What Can Be Learned about Social Status Based on the Analysis of Skeletal Evidence and Material Culture - Essay Example

Anthropology Number Introduction Archeology is a branch of anthropology that deals with the study of human behavior andculture of the past from the origins of humans and present. Archeologists derive information about the past of human beings through a thorough analysis of the skeletal remains and material culture (Baxter, 2008:168). This study of man’s past ways has further been enabled through gender archeology. Archeology has been associated with paleontology however this field mainly concerns itself with the life of humans in the past. It does not rely on information that has been published in books instead it acquires information through the study of objects that are found on or below the ground (Cameron, 2011:180). This paper seeks to determine the lessons that have been learnt through the analysis of material culture and skeletal remains. History Archeology came into existence in the 19thand early 20thcentury.During this period, archeological work had been concentrated in Europe, SW Asia and in a few areas of America. Presently, the study is widespread and archeologists study the diversity of humanity that exists around the globe (Dormett, Smith, & Wallis, 2006:30). How the archeologists work Archeologists obtain data through undertaking field surveys and excavations. Substances that are obtained during those field surveys are taken to the laboratory for further analysis. Then they can be able to tell the history of human societies basing on the analysis that they will have carried out (Baxter, 2008:174). This is because a certain aspect of the history of the human beings in question. Social status and Class Status refers to the roles that one has within their society throughout their lifespan. Economists however look at it in terms of the economic standing that one possesses in the society. This is based on the differences in material and economic wealth .Class on the other hand are stratifications that result from the economic status that exists in the society (Dormett, Smith, & Wallis, 2006:32). In the archeological field, status has been used to define groups of people that existed within the past population. Status can be deduced from the way these individuals were buried, the associated mortuary goods as well as their skeletal remains. Studies have revealed that roles and status are the major considerations that differentiate social stricture. Differences that exist in the economic status and class are defined through material culture and architecture (Cameron, 2011:200). Lessons on social status basing on analysis of material culture and skeletal remains Through archeological studies, economic status can be determined through a number of ways. A study conducted previously show that the Maya community can be termed as a multi-level system. This is because the organizations that existed during the past consisted of the elite that consisted of the ruling and non-ruling individuals, middle elite classes and the commoners (Dormett, Smith, & Wallis, 2006:34). It has been noted that the titles of the ruling elite are based on terrestrial acquisition. Archeological evidence reveal that indeed social mobility existed in the Maya region. This is because the region was divided in city and states. It is presumed that the elite that existed in the past may be having same lifestyle as compared to the present elites occupying the same city state (Baxter, 2008:172). This can be deduced through excavation and analysis of material culture including artefacts and architecture. Architecture has been found to be a good indicator of economic status. This is because the energy that was used in materials can display a lot of information about individuals (Dormett, Smith, & Wallis, 2006:28). For instance the pyramids that were constructed in Maya is a characteristic of the ruling elites in the region. The most populated area was associated with commoners since they were not able to acquire large tracts of land thus squeeze within a small area (Cameron, 2011:209). Studies show that the cost of maintaining the architecture might be low therefore despite the originals not being present, the present elite are more likely to be found in these areas. These structures have been found to intensify the difference in social structures that existed through increasing the visibility in power (Baxter, 2008:172). This is because they exhibit the difference to access resources. Studies have further shown that material culture is an indicator of economic status and an analysis of ceramics of the society in Maya. The elite group were associated with fancy ceramics (Dormett, Smith, & Wallis, 2006:29). From the archeological evidence that the archeologists obtained then they can be able to tell whether a particular city was dominated by either the elite or commoners in the society. This is because the more fancy ceramics that they excavated, the more elites existed within a particular region. The skeletal remains can also help in determining the social status of individuals. This is because the different classes in society conducted their burials differently. It is common to find both primary and secondary burials among the Maya. Primary burial refers to the first place where someone is buried (Cameron, 2011:205). On the other hand secondary burial is the place where the dead individual is buried reinterred after death. The latter place is referred that way because this places are so small that the whole body cannot fit (Baxter, 2008:170). Therefore people disarticulated the deceased so that their bodies could fit in the areas. Mostly those who bury their dead using the secondary burial was mainly associated with the commoners on the society since they had no large areas where they could bury their dead. Due to the limited space they possessed they resorted to tombs (Dormett, Smith, & Wallis, 2006:34). They therefore had to dis articulate the bodies of their dead so that it could fit in the particular tombs.in cases where the archeologists excavate such tombs then they can be able to tell whether the individual belonged to the elite or the commoner class of the society. The skeletal remains can be further used to study the history of human past. Archeologists used the skeletal remains to determine the diet or health of individuals. This can be further inferred to determine the social status of an individual (Dormett, Smith, & Wallis, 2006:32). This can be made more possible through analyzing stable isotopes to determine the diet and health factor of individuals. A study conducted in Harmanai, Northern, Belize found that individuals who had diet higher in maize belonged to the lower classes. Individuals whose diet is found to have a more balanced diet are associated with individuals having the elite status in the society (Baxter, 2008:174). The Maya society used to bury their dead along with burial goods. Some of the burial goods included ceramics. The quality as well as quantity helped a great deal in determining the social status of individuals (Cameron, 2011:207). This was made possible by the moisture available in the soil that kept the good in good condition. From the excavations, archeologists could be able to tell the class that the individual belonged to. Individuals who belonged to the elite society were assumed to have much in their possession thus tombs or graves that were found to have many goods were associated with the elite whereas those that had less were associated with the commoners who were presumed not to possess much (Baxter, 2008:174). Skeletal modifications were also associated with the elite members of the society.it has been found that modification of dental structure such as engraving on the enamel have been strong indicators of the elite group in the society therefore skeletal remains that possess this modification are associated with the elite members (Baxter, 2008:175). This is because in the old days this was a characteristic that was specifically for the elite or individuals with high status. The burial of the elite and the non-elite classes can be differentiated through the epigraphic record.it was more common to find writing on tombs of the elite in society. Thus this was the way they could present the status of the deceased (Cameron, 2011:209). .Another common feature associated with burials of the elite was the large pyramid tombs that leaders such as Pascal was buried in the skeletons excavated in these tombs were associated with the elite. It has also been found that there are instances where the above mentioned strategies cannot be fully employed to determine the social status of individuals in the past. For instance cranial structures were in the past associated with the elite group in the society. However evidence from skeletal structures prove otherwise. This is because there are some skeletal remains that give evidence that even the commoners in the society were found to have an elongated cranium (Dormett, Smith, & Wallis, 2006:36). Conclusion Basing from the lessons that have been found above it can be concluded that there are various means of the archeologists have come up with to ascertain the social status of individuals in the past. However, it has been argued that the results have been proved otherwise in other instances. Therefore in determining the economic status of people in the past through burials and other means, care must be taken so as not to generalize and assume other cases. This is because the findings are not universal and there are different cultures in existence. Facts should be exercised so that differences and exceptions can be explored. Reference Baxter, J. E. (2008). The Archeology of Childhood. Annual Review of Anthropology Vol 37, 159-175. Cameron, C. M. (2011). Captives and Culture Change. Current Anthropology,Vol 52,No 2, 169-209. Dormett, K. M., Smith, H., & Wallis, L. A. (2006). Late Holocene Human Remains from North West Queensland,Australia:Archeology and Palaeopathology. Archeology in Oceania, 25-36. Read More