Spotlight on Students: Thinking Like an Archaeologist

Thinking like an archaeologist is one of the most challenging exercises a novice or inexperienced person can do, including beginner archaeologists.  For one of the SA 202: Introduction to Anthropology assignments students were tasked with doing just that.  By viewing the familiar as the unfamiliar they gained important insights into the challenges archaeologists face, and several of them did exceptionally well in the exercise.  Here is a student's piece that was eligible for and agreed to be published.

By: Maryah Hoback-Blair

The year is 2154, over a century after numerous attacks on the world by geomagnetic forces due to the depletion of the ozone layer. It is believed that during the attacks many humanoids took shelter in underground bunkers and vaults and only traveled outside when absolutely necessary. There are still remanences of those that came before us but many vanished during the catastrophes. Today we are looking at sites in what we believed was once rural, agriculture parts of past-time Missouri. Archaeologists, like myself, are now looking at what is left of the world before by examing a site, creating detailed reports of the site and artifacts and recreating the potential use of the site.

This site we are looking at is a rectangular room that measures roughly eight and a half by six feet. Upon entering the room from a door on the west wall I noticed a variety of objects and artifacts. Straight ahead on the east wall is a wooden shelving unit that stands three feet high, two and a half feet in length, and two feet in width, with two drawers on the left and one door. On top of this is a brown and grey marble slab that has an inward curve that is roughly one foot across and five and a half inches deep. In the center of the curve is a dark circle with 19 small holes in it. At the back of the marble slab is a metal item that protrudes toward me and into the inward curve on the right and left of this piece is two spherical items that are easily manipulated when turned. To the right side of the inward curve is where artifact 1 was found. Attached to the wall above this item is a reflected surface edged with wood pieces. This item is two and a half feet in height and two feet in width with the wood pieces being two and a half inches thick. On the south wall there was four words attached to it that read “flush”, “wash”, “brush”, and “floss”. To the left of the wooden shelving unit is a white, oddly shaped item standing two and a half feet in height. This item has a rectangular box item attached to an egg-shaped bowl. The egg-shaped bowl narrowed as it got closer to the ground and then widened back out and is attached to the ground. On the north wall there is five feet by two and a half feet giant concave rectangular item that has a depth of one and a half feet. This item is white and has a hole in the bottom similar to that of the inward curved marble slab and had the same metal structure attached to the top. There was also a ledge on the far side the protruded roughly four inches and on this is where artifact 2 was found. Finally, there was white shelving unit with three drawers and one door on the west wall. This was two and a half feet in height and in length and one foot in width. The surface was smooth and where artifact 3 was found.

Artifact 1 is a long, skinny item measuring roughly seven and a half inches in length and a quarter of an inch in diameter. The item weighs less than an ounce and has a slick end, rubber like scales near the center, and a skinnier end. The rubber like area of the object fits well into the hand making it easy to grasp. The object has pink on one side and white and pink curved stripes on the other. Near the skinnier end of the object fabric, rough, bristle-like structures that are white and blue protrude outward. On these is a sticky and tacky white residue that will be sent to the lab for further testing. When holding the object in my right hand I noticed the bristles face towards me making it seems as though the object was used on oneself maybe for cleaning parts of an individual’s body or combing through hair, eyelashes, eyebrows, or other parts of the body. There was a second item of the same type laid next to artifact 1, making it seem as though each had a separate use.  Alternatively, if these were for two individuals, then there was one for each.

Artifact 2 is a cylindrical item that is roughly seven and a half inches in length and two inches in circumference. The object is a dark pink color with white writing and what looks like an image of a white cloud-like substance. The writing readings “Equate: Shave Cream” and the word “raspberry” is written under the cloud-like image. On the opposing side a blurb reads “provides a rich lather that helps protect against nicks, and cuts, while providing a close and comfortable shave. Leaves your skin feeling silky and smooth.” The object also weighs around seven ounces and is made of what is believed to be a combination of metal and plastic with a smooth surface. When moving the object there is the sound of liquid on the inside. Near the top of the object there is a plastic cap and when removed a plastic angular surface is revealed. When that is pressed a foamy, cloud-like, white substance comes out. When rubbed together this substance disappears and leaves a soft feeling on the hands. The substance also has a sweet scent with a hint of a chemically smell.

