1. We’ve encountered several instances where one group of people is deemed inferior (more ‘primitive,’ ‘savage,’ or animal-like) than another. Using three examples taken from class (and citing relevant texts), explore what this formulation achieves. Who benefits? What is the outcome (in the short and long term)? Why is it so bad in our world to be described as primitive, savage, or animal-like (we are, after all animals)
2. The origins of agriculture is often framed as an inevitable step in the history of humankind: a necessary result of increasing demand for food from a growing population, or an economic ‘improvement’ whereby more food can be extracted from the same quantity of land (or per hour of labor). In short, these are economic models which imagine all people throughout time are so-called ‘rational economic actors’. In your essay, examine how these assumptions have impacted the significance we assign to the ‘Neolithic Revolution’ (feel free to draw from popular books, magazines, newspapers, articles, to support your arguments). Then, present another way of interpreting the origins of agriculture (you may wish to draw inspiration from Fijn, Hayden, Tsing [optional reading, week 11], Johnston, or Kimmerer). How might these alternative perspectives shift how we think about agriculture as a purely economic pursuit or as evidence of ‘Man dominating Nature’ (sensu Childe)?
3. This semester, we’ve focused on two major ‘revolutions’ that are often cited as critical moments in our shared human past: the creative revolution (behavioral modernity) and the agricultural revolution. While these two events center on different phenomena and are separated by at least tens of thousands of years, the way these narratives are presented can sound surprisingly similar. Using concrete examples from class/the relevant literature, describe the similarities and differences between popular tellings of these two revolutions. What presumptions about human society underlie these similarities? What makes these tellings different?
4. Jonathan Marks argues that the notion of a perfectly objective, rational science is a myth because scientists (like all humans) are social beings whose view of the world is shaped by the culture, context, and times in which they live. Some might read this as a declaration of the futility of scientific endeavors, or even as a denial of the value of scientific research. This misses Marks’ point almost entirely. If we are cognizant of the biases and predispositions we bring to our research, we might be able to leverage them to our benefit. Archaeologists have often noted that the research questions we ask are not random, neutral ones but instead echo social issues and conflicts in the contemporary world. The Vietnam war, for example, sparked a large number of archaeologists to investigate warfare, conflict, and violence in the past. How might the biggest political, economic, and social issues of today’s world influence the kinds of questions archaeologists ask about the past? In your essay, cite two examples of cases where the questions (or answers) archaeologists asked were influenced by contemporary issues. Then, outline some questions or issues you think archaeologists might begin to ask about social life in the past as a response to current affairs.
