PROSEMINAR II

PROSEMINAR II
SPRING 2005

syllabus (PROSEMINAR II syllabus and readings Final.doc)

Week 7 (March 7th) Ethics in Biological and Archaeological Anthropology

Folks -- lots of reading here, should be easier and less 'threatening' than some of the biological-based readings from previous weeks. Those articles with two asterisks are KEY readings, those with one asterisk, you should read as well. Since you do not have to write a paper this week, spend the time you would be doing that reading more interesting case studies, etc. Focus on issues relating to ethical codes of conduct as drafted by the SAA and the AAPA (you should know what those stand for). Also issues of descendant community rights and repatriation (e.g., NAGPRA), amateurs, reproductions, hoaxes, etc. will all be touched on in what will amount to good discussion.Group 6 will help to organize and facilitate the discussion on ethics. Good luck and have a terrific and restful break.

Ethics Codes
* Anonymous
1961 Four Statements for Archaeology. (Report of the Committee on Ethics and Standards). American Antiquity 27(2):137-138.[pdf]

* Anonymous
1996 Society for American Archaeology Principles of Archaeological Ethics. American Antiquity 61(3):451-452. [pdf]

* Anonymous
2003 American Association of Physical Anthropologists. www.physanth.org [pdf]

** Lynott, Mark J.
1997 Ethical Principles and Archaeological Practice: Development of an Ethics Policy. American Antiquity 62(4):589-599. [pdf]

Descendant communities.
NAGPRA
* Bentzen, Conrad B.
1942 An Inexpensive Method of Recovering Skeletal Material for Museum Displays. American Antiquity 8(2):176-178. [pdf]

* Ferguson, T. J.
1996 Native Americans and the Practice of Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:63-79. [pdf]

** Rose, Jerome C., Thomas J. Green, and Victoria D. Green
1996 Nagpra is Forever: Osteology and the Repatriation of Skeletons. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:81-103. [pdf]

*Chatters, James C.
2000 The Recovery and First Analysis of an Early Holocene Human Skeleton from Kennewick, Washington. American Antiquity 65(2):291-316. [pdf]

**Owsley, Douglas W. and Richard L. Jantz
2001 Archaeological politics and public interest in paleoamerican studies: lessons from gordon creek woman and kennewick man. American Antiquity 66(4):565-576. [pdf]

* Watkins, Joe
2004 Becoming American or Becoming Indian? NAGPRA, Kennewick, and cultural affiliation. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(1):60-80. [pdf]

Representation, Alternative Voices.
** Franklin, Maria
1997 Power To The People: Sociopolitics and the Archaeology of Black Americans. Historical Archaeology 31(3):36-50. [pdf]

** McDavid, Carol
1997 Descendants, Decisions, and Power: The Public Interpretationof the Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation. . Historical Archaeology 31(3):114-131. [pdf

Fakes and Reproductions
* Mainfort, Robert M.Jr. and Mary L. Kwas
2004 The Bat Creek Stone Revisited: A Fraud Exposed. American Antiquity 69(4):761-769. [pdf]

* Whittaker, John C. and Michael Stafford
1999 Replicas, Fakes, and Art: The Twentieth Century Stone Age and Its Affects on Archaeology. American Antiquity 64(2):203-214.[pdf]

** Preston, Douglas
1995 The Mystery of Sandia Cave. The New Yorker June 12th. [pdf]

Amateurs and Looting:
** Kelley, Jane Holden
1963 Some Thoughts on Amateur Archaeology. American Antiquity 28(3):394-396. [pdf]

* Clewlow, C. William Jr., Patrick S. Hallinan, and Richard D. Ambro
1971A Crisis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 36(4):472-473. [pdf]

* Sheets, Payson D.
1973 The Pillage of Prehistory. American Antiquity 38(3):317-320. [pdf]

Week 8 (March 14th)

14-Mar Paradigms and Science

Ok Folks, this is admitedly alot of material (about 250 pages, counting bibliographies), but there are so many schools of thought in archaeology (this is especially the case in the last 40 years) that it seemed a necessary evil. The old line about the necessity of a program at a baseball game is equally true in this case; "You can't follow the action if you don't know the players." Take heart in the fact that I spent a great deal of time and effort to find those readings that covered the most ground in the least number of pages.

Those readings with double asterisks are to be read with some care, the ones without should be scanned for the broad themes.