Artifact 3 was found on top of the enclosed shelving unit in a stack of four. They were dark blue, grey, brown, and dark red in color and all rectangular in shape.  When folded the object was roughly a foot and a half by one foot and when laid out was roughly two and a half feet by four feet. Each of the four objects weighs about a pound and a half and seems to be made out of a fabric material that is soft but also has a rough feeling in some areas. About four inches away from the end of the object is a stitched area that does not look or feel like the rest of the object. This area is about two inches and has three lighter colored stripes and two darker stripes made of different stitching patterns. The item has use-wear suggested by fraying and loose strings of fabric near the ends and throughout the item. I believe this item may have been used for cleaning or ritual purpose based on its texture and proximity to the larger incaved rectangular item.

It is my educated conclusion that this site was used for ritual or religious purposes. I have come to this conclusion based off the set up of the site, the artifacts found, and the words that were on the artifacts and in the room. I believe the four words on the south wall served as a reminder to a routine that must be practiced. I also believe that artifact 1 served as a cleaning tool to prepare the individual for the ritual. Artifact 2 had words like “silky” “smooth” and “protect,” suggesting it may be used to heal or help the individual during the religious practice. Lastly artifact 3 looks to have been used numerous times making me believe it was used as a ritual mat or a cleaning item. Its size suggest it may have been wrapped around an individual or used form kneeling purposes since it was close the large concave bowl item. The artifacts in the room and its set up has led me to this assumption.

There were a variety of challenges faced while interpreting the site, artifacts, and their meanings. The biggest challenges were being descriptive and interpreting the use of the site and artifacts without being biased due to my own cultural norms. In 2014 the National Institute of Medicine shared 25 questions and challenges archaeologists often face including culture ideas, how humans may react to change in cultures or climates, migration patterns, social culture norms, and society collapses (Kintigh et al., 2014). All of these play a major role in how archaeologists must interpret their findings to fit into different groups and answer different questions that have been asked for decades. While exploring this site I was able to understand these challenges more and why it is important for cultures and people to work together to create accurate interpretations of the past. Times archeologists have misinterpreted findings include the Trojan Horse, fake crystal skulls, the abonnement of civilizations such as Mesa Verde, how civilizations behaved and lived, and the existence of some species (Vincent, A., 2025). All of these were either misinterpretations due to lack of evidence or prejudice. “The discipline has become increasingly rigorous through learning from these mistakes, developing improved dating techniques, incorporating diverse perspectives, and maintaining skepticism toward convenient discoveries,” through implementing these standards and ideas archaeologists now and in the future can provide the most accurate and useful information (Vincent, A., 2025).

 

References:

Kintigh, K. W., Altschul, J. H., Beaudry, M. C., Drennan, R. D., Kinzig, A. P., Kohler, T. A., Limp, W.

F., Maschner, H. D. G., Michener, W. K., Pauketat, T. R., Peregrine, P., Sabloff, J. A.,

Wilkinson, T. J., Wright, H. T., & Zeder, M. A. (2014, January 21). Grand challenges for

archaeology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of

America. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3903258/

Vincent, A. (2025, June 2). 14 times archaeologists got it completely wrong. Go2Tutors.

https://go2tutors.com/14-times-archaeologists-got-it-completely-wrong/

 

White Elephant Gift Exchange: History and Origins

Examples of White Elephant gifts to be used in the gift exchange of that name.

 

December is considered an important holiday season for many cultural groups.  For Western cultures these holidays are often commonly host to various gift exchange rituals.  Each cultural group has its own specific rules concerning these rituals (e.g., St. Nicholas Day in Germany; Epiphany La Befana in Italy; Kwanzaa; Hanukkah; and more), demonstrating the importance of gift exchanges for these groups.  Today’s blog post will address another gift exchange ritual that exists among Americans: the White Elephant gift exchange.  This blog post will address what this ritual is, its origins, history, and how and why it is celebrated today.

