Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Discovery of human antiquity wikipedia , lookup
Social class wikipedia , lookup
Class conflict wikipedia , lookup
Social class in the United Kingdom wikipedia , lookup
Latin American Perspectives wikipedia , lookup
Political economy in anthropology wikipedia , lookup
ANTH 421/521: Analysis of Lithic Technologies (4 CR—meets four hours a week in the classroom; Days/Time) Dr. Loren Davis, Instructor Waldo 216 (541) 737-3849 [email protected] Office hours: Mondays 9:00-10:00 or by appointment Course Content This class is designed to give students an in-depth exposure to the principles, procedures, and purpose of archaeological lithic analysis. This class will emphasize the study of chipped stone technologies practiced among prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Some hands-on activities will involve the practice of stone tool manufacture techniques; however, more of our class time will be spent discussing topics addressed in course readings and learning modern analytical techniques. Students are encouraged to practice their flintknapping skills outside of class. PREREQS: ANTH 230 Measurable Student Learning Outcomes As a result of this class, ANTH 421 students will be able to: •Define terms associated with lithic technology and its analysis •Categorize lithic artifacts into typological groups •Identify distinct morphological features on lithic artifacts and relate them to human behavior •Perform tasks associated with standard methods of lithic technological analysis In addition, ANTH 521 students will be able to: •Articulate how archaeological analysis of lithic artifacts can be related to specific and general human behaviors •Conceive of the linkages between the processes of lithic technological production and its artifactual patterns •Design a plan of research with an appropriate integration of method and theory •Evaluate the theoretical orientation and operationalization of published archaeological research Evaluation of student performance Class time will be divided between discussions and practical sessions that focus on various aspects of lithic tool production and analysis. A final project, the analysis of a lithic collection and presentation of results, will combine all these aspects of the class— theory, practice, and explanation. Discussions (10% of the grade) In teams of two, class members will be assigned to lead discussion of course readings in most classes. ALL class members should read the assigned materials before class so that they can participate in the discussion. Practical Sessions (50% of the grade) Students will participate in twenty practical sessions, which always involve a planned activity and often involve a short write-up of results (10 written assignments). The practical sessions cover the following topics: Week Session and topic 2 1. Hard hammer core reduction I 2. Hard hammer core reduction II (written assignment) 3 3. Hard hammer biface reduction I 4. Hard hammer biface reduction II 5. Hard hammer biface reduction III 4 6. Soft hammer reduction I 7. Soft hammer reduction II 8. Soft hammer reduction III 5 9. Pressure flaking I 10. Pressure flaking II 11. Pressure flaking III 6 12. Debitage typologies I 13. Debitage typologies II 14. Debitage typologies III 7 15. Mass analysis I 16. Mass analysis II 8 17. Butchering project at the Clark Meat Center 18. Use wear activity I 19. Use wear activity II 9 20. Fracture patterns of hafted tools 21. Hafted tool use life Lithic Analysis Project (20% of the grade) ANTH 421 Students will have the choice of (1) designing, performing, and reporting the results of an experiment on butchering associated with a class barbeque at the end of the term or (2) designing, performing, and reporting the results of an experiment or analysis of a debitage assemblage conducted on your own. Written project reports will be due in class on [date]. Detailed instructions on the final project will be provided. ANTH 521 students will conduct an independent analysis of a prehistoric lithic collection (to be provided), present their results to the class in summary form, and submit a written paper on their analysis, due in class on [date]. Detailed instructions on the final project will be provided. Essay (20% of the grade) Students will provide answers to a series of essay questions related to topics covered in class discussions, practica, and readings. The essay questions will be provided during Week 9. This assignment will be due by 12:00 pm on [date]. Learning Resources Required texts: •Andrefsky, W., Jr. (2005). Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis, 2nd Ed. •Odell, G.H. (2004). Lithic Analysis. (Required for ANTH 521 only) •An additional reading packet will be available for purchase in the Anthropology office. Students will also need the following items for the practicum sessions. Note: you will need these for much of the term and cannot participate in some practical sessions without these objects. You will need these every day we are flintknapping: •Graph paper (metric) •Ruler (metric) •Mechanical pencil •Black Sharpie felt pen •A 4” wide paint brush •Clothing that you can get dirty. Long pants and shoes are required. Sandals or other open footwear are not allowed. •A pair of clear plastic lab glasses for use while flintknapping •3 hammer-stones of different size (think of large = large softball, med = baseball, and small = golfball) •2 wooden or antler billets (one measuring ca. 10-12” long and 1.5-2” in diameter and the other measuring ca. 6-8” long and 1-1.5” in diameter) •1 copper or antler tine pressure flaker •1 container of large heavy-duty ziplock bags •1 whet stone for grinding (this can be natural sandstone or other abrasive stone) •1 pair cloth/leather gloves (optional but recommended) •1 heavy duty dish towel or palm-sized piece of leather for flintknapping •1 bath towel for apron (or an apron will do) •Some Band-Aids •A bag, backpack or container to store your equipment Statement Regarding Students with Disabilities Accommodations are collaborative efforts between students, faculty and Disability Access Services (DAS). Students with accommodations approved through DAS are responsible for contacting the faculty member in charge of the course prior to or during the first week of the term to discuss accommodations. Students who believe they are eligible for accommodations but who have not yet obtained approval through DAS should contact DAS immediately at 541-737-4098. Link to Statement of Expectations for Student Conduct: http://studentlife.oregonstate.edu/studentconduct/offenses-0 Weekly Course Schedule Week 1: First principles Tues: Introduction to course Thurs: Physics of fracture, basic concepts and terms ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Ch. 1 SD: Cotterell and Kamminga (1987) The formation of flakes Week 2: Lithic reduction as a continuum Tues: Strategies, stages, processes, and products ALL: Andrefsky (2006) Ch. 2-3 SD: Close (2006) The concept of the Chaîne Opératoire in context. ALL: Bleed (2001) Trees of chains, links or branches: Conceptual alternative for consideration of stone tool production and other sequential activities SD: Bradbury and Carr (1999) Examining stage and continuum models of flake debris analysis: An experimental approach Thurs: Video and demonstration Week 3: Flintknapping Tues: Practicum 1: Hard hammer core reduction ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapter 5; Whittaker (1994) Flintknapping: making and understanding stone tools: Chapters 5, 6, 8. READ PRIOR TO CLASS Thurs: Practicum 2: Hard hammer biface reduction Week 4: Flintknapping Tues: Practicum 3: Soft hammer reduction PRACTICA 1 & 2 REPORTS DUE IN CLASS Thurs: Practicum 4: Pressure flaking Week 5: Variation in artifacts and assemblages Tues: Variation in artifacts ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapter 4 SD: Jelinek (1976) Form, function, and style in lithic analysis SD: Frison (1968) A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools ALL: Nelson (1991) The study of technological organization PRACTICA 3 & 4 REPORTS DUE IN CLASS Thurs: Variation in assemblages ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapter 8 SD: Carr and Bradbury (2001) Flake debris analysis, levels of production, and the organization of technology. SD: Newman (1994) The effects of distance on lithic material reduction technology Week 6: Classification and typology I Tues: Discussion ALL: Bordes (1969) Reflections on typology