ANTH 235 Archeology questions

timer Asked: Mar 5th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $9.99

Question Description

we need to read articles first, and the first files included the requirements, and I will upload the rest of article after.

Attachment preview

Directions: Respond to the following questions with short answers, in paragraph format, 200 words, single-spaced. Quizzes are due before 11:59PM Friday March 8, 2019. Quizzes may be turned in electronically via the drop box link on Blackboard under “Information.”

1) Using notes from the first weeks’ lectures, Week 2 reading from Kottak, or content from the NOVA film on Werowocomoco, provide a definition of an “excavation.” If the processes of an excavation destroy the site of interest, in what ways do archaeologists record their data for purposes of interpretation?  

2) What is stratigraphy, or strata, and how do archaeologists use stratigraphy to understand the chronology or “relative dating” of a site’s deposits? 

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Quiz 1 ANTH 235-01/-02 Spring 2019 Directions: Respond to the following questions with short answers, in paragraph format, 200 words, single-spaced. Quizzes are due before 11:59PM Friday March 8, 2019. Quizzes may be turned in electronically via the drop box link on Blackboard under “Information.” Grading: Students will be graded ten points per answer, for a total of 100 points. Each response is qualitatively graded based on thoroughness of response, evidence presented, and clarity of answers. Citations are preferred if direct quotes are used, “Woodard said to use quotations and make inline citations” (Woodard 2019:77). 1) Using notes from the first weeks’ lectures, Week 2 reading from Kottak, or content from the NOVA film on Werowocomoco, provide a definition of an “excavation.” If the processes of an excavation destroy the site of interest, in what ways do archaeologists record their data for purposes of interpretation? 2) What is stratigraphy, or strata, and how do archaeologists use stratigraphy to understand the chronology or “relative dating” of a site’s deposits? 3) Define “absolute dating” and provide a descriptive example of one of these dating methods. 4) Using the readings from Week 3 & 4 (Townsend, Hall, Drooker, Langford), describe examples of Mississippian “prestige goods” or “status markers” uncovered by archaeologist at sites such as Cahokia, Etowah, and Spiro. Some of these goods are durable, but Drooker includes evidence for perishable items that are less often identified. Consider the differing types of materials and provide descriptive examples of the artifacts from the readings and lectures. 5) The articles and films of Week 5 discuss Powhatan’s Werowocomoco. Archaeologists were surprised to find two large ditch features at the site, which appear to form two “D” shape enclosures. What other evidence was located that supports the interpretation of the “D” shape and how have the researchers explained the meaning of this large feature? 6) During the NOVA film on Werowocomoco, archaeologists used dendrochronological evidence from the Nottoway-Blackwater drainage to determine that the region was experiencing a climate shift. What was going on the in the Chesapeake at the time of the Jamestown settlement and how did the researchers reach this conclusion? 1 7) Based on the reading from Straube (2006) Jamestown colonists brought certain types of weapons with them from England. What did the archaeology of James Fort tell us about the English weaponry and how it was used (or not used) in Virginia? Give specific examples. 8) Moore, Rodning, and Beck (2017) discuss the burned “Spanish” structures at Joara uncovered during archaeological investigations at the Berry site. According to the authors, analysis of the charred wood remains of the structures revealed a combination of Native and European construction characteristics. Describe the evidence presented by the researchers and their interpretation of the data. 9) In James Deetz’s important book In Small Things Forgotten, he describes the “pervasive” Chesapeake style of seventeenth-century architecture (1977:146). Much of what is known about this regional variation of English housing in Virginia comes only from archaeology. Give an overview of the architectural characteristics of this Chesapeake house form. 10) Maria Franklin (1997) notes that the enslaved members of the Rich Neck plantation consumed a wide variety of domestic and wild comestibles. The archaeology of the slave quarters revealed a “three-fold increase in the consumption of raccoon” (99) over the course of the site’s occupation. What interpretations does Franklin offer for this observable trend in the archaeological data? Not mutually exclusive, give several explanations provided by Franklin. 