 

The White Elephant gift exchange goes by many other names.  These include Yankee Swap or Evil Santa.  Ultimately, all of these describe a game wherein unwanted, ridiculous, useless, or “gag”/prank gifts are anonymously and randomly exchanged within a group.  There are variations to the rules.  The most common rules require participating individuals agree to partake in the gift exchange, followed by each acquiring (by way of regifting or purchasing) the “gift” to be exchanged.  Group members are assigned numbers at random, and from there each member selects a random gift without knowing which gift was provided by the other members.  Often gifts can be stolen among group members, with a specific number of “steals” allowed before a gift unable to be stolen further.  Group members may informally compete with each other by way of unspoken rules, such as who has the most ridiculous gift, the most sought after gift, or some other value as prescribed by group.  Ultimately, the White Elephant gift exchange is a play on traditional gift giving, which emphasizes being thoughtful and deliberate in choosing a gift.  Instead, the White Elephant gift exchange parodies traditional gift exchanges by emphasizing useless of the gifts and the ridiculousness of gift exchange rituals, thereby removing some of the stress of the more serious rituals.

 

This emphasis on ridiculousness is infused in the name White Elephant, which conjures up odd images since elephants are not naturally white.  The origins of the name are tied to a distorted and false story that claims the Thai king would gift his subjects a white elephant, a gift of great honor but also extreme cost since keeping the animal alive was extremely expensive.  This is actually not quite how the story really goes. 

 

The real origins of the phrase White Elephant come from the poor economic decisions of the American government in the 1850s.  At that time Britian, who was considered a social, political, and economic rival of the United States, showed economic interests in the country of Siam (presently called Thailand).  Fear of missing out on whatever trade deal the British were negotiating with Siam monarchy led the American government to send representatives to the King of Siam to negotiate their own trade deal.  Unfortunately, the American representatives knew little about what the British were negotiating for, and they knew even less about the culture and traditions of the Siam monarchy.  This led to a lot of ethnocentric reactions toward the friendly gestures and actions the Siam monarch made to the American representatives.  The Siam monarch presented various gifts to the representatives, which were meant to secure the friendship and goodwill between the leaders of both nations.  The American representatives could not accept the gifts as per American laws and customs, and they felt that the gifts that were offered were useless.  This led to the gifts being called “white elephant gifts,” referring to useless and unwanted gifts.

 

The term “White Elephant gift” was eventually adopted by Americans as the name for barters or exchanges among peers.  It was commonplace for Americans to trade items of equal value for various purposes, and in the 1890s these exchanges became codified and ritualized parts of the holiday season.  Several newspapers published the rules of engagement for “swap parties” as they were popularly called at that period, although according to a New York Times article it was the publication of the Delphos Daily Herald in 1896 that is credited with renaming the “swap party” to “White Elephant gift exchange.” 

 

Today, White Elephant gift exchanges are fun ways to share gifts and celebrate the holiday season in a minimally stressful way.  These types of gift exchanges are particularly popular among those who do not know each other well, although they are just as entertaining for those who do know each other quite well.  The White Elephant gift exchange showcases the importance of gift giving rituals not just within the holiday season but among Americans across time.

 

Works Cited

Bullen, Ross. "“This Alarming Generosity”: White Elephants and the Logic of the Gift." American Literature (2011): 747–773.

Herrmann, Gretchen. "Machiavelli Meets Christmas: The White Elephant Gift Exchange and the Holiday Spirit." The Journal of Popular Culture (2013): 1310-1329.

Swilley, Esther, Kelley O. Cowart and Leisa R. Flynn. "An examination of regifting." Journal of Consumer Behaviour (2014): 251-261.

Wright, Jennifer Ashley. "A Brief History of the White Elephant Party." New York Times 23 November 2022.