and techniques in the paleolithic SD: Flenniken and Wilke (1989) Typology, technology, and chronology of Great Basin dart points SD: Thomas (1981) How to classify the projectile points from the Monitor Valley, Nevada Thurs: Practicum 5: Debitage Typologies ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapters 4 & 6; Sullivan and Rosen (1985). READ PRIOR TO CLASS Week 7: Classification and typology II Tues: Practicum 6: Mass Analysis ALL: Ahler (1989) Mass analysis of flaking debris: studying the forest rather than the tree. READ PRIOR TO CLASS PRACTICUM 5 REPORT DUE IN CLASS Thurs: Practicum 7: Morphological Attributes of Debitage ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapter 5. REREAD PRIOR TO CLASS Week 8: Style and function Tues: Style All: Barton (1997) Stone tools, style, and social identity: an evolutionary perspective on the archaeological record SD: Morrow and Morrow (1999) Geographic variation in fluted projectile points: A hemispheric perspective SD: Taçon (1991) The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and tool development in western Arnhem Land, Australia Thurs: Function SD: Bleed (1986) The optimal design of hunting weapons: Maintainability or reliability ALL: Shott (1996) Innovation and selection in prehistory: a case study from the American Bottom SD: Young and Bamforth (1990) On the macroscopic identification of used flakes PRACTICA 6 & 7 REPORTS DUE IN CLASS [DATE] ANTH 421 BUTCHERY AND BBQ PROJECT Week 9: Technological organization and Intrasite organization Tues. Technological organization SD: Bamforth and Becker (2000) Core/biface ratios, mobility, refitting, and artifact use-lives: A Paleoindian example ALL: Morrow (1996) Lithic refitting and archaeological site formation processes: a case study from the Twin Dutch site, Greene County, Illinois SD: Pecora (2001) Chipped stone tool production strategies and lithic debitage patterns ALL: Kelly (1988) The three sides of a biface Thurs. Intrasite patterning SD: Cahen and Keeley (1980) Not less than two, not more than three ALL: Hull (1987) Identification of cultural site formation processes through microdebitage analysis SD: Odell (1999) The organization of labor at a protohistoric settlement in Oklahoma ESSAY ASSIGNMENT HANDED OUT IN CLASS Week 10: Regional scale organization Tues. Mobility ALL: Andrefsky (2005) Chapters 9-10 SD: MacDonald (1999) Modeling Folsom mobility mating strategies, and technological organization in the Northern Plains SD: Rasic and Andrefsky Jr. (2001) Alaskan blade cores as specialized components of mobile toolkits: assessing design parameters and toolkit organization through debitage analysis Thurs. Settlement LITHIC ANALYSIS PROJECT PAPER DUE IN CLASS GRADUATE STUDENT PRESENTATIONS ALL: Odell (1998) Investigating correlates of sedentism and domestication in prehistoric North America ALL: Daniel (2001) Stone raw material availability and Early Archaic settlement in the Southeastern United States ALL: Parry and Kelly (1987) Expedient core technology and sedentism ESSAY ASSIGNMENT DUE ON TUESDAY, [date] BY 12:00 PM Class Bibliography Ahler, S. A. (1989). Mass analysis of flaking debris: studying the forest rather than the tree. Alternative approaches to lithic analysis. D. O. H. a. G. H. Odell, Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association Number 1: 85-118. Andrefsky, W. (2005). Lithics : macroscopic approaches to analysis, 2nd Ed. New York, Cambridge University Press. Bamforth, D. B. and M. S. Becker (2000). “Core/biface ratios, mobility, refitting, and artifact use- lives: A Paleoindian example.” Plains Anthropologist 45(173): 273-290. Barton, C. M. (1997). Stone tools, style, and social identity: an evolutionary perspective on the archaeological record. Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation. C. M. Barton and G. A. Clark. Washington, D.C., American Anthropological Association. 7: 141-156. Bleed, P. (2001). “Trees of chains, links or branches: Conceptual alternative for consideration of stone tool production and other sequential activities.