Overviews:

Bulkin, V. A., Leo S. Klejn, G. S. Lebedev

1982 Attainments and Problems of Soviet Archaeology. World Archaeology 13(3):272-295. [pdf]

Lyman, R. Lee and Michael J. O’Brien

**2004 A History of Normative Theory in Americanist Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11(4):369-396. [pdf]

Trigger, Bruce

**1981 Anglo-American Archaeology. World Archaeology 13(2): 138-155. [pdf]

Trigger, Bruce G.

**1984 Archaeology at the Crossroads: What’s New? Annual Review of Anthropology 13:275-300. [pdf]

Processual (New Archaeology):

Binford, Lewis R.

**1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217- 225. [pdf]

Binford, Lewis R.

1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Cultural Process. American Antiquity 31(2:1): [pdf]

Reid, J. Jefferson, William L. Rathje, and Michael B. Schiffer

1974 Expanding Archaeology. American Antiquity 39(1):125-126. [pdf]

Raab, Mark L. and Albert C. Goodyear

1984 Middle-Range Theory in Archaeology: A Critical Review of Origins and Applications. American Antiquity 49(2):255-268. [pdf]

Watson, Richard A.

**1991 What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished. Current Anthropology 32(3):275-291. [pdf]

Postprocesual/Postmodern:

Leone, Mark P, Parker B. Potter, and Paul A. Shackel

**1987 Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 28(3):283-302. [pdf]

Hodder, Ian

**1991 Interpretative Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56(1):7-18. [pdf]

Paynter, Robert

2000 Historical and Anthropological Archaeology: Forging Alliances. Journal of Archaeological Research 8(1):1-37. [pdf]

Meskell, Lynn

**2002 The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:279-301. [pdf]

Critiques/Defenses/Comments:

Watson, Richard A.

1990 Ozymandias, King of Kings: Postprocessual Radical Archaeology as Critique. American Antiquity 55(4):673-689. [pdf]

Krieger, Alex D.

1940 “The Basic Needs of Archaeology” – A Commentary. American Antiquity 42 (3:1):543-546. [pdf]

Taylor, Walter W.

1972 Old Wine and New Skins: A Contemporary Parable. In Contemporary Archaeology: A guide to Theory and Contributions, edited by Mark P. Leone, pp. 28-33. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. [pdf]

Flannery, Kent V.

**1982 The Golden Marshalltown. American Anthropologist 84 (2):265- 278. [pdf]

Week 8
Mar 21 Material Culture

Those readings with double asterisks are to be read with some care, the ones without should be scanned for the broad themes.

Writing assignment this week (2 pages, double-spaced. Proper citation of work required):
Questions or themes to explore: How we structure or make sense of material culture is terribly important, but is the Type Variety system the best means of imposing order on artifacts? Are types real? How do Kreiger, Gifford, and O'Brien & Lyman agree or disagree in regards to their views on artifact typologies? Should symbols be considered in artifact typologies? Most ceramic typologies are based on sherds, not on whole vessels; does this conceivably complicate matters?

Typology/Issues of Classification:
McGuire, Joseph D.
1896 Classification and Development of Primitive Implements. American Anthropologist 9(7):227-236. [pdf]

Peabody, C. and W. K. Moorehead
1905 The Naming of Specimens in American Archaeology. American Anthropologist (new series) 7(4):630-632. [pdf]

**Krieger, Alex D.
1944 The Typological Concept. American Antiquity 9(3):271-288. [pdf]

**Gifford, James C.
1960 The Type Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity 25(3):341-347. [pdf]

**Cleland, Charles E.
1972 From Sacred to Profane: Style Drift in the Decoration of Jesuit Finger Rings. American Antiquity 37(2):202-210. [pdf]

**Whittaker, John C., Douglas Caulkins, and Kathryn A. Kamp
1998 Evaluating Consistency in Typology and Classification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(2):129-164.[pdf]

**O’Brien, Michael J. and R. Lee Lyman
2002 The Epistemological Nature of Archaeological Units. Anthropological Theory 2(1):37-56. [pdf]

Nature of Artifacts:
Rathje, W. L., W. W. Hughes, D. C. Wilson, M. K. Tani, G. H. Archer, R. G. Hunt, and T. W. Jones
1992 The Archaeology of Contemporary Landfills. American Antiquity 57(3):437-447. [pdf]

