Spring 2013
ANG 6930 – Proseminar II (Section 8461)
Biological and Archaeological Anthropology

__________________
Archaeology Section

Department of Anthropology, University of Florida

Download Syllabus (PDF document)

Place:  Turlington Hall B304

Instructor:       
Dr. James Davidson, Associate Professor

Office: B134 Turlington Hall Basement

Hours: M: 2:00 –5:00 pm & by appointment

E-mail:  davidson@ufl.edu (* best contact method *)

tel:  (352) 392-2253 x261

Objectives, Expectations, & Grading

Anthropology is a holistic discipline. As such, anthropologists attempt to view humans, their activities, and their cultural and biological history in as broad a context as possible. 

Proseminar II is designed to introduce first-year Anthropology graduate students to the fields of Biological Anthropology and Archaeological Anthropology.  Lectures will provide background information and thematic context for key issues in these fields.  Connie Mulligan will lead the first module in Biological Anthropology and James Davidson will lead the second module in Anthropological Archaeology.  Readings from the primary literature, class discussion, and writing assignments will focus on the big questions and contemporary issues in these two subfields.  Such topics tackled should resonate across subfields and student interests and are intended to provide students of varied experience in anthropology to critically assess the state of the field.  “Hands on” review of the physical remains and material culture may also be presented in several labs over the course of the semester. 

Students requesting classroom accommodation must first register with the Dean of Students Office. The Dean of Students Office will provide documentation to the student who must then provide this documentation to the Instructor when requesting accommodation.

** TURN OFF CELL PHONES IN CLASS **

Required Textbooks:

O’Brien, Michael. J., R. Lee Lyman, and Michael Brian Schiffer
2005    Archaeology as a Process. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Trigger, Bruce G.
2006    A History of Archaeological Thought (Second Edition). Cambridge University Press.

Grading & Student Evaluation (For Archaeology section)

Take Home Exam (N=1)         (25%)

Critical Essays (N=4)              (40%; 10% each)

Attendance & Participation    (15%)

Team Discussion (N=2)          (20%)

percentile breakdown: 

A         (93-100%)

A-        (90-92%)

B+       (88-89%)

B         (83-87%)

B-        (80-82%)

C+       (78-79%)

C         (73-77%)

C-        (70-72%)

D+       (68-69%)

D         (63-67%)

D-        (60-62%)

E          (59% or below)

Take Home Exams

For each module there will be one take home exam. These two exams combined will constitute 50% of your grade in the course.   Format of each exam is at the discretion of the Instructor.

Written Assignments

Writing assignments or critical essays will be assigned and due at the beginning of class the following week.  These written assignments are intended to precede discussion of that week’s readings.  This will ensure reading of required materials, and provide a baseline for each student to actively engage in discussion.  Written work should be double-spaced, 12-point font, 2-3 pages in length (1000 words maximum) and will be focused on a particular point, idea, and/or theme presented.  Late papers will be docked five points and only accepted no later than the next class meeting, that week.

Attendance & Participation

Attendance and class participation is mandatory. 

Team Discussion

Each week, teams of two or three students will lead class discussion.  Each group will be expected to meet outside of class to organize readings and to prepare a list of questions/points of discussion.  As this constitutes a substantial portion of the grade, each team member will be expected to participate and have an active voice.

 
Academic Honesty:

The University reminds every student of the implied pledge of Academic Honesty:

“on any work submitted for credit the student has neither received nor given unauthorized aid.”

THIS REFERS TO CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM, WHICH WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN THIS CLASS

Consult the Student Guide at www.dso.ufl.edu/stg/ for further information.  To avoid plagiarism, you must give credit whenever you use another person’s idea, opinion, or theory; any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings (any pieces of information) that are not common knowledge; quotations of another person’s actual spoken or written words; or paraphrase of another person’s spoken or written words. 

++++++++++++++++

 Week 1 (Jan 7 thru Jan 11)

 Week 2 (Jan 14 thru Jan 18)

 Week 3 (Jan 21 thru Jan 25)

 Week 4 (Jan 28 thru Feb 1)

 Week 5 (Feb 4 thru Feb 8)

 Week 6 (Feb 11 thru Feb 15)

 Week 7 (Feb 18 thru Feb 22)

 Week 8 (Feb 25 thru March 1)

Politics and Ethical Concerns in Biological and Archaeological Anthropology

Week 9 (March 4 thru March 8) NO CLASSES: SPRING BREAK

Week 10 (March 11 thru March 15)

Paradigms and Schools of Archaeology

Week 11 (March 18 thru March 22)

Material Culture

Writing Assignment over readings for this week

Week 12 (March 25 thru March 29)

Time   

Writing Assignment over readings for this week

Week 13 (April 1 thru April 5)

Space and Place (natural and cultural landscapes, ecology, adaptation)

Writing Assignment over readings for this week

Week 14 (April 8 thru April 12)

Subsistence (diet, economies)

Writing Assignment over readings for this week

Week 15 (April 15 thru April 19)

Cosmology, Spirituality and Religion

 Week 16 (April 22 thru April 26):      No Class

READINGS BY WEEK

Week 8       Ethics in Biological and Archaeological Anthropology_____

Since you do not have to write a paper this week, spend the time you would be doing that reading more these case studies carefully, and reading ahead for next week. 

