Brian Stokes, Allan Hancock College
The chapter explored social and political organizations of culture from an archaeological perspective. This exercise combines those topics by exploring symbolic expressions of differential wealth in our own stratified society.
Assumptions:
As a member of this culture, you know that wealth is directly correlated with economic status (i.e., lower class, middle class, upper class) and that, though some individuals acquire wealth (and status) through inheritance, most have to earn it through personal effort. In the sub-culture of your college, the ability to earn wealth and status are predicated on completing one’s education. By this definition, then, virtually all students have less wealth and status than the college’s staff. Naturally, some students have greater wealth than your college’s employees and college employees do not necessarily express their wealth through expensive cars or jewelry. For this exercise, however, assume that the average student has less wealth than the average employee.
Methods:
In this exercise, you will test the hypothesis that your college’s staff members are wealthier than your college’s students. To accomplish this task, you will collect data about the cars students and staff members drive, which you can identify by the types of permits displayed in or on them and the spaces in which the cars are parked, which provide you with an unusually detailed archaeological record regarding social status!
Your analysis involves an independent variable—wealth—and dependent variables that give you information about the relative wealth of the driver of each car. Many characteristics of a car point to the driver’s relative wealth. Most obvious is the make and model, which you can identify using exterior emblems and logos. The year the car was made is less obvious but can be estimated based on your knowledge of body styles and license plate numbers. The retail value of the car is easy to determine using websites such as Autotrader.com and KBB.com, which provide estimates of a car’s value based on make, model, and year.
In addition to the make and model, you need to collect data for three other dependent variables: the car’s cleanliness, body damage, and personalized embellishments such as stickers, emblems, and personalized plates.
Record data on 10 student cars and 10 employee cars in the following tables. Record data on the first cars you encounter (based on the starting point provided by your instructor). A minimum of 5 cars for each group must display some sort of sticker/emblem or personalized license plate or frame.
Dependent variables to record:
Make: The car’s manufacturer (e.g., Toyota, Ford, Mercedes).
Model: The particular type (model) of car (e.g., Toyota Prius, Ford Explorer, Mercedes E-class).
Cleanliness: In your opinion, overall, is the car clean, moderately clean, or filthy?
Damage: Record your observations on the condition of the vehicle. For example, are there any dents, missing parts, different colored body panels, or other types of damage? Your instructor will provide an example of the kind of data to record.
Bumper stickers and related emblems: Record the presence, content, and condition of any bumper/window stickers and other emblems or signs applied to the vehicle.
Personalized license plates and license plate frames: Record any symbolic images and text displayed on the car’s license plate and plate frame (e.g., sports teams, statements).
Record the make and model for each vehicle and then scan it to determine its cleanliness and presence of any damage and record those observations. Next, record information about each personalization of the vehicle in terms of who or what it represents. Finally, research and record the approximate value of the cars online.
After you have collected your data, you will analyze it to identify similarities and differences, overall, in cars owned by students and by staff and write a report on your analysis and findings.
Write-Up Format:
- Introduction – Define and describe social archaeology and explain how this project represents a social archaeology study. Refer back to concepts discussed in Chapter 11.
- Methods – Describe when and how you collected your data. Be sure to identify the parking lot(s) you took your samples of cars from and reference a map of the college.
- Data – Include the data tables you completed on the cars you surveyed in your report and be sure to reference them (“See Table 1.”) as needed in the analysis section.
Analysis – Address all of the following questions.
1. Based on trends in your data, can student and employee vehicles be distinguished on the basis of their makes and models? Explain why or why not. Which group included the most prestigious car sampled? Which group had the greater number of higher-priced vehicles? Explain and use evidence from your samples.
2. Which group (students or employees), on average, had the cleanest cars? Was there any correlation between the cars’ makes and models and their cleanliness? What sorts of information can you infer from these patterns from a social stratification perspective? Explain how and why you came up with these inferences.
3. Which group had the greater number of damaged cars? Describe the most heavily damaged car in your sample. What information can you infer from these patterns from a social stratification perspective? Explain how and why you came to these conclusions.
4. Can student and employee vehicles be discriminated on the basis of stickers, emblems, and personalized license plates and plate frames? What information can you infer from these patterns from a social stratification perspective? Did any of the personalizations give you insights into the owners’ age, gender, or social class? Explain how and why you drew these inferences using evidence from your samples.
5. Based on your study, discuss whether there were patterns of differences between student and employee cars and, if so, what the most obvious differences were. Use specific evidence to support your claims. Based on your study, is wealth correlated with education? Explain why you think it is or is not.
- Conclusion – Discuss whether your study accurately reflects wealth and status differences between students and employees at your college. Why or why not? Describe types of factors (social and/or behavioral) that could obscure such differences in wealth. Formulate a new hypothesis that could be tested with additional data from vehicles. Based on the data from your study, personal observations, and cultural knowledge, what are your predictions for the hypothesis and why?
Assignment inspired by:
Sassman, K. (2005) Ant 4114: Principles of Archaeology. Retrieved from http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/sassam...lasses/ant4114.
Data Collection Tables
Table 1: Student Cars
| # |
Make |
Model |
Cleanliness – clean, moderate, or filthy |
Damage |
Stickers, emblems, personalized license plates, personalized license plate frames |
Approximate value of vehicle |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2: Employee Cars
| # |
Make |
Model |
Cleanliness – clean, moderate, or filthy |
Damage |
Stickers, emblems, personalized license plates, personalized license plate frames |
Approximate value of vehicle |
| 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
