Anthropology/Specializing in Archaeology

Northern societies of the pre-Christian period have left us plentiful images of women as warriors in surviving legends. It has nonetheless been difficult for scholars to believe that the images are founded on social fact or reflective in any way of actual past experience. The heroic contexts of women warrior stories lead many to subscribe to psychological explanations for the popularity of the story type. Clearly, the idea of the woman warrior does not conform with the Western Christian worldview. However, it originates in a culture considerably earlier than that of the medieval writers of Christian Europe who would find the idea fantastic. Recently, some archaeologists and historians have begun arguing for the possibility of women in early societies occasionally fulfilling social roles perceived by us as “male.” Archaeologically, skeletal remains from graves containing weapons have in a few instances been found, after expert osteological analysis, to appear in all likelihood to be biologically female. This paper will explore the existing evidence for the reality of the “warrior,” or weapon-bearing, female primarily in Anglo-Saxon and Viking cultures. Special attention will be paid to archaeological data. The social meaning of bearing weapons in these pagan societies will also be examined through literary sources and cultural analogy, and the logical possibilities for women to participate in “warrior culture” will be considered.

This paper will be a consideration, with special reference to the last prehistoric period of Finland, of the major latter 20th-century theoretical stances in anthropology and archaeology which bear relevance for the interpretation of funerary remains in archaeological contexts.

This paper aims to present essential information about NAGPRA (The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) for anthropology students and teachers. It does not delve into legalistic details but stresses the origin, intent, impact, and evolution of the law from Native, anthropological, and federal perspectives.

Rewritten (in 2018) chapter one of my dissertation. Please see Bibliography posted separately for references.

Abstract:

"The Finnish people of the late Iron Age (9th to 12th centuries AD) left behind several distinct types of cemetery employing disparate funerary rituals and symbolic texts. Both cremation and inhumation rites, found in either mounds or flat field cemeteries, are integral aspects of late prehistoric Finnish culture. Comparison of these sites with ethnohistoric data about eschatology, funerary practice and social organization on the one hand and with the preserved oral tradition of pre-Christian myths and heroic tales collected by folklorists on the other suggests an interpretation of the cemeteries which reveals the prehistoric Finns to have been a shamanistic society deeply immersed in a culture of ancestor worship and belief in spirit beings. This thesis attempts to explain the variation in mortuary ritual and to define more specifically the content of the belief behind the funerary rites. Economic and sociopolitical factors are considered in delineating the proposed development of the pagan Finnish world view.

An investigation of Finnish religious concepts in prehistoric contexts necessitates going beneath the layers of gradually acquired Christian belief. Understanding the process of early Christian conversion in European society is a complex undertaking. Preserved pagan beliefs come to us through the filter of early medieval dogma. The place of research on prehistoric religion within the general framework of medieval archaeology is discussed, and lines of inquiry by which interdisciplinary studies may enable and enhance our understanding of proto- and prehistoric ideological systems within cultural continuities are suggested."

Where are you from?" That is one of the first questions asked when you meet someone new. Your answer informs your new acquaintance of your cultural background and current geographic affiliation. Your identity is at least partially informed by where you live, or where you originated. A geographically defined identity is recognizable in the archaeological record. The regions of a culture group vary in their material culture and practices, but are still recognizably related. Among these variations of identity, the frontier identity is distinctly different from those in the cultural centre, or in the hinterlands. Traditionally, discussions of regional identity have focused on the core and periphery, but in this session we aim to focus on the tripartite of core, periphery and frontier, and how we can distinguish these archaeologically. Living on borders with other culture groups, or the unknown, adds a different dimension to the identity of the group and individuals requiring them to adapt and reinforce their cultural identities in different ways. This session will explore the construction of a frontier identity through various means in a variety of contexts.

Dept. of Anthropology, University of Minnesota 395 HHH Ctr., 301 19th Ave S., Minneapolis, MN 55455 TEL: 612-625-3400; FAX: 612-625-3095 [email protected] Education University of Minnesota, twin cities Dept. of Anthropology, Ph.D., June 2016 (expected) Dissertation: “Liminal Religiosity: Belief and Ritual in a Post-Colonial Context” Committee: Peter Wells (Advisor), Oliver Nicholson, John Soderberg, Stuart McLean Preliminary Defense: Passed, April 2015 University of California, Santa Cruz Dept. of Anthropology, B.A., 2011 Advisor: Judith Habicht-Mauche

One of the key concerns in human evolution studies is tracing the development of stone tool use by early hominins to acquire meat. It has been suggested that the earliest tools used for this purpose might have been unmodified, naturally sharp rocks. However, it has proven challenging to distinguish marks on bones made by hominins using humanly unmodified rocks (HURs) for butchery, from marks made by natural processes. Here we present the results of a study aimed at comparing marks made by HURs during butchery, versus marks made by the same HURs through simulated natural processes, specifically, the fluvial tumbling of bones with naturally sharp rocks (replicated here using a rock tumbler). The results of this study, in which the lithological effector is held constant while the actor is varied, confirm earlier studies suggesting that many existing categorical attributes do not effectively distinguish between marks made by HURs versus those made by other tools or trampling. However, we also present a novel way of measuring mark depths which shows that marks made by the human actor are much deeper and longer than those made by natural processes. The size of marks, therefore, matters. This knowledge may help us assess the likelihood that marks on bone surfaces may have been produced by natural forces, as opposed to by humans using unmodified rocks for butchery.