2 Post-Medieval Archaeology 40/1 (2006), 33–61 ‘Unfitt for any moderne service’? Arms and armour from James Fort By BEVERLY A. STRAUBE SUMMARY: Following a devastating Indian attack in 1622 that killed a quarter of the Virginia colonists, King James I bestowed a ‘princely and free guift’ of weaponry on the Virginia Company of London for the colony’s use. The gift included calivers, pistols, jacks of plate, brigandines, shirts of mail, and other arms and armour that were deemed ‘unfitt for any moderne service’ in England. At first glance, this shipment of obsolete arms appears to substantiate the traditional historical view that the English colonists were too ill equipped in both materials and skills to settle Virginia successfully. Recent excavations at James Fort, Jamestown, the site of the colony’s initial settlement and its seat of government, have unearthed a wealth of arms and armour that attests the character of early military life at Jamestown. The evidence suggests that the Virginia experience led to adaptation of traditional military practices and equipment, rendering the ‘unfit’ arms and armour effective and useful for the context. INTRODUCTION equipment quickly to the colonists so they could ‘take just revenge’ and ‘secure themselves against . . . any other forraigne Enimy’,2 the Virginia Company of London3 petitioned the Crown for certain arms stored in the Tower of London. James I agreed to make a gift of the requested weapons, which were described as being ‘not only old and much decayed but with their age growne also altogether unfitt and of no use for any moderne service’.4 In September 1622, a shipment of these arms including 1,000 bills, 700 calivers, 300 short pistols with fire locks, 300 harquebuses, 400 coats and shirts of mail, 100 brigandines, 40 jacks of plate, 2,000 iron skulls, 400 bows and 800 sheaves of arrows, was supplied to the colony. Half of the bills and 100 of the firearms were diverted to Bermuda at that colony’s request. Bermuda also received all the gifted bows and arrows for safekeeping until Virginia had need of them and could ensure that they would not fall into Indian hands, thereby making the natives ‘acquainted with the manner of fashioninge the Arrowe heads’.5 On the morning of 22 March 1622 the English settlements along the James River in Virginia were surprised by a co-ordinated Indian attack that left over 300 men, women and children dead. The attack, organized by the Pamunkey Indian chief Opechancanough, took advantage of the complacency that had developed in the colony during the eight years of peace following Pocahontas’ marriage to John Rolfe. Accustomed to Indians visiting or living amongst them, many of the English were killed with their own tools and weapons before they were even aware of ‘the blow that brought them to destruction’.1 By using the tactic of surprise, Opechancanough achieved more than he could ever hope to accomplish by a war waged against the settlers with their firearms and fortifications. This act of violence spread fear throughout the colony and exposed the vulnerability of the isolated settlements stretched along the James River. In a desperate attempt to send military © Society for Post-Medieval Archaeology 2006 DOI: 10.1179/174581306X160116 33 34 The supply of obsolete and disintegrating weaponry from England appears to substantiate the traditional view of the Virginia colony that gained momentum following the American Civil War — as a fiasco, poorly planned, ill-supplied, and mismanaged. Nineteenth-century historians investigating America’s beginnings minimized the role of Jamestown, located in the economically and culturally depressed South, in favour of Plymouth, in the victorious North. Unlike the English colony in Plymouth, motivated by religious principles and settled by devout families making a ‘new’ England in a New World, the first permanent English settlement of Jamestown has been portrayed as an economic scheme hatched by a group of entrepreneurs, essentially to line their pockets with as little expenditure as possible. Jamestown is seen as a colony that nearly failed — or that did fail — because it was overpopulated with effete gentlemen who would rather ‘bowl in the streets’6 than search for food or repair their ruinous shelters. The colonists were represented as a bunch of dilettantes, unprepared for the hardships facing them in Virginia and clueless as to how to protect themselves.7 Since 1994, archaeological excavations of the fort first built by the colonists in 1607 have uncovered numerous elements of arms and armour. The finds from closely dated deposits indicate that from the beginning the Virginia colonists were supplied with the same type of military equipment that was described as outmoded in 1622. As the finds from English Civil War contexts illustrate, it is not unusual to find arms and armour in military use many years after they are considered out of date.8 Usually this reflects a scarcity of arms and a lack of funding to acquire them at short notice, as was certainly the case with the Virginia colony in 1622, but was not entirely true in 1607. While funding was always an issue with the Virginia Company, it had months to supply the first group of colonists and years of experience provided by previous explorations of the New World to inform its decisions. The manner of warfare the colonists faced, or thought they would face, in the New World certainly dictated the type of weaponry with which they were supplied. The commonly expressed view that the colonists were not physically