**Robb, John E.
1998 The Archaeology of Symbols. Annual Review of Anthropology 27:329-346. [pdf]

**Gosden, Chris and Yvonne Marshall
1999 The Cultural Biography of Objects. World Archaeology 31(2):169-178. [pdf]

Ways of Examining a Single Artifact Class:
Kidder, M. A. and A. V. Kidder
1917 Notes on the Pottery of Pecos. American Anthropologist (new series) 19(3):325-360. [pdf]

Sullivan, Alan P. III
1988 Prehistoric Southwestern Ceramic Manufacture: The Limitations of Current Evidence. American Antiquity 53(1):23-35. [pdf]

Kamp, Kathryn A., Nichole Timmerman, Greg Lind, Jules Graybill, and Ian Natowsky
1999 Discovering Childhood: Using fingerprints to Find Children in the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 64(2):309-315. [pdf]

Just what the Hell is that Thing??? Case Study of a single artifact type:
Mushroom Stones

**Borhegyi, Stephen F.
1961 Miniature Mushroom Stones from Guatemala. American Antiquity 26(4):498-504. [pdf]

**Borhegyi, Stephen F.
1964 Pre-Columbian Pottery Mushrooms from Mesoamerica. American Antiquity 28(3):328-338. [pdf]

**Kohler, Ulrich
1976 Mushrooms, Drugs, and Potters: A New Approach to the Function of Precolumbian Mesoamerican Mushroom Stones. American Antiquity 41(2):145-153. [pdf]

Cogged Stones
**Eberhart, Hal
1961 The Cogged Stones of Southern California. American Antiquity 26(3):361-370. [pdf]

**Apodaca, Paul
2001 Cactus Stones: Symbolism and Representation in Southern California and Seri Indigenous Folk Art and Artifacts. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 23(2):215-228. [pdf]

WEEK 9 March 28 Time

Those readings with double asterisks are to be read with some care, the ones without should be scanned for the broad themes.

Writing assignment this week (2 pages, double-spaced. Proper citation of work required):
Clearly Archaeology is all about time, but whose time? Were/Are the concepts of time (and implied chronologies) different among the culture historians, processualists, and post processualists? How can we reconcile chronometric dating techniques with Richard Bradley’s view of ritual time, and is there a false sense of security in chronometric dating that may suggest a precision that actually could be illusory?

Overviews and Concepts:
**Michaels, Joseph W.
1972 Dating Methods. Annual Review of Anthropology 1:113-126. [pdf]

Relative Dating:
**Ford, J. A.
1938 A Chronological Method Applicable to the Southeast. American Antiquity 3(3):260-264. [pdf]

Woodbury, Richard B.
1960 Nels C. Nelson and Chronological Archaeology. American Antiquity 25(3):400-401. [pdf]

Woodbury, Richard B.
1960b Nelson’s Stratigraphy. American Antiquity 26(1):98-99. [pdf]

Manuel Gamio and Stratigraphic Excavation. American Antiquity 26(1):99.
(note: this article is contained in the above pdf file; Woodbury 1960b)

**Rowe, John Howland
1961 Stratigraphy and Seriation. American Antiquity 26(3):324-330. [pdf]

**Rowe, John Howland
1962 Worsaae’s Law and the Use of grave Lots for Archaeological Dating. American Antiquity 28(2):129-137. [pdf]

**Harris, Edward C.
1979 The Laws of Archaeological Stratigraphy. World Archaeology 11(1):111-117. [pdf]

Chronometric Dating:
Haury, Emil W.
1935 Tree Rings: The Archaeologist’s Time Piece. American Antiquity 1(2):98-108. [pdf]

**Merrill, Robert S.
1948 A Progress Report on the Dating of Archaeological Sites by Means of Radioactive Elements. American Antiquity 13(4):281-286. [pdf]

**Nash, Stephen E.
2002 Archaeological Tree Ring Dating at the Millennium. Journal of Archaeological Research 10(3):243-275. [pdf]

Application of Chronology/ Case Studies:
**Nelson, N. C.
1916 Chronology of the Tanos Ruins, New Mexico. American Anthropologist (new series) 18(2):159-180. [pdf]

**Krieger, Alex D.
1947 The Eastward Extension of Puebloan Datings toward Cultures of the Mississippi Valley. American Antiquity 12(3):141-148. [pdf]

Evans, Clifford and Betty J. Meggers
1962 Use of Organic Temper for Carbon 14 Dating in Lowland South America. American Antiquity 28(2):243-245. [pdf]

