise that are both valuable.

so why does this matter?

none of these are isolated incidents. for everything i’ve linked here, there are examples i havent linked. anti-intellectualism, especially against the humanities, is rampant lately across the political spectrum, and it’s very dangerous. it’s not the same as wanting to see and understand evidence for yourself, it’s not the same as criticizing institutions of academic research. it’s the assumption that scholars are out to get you and the perception that there is no knowledge to be gained from thorough study. that mindset is closely connected to the denial of (political, scientific, and yes historical) facts that we’ve been seeing all around us in recent years.

In the discipline of archaeology, harassment is widespread, with archaeologists of color, LGBTQIA+ researchers and scholars with disabilities reporting abuse at much higher rates, according to research presented by Stanford archaeologist Barbara Voss.

In two peer-reviewed articles published in the journal American Antiquity, considered archaeology’s most prominent academic journal, Voss examines how from the 1800s to the present day, discrimination and harassment, including sexual assault, within her field has occurred at “epidemic rates.” In the first paper, Voss gathers study after study to show how harassment has pervaded the discipline. For her second study, Voss provides a set of evidence-based solutions aimed at ending and preventing harassment, as well as ways to best support survivors.

it’s a database and info hub for missing and murdered indigenous women. it’s trans inclusive and doing vital work.

i kicked them 10bux. i’m not telling you this because i want to humblebrag about how performatively woke i am, but because there’s research to suggest that the more visibly common/popular an act is, the more likely other people will do it.

—

here is the twitter thread shown above:

https://twitter.com/lumpleygames/status/1276871066170937344?s=19

A few things that strike me as suspicious from this article:

-Mr. Skibiski has a lot to gain by filing his suit - he’s found someone who can assign a monetary value to artifacts (this may vary by region, but in my area, no legitimate archaeologist would want to do that). He’s also claiming the artifacts belong to him based on timing of the dig - again, he has something to gain.

-The archaeologist he’s found to make these supporting claims is retired and it sounds like he is not always ethical. There are archaeologists out there who will cast doubt on other professional’s work just for the attention or money - hopefully this is not the case here, but there’s a possibility.

I did manage to find a link to the report and had a quick skim. The two loci of the site are quite small, and the report states “A DRP that relies heavily on machine removal of topsoil and overburden to identify hearths and related features is likely the most economic, efficient and practical way to reveal a hearth that can provide a conclusive date for this unique site.” (p.42-43). Mechanical investigation means they’ll need to do tree removal. In my experience, that means it’s possible that the further archaeological mitigation is scheduled to take place right before the construction, to save on cost/effort for tree clearing and mechanical work across the whole impact zone. The local Senator has said full-on construction isn’t due to start on July 1st. 

I also strongly suspect that the quote “The site is no longer there, we excavated it. It’s not going to be paved over — it’s gone” has been taken out of context. It could reflect that all of the archaeological material specifically within the impact zone has been removed, though more material remains just outside of the impact (something that often happens on CRM sites). It’s also interesting that that quote is from November 2019, while the report linked above was completed May 2nd, 2019 (revised February 2020 but this could be small edits only). This, to me, suggests that a final phase of the project could have taken place between May and November 2019, and the project may already be fully excavated, though if the indigenous group that the Gazette spoke to weren’t aware of it, that suggests that if it’s complete, there has been a failure of communication somewhere that is not culturally appropriate/respectful.

This post has been sitting in my drafts for a while, but given current events, I think perhaps its time has come. If any pushback happens, I’ll deal with that when it comes.

[Caveat: the following is based on my own experiences in the field, which means this post is mainly focused on archaeology culture in the United States. Your own mileage may vary.]

Archaeology has problems with sexism. I’m not just talking about the lazy assumptions some people make that in every past culture, the men were always hunters and the warriors, the women always made the food, kept house, and handled all child-related care, and no other genders existed or were recognized anywhere ever. This post is for my lady archaeologists, my femme-of-center, my female-presenting and perceived, and more broadly, my LGBT+ archaeologist cohorts.