 Focus on issues relating to ethical codes of conduct as drafted by the SAA and the AAPA (you should know what those stand for).  Issues of descendant community rights and repatriation (e.g., NAGPRA), amateurs, hoaxes, etc., will all be touched upon.   

 Ethics Codes:

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

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

Anonymous
2003    American Association of Physical Anthropologists.  www.physanth.org

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

Descendant communities/NAGPRA

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.

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.

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

Bruning, Susan B.
2006    Complex Legal Legacies: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Scientific Study, and Kennewick Man. American Antiquity 71(3):501-521.

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

Amateurs and Looting:

Mallouf, Robert J.
1996    An Unraveling Rope: The Looting of America's Past. American Indian Quarterly 20(2):197-208.

Supplementary Readings (not required, but useful; strongly recommended for discussion leaders):

Preston, Douglas
1995    The Mystery of Sandia Cave. The New Yorker (June 12th).

Derry, Linda
1997    Pre-Emancipation Archaeology: Does It Play in Selma, Alabama. Historical Archaeology 31(3).

 Bentzen, Conrad B.
1942    An Inexpensive Method of Recovering Skeletal Material for Museum Displays. American Antiquity 8(2):176-178.

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

If possible, take this opportunity to read ahead in the two required texts (see chapter assignments in following weeks) and articles for next week.

Week 10      Paradigms and Schools of Archaeology_________________

 There is no essay/paper this week, so take some care reading these case studies carefully, and reading ahead for next week. 

Text Excerpts:

Read Introduction, Chapters 1 and 2 (pp. 1-66) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)

Read Chapters 1 and 2 (pp. 1-79) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Processual (New Archaeology):

Binford, Lewis R.
1962    Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217- 225.

Binford, Lewis R.
1965    Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Cultural Process. American Antiquity 31(2:1):

Reid, J. Jefferson, William L. Rathje, and Michael B. Schiffer
1974    Expanding Archaeology. American Antiquity 39(1):125-126. 

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. 

Watson, Richard A.
1991    What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished. Current Anthropology 32(3):275-291.

Postprocesual/Postmodern/Marxist:

Leone, Mark P, Parker B. Potter, and Paul A. Shackel
1987    Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 28(3):283-302. 

Hodder, Ian
1991    Interpretative Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56(1):7-18.

Meskell, Lynn
2002    The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:279-301. 

Critiques/Defenses/Comments:

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. 

Flannery, Kent V.
1982    The Golden Marshalltown. American Anthropologist 84 (2):265- 278. 

Supplementary Readings (not required, but useful; strongly recommended for discussion leaders):

 Watson, Richard A.
1990    Ozymandias, King of Kings: Postprocessual Radical Archaeology as Critique. American Antiquity 55(4):673-689. 

Krieger, Alex D.
1940    “The Basic Needs of Archaeology” – A Commentary. American Antiquity 42 (3:1):543-546.  

 Taylor, Walter W.
1948    A Study of Archaeology. Southern Illinois University.

Week 11               Material Culture_______________________________

Writing assignment this week

(2 pages, double-spaced.  Proper citation of work required): 

QUESTION: 

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, Ford, Gifford, and the views expressed in the O’Brien, Lyman, and Schiffer text agree or disagree in regards to their views on artifact typologies?  Should symbols be considered in artifact typologies?
 

Text Excerpts:

Read Chapters 3 and 4 (pp. 80-165) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Read Chapters 3 and 4 (pp. 67-120) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)

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

Ford, James A. and Julian H. Stewart
1954    The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist 56(1):42-57.

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

Koerper, Henry C. and E. Gary Stickel
1980    Cultural Drift: A Primary Process of Culture Change. Journal of Anthropological Research 36(4):463-469.

Nature of Artifacts:

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

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

Ways of Examining a Single Artifact Class:   Ceramics

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

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.

Borhegyi, Stephen F.
1964    Pre-Columbian Pottery Mushrooms from Mesoamerica. American Antiquity 28(3):328-338.
 
Kohler, Ulrich
1976    Mushrooms, Drugs, and Potters: A New Approach to the Function of Precolumbian Mesoamerican Mushroom Stones. American Antiquity 41(2):145-153. 

Cogged Stones

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

Supplementary Readings (not required, but useful; strongly recommended for discussion leaders):

McGuire, Joseph D.
1896    Classification and Development of Primitive Implements. American Anthropologist 9(7):227-236. 

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.  

Ford Spaulding Debate:

Spaulding, Albert C.
1953    Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18:305-13.

Ford, James A.
1954b  Spaulding's Review of Ford. American Anthropologist 56:109-112.

Spaulding, Albert C.
1954    Reply (to Ford). American Anthropologist 56:112-14.