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8(1): 101-127. Bleed, P. (1986) The optimal design of hunting weapons: Maintainability or reliability. American Antiquity 51(4):737-747. Bordes, F. (1969). “Reflections on typology and techniques in the paleolithic.” Arctic Anthropology 6(1): 1-29. Bradbury, A. P. and P. J. Carr (1999). “Examining stage and continuum models of flake debris analysis: An experimental approach.” Journal of Archaeological Science 26(1): 105-116. Cahen, D. and L. H. Keeley (1980). “Not less than two, not more than three.” World Archaeology 12(2): 166-180. Carr, P. J. and A. P. Bradbury (2001). Flake debris analysis, levels of production, and the organization of technology. Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning. W. Andrefsky Jr. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press: 126-146. Close, A.E. (2006). The concept of the Chaîne Opératoire in context. In, A.E. Close, pp. 1-12 Finding the People who Flaked the Stone at English Camp (San Juan Island). University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Cotterell, B. and J. Kamminga (1987). “The formation of flakes.” American Antiquity 52(4): 675-708. Daniel, I. R. (2001). “Stone raw material availability and Early Archaic settlement in the Southeastern United States.” American Antiquity 66(2): 237-265. Flenniken, J. J. and P. J. Wilke (1989). “Typology, technology, and chronology of Great Basin dart points.” American Anthropologist 91(1): 149-158. Frison, G. C. (1968). “A functional analysis of certain chipped stone tools.” American Antiquity 33(2): 149-155. Hull, K. L. (1987). “Identification of cultural site formation processes through microdebitage analysis.” American Antiquity 52(4): 772-783. Jelinek, A. J. (1976). Form, function, and style in lithic analysis. Cultural change and continuity. C. E. Cleland. New York, Academic Press: 19-35. Kelly, R. L. (1988). “The three sides of a biface.” American Antiquity 53(4): 717-734. MacDonald, D. H. (1999). “Modeling Folsom mobility mating strategies, and technological organization in the Northern Plains.” Plains Anthropologist 44(168): 141161. Morrow, J. E. and T. A. Morrow (1999). “Geographic variation in fluted projectile points: A hemispheric perspective.” American Antiquity 64(2): 215-230. Morrow, T. M. (1996). Lithic refitting and archaeological site formation processes: a case study from the Twin Dutch site, Greene County, Illinois. Stone tools theoretical insights into human prehistory. G. H. Odell. New York, Plenum Press: 345-373. Nelson, M. C. (1991). “The study of technological organization.” Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 57-100. Newman, J. R. (1994). “The Effects of distance on lithic material reduction technology.” Journal of field archaeology 21(4): 491. Odell, G. H. (1998). “Investigating correlates of sedentism and domestication in prehistoric North America.” American Antiquity 63(4): 553-571. Odell, G. H. (1999). “The organization of labor at a protohistoric settlement in Oklahoma.” Journal of Field Archaeology 26(4): 407-421. Parry, W. J. and R. L. Kelly (1987). Expedient core technology and sedentism. The Organization of Core Technology. J. K. Johnson and C. A. Marrow. Boulder and London., Westview Press: 284-304. Pecora, A. M. (2001). Chipped stone tool production strategies and lithic debitage patterns. Lithic debitage : context, form, meaning. W. Andrefsky Jr. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press: 173-190. Rasic, J. and W. Andrefsky Jr. (2001). Alaskan blade cores as specialized components of mobile toolkits: assessing design parameters and toolkit organization through debitage analysis. Lithic debitage : context, form, meaning. W. Andrefsky Jr. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press: 61-79. Sullivan III, A.P. and K.C. Rozen (1985). Debitage analysis and archaeological interpretation. American Antiquity 50(4): 755-779. Taçon, P. S. (1991). “The power of stone: symbolic aspects of stone use and tool development in western Arnhem Land, Australia.” Antiquity 65(247): 192. Thomas, D. H. (1981). “How to classify the projectile points from the Monitor Valley, Nevada.” Journal California and Great Basin Anthropology 3: 7-43. Whittaker, J. C. (1994). Flintknapping: making and understanding stone tools. Austin, University of Texas Press. Young, D. and D. B. Bamforth (1990). “On the macroscopic identification of used flakes.” American Antiquity 55(2): 403-409.