* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Ethnoarchaeology (Winter 2010)
Survey
Document related concepts
Political economy in anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Ethnography wikipedia , lookup
Social class wikipedia , lookup
Class conflict wikipedia , lookup
Excavation (archaeology) wikipedia , lookup
Social class in the United Kingdom wikipedia , lookup
Cambrian Archaeological Association wikipedia , lookup
Underwater archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Community archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Survey (archaeology) wikipedia , lookup
Indigenous archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Anthropology 3701 2 ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY Winter 2010 M. Dores Cruz Office Hours: by appointment Sturm Hall 140 Phone: 871-2472 E-mail: [email protected] COURSE DESCRIPTION: Combining archaeological records with ethnographic information is not new, but seldom have the latter two been used together in a holistic approach to the past. Is there an objective reason not to do so or has it been mostly because “old habits die hard”? With this course I would like to address different perspectives and theories concerning the use of both ethnohistory and ethnoarchaeology to complement archaeological information. The goals of the course are to define the role of ethnoarchaeology in the study of human past; to establish an agenda of issues to which their use is relevant; and to provide a critical overview of major approaches to the use of ethnographic analogies and historical information in archaeology. The discussion should provide a series of reflections about the advantages (or the limitations) in using those fields together, or if ethnohistory and ethnoarchaeology are better suited for very specific arenas and should be used separately from each other, although in conjunction with archaeology. A challenge for this course is to explore theoretical models and methodological practices that present a holistic scope, by using multiple lines of evidence. Many archaeologists have undertaken ethnographic (field) research to answer questions not addressed by traditional ethnographies. Nevertheless, ethnographic analogy has often been an illustrative device to animate archaeological remains , or to develop uniformitarian models of human behavior, regardless of the geographic and chronological distance between the ethnographic and the archaeological data In this class we will examine the challenges of (reconstructing) the past of societies using archaeological, ethnographic, oral historical and archival sources, exploring their strengths and limitations, and the potential of combining insights from these disparate sources. More fundamentally, we will tackle issues of historical and archaeological reasoning; how we construct and use ethnographic baselines; analogical models; and source criticism. We will explore these topics through case studies drawn from several world areas. COURSE FORMAT: Class will involve a combination of lecture, films and discussion. The goal of the course is foster and exercise critical thinking and analytical skills of all participants, as well as to let you take risks and explore your own research interests. Though you may not be familiar with some of the data, it is fundamental that you digest assigned readings in a analytical fashion, and work to bring our different experiences together and move the discussion of class topics to a higher level. Class discussion and in-class short (individual and/or group) presentations will contribute to on-going discussion of the topics, to challenge the author’s arguments and to make students aware of the dilemmas of ethnoarchaeological and ethnohistoric research. You will be asked to prepare oral presentations of your 1 work: a) in each class, students will be responsible for summarizing the articles/chapters assigned, to prepare a set of questions with the goal of leading class discussion; and 2) you will also be asked to talk about the research leading to your final paper. Feedback from colleagues regarding your research may help you reshape your research. REQUIRED TEXTS: David, Nicholas, Kramer, Carol, 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in action. Cambridge, Cambridge Univesity Press. COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENT: Clear understanding of and thoughtful engagement with the course materials and the course projects require coming to class and doing the assigned reading. You are REQUIRED to come to ALL scheduled classes. Only an absence that you have explained to me ahead of time– that is prior to your absence– will be excused. This is especially important in a small discussion-based seminar like this one, where your presence in class not only contributes to your learning, but enhances the learning experience of the class as a whole. More than one unexcused absence will bring an automatic full letter deduction in your final grade (e.g., an “A-” becomes a “B-”). Research Paper (12-15 pages): 35% Class discussion: 10% Mid-term essay (Take home): 15% Argument notes: 20% (10% each) Assessment Activities: 10% Presentation: 10% In addition to more standard evaluation methods (tests and papers), short assignments based on thematic readings, outline and drafts of papers will be used to assess the students performance throughout the semester. A major component of assessment activities will be two Argument Notes exercises (3 pages each). 1) Argument Notes: Please see the hand-out “Guidelines for Argument Notes” for details. Argument Notes involve writing an abstract of the argument of a specific assignment reading and developing substantive points of integration between the argument and other course material. Argument Notes should run about 700-800 words in length (about 3 pages). A total of three sets of Argument Notes are due over the course of the semester (see Course Schedule for due dates). They should be submitted both in hardcopy and in BlackBoard form at the end of the class. Argument Notes are not accepted late nor as email attachments. 2) Paper: A research paper will be due during the semester (see Course Schedule for due dates). Guidelines for the paper will be distributed during the course of the semester. In addition to the final paper you are required to submit during the 4rd week of class a description of the topic and its interest, and during the 6th week of class an outline of “how” you intend to develop the project. You will also hand in a draft that I will return to you with comments. The final paper will be handed in accompanied by the draft. Failure to submit the outline, draft and paper on time will result in a late penalty of 1/3 of a letter grade for each class meeting that the lateness drags on beyond the due date. (If, for example, you submit a paper that merits a grade of “A” on a Wednesday that was due on the previous Monday, your 2 grade will be reduced 1/3 to “A-“; if you submit the same paper on Friday, the grade would be reduced by 2/3 to a “B+.”) ALL THE WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED BOTH IN HARD COPY AND ELECTRONICALLY IN BLACKBOARD. Assignments without exception will not be accepted as email attachments. 3) Academic Honesty: Cheating and/or plagiarism will not be tolerated! Cheating is using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information or study aids in any academic exercise. Plagiarism is taking and passing off as one’s own ideas, writings, computer-generated material, etc of others: that is, the incorporation into one’s assignments of any unackowledged published, unpublished or oral material from the work of another. Any case of suspected or confirmed cheating and/or plagiarism will be reported to the College for disciplinary action (for further information on academic honesty, please refer to the Honor System as published in the Student Handbook SCHEDULE AND READINGS: Week 1 (Jan 5-7) Introduction: What is ethnoarchaeology? historical development and practice Tues. [Movie 1: Indian pottery of San Ildefonso] David and Kramer, Chapter 1 Crown, P, 2007. Learning about learning. Skibo (ed) In Archaeological Anthropology Thurs: No class, but see Exercise 1 in Blackboard Week 2 (Jan 12-14) Tues: The use of analogy and archaeological inferences Ascher, R.,1961. Analogy in archaeological interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 17: 317-325. Steward, J., 1942. The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology. American Antiquity, 7 (4): 337343 Cunningham, J., 2003. Transcending the “Obnoxious” Spectator. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 22: 389-410 Thurs: Middle Range Theory Binford, L., 1967. Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: the use of analogy in archaeological reasoning. American Antiquity, 32 (1): 1-12. Stahl, Ann, 1993. Concepts of time and approaches to analogical reasoning in historical perspective. American Antiquity, 58: 235-260. David and Kramer, Chapt 2 (pags 33-54) 3 Week 3 (Jan 19-21) Tues. Some theoretical and methodological issues in ethnoarchaeology: middle range theory, contextual and post-processual archaeology Longacre, W., 1981. Kalinga Pottery. In Pattern of the Past: 49-66 Huffman, T., 1986. Iron Age Settlement Patterns and the Origin of Class Distinction. Advances in World Archaeology, 5: 291-338. Hodder, I., 1977. The distribution of material culture items in the Baringo district, western Kenya. Man, 12: 239-269. David and Kramer, Chapter 2 (pags 54-62) Lewis Williams, David, 191 Wrestling with analogy. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 57 (1): 149-162 ARGUMENT NOTES #1 IS DUE IN CLASS. Article by Lewis Williams Thurs: Making the past: the invention of tradition and its implications for ethnoarchaeological and ethnohistoric research. . Galloway, P., 1992. The unexamined habitus: direct historic analogy and the archaeology of the text. In J.C. Gardin, C.Peebles (eds.), Representations in archaeology. Bloomington, Indiana University Press: 178-195. Trigger, B., 1982. Ethnohistory: Problems and Prospects. Ethnohistory, 29 (1): 1-19. Kalentzidou, O., 2000. Discontinuing traditions: using historically informed ethnoarchaeology in the study of Evros ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7 (3): 165-186. Week 4 (Jan 26-28) Tus: Fieldwork and Ethics in ethnoarchaeology David and Kramer, Chapt 3 Pollis, G., 2009. Nukak: ethnoarchaeology of an Amazonian People. Chapt2 Skibo, 1999. Ants for breakfast Chapt to be announced AAA Code of Ethics Note: For this class make sure you review the DU IRB forms. Think how you would fill them if you were to do fieldwork. Think about your own project and how you would fill the IRB forms to be able to conduct your own fieldwork. If you don’t have an archaeological/anthropological project write a short paragraph identifying a possible project. Thurs: Entering the Archaeological context: middle range theory and taphonomic studies David and Kramer, Chapt 4 Binford, L., 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. American Antiquity, 43: 330-361. David, N, 1974. On the life span of pottery Tomka , S, 1993, Site Abandonment behavior among transhumant agro-pastoralists. In Cameron and Tomka (eds), Abandonment of settlement and regions. Chapt. 2. Pollis, G., 2009. Nukak. Chapt 5 TOPIC, OUTLINE AND SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR FINAL PAPER IS DUE IN CLASS 4 Week 5 (Feb 2-4) Settlement patterns, subsistence systems, site structures and activities. Tues: Hunter-Gatherer sites David and Kramer, Chapter 8 Pollis, G, 2009. Nukak: ethnoarchaeology of an Amazonian People. Chapt 4 and re-read chapt 5 Cribb, R., 1991. Mobile villagers : the structure and organization of Nomadic pastoral campsites in the Near East. In C. Gamble, W. Boismier (eds), Ethnoarchaeology approaches to mobile campsites: hunter-gatherer and pastoral case studies. Ann Arbor, International Archaeological Monographs: Kent, S., 1990. Cross-cultural study of segmentation, architecture, and the use of space. In Kent (ed.) Domestic architecture and the use of space: an interdisciplinary cross-cultural study. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 127-152. Thurs: Village Ethnoarchaeology David and Kramer, Chapters 9 and 10 David, N. 1971. The Fulani Compound Horne, Lee. 1999. Horne Village Spaces, Chapt 5 Kamp, K, 2000. From Village to tell. Mills in Cameron and Tomka MID-TERM ESSAY WILL BE HANDED OUT (EMAIL AND BLACKBOARD) Week 6 ( Feb 9-11) Tues: Class, power, labor and ideology. Sahlins, M. A., 1963. Poor man, rich man, big-man: political types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative studies in society and history, 5: 285-303. Roscoe, P., 2000. New Guinea leadership as ethnographic analogy. A critical review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7 (2): 79-126. David and Kramer, Chapt 13 MID-TERM ESSAY DUE IN CLASS Thurs: Ethnoarchaeology of Houseolds Tringham, R., 1995. Archaeoological houses, households, housework and the home. In D. N. Benjamin (ed), The Home: words, interpretations, meanings. Avebury, Aldershot Browser, B., 2004. Domestic Spaces as Public Places Bourdieu The Berber House [find short version] Donley-Reid, 1990. In Kent, Domestic Archaeology Week 7 (Feb 16-18) Tues. “Men weave and women pot:”gender relations in ethnoarchaeological and ethnohistoric studies. Brumbach and Jarvenpa, 1997. Woman the hunter: ethnoarchaeological lessons from Chipewayan life-cycle dynamics. In Classen and Joyce (eds), Women in Prehistory. 