Bro culture is strong in American archaeology. This is something I noticed when I worked on the East Coast and in the Midwest. Especially if you’re spending extended periods of time in the field, living in hotels, with larger crews. Many crews in that part of the country are predominantly made up of cishet guys in their 20s, who are living an extended college dormitory lifestyle. 

(Archaeology in America also tends to be super white; I could count the archaeologists of color I’ve worked with over the last 12 years on one hand, without running out of fingers.)

There tends to be a lot of heavy drinking, pot smoking, casual nudity, and general reckless or juvenile behavior, in and out of the field. The sorts of people who engage in this behavior often feed off each other, so the more of them there are in one place, the louder and grosser and more obnoxious they can get. You could probably do an anthropological study on their behavior alone (I mean, if you really wanted to).

This sort of thing can be intimidating if you are the only female or femme-presenting person on the crew (or the only queer person), or one of only a few. A large enough group of such people can set the tone for the whole crew, and it’s entirely possible your crew chief will be one of them.

I have been fortunate never to be directly harassed by a coworker in the field, but I’ve seen male coworkers treat female coworkers with disrespect, causing me to instantly lose all respect for those guys, and feel uncomfortable whenever I had to work directly with them. Male crew chiefs who made a game out of trying to make female field techs cry at work. Male coworkers openly discussing the comparative sexual appeal of their female coworkers. Male coworkers casually exposing themselves, both at work and in social settings. Not to mention many instances of male coworkers targeting drunk female coworkers for sex, when it would not have been possible for them to give meaningful consent.

Since I relocated to the Pacific Northwest, I have noticed a marked difference in the culture surrounding archaeology. There seem to be a larger percentage of women in the field here, including more women in positions of authority, as well as more queer archaeologists. The average age of archaeologists here skews slightly older. People also seem to behave a lot more professionally in the field here. It is refreshing.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t encounter sexism at work anymore. The sexism I encounter now mostly happens when I am monitoring and working around construction crews. It is no secret or surprise that the vast majority of construction workers, even now, are male. If there are women on the construction site, they are most often working as traffic flaggers.

As a female-perceived (though not female-identifying) person, it often seems like the men in these jobs forget that I am a human being like them, and have no idea how to treat me. They are usually polite, but it’s very common to hear a condescending “darlin’” or “sweetheart” from a construction supervisor, or to receive an apology when someone swears in front of me. (Pro tip: If you wouldn’t say it to a man in a professional setting, you shouldn’t say it to a woman.) The worst is when they just pretend I’m not there at all, and ignore me when I say something, which prevents me from being able to do my job effectively. I find I often have to speak a little louder and make a lot more eye contact than usual to get them to pay attention to me and take me seriously.

(Politics can also be an issue on job sites. Archaeologists generally tend to skew more liberal and progressive, while construction workers generally skew more conservative and traditional. If politics that conflict with my own come up on the job, I find it’s best to just grit my teeth and try to change the subject, if I can. Engaging in debate is a distraction from what they’re paying us for, after all.)

Another difficulty those of us with internal plumbing have to deal with is a lack of restroom facilities in the field. Survey work often involves trekking through the wilderness for 8 or more hours at a time. Even when there are facilities, more often than not, they are portable toilets, with all the unsanitary delights those can hold. It can be especially unpleasant if you are wearing multiple layers of cold weather or rain gear. Having to get half undressed to pee when it is raining is never fun. If you are menstruating, it’s even worse. I highly recommend menstrual cups over pads or tampons in the field, since they have less tendency to leak, and don’t need to be changed as often. (I also generally recommend them because they are awesome, both for the environment and for the wallet.)

I don’t have any good solutions to offer for these problems. Crews and jobs can change from week to week, or month to month, so bringing up issues with co-workers can become an exhausting and constant struggle, with only short-term payoff. Anyone looking to enter archaeology should be prepared, and know what to expect. You may have to develop a fairly thick skin to deal with some of it, and a willingness to shrug off some stuff with no more than an eye roll, which sucks and isn’t fair. I encourage people to be outspoken if someone is regularly making them feel uncomfortable at work, but I know that there are risks that can come with that, too.