Thinking about stratigraphic sequence in social terms

Abstract

For archaeologists, stratification is an important character of archaeological deposits. Through it, layering is discerned and cultural and evolutionary interpretations are proposed. Archaeologists possess much implicit knowledge about the social practices that produce stratigraphic sequence and the specific, contextualized manner in which layers were built upon or cut into previous deposits. The aim of this paper is to gather together and formalize this knowledge so as to codify conceptual ‘tools to think by’ when recording and interpreting stratigraphy. Relevant literature is widely dispersed and here can only be sampled; authors consider stratigraphy in terms of (1) techniques of terraforming, (2) processes enacted and (3) meaning and interpretation. Techniques and processes are discussed within larger social interpretations such as memory, history-building, forgetting, renewing, cleansing and destroying. Examples are drawn from the Turkish Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük and the ancestral Maya site of K'axob in Belize, Central America, to illustrate the applicability of an approach that here is called ‘social stratigraphy’. A practice-based history of stratigraphy – the recording and interpretation of strata – within archaeology is problematized in reference to codependence with geology, the deployment of labour and centralized authority within the emergent 19th- to early 20th-century field of archaeology. The contributions of and conflicts between British and American stratigraphic schools are considered in light of a potential rapprochement. Contested issues of cultural heritage – such as preservation of selected strata – suggest that thinking about stratigraphic sequence in social terms is more than an academic exercise.

A redefinition of waste: Deconstructing shell and fish mound formation among coastal groups of southern Brazil

“…The dual process of midden destruction/relocation and the phenomenon of ''mound raising'' can be interpreted as a unique strategy for establishing memories and connecting with past communities (see McAnany and Hodder, 2009). The strategy is based on the termination and/or destruction of a space (the domestic midden) to raise a new structure and give continuity to the material display of a social realm.…”

Terminal Classic Maya Heterodoxy and Shrine Vernacularism in the Sibun Valley, Belize

“…If the vernacularization of the Sibun shrines is any indication, we can also anticipate that each shrine location may exhibit subtle but distinct characteristics that suggest translation of cosmic concepts into the vernacular of local landscape. Careful documentation of these subtle characteristics of a social stratigraphy (McAnany & Hodder 2009) that exists immediately below the surface is critical to understanding human agency and local practice during this turbulent time. Fogelin (2007, 66) urges researchers to employ innovative 'blended approaches' to the study of religion and ritual as a strategy to boost the hermeneutic potential of fragmentary evidentiary materials.…”

7 Dwelling on the Past: The Materiality of Everyday Life at Xaltocan, Mexico

“…In recent years scholars have begun to pay attention to practices of deposition and stratigraphy as socially meaningful (Mills and Walker ; Walker and Lucero , see Stahl, this volume). In particular, McAnany and Hodder () advocate reconstructing the social significance of what are often considered mundane additive (e.g., piling up earth) and subtractive (e.g., cutting or digging) practices of stratigraphy making. Some of these practices may be relational to earlier deposits and therefore potentially implicate the remembering, memorializing, forgetting, erasing, renewing, and/or subverting of the past (McAnany and Hodder :7‐8).…”

“…In particular, McAnany and Hodder () advocate reconstructing the social significance of what are often considered mundane additive (e.g., piling up earth) and subtractive (e.g., cutting or digging) practices of stratigraphy making. Some of these practices may be relational to earlier deposits and therefore potentially implicate the remembering, memorializing, forgetting, erasing, renewing, and/or subverting of the past (McAnany and Hodder :7‐8). For example, features may be “entombed” and preserved or hidden from view by covering them with earth, as seen in the renovation and encapsulation of pyramids throughout Mesoamerica (McAnany and Hodder :13).…”

“…Some of these practices may be relational to earlier deposits and therefore potentially implicate the remembering, memorializing, forgetting, erasing, renewing, and/or subverting of the past (McAnany and Hodder :7‐8). For example, features may be “entombed” and preserved or hidden from view by covering them with earth, as seen in the renovation and encapsulation of pyramids throughout Mesoamerica (McAnany and Hodder :13). Or objects may be hidden, cached, successively cached, and even retrieved in practices that invoke the memory of previous ritual activity and thereby consecrate a place (Robin et al.…”