5 Goucher, C., Herbert, E., 1996. The blooms of Banjeli: technology and gender in West African iron making. In Peter Schimdt (ed.), The culture and technology of iron production. Gainesville, University Press of Florida. Galloway, P., 1997. Where have all the menstrual huts gone? The invisibility of menstrual seclusion in the late prehistoric Southeast. In C. Claassen, R. Joyce (eds.), Women in prehistory. North America and Mesoamerica. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press: 47-62. Thurs. Production of material goods: technological and social aspects of production. Stark, M., 1999. Social Dimensions of Technical Choice in Kalinga Ceramic Traditions In Material Meanings Washburn, 1993. An ethnoarchaeological perspective on textiles categories. Frink, Lisa, 2005. Gender and the hide production in Colonial Western Alaska. In Frink and Weedman (eds) Gender and Hide Production. Chap. 6 Week 8 (Feb 23-25) Tues: Ethnoarchaeological Study of Style David and Kramer, Chapt 7 Wobst, 1999. Style in Archaeology or Archaeologists in Style. In Material meanings DeBoer, Warren B. 1990 Interaction, Imitation, and Communication as Expressed in Style: the Ucayali Experience. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret Conkey and Christine Hastorf, pp. 82-104. New York: Cambridge University. Sackett, J., 1990. Style and ethnicity in archaeology. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Wiessner, P., 1984. Reconsidering the behavioral analysis for style. J. Anthropological Archaeology Thurs: Social aspects of ceramic and iron production Herbich and Dietler, 2008. The long arm of the mother-in-law. In Cultural Transmissions and material culture Arnold, Philip J, 1990. The organization of refuse disposal and ceramic production within contemporary Mexican households. American Anthropologists Iron: Childs, S. T., 1999. “After all, a Hoe Bought a Wife:” the social dimensions of ironworking among the Toro of West Africa. In M.A Dobbres and C. Hoffman (eds.), The social dynamics of technology. Practice, politics and world views. Washington D. C., Smithsonian Institutions Press: 23-45. David, N., Robertson, I., 1996.Competition and change in two traditional African iron industries. In P. Schmidt (ed.), The culture and technology of African iron production. Gainesville, University of Florida Press: 128-142. ARGUMENT NOTES #2 IS DUE IN CLASS. Article by Herbich and Dietler 6 Week 9 (March 2-4) Tues: Lithic Material: David, N, 1998. The ethnoarchaeology and field archaeology of grinding at Sukur, Adamawa state, Nigeria. African Archaeological Review, 15: 13-63. Hayden, B. (ed.), 1987. Lithic studies among the contemporary Highland Maya. Tucson, University of Arizona. Pags PTBA. Beads: Carey, M., 1998. Gender in African beadwork. In L. Sciama and J. Eicher (eds.), Beads and bead makers. Gender, material culture and meaning. Oxford, Berg: 83-93. Kenoyer, J. M., Vidale, M., Bhan, K. K., 1994. Carnelian bead production in Khanbhat, India. In B. Allchin (ed.), Living traditions: studies in the ethnoarchaeology of South Asia. NewDelhi, Oxford and IBH Publishing: 281-306. Thursday Presentations Paper presentations The format of the presentation will be similar to that of professional meetings (for example the SAA or the AAA annual conference), in which a panel of four papers, organized around a similar, generic topic, will be presented. Each oral presentation will have a limit of 15 minutes, with questioning and discussion at the end of each panel. The goal is to listen to comments by your peers and incorporate those you find pertinent in the final version of your paper. Week 10 (March 9) Paper Presentations Conclusion of class: Use and abuse of ethnoarchaeology. FINAL PAPER DUE ON MARCH 12, 12PM, IN MY MAIL BOX. PAPERS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED LATE AND EXTENSIONS WILL NOT BE GRANTED 7