 Ford, James A.
1961    In Favor of Simple Typology. American Antiquity 27:113-14.

Steward, Julian H.
1954    Types of Types. American Anthropologist 56:54-57.

Rouse, Irving R.
1960    The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25:313-23.

Writing assignment this week

(2 pages, double-spaced.  Proper citation of work required):

Clearly Archaeology is all about time, but whose time?  Was/Are the concepts of time (and implied chronologies) different among the culture historians, processualists, and post processualists? What distinctions can be drawn from diachronic versus synchronic views of time?

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?
 

Read Chapters 5 and 6 (pp. 166-313) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Read Chapters 5 and 6 (pp. 121-177) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)

Overviews and Concepts:

Michaels, Joseph W.
1972    Dating Methods. Annual Review of Anthropology 1:113-126.
(USE THIS ARTICLE FOR REFERENCE ONLY -- do not get lost in details)

Relative Dating:

Ford, James A.
1938    A Chronological Method Applicable to the Southeast. American Antiquity 3(3):260-264. 

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

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

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

Haury, Emil W.
1935    Tree Rings: The Archaeologist’s Time Piece. American Antiquity 1(2):98-108.
 
Merrill, Robert S.
1948    A Progress Report on the Dating of Archaeological Sites by Means of Radioactive Elements. American Antiquity 13(4):281-286.  

Nelson, N. C.
1916    Chronology of the Tanos Ruins, New Mexico. American Anthropologist (new series) 18(2):159-180.
(READ FOR HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ONLY -- DON'T WORRY ABOUT DETAILS)

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

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

Meltzer, David J.
2005    The Seventy-Year Itch: Controversies over Human Antiquity and Their Resolution.  Journal of Anthropological Research 61(4):433-468.

Bailey, G. N.
1983    Concepts of Time in Quaternary Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:165-192.

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

Foxhall, Lin
2000    The Running Sands of Time: Archaeology and the Short-Term. World
Archaeology 31(3):484-498.

 WEEK 13            Space and Place________________________________

 
Writing assignment this week

(2 pages, double-spaced.  Proper citation of work required):

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 coarse-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?
 

Text Excerpts:

Read Chapter 7 (pp. 314-385) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Read Chapter 7 (pp. 178-218) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)

 
Intrasite Studies:

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.

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

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

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

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. 

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

Settlement Pattern/Landscape Studies:

Parsons, Jeffery R.
1972    Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1:127-150.
 
Fletcher, Roland
1986    Settlement Archaeology: World-Wide Comparisons. World Archaeology 18(1):59-83.

Fleming, Andrew
2006    Post-Processual Landscape Archaeology: A Critique. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16(3):267-280.

Population studies:

Naroll, Raoul
1962    Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27(4):587-589.
 
Glassow, Michael A.
1967    Considerations in Estimating Prehistoric California Coastal Populations. American Antiquity 32(3):354-359.

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

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

Week 14     Subsistence (diet, economies) __________________________

Writing assignment this week

(2 pages, double-spaced. Proper citation of work required).  

Subsistence is a key concept in archaeology, and directly influences settlement patterns and other issues of land use.  

Text Excerpts:

Read Chapter 8 (pp. 386-483) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Read Chapter 8 (pp. 219-252) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)

Overviews and Methodologies:

Daly, Patricia
1969    Approaches to Faunal Analysis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 34(2):146-153.
 
Riley, Thomas J., Richard Edging, and Jack Rossen
1990    Cultigens in Prehistoric Eastern North America: Changing Paradigms. Current Anthropology 31(5):525-541.

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.

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.

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

Roth, Barbara J.
2006    The Role of Gender in the Adoption of Agriculture in the Southern Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 62(4):513-538.

Supplementary Readings (not required, but useful; strongly recommended for discussion leaders): 

Smith, Bruce D
2001    Low-Level Food Production. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1):1-43.  (Focus on broad themes; do not get lost in details)

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

Text Excerpts:

Read Chapters 9 and 10 (pp. 484-548) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Read Chapter 9 (pp. 253-268) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)

 ----------------------------------

Culotta, Elizabeth
2009    On the Origin of Religion. Science 326 (No. 5954):784-787.

Curry, Andrew
2008    Seeking the Roots of Ritual. Science 319 (No. 5861):278-280.

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.

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

Fennell, Christopher C.
2003    Group Identity, Individual Creativity, and Symbolic Generation in a BaKongo Diaspora. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 7(1):1-31. 

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.

Gazin-Schwartz, Amy
2001    Archaeology and Folklore of Material Culture, Ritual, and Everyday Life. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5(4):263-280.

Howey, Meghan C. L. and John M. O'Shea
2006    Bear's Journey and the Study of Ritual in Archaeology. American Antiquity 71(2):261-282.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Final Take Home Exam
 

Write a cogent and coherent essay for each of the following questions. 

Each essay should be between 2 and 4 pages in length (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....

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?
 

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 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 prehistoric studies have radically different goals or methodologies than the historic examples?