or psychologically prepared for what they found in Virginia is over-simplistic and misleading.9 The English had already made several attempts to establish colonies in the New World, beginning with Martin Frobisher in the 1570s and ending with the ‘lost colonists’ of Roanoke in 1583. Although these efforts failed, they helped to inform the planners of the Virginia venture. Moreover, the English had BEVERLY A. STRAUBE colonized successfully in Ireland, where they also faced a resistant native population that engaged in guerrilla warfare. By the time the English arrived in Virginia, they were equipped with arms and artillery both to defend their settlement against anticipated Spanish attacks (which never materialized), and from the sometimes hostile indigenous population. They retained European military methods that worked in Virginia, and abandoned or adapted those that did not. The colonists observed that the fighting methods of the Virginia Indians were ‘by Stratagems, trecheries, or surprisals’.10 Combat between the two groups consisted of skirmishes at fairly short range, as the Indians’ chief offensive weapons were wooden swords, and the bow and arrow, which were inaccurate at distances over 50m.11 The English quickly adapted from modern battlefield tactics, which used massed soldiers in rank and file, to more unconventional warfare. This was a warfare that the colonists who were veterans of the Irish wars, such as the colony’s first president Edward Maria Wingfield, would recognize. John Smith speaks of training the men to ‘march, fight, and scirmish in the woods . . . [so that] wee were better able to fight with Powhatan’s whole force in our order of battle amongst the Trees’.12 So, although outmoded for the type of formal battles in vogue in Europe, it could be argued that the colonists’ outdated equipment represented suitable arms and armour for the ambush-type ‘old style’ engagements the English encountered with the Indians. At the time Jamestown was settled there was a shortage of arms in England. There had been no considerable military engagements since the war against Spain, which ended in 1603, and England was not prepared for a major armed battle. By the early 17th century, the ‘knowledge of the art and practice of war’ had greatly diminished in England, protected as it was from the conflicts that plagued Europe by the barrier of the Channel.13 The government strictly controlled the military equipment in the country and the weapons stored either in city armouries or in the private households of the rural gentry.14 It is possible that some of Jamestown’s arms were being supplied from these private armouries; there is, however, no evidence indicating this. Gentlemen comprised about one-third of the individuals arriving at Jamestown in the first few years; they were probably responsible for many of the arms, especially the non-military issue weaponry, recovered from the fort. Most of them were well versed in the art of war through military service with European armies. Many had been introduced to the new military reforms in the ‘UNFITT FOR ANY MODERNE SERVICE?’ 35 FIG. 1 James Fort: buckler, diam. 123mm (photograph, Michael Lavin, APVA). Netherlands, fighting on the side of the Dutch in their war of independence against Spain. Sir Thomas Gates, who was serving in the garrison at Oudewater in south Holland, even brought his entire company from the Netherlands when he took command in 1609 as the colony’s first governor.15 Many of these veterans probably came to Virginia with their personal arms, rather than having to rely on cheaper military-issue weapons provided by the Company. The buckler An example of a civilian weapon that probably belonged to one of the colony’s gentlemen is a buckler found in the bulwark trench of James Fort dating to c. 1607–10 (Fig. 1). The incomplete iron boss is all that remains of the small hand-held shield. Bucklers were usually round, about 11–14in (0.28–0.36m) in diameter, with leather or wood foundations reinforced with overlapping iron rings. At the centre was a hollow iron boss with a projecting spike. Grips behind the boss on the backside allowed it to be held in the hand and be wielded to parry blows from an opponent’s sword. Used in England from the 13th to the 16th century, these small leather or wooden shields, primarily of Welsh manufacture, were very well suited to hand-to-hand combat.16 Bucklers were carried in the hand opposite the sword to ‘dint and blunt the edge of [the] Enemies Sword’, and protect the wearer’s body ‘from Blows and Wounds’.17 In the mid-16th century, Italian fencing schools began championing the use of the long piercing blade of the rapier, in conjunction with a dagger in the other hand, to block thrusts. This ‘poking fight of rapier and dagger’18 gained widespread popularity among English swordsmen. The buckler provided little defence against the lengthy rapier and was soon abandoned. The James Fort example is the only documented buckler excavated in English America. It was probably an old weapon when it was brought to Jamestown as the pear-shaped hollow boss reflects the form found on buckler types depicted in use c. 1520,19 and the manufacture of bucklers is thought to have ended in the mid-16th century. 