A Long Yarn: The History of the Ugly Christmas Sweater Tradition

Figure 1: Examples of "Jingle Bell Sweaters" (Source: University of Fashion)

The holiday season is meant to be a period of merriment and fun, but it can also be quite stressful.  The search for the perfect gift, hosting family and friends for meals and events, the reduction in natural light and the rise of seasonal affective disorder, and more all affect people’s moods and attitudes about the holidays.  This is one of the primary reasons why the Ugly Christmas Sweater tradition started in the early 2000s and quickly became part of the mainstay of contemporary holiday traditions.  Very few people, however, realize that this trend predates the current century, which will be explored further in this blog post.

 

After decades of brutal and bloody conflicts (e.g., the American Civil War, World War I, World War II) Americans were ready to embrace a different way of life, leading to a variety of cultural changes.  One of the resulting changes was the commercialization of the Christmas holiday, which began in the 1950s.  Borrowing from the Norwegian sweater fashions of the 1930s that drew upon natural motifs (e.g., stag, tree, and star motifs) American retailers sold manufactured “Jingle Bell Sweaters” to help shoppers embrace the holidays (Figure 1).  Unfortunately, shoppers were not really buying into the trend, although various television personalities did.  The “Jingle Bell Sweater” trend quickly faded into obscurity.

 

It was resurrected again in the 1980s due to popular culture phenomena, specifically the rise of the absurd Christmas movies.  “National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation” featured its main characters donning, gifting, or receiving any number of absurd Christmas sweaters as they navigated the pitfalls of a holiday season continually going bad.  As a result, consumers briefly bought into the fashion trend, seeking out their own “ugly” Christmas sweaters to match their favorite movie characters and recreate the holiday flair they watched on their screens (Figure 2).  By the 1990s as cultural preferences once again changed the fashion also shifted and the “ugly” Christmas sweater was once again abandoned. 

Figure 2: "Ugly" Christmas Sweaters of the 1980s (Source: University of Fashion)

The trend made a comeback in the early 2000s, yet again thanks to a movie.  This time it was the romantic comedy “Bridget Jones’s Diary.”  Bridget’s vexing paramour wore a “hideous” reindeer sweater, which endeared him to both Bridget and the audience alike.  A year later in Vancouver, British Columbia, two friends hosted the first recorded “Ugly Christmas Sweater” themed party.  They encouraged attendees to raid their closets, explore vintage and secondhand clothing stores, or create their own garish designs to embrace the ridiculousness of bad fashion.  The purpose of this was not specifically to make fun of bad fashion but to bring some lighthearted humor to the stressful holiday season. 

 

People began embracing the “ugly” Christmas sweater idea, and it quickly became not just a game but a way of life to locate the “ugliest” Christmas sweater.  Vintage and secondhand stores began marketing their “ugly” Christmas sweaters.  Resellers began selling them at high prices.  People created their own monstrosities, all in the hopes of capturing the title of having the “ugliest Christmas sweater”.  Manufacturers began to create their own gaudy designs, complete with tinsel, sequins, pom poms, bells, and more.  Not to be outdone, major fashion houses, like Dolce and Gabbana and Givenchy, released their own lines of high fashion “ugly” Christmas designs.  Most pop culture experts claim that the event that sealed the deal on the “ugly” Christmas sweater tradition, however, was a fundraiser held in 2012, which normalized the trend. 

 

For almost 25 years now the trend has not abruptly ended as it had in the past, demonstrating that people not only love but need some levity during the holiday season.  This explains the increased popularity in other stress-relieving holiday activities, such as the White Elephant Gift Exchange.  This suggests that this trend may die down once people feel they no longer need a stress relieving activity to stomach the holidays, but that prediction is yet to be realized.  Perhaps it will be in the future, but in the meantime, be sure to “don your ugly apparel” and embrace the new norms of the holiday season.

 

Works Cited

Cerdio, Fernanda. "The Beautiful Story Of How The Ugly Sweater Became a Thing at Christmas." 24 December 2024. CULTURA COLECTIVA. 17 October 2025.

Cerini, Marianna. "A cozy history of the ugly Christmas sweater." CNN Style 18 December 2024.

Tatter. "History of the Ugly Christmas Sweater." 25 December 2023. Tatter. 17 October 2025.