Key Pages:

Home
-
About this wiki
-
Weekly Schedule
-
Reading downloads
-
Requirements
-
Response Papers
-
Discussion
-
Research Projects
-
Notebook Scans
-
Omur Harmansah
-
Urbanism

One point that was mentioned in class, but I don’t feel was fully fleshed out, was the ambiguity of complexity. Now, I’m sure this is nothing new, and I don’t have much of a point, I suppose, but I’m wondering where we’re pulling our notion of social complexity from, and why we’re using it in the ways we are. We’re blessed (or cursed?) this semester in dealing primarily with a “civilization” (thank you Norm) that can tell us things in their own words. And we have these lists of offices delineating various positions possible in administration, and making the existence of hierarchy readily apparent. But how much of our instict to classify complexity is drawn from the textual material, and how much from the material culture? It seems, if I’ve been reading things right, that most of the authors we’ve engaged with are equating social complexity with material complexity, which is nice, given that this is ultimately an archaeological endeavor. Yet, I’m not entirely sure this is so.

Even if we are taking artifactual evidence as our primary source for the understanding of complexity in this society, how do we determine what is complex? Is it just a quantifiable thing – an increase in the number of artifacts, the types of artifacts, etc.? Is it the treatment of artifacts – elaboration of form or application of decoration? Are our contexts secure enough, and securely identified enough to determine complexity based on elite v. domestic v. ritual (and on and on) assemblages? I might just be problematizing something that doesn’t demand it, but this has bothered me.

Perhaps slightly tangential is Ömür’s mention of Neolithic “complex” societies. Several Neolithic settlements might be urban centers – why is an urban center not complex? I don’t have much to say on this at the moment, but I think these might be pertinent things to consider in today’s impending discussion of city-states.