The past week has been lighter on trips and travel, as we have spent more time in Athens, understanding and enjoying the city. Even with this extra time in the city, in our Material culture class, we spent the week talking about the islands known as the Cyclades, and what society might have looked like in the late Neolithic and early bronze age. This was first done by an in-class lecture by another researcher who excavated a central temple on the islet of Dhaskalio. Later in the week, we explored the Museum of Cycladic Art where we were shown around by the curator. In my other classes, we started exploring the concepts of the formation of society and community, as well as basic theories for human mobility and migration.
These concepts paired well with each other and acted in conversation with one another. The Guest Lecture highlighted how human mobility and trade were necessary for the integration and emergence of a “Cycladic culture.” The reason we know is because fragments of marble and figurines were found on the island nearby. Still, the material composition shows that they were transported to the island from other areas. The level of different composition types, the nature of the fragments, and the sheer quantity, all suggest that the islet and surrounding was a sanctuary of some sort. The large building on the Islet was monumental for its period, and like the smaller fragments, all imported to the Islet. From this and the study of other islands, we can understand that the societies in the Cyclades were likely interconnected but distributed. Meaning that each settlement might have had a specialization that required trade with other settlements in order to fully satisfy the daily needs of the society as a whole. Therefore, techniques, practices, and styles would mix contributing to the formation of this broader culture.
In borders and migration, our discussion centered around what it means to be mobile, and why states decide to restrict movement. The human desire to move is very much related to the notion of human needs as well as capabilities. When your home society cannot provide the security you are looking for, we often look elsewhere to find it. Our mobility is related to the human desire to meet our needs, and we will do so both within a state (say moving around the US) as well as internationally. Internal movement is codified as a human right by the UN and so is migration out of a state. This mobility creates a sense of comradery and belonging. Such feelings of belonging are the basis for national identity. In sociology we observed and read about a similar process on a microscale––that is the creation of a village community, or in modern city times, a neighborhood. In these smaller communities, people engage with each other regularly and create ritualistic ways of engaging with each other. For example, many in the neighborhood we live in go to the same coffee shop every day, and the barista knows their order. This is even true for me as well, even after having only been in the area for three weeks. Such ritual establishes a social fabric that becomes the basis for emergent social complexity and structure.
The connection between ancient times and the modern-day world is only becoming more apparent to me. Through the study and understanding of how humans organized themselves 2000+ years ago, we are able to apply the conclusions to why things are the way they are today. In the Past week, we explored some of the origins of a mobile, complex society. To accomplish this transportation and ritual were needed. In today’s world, the same basic elements are needed. Mobility allows us to make sure our needs are met and helps establish social ties that make society more organized.