Download Ethnoarchaeology (Winter 2010)

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