I am an archaeologist and linguistic anthropologist focused on questions of ethnicity and group identity in past people, as well as the use of constructions of past identities in the present cultural and political arenas.
The Oaxaca Valley during Monte Albán V provides an ideal context to explore the relationship betw... more The Oaxaca Valley during Monte Albán V provides an ideal context to explore the relationship between group identity and material culture in archaeology, a relationship that is often left largely unquestioned despite being poorly understood. Since the first excavations in the Valley of Oaxaca in the early 20th century, the region has been a source of archaeological interest, intrigue, and mystery. The decline of the city of Monte Albán as the sole political and cultural capital of the region marks the beginning of the period that the early explorers called “Monte Albán V” (MA V), which they interpreted as the result of a Mixtec invasion of an ethnically Zapotec state. This hypothesis has since been rejected by most scholars, but the dichotomy of Zapotec and Mixtec peoples as clearly delineated ethnic groups—as well as a belief in a sharp cultural and political discontinuity in the transition into MA V—has permeated much of our archaeological understanding of group identity in prehispanic Oaxaca. By compiling information from previous archaeological reports, I have analyzed variation in human burials dated to MA V at various sites across the region to better understand what identities were considered important in funerary practice. In particular, this study takes into account burial position, associated ceramic artifacts, and sex distribution. By applying recent anthropological theories of identity as social action, this study challenges many of the assumptions about identity in Postclassic Oaxaca that have been taken for granted by past research. Distinct ethnic traditions that could be attributed to Zapotec or Mixtec groups were not visible in the funerary treatment of individuals. Instead, the manipulation of genealogy and claims to specific ancestors appears more fundamental to group identity in much of MA V Oaxaca.
Franz Boas is an important figure for anthropology, particularly because of his popularization of... more Franz Boas is an important figure for anthropology, particularly because of his popularization of the “four-field approach.” Yet archaeology has largely neglected to acknowledge Boas’s contributions to the discipline’s development, despite their relevance and potential for the creation of new ideas and interpretations. Scientific fields are best understood as traditions built on shared discourse rather than delineated by methodological processes, and thus the unity of a particular field is contingent upon participation and inclusion in that discourse. Besides the development of the four-field approach, many current ideas in all subfields of anthropology can find their roots in Boas’s advocative efforts for the field. The neglect of archaeology to incorporate the work of Boas into its own discussions has resulted not only in the loss of potential productive dialogues between important ideas in archaeological development and theory and parallels put forth by Boas, but also in a weakening of the connection between archaeology and anthropology as a whole. It is not useful to treat Boas’s work as strictly positive or to portray him as the “patron saint” of anthropology, but it is necessary to acknowledge the influence his corpus has had upon the field and to address the interpretive potential that a Boasian understanding of archaeology can provide. While Boas’s ideas have always been present in archaeology, the discipline has been disadvantaged by its hesitance to understand the origins of these ideas, resulting in a failure to develop them fully.
The Oaxaca Valley during Monte Albán V provides an ideal context to explore the relationship betw... more The Oaxaca Valley during Monte Albán V provides an ideal context to explore the relationship between group identity and material culture in archaeology, a relationship that is often left largely unquestioned despite being poorly understood. Since the first excavations in the Valley of Oaxaca in the early 20th century, the region has been a source of archaeological interest, intrigue, and mystery. The decline of the city of Monte Albán as the sole political and cultural capital of the region marks the beginning of the period that the early explorers called “Monte Albán V” (MA V), which they interpreted as the result of a Mixtec invasion of an ethnically Zapotec state. This hypothesis has since been rejected by most scholars, but the dichotomy of Zapotec and Mixtec peoples as clearly delineated ethnic groups—as well as a belief in a sharp cultural and political discontinuity in the transition into MA V—has permeated much of our archaeological understanding of group identity in prehispanic Oaxaca. By compiling information from previous archaeological reports, I have analyzed variation in human burials dated to MA V at various sites across the region to better understand what identities were considered important in funerary practice. In particular, this study takes into account burial position, associated ceramic artifacts, and sex distribution. By applying recent anthropological theories of identity as social action, this study challenges many of the assumptions about identity in Postclassic Oaxaca that have been taken for granted by past research. Distinct ethnic traditions that could be attributed to Zapotec or Mixtec groups were not visible in the funerary treatment of individuals. Instead, the manipulation of genealogy and claims to specific ancestors appears more fundamental to group identity in much of MA V Oaxaca.
Franz Boas is an important figure for anthropology, particularly because of his popularization of... more Franz Boas is an important figure for anthropology, particularly because of his popularization of the “four-field approach.” Yet archaeology has largely neglected to acknowledge Boas’s contributions to the discipline’s development, despite their relevance and potential for the creation of new ideas and interpretations. Scientific fields are best understood as traditions built on shared discourse rather than delineated by methodological processes, and thus the unity of a particular field is contingent upon participation and inclusion in that discourse. Besides the development of the four-field approach, many current ideas in all subfields of anthropology can find their roots in Boas’s advocative efforts for the field. The neglect of archaeology to incorporate the work of Boas into its own discussions has resulted not only in the loss of potential productive dialogues between important ideas in archaeological development and theory and parallels put forth by Boas, but also in a weakening of the connection between archaeology and anthropology as a whole. It is not useful to treat Boas’s work as strictly positive or to portray him as the “patron saint” of anthropology, but it is necessary to acknowledge the influence his corpus has had upon the field and to address the interpretive potential that a Boasian understanding of archaeology can provide. While Boas’s ideas have always been present in archaeology, the discipline has been disadvantaged by its hesitance to understand the origins of these ideas, resulting in a failure to develop them fully.
Uploads
Papers by Daniel R Hansen