**Olsen, Alan P.
1962 A History of the Phase Concept in the Southwest. American Antiquity 27(4):457-472. [pdf]

**Dethlefsen, Edwin and James Deetz
1966 Death’s Heads, Cherubs, and Willow Trees: Experimental Archaeology in Colonial Cemeteries. American Antiquity 31(4):502-510. [pdf]

**Bradley, Richard
1991 Ritual, Time and History. World Archaeology 23(2):209-219. [pdf]

**Eighmy, Jeffrey L. and Jerry B. Howard
1991 Direct Dating of Prehistoric Canal Sediments using Archaeomagnetism. American Antiquity 56(1):88-102. [pdf]

**Fiedel, Stuart J.
1999 Older Than We Thought: Implications of Corrected Dates for Paleoindians. American Antiquity 64(1):95-115. [pdf]

WEEK 10 April 4 Space and Place

All of this week's readings are to be read with some care.

Writing assignment this week (2 pages, double-spaced. Proper citation of work required):
Question(s) to address for Week 10:
This week we move from issues of artifacts and resulting typologies, which directly determine site and regional chronologies, to analyses that apply these chronologies -- of how and where people lived in the past. How do the authors this week grapple with such issues as: determining how long sites were occupied (given the still course grained chronologies we employ); deal with issues of assessing site contemporaneity in regional settlement patterns; and employing ethnographic data and modeling to infer past behavior in regard to site features, population totals in rooms, sites, and regions? Are environmental factors of overarching importance in detecting and understanding settlement patterns, or is this too mechanical and deterministic a view?

Intrasite Studies:
Binford, Lewis R.
1967 Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity 32(1):1-12. [pdf]

Munson, Patrick J.
1969 Comments on Binford’s “Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning.” American Antiquity 34(1):83-85. [pdf]

Hill, James N. and Richard H. Hevley
1968 Pollen at Broken K Pueblo: Some New Interpretations. American Antiquity 33(2):200-210. [pdf]

Diehl, Michael W.
1988 The Interpretation of Archaeological Floor Assemblages: A Case Study from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 63(4):617-634. [pdf]

Pauketat, Timothy R.
1989 Monitoring Mississippian Homestead Occupation Span and Economy Using Ceramic Refuse. American Antiquity 54(2):288-310. [pdf]

Mobley-Tanaka, Jeannette L.
1997 Gender and Ritual Space during the Pithouse to Pueblo Transition: Subterranean Mealing Rooms in the North American Southwest. American Antiquity 62(3):437-448. [pdf]

Hodder, Ian and Craig Cessford
2004 Daily Practice and Social Memory at Catalhoyuk. American Antiquity 69(1):17-40. [pdf]

Settlement Pattern Studies:
Trigger, Bruce G.
1967 Settlement Archaeology. Its Goals and Promise. American Antiquity 32(2):149-160. [pdf]

Parsons, Jeffery R.
1972 Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1:127-150. [pdf]

Fletcher, Roland
1986 Settlement Archaeology:World-Wide Comparisons. World Archaeology 18(1):59-83. [pdf]

Population studies:
Naroll, Raoul
1962 Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27(4):587-589. [pdf]

Glassow, Michael A.
1967 Considerations in Estimating Prehistoric California Coastal Populations. American Antiquity 32(3):354-359. [pdf]

Weissner, Polly
1974 A Functional Estimator of Population from Floor Area. American Antiquity 39(2):343-350. [pdf]

Landscape Studies:
Anschuetz, Kurt F., Richard H. Wilshusen, and Cherie L. Scheick
2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(2):157-211. [pdf]

Week 11 April 11 Subsistence (diet, economies)

Writing assignment this week (2 pages, double-spaced. Proper citation of work required). Question(s) to address for Week 11:
Subsistence is a key concept in archaeology, and directly influences settlement patterns and other issues of land use. What are the kinds of inferences that can be made regarding past subsistence strategies and diet, and can/should different methodologies (e.g., pollen analysis, faunal remains) be combined? Is food always just food, or is it something more? How can subsistence data be used to extract information beyond simple nutrition (e.g., chronology, status, culture, ethnicity)?

