Although many people only think of Egyptian hieroglyphics when discussing the origins of written language, there is evidence that written language systems had been developed independently of each other around the world. Artifacts suggests that the earliest forms of written language originated in Mesopotamia, China, and Mesoamerica. A recent find has opened the door for reanalysis and for questioning regarding the early written records of Mesoamerica and their influence in the development of the area’s early languages. In the early 1990s, while building a road, what is now known as the Cascajal Block was found in Veracruz, Mexico, where the Olmec civilization once stood. This stone block was taken care of by cultural authorities and was examined in 1999 and 2006.

The Cascajal Block

Upon examination, archaeologists Carmen Rodriguez and Ponciano Ortiz revealed that the serpentine block contained sixty two images on one of its surfaces. After investigating the images on the block, they believed that an example of written text had been found. The pictures on the block appear to be arranged in a certain syntax, there are patterns and repeating images suggesting that the images are not just art or pictures but written language. Another interesting observation reveals that the block may have cleared or erased several times indicating possible personal use.

Although most agree that the images on the block are indeed evidence of a writing system, some controversy surrounds the dating of the block. The block was dated to around 900 BCE, this estimate was based on the pot sherds and other artifacts it was found with, so many do not trust that the true context of the artifact is known. If the dating holds true, then the Cascajal Block is the earliest evidence of written language in the Americas. This along with the fact that the images do not seem to connect to any other writing of the area or time period has added to the “mother-sister” debate regarding the Olmec civilization’s influence in Mesoamerica.

Map of Mesoamerica

The discovery of the Cascajal Block and the debates surrounding it can help us understand how different archaeological approaches and circles of thought can be used to gain a deeper understanding of the artifact and the Olmec civilization. Starting with a functionalists approach the block’s possible purposes may be examined, and here experimental archaeology techniques may be used to understand the functionality of the block as a personal writing tool. From this type of investigation, more questions will arise and can be asked. We can approach these questions from a more structuralist or processual view by looking into the social structures of Olmec civilization and how written language, text, and literacy were affected and affected structures such as gender and class or everyday life. With these ideas in mind, what are the possible implication of the Cascajal Block?

References:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5793/1551.full

http://archive.archaeology.org/0701/etc/learn.html

http://archaeology.about.com/od/olmeccivilization/a/cascajal_block_3.htm

Photo 1: http://archive.archaeology.org/0701/etc/learn.html
Photo 2: http://www.famsi.org/maps/

Additional Reading:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5793/1610.full

http://archive.archaeology.org/0601/abstracts/olmec.html

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology

Punk Archaeology entails the creative use of artifacts and sites to break out of established modes of thought to promote new ways of thinking. Andrew Reinhard, the lead archaeologist in the Atari dig, describes Punk archeology as “the history of places affiliated with Punk music and culture. It also means that as archaeologists, we apply Punk’s do-it-yourself aesthetic to our science. Punk also engages the community and finds ways to work either within or around constraints such as money and time, using those restrictions to our advantage creatively.”There is continuous debate however, over the efficiency of this practice of archeology and why punk archaeology may or may not succeed in challenging established modes of thought.

When looking at the Atari excavations done in New Mexico by a team of punk archaeologists, it is hard not to wonder whether encountering and presenting the buried games as archaeological artifacts had the effect of providing some distance from the familiar and opening these objects up to new forms of critique. While archaeological investigation is in many ways about solving ancient “mysteries” archaeology is, first and foremost, a social science that uses various methodologies, careful accumulation and analysis of data, and scientific method. One of the first cons of the use of Punk archeology is the mass media that it attracts that creates a negative effect on the discoveries made. To clarify, when looking at the Atari dig done in New Mexico, some saw it as merely a publicity stunt and “claim to fame.” Instead of focusing on the actual science being done, such as the exposing of the stratigraphy of the landfill to determine the interplay between domestic trash and dumped Atari products, the project was largely dependent on the overarching story and schedule of the director…not the scientists. The scientists in this project can be viewed as props in “archeology theatre” and just parts of the documentary, not the main focus. This can also cause a lot of what is discovered to be twisted just to be made more appealing to the public. Punk archeology can often lead to forms of pseudoarcheology whereas things such as aliens walking the earth are studied. While some may argue that public attention is good for breaking established thought, putting archeology on a global stage can be detrimental and making it all seem like a big joke.