20 Following the Indian massacre of 1622, the Virginia Company requested hundreds of old bucklers that they understood were in the royal armoury, only to be told that they were misinformed, ‘there not being any such at all decayed in that Office’.21 It is unclear from this whether there were no bucklers in storage or whether there were no ‘decayed’ bucklers; but since the buckler was considered an archaic weapon by the time of Jamestown’s founding, it was probably the former. Horseman’s axe Another weapon probably brought by one of the colony’s gentlemen is a horseman’s axe found in the cellar fill of Structure 165, dating to c. 1610 (Fig. 2). The small iron axe is offset by a thick and slightly curved fluke. Suggestive of the high quality of the arm are the traces of silver damascening on the hexagonal ferrule for the attachment of the (now missing) wooden handle. Cavalry forces in England used this type of weapon22 but there is no indication that cavalry was used in the colonists’ military engagements. There were few horses in the early colony: the first eight arrived in August 1609. By October, only ‘six Mares and a Horse’ remained, and these became sustenance for the starving colonists over the following winter.23 36 BEVERLY A. STRAUBE FIG. 2 James Fort: horseman’s axe, length 170mm (photograph, Michael Lavin, APVA). Armour While armour is rarely found on archaeological sites in England, many elements of body armour such as breastplates, tassets, backplates, gorgets and helmets have been discovered in Virginia’s early 17th-century trash deposits. At the time that the use of armour was declining in England as it became less and less useful against increasingly powerful firearms and new battle tactics, it was needed in Virginia for protection against Indian arrows. This need continued until serious threats from the Indians abated in the mid-17th century.24 Even so, the colonists found the body protection to be a disadvantage at times. John Smith noted that ‘the Salvages are so light and swift, though we see them (being so loaded with armour) they have much advantage of us though they be cowards’.25 The lack of dexterity, as well as discomfort in scorching Virginia summers, caused the early colonists to eschew the wearing of plate armour until the introduction of martial law in 1611. The result is that many elements of plate armour have been found in the fort’s early trash deposits. Some pieces reflect recycling efforts, such as the breastplate that had been carefully fashioned into a cooking pot or pail and was found in the c. 1610 cellar of Structure 165 (Fig. 3). Breastplates, protecting the chest area, were integral parts of armour worn by European soldiers from the 15th until the 17th century. Stylistically they reflect male civilian clothing, which provides a general date of manufacture. A breastplate excavated from the fort’s bulwark trench is of a very rounded 16th-century type with a short bottom flange (Fig. 4). The armholes are cut wide to incorporate the addition of underarm gussets. Gussets, which were unfashionable by the beginning of the 17th century,26 are curving iron lames that are riveted to the armhole opening of the breastplate. On some gussets the rivet slides on a horizontal slot in the upper end, allowing for some movement and flexibility. All but two of the 173 gussets found in the fort were excavated from c. 1610 contexts, which suggests that these elements had been removed from breastplates and discarded (Fig. 5). Another complete breastplate was recently recovered within a fort-period well [Structure 170] that was filled in the 1620s (Fig. 6). It is of the ‘peascod’ shape more typical of the very early 17th ‘UNFITT FOR ANY MODERNE SERVICE?’ 37 FIG. 3 James Fort: breastplate fashioned into a cooking pot or pail, c. 1610, length 300mm (photograph, Michael Lavin, APVA). century and has brass diamond-shaped washers on the shoulder strap rivets, a feature possibly suggesting a Dutch origin.27 Significantly, the breastplate was modified on the right armhole, which had been cut away to incorporate a small rectangular plate with rounded edges (Fig. 7). It is one of three breastplates excavated from early 17th-century Virginia sites that display this alteration.28 The breastplate adaptation dates from some time after Sir Thomas Dale’s arrival in the colony in 1611. As the new governor, Dale enforced military discipline through his code of behaviour entitled the ‘Lawes Divine, Morall and Martiall’. In an attempt to reduce the deaths of his men from Indian arrows, he made it a law that ‘every shot shall either be furnished with a quilted coate of Canvas, a headpiece, and a sword, or else with a light Armour and Bases quilted’.29 At the time it was not customary for soldiers carrying firearms to wear ‘light armour’ — that is a breastplate and backplate known together as a cuirass. Patterned after Dutch military reforms implemented around 1590, there were at this time three components to the English army: the pikemen, who carried a pike and wore armour; the musketeers, and ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Tutor Answer