Overviews and Methodologies:
Daly, Patricia
1969 Approaches to Faunal Analysis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 34(2):146-153. [pdf]

Riley, Thomas J., Richard Edging, and Jack Rossen
1990 Cultigens in Prehistoric Eastern North America: Changing Paradigms. Current Anthropology 31(5):525-541. [pdf]

Hastorf, Christine
1999 Recent Research in Paleoethnobotony. Journal of Archaeological Research 7(1):55-103. [pdf]
(with this article, read for broad themes; do not get too bogged down in details here)

Smith, Bruce D.
2001 Low-Level Food Production. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1):1-43. [pdf]
(with this article, read for broad themes; do not get too bogged down in details here)

Problems and Critiques:
Begler, Elsie B. and Richard W. Keatinge
1979 Theoretical Goals and Methodological Realities: Problems in the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Subsistence Economies. World Archaeology 11(2):208-226. [pdf]

Lyman, R. Lee
1979 Available Meat from Faunal Remains: A Consideration of Techniques. American Antiquity 44(3):536-546. [pdf]

Bryant, Vaughn M. Jr. and Stephen A. Hall
1993 Archaeological Palynology in the United States: A Critique. American Antiquity 58(2):277-286. [pdf]

Case Studies:
Munson, Patrick J., Paul W. Parmalee, and Richard A. Yarnell
1971 Subsistence Ecology of Scovill, a Terminal Middle Woodland Village. American Antiquity 36(4):410-431. [pdf]

Berlin, G. Lennis, J. Richard Ambler, Richard H. Hevley, and Gerald G. Schaber
1977 Identification of a Sinagua Agricultural Field by Aerial Thermography, Soil Chemistry, Pollen/Plant Analysis, and Archaeology. American Antiquity 42(4):588-600. [pdf]

Crader, Diane
1990 Slave Diet at Monticello. American Antiquity 55(4):690-717. [pdf]

Loy, Thomas H. and E. James Dixon
1998 Blood Residues on Fluted Points from Eastern Beringia. American Antiquity 63(1):21-46. [pdf]
(only broadly read for the application and results; don’t worry about blood chemistry analyses and technical matters)

Wesson, Cameron B.
1999 Chiefly Power and Food Storage in Southeastern North America. World Archaeology 31(1):145-164. [pdf]

Week 12 April 18 Spirituality and Religion

There is no paper for this week, but the articles I have chosen are interesting (even the one I wrote), so Please do read them.

The take home exam will be posted tomorrow (and will be due no later than Friday April 22, 2005; in my mailbox in the Anthro office)

Barrett, John C.
1990 The Monumentality of Death: The Character of Early Bronze Age Mortuary Mounds in Southern Britain. World Archaeology 22(2):179-189. [pdf]

Brown, James A.
1997 The Archaeology of Ancient Religion in the Eastern Woodlands. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:465-485. [pdf]

These two are complimentary readings: they deal with similar issues through different methods.
Fennell, Christopher C.
2003 Group Identity, Individual Creativity, and Symbolic Generation in a BaKongo Diaspora. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 7(1):1-31. [pdf]

Davidson, James M.
2004 Rituals Captured in Context and Time: Charm Use in North Dallas Freedman’s Town (1869-1907), Dallas, Texas. Historical Archaeology 38(2):22-54. [pdf]
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Final Take Home Exam

Write a cogent and coherent essay on each of the following questions. Each essay should be between 2 to 3 pages in length (and no longer than 4 total)(double spaced, 1 inch margins, 12 point font). Please take some care in your writing, as both grammatical coherence and accurate assessments of the literature will count.

In this section of the course, we began with the various schools of archaeological thought, and examined how material culture has been sorted and defined into typologies, which are later used to establish time. Once chronology is established, issues of land use and subsistence can be addressed. Finally, we dealt with issues of the mind, a belief in spirituality and religion, which fortunately have at least some identifiable material correlates. Given this....

Question 1:
Most of the cases studies we have read dealt with small discrete projects, but what are some of the implications that could be derived from these individual projects or single sites leading towards the greater goals of: establishing a record of human history prior to writing; of understanding cultural processes; of documenting unique moments in human history (e.g., introduction of agriculture); or better understanding the human condition? Chose key readings that compliment (or stand in stark contrast to) one another, and chart their implications on these greater scales. Now that you have digested some pertinent literature, do the three major paradigms (culture history, processual, post-processual) ultimately have different goals or only different paths towards those goals?

Question 2:
Beyond acknowledging that spiritual beliefs and religious systems existed in the past, archaeologists have often been reluctant to attempt “an archaeology” that focuses on these belief systems. In the four readings assigned to the last topic, Spirituality and Religion, how successful are the authors in grappling with these issues, and can we ever know the veracity of their conclusions? Do the two prehistoric studies have radically different goals than the historic examples?