Punk archaeology can also be seen as a tool that encourages us to approach the familiar in unconventional ways.   It complements conventional archaeology which likewise provides a distance for critically understanding objects from the past, but in most cases these objects are already unfamiliar to the modern viewer. Punk archeology can make these objects understandable and relevant to public viewers. In the example of the Atari dig-up, it gave archeology profile and capital while also offering a look into corporate history. Some of what was dug up in this finding became museum artifacts and part of a life history visible to the public eye. Punk archaeology is not only a source of entertaining websites and goofy TV shows, it can be used in much more powerful way to influence modern ideas about the past and the present. It channels the public into learning a great deal about our more recent past and how modern thinking has informed and is informed by ancient history.

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology

Alaina Wilson, the speaker in the Villard room, talked about the similarities of Native American stoned tools from New York and Alaska. She compared different stoned tools and analyzed their use for the different regions. What really surprised me was that she never mentioned if the tools were made by indirect or direct percussion methods. In my opinion, this information  would have been useful in determining what type of culture the knappers lived in. What also surprised me was the fact that the speaker only talked about technological similarities of the two societies.

In Pierre M. Desrosiers’s book, The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: From Origin to Modern Experimentation, it’s evident that knapping techniques reveal information about preexisting cultures in Central Asia. Specifically, pressure knapping was present in Central Asia during the beginning of the Holocene. Desrosiers notes that depending on the culture, tools were either made using a short crutch or a long crutch. According to Desrosiers, Central Asian civilizations adopted the technique through cultural contact with the Far East and from migration of bearers of the technique from Siberia, Mongolia, Xinjiang. From this information, different methods of knapping can describe the influencing factors of cultures and can demonstrate how cultures evolve through technological advances. Thus I believe that knapping techniques can always describe technological and cultural traits of a society.

Picture of a man using a short crutch knapping tool (Pressure Knapping)

What I did learn from Alaina was that shock waves are sent through the stone during the process of knapping. Furthermore, Professor Lucy Johnson flint-knapping demonstration in class helped me visualize how flakes are produced. I noticed when the angle of contact was just slightly off, her stone would not form the way she wanted it to. Professor Johnson also enlightened the class that flake debris can help archaeologists reenact the knapping done and can indicate what type of tool was being made.

The analyzing of flake debris helped the archaeologist in the study compare the types of tools that were produced. After watching Professor Johnson knap and listening to Alaina, I was curious about the concept of flake debris sizes created from flint-knapping. I found out that there’s a relationship between the weight of crafted tools and the flake debris generated from knapping. According to archaeologist Michael Shott, flake debris can help determine original tool weight and can show the depletion of the original tool.

In all, Alaina Wilson’s hypothesis was proven by the discovery of similar weight distribution of the flakes from both sites, the fact that the stones went through feather termination, and the artifacts from both of the sites showed similarities in the late stages of the knapping process.

Photo Link:

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-2003-3_18/fulltext.html

References:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qjm8IbYgnmAC&pg=PA322&lpg=PA322&dq=what+indirect+percussion+reveals+about+a+culture&source=bl&ots=YT_cF5tz0w&sig=5iBkB8Z3tqiXdt9lQDnhhKKFxqo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=d8M0VLzQHdGNsQSD64CoDg&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=what%20indirect%20percussion%20reveals%20about%20a%20culture&f=false

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20177305?seq=16

Further Reading:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bulgq1AeO4MC&pg=PA367&lpg=PA367&dq=short+shoulder+crutch+artifacts+archaeology&source=bl&ots=mc2USg5Pqj&sig=E-XYxLXuTWFg-YCbzz3Rq-dIsCg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bcw0VMf9FMO-ggSCooC4Dg&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=percussion&f=false

Short Crutch Demonstration (Pressure Knapping):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZMf4myJOVI (Flake removed at 3:00)

Link to original post in Reall Archaeology