School: UC Berkeley

This is the other quiz!

Your Name
Instructor Name
Course Number
Archeology Quiz
1. Using notes from the first weeks’ lectures, Week 2 reading from Kottak, or content
from the NOVA film on Werowocomoco, provide a definition of an “excavation.” If the
processes of an excavation destroy the site of interest, in what ways do archaeologists
record their data for purposes of interpretation?
Archeologists sometimes must go through the remains in a given area to salvage or
acquire information. To do so, an excavation is necessary. Excavations are archeological
procedures through which scientists go through the “layers of deposits that make up a site”
(Kottak: 60) in order to find archeological remains. There are various steps that must be
completed for a successful excavation. First, it is necessary to determine where to dig. The
prospective area will be “surface collected and mapped, so that the researchers can make an
informed decision about where exactly to dig” (Kottak: 60). Once an area is chosen, it will be
necessary to choose the way of excavating, as well – either working through arbitrarily chosen
spots, like equal-sized areas or working through the different layers in the spot. Throughout the
process, scientists look for remains of different kinds. These can be bones, artifacts, tools or
weapons. They can also vary in size; some are so small, that the soil that is dug up needs to be
passed through screens to make sure that minuscule fragments are not missed. All the remains
that are located within a dig site are recorded. Their descriptions and placement are
meticulously gathered and logged; photographs, too, will be taken for an accurate visual
2. What is stratigraphy, or strata, and how do archaeologists use stratigraphy to
understand the chronology or “relative dating” of a site’s deposits?
In soil and in rock, it is possible to see markedly different layers. These layers, known as strata,
are made up of geological deposits. As time passes by, these deposits accumulate on a site,
from oldest to most recent. The layers that are found at the bottom are older than those found
at the top. If any remains get trapped within the sediments, then they would also be organized
in the same chronological order than the strata where they fall. Knowing this about stratigraphy
has helped scientists make substantiated guesses about the age of the remains. With the help of
a tool known as relative dating, scientists can establish for any object, “a time frame in relation
to other strata” (Kottak, 62). This means that they can determine the age of a remain by
comparing its placement to the layers of sediment and to other remains. This type of dating
will not give scientists the exact date of a remain – it cannot be claimed that an object is from
1578 through this purpose alone – but it will let them know if it is how much younger or older
it is compared to its surroundings. This estimate is the first step towards discovering the actual
date of a remain.

3. Define “absolute dating” and provide a descriptive example of one of these dating
Absolute dating seeks to provide a more accurate age for the remains that it seeks to review.
It provides scientists with numerical ...

flag Report DMCA

Tutor went the extra mile to help me with this essay. Citations were a bit shaky but I appreciated how well he handled APA styles and how ok he was to change them even though I didnt specify. Got a B+ which is believable and acceptable.

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors