 |
ANTH 5203, Archaeology Method
& Theory:
Core Course, Spring 2003 |
COURSE DETAILS
|
1. All faculty
|
2. Green
|
3. Limp
|
4. Kay
|
5. Green
|
6. Kay
|
7. Cancelled
|
|
|
8. Rolingson
|
9. Schambach
|
10. Mitchem
|
11. Mainfort
|
12. Sabo
|
13. Kvamme
|
14. Payne
|
15. All faculty
|
|
1.
1/14 |
All faculty | Overview of course; discussion of meaning and relevance of archaeology. Assignment of mentors, |
|
2. 1/21
|
Thomas J. Green
|
PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT INTERESTS IN ARCHEOLOGY RESEARCH AND INTERPRETATION. Archeological sites have different values to different segments of the public and ethnic groups. These values create conflict over the "use" of archeological sites. Nations and states have created laws and regulations to regulate the use of archeological sites and to protect them from destruction. Today, both academic and government sponsored archeological research is regulated by these laws. Readings: Kristiansen, Kristian Lipe, Willaim Meskell, Lynn Rose, Jerome C., Thomas J. Green, and Victoria D. Green Smith, Laurajane Walker, Deward Green's Questions; answer 1 (due Tuesday 1/28)
|
|
3.
|
Fred Limp
Student discussion leader: Angie
|
AN OVERVIEW OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY. This lecture attempts to overview a broad range of “archaeologies” – not only North American prehistory, but classical archeology, historical and “material culture” studies, museum and public interpretation and CRM, to mention a few. There are four parts to this section (1) readings, (2) what is arch(a)eology, (3) what are arch(a)eological methods and (4) classification exercise. Tasks 2-4 should be done quickly. These are designed to get you thinking and not as a major laborious task. Note: Important LINKS are at the bottom of this box. Required readings for Jan 21 lecture Overview of Theory in Arch(a)eology All materials are available through Mullins Library Reserve (two copies) and in the Anthropology Reading Room (two copies). Select readings are also available on line through full-text resources at Mullins (see below). It is recommended that the material be read in the sequence provided. The readings have been selected to give an overview of both the intellectual history and current practice in archaeological theory. It is laughable to believe that covering this material in one lecture will be anything more than the most superficial caricature of the topic – and that would be a good day! The readings are selected to provide an entry point to a much more massive body of material. To that end overviews and the latest versions have been used rather than the “seminal” papers (except for Shanks and Tilley). An attempt has also been made to include literature that may applicable
to a broad range of “archaeologies” – not only North
American prehistory but classical archeology, historical and “material
culture” studies, museum and public interpretation and CRM,
to mention a few.
|
|
5.
|
Thomas J. Green Student discussion leaders: Opal |
PALEOINDIANS OR PALEOAMERICANS? SCIENCE AND POLITICS IN ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH. Recent archeological and bioarcheological research has led to new ideas concerning the intitial settlement of North and South America. Some researchers are even questioning the genetic relationship between early peoples and later American Indian populations. Some have questioned the Asian-only origin of early New World peoples and they have suggested that African and European peoples may have been early migrants to the New World. While these ideas are controversial among archeologists, they have created a furor among Indian peoples. The recent decision that the 9000 year old Kennewick skeleton is not legally a Native American for purposes of the law results from these new ideas. Assignment Questions (Due: Feb 18, 2003): You will get no credit for simply regurgitating Green's clearly biased view of this issue. You will get credit for a thoughtful answer that uses the readings to bolster your argument. Use proper citations - either American Antiquity or American Anthropologist style. |
|
6.
|
Marvin Kay Student discussion leader: Elsa
|
PARADIGM SHIFT? NO, I WAS JUST WRONG. Subject: The Dalton horizon, new AMS dates, and unambiguous associations of artifacts point to a more complex reality. Approach: Using real data and the history of Dalton investigations, this case study's prime purpose is to consider how archaeology reacts to new discoveries and often shifts explanation. This case study will explore differing perspectives of Kuhn and Popper in seeking knowledge. Assignment Questions (Due: Feb 25, 2003): How does the Dalton evidence compare to either or both Kuhn's and Popper's view of what science is and how it is conducted? (You get no extra points for agreeing with the speaker; write what you think is appropriate and back it up in a well argued essay.) DOWNLOAD KAY'S NEW ROGERS SHELTER DATES (PDF,
82K) click here Goodyear, Albert C. Goodyear, Albert C. Hajic, Edwin R., Rolfe D. Mandel, and E. Arthur Bettis III Kelley, Jane H. and Marsha P. Hanen Knutson, Ruth Ann Taylor, R. E. |
|
8.
|
Martha A. Rolingson Student discussion leader: Mark
|
RESEARCH STRATEGIES FOR THE TOLTEC MOUNDS SITE Initially reported in 1876, the Toltec Mounds site was long ignored by archeologists. Purchased in 1975 for development as a state park, public archeology-how to present both archeology and prehistory to the public-has influenced the strategies of the research plan. The large size of the site, nearly 100 acres, also requires different strategies of investigation than do small sites. The advantage, in this case, has been the extended support for long-range goals. The presentation will describe the original strategies for the research design and discuss in more detail the continuing investigation of the chronology of mound construction and planning, on-site activities and how mounds were used, and social context. QUESTIONS (Posted 2-25-03)
READINGS (Posted 2-24-03) Earle, Timothy (GN492.55. C48 1991) A summary of discussion at an Advanced Seminar on chiefdoms held at the School for American Research, Santa Fe, 1988. Rolingson, M. A. (E78.A8 A76 no. 15 1982) A brief description of the site as known in the early years of research and of the research domains in the research plan. It also has the first brief published definition of Plum Bayou culture. Rolingson, M. A. (E78.A8 A76 no. 54 1998) A detailed overview of the findings for the topical research domains. Rolingson, M. A. The broadest and latest overview of results of the
research. An alternative discussion of the level of social complexity at Toltec Mounds.
Anderson, David G. and Robert C. Mainfort, Jr. Overview of the Woodland period in the Southeast, providing a regional context for the Toltec Mounds site. Kidder, Tristram R. Nassaney, Michael S. 1996 The Contributions of the Plum Bayou Survey Project, 1988-1994, to the Native Settlement History of Central Arkansas. The Arkansas Archeologist, 35:1-50. Fayetteville. Vicinity site survey and testing for outlying support communities for the Toltec Mounds site. 2000 The Late Woodland Southeast. In Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation across the Midcontinent. edited by T. E. Emerson, D. L. McElrath, and A. C. Fortier, pp. 713-730. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Rolingson, M. A. and R. S. Mainfort, Jr. |
|
9.
|
Frank Schambach Student discussion leader: Matt
|
ARCHEOLOGY AS CULTURE HISTORY: EXPLAINING THE SPIRO SITE (REVISION POSTED 2-24-03) The great, pioneering, evolutionary biologist, Ernst Mayr has written:
Archeologists must also "explain" unique occurrences, if they wish to explain them at all, by constructing historical narratives. Those of us who specialize in this method of work refer to it as the practice of "culture history," and to ourselves as "culture historians." For many years, I have been preoccupied with constructing and refining a "historical narrative" that explains the Spiro site, a "unique occurrence," archeologically, if there ever was one. Located in the Arkansas Valley in eastern Oklahoma, Spiro was one of the four most important places in the "Mississippian World," i.e., the remarkable world of the Indians of southeastern North America in the centuries between 900 and 1700 A.D. The others were Cahokia, Moundville, and Etowah. The most important question I have dealt with so far is - and the question that is the subject of my lecture and the readings listed below - is: how did the Spiroans accumulate their great hoard of valuables - amounting to as much as 70 percent of all the Mississippian "prestige goods" known to archeology - in one comparatively small mound at an otherwise unremarkable site on the western edge of the Mississippian world? Naturally, I hope you will find my narrative interesting
in its own right, and perhaps even plausible. But I am presenting
it primarily as an example of how such a narrative is constructed.
Hence, that is the basis on which I would like you to examine
it during our post-lecture discussions and in the 5 to 6-page
paper you are required to produce on the material presented in
each class session. So I would like you to examine my narrative
by breaking it down into its component parts. You may do this
as you see fit, but here are some basic questions I would like What are the major elements (or hypotheses) in the "scenario," or "historical narrative" I have constructed to explain the Spiro site? How many different kinds of data (archeological, botanical, bioanthropological, biogeographical, epidemiological, historical, etc.) are employed in support of the various hypotheses I present? I'm looking for some sort of a list here, with a bit of discussion, not just a number. To what extent are environmental data employed in my arguments and in the arguments I challenge; does it look as if environmental data are, or have ever been, of real concern to archeologists? Can you suggest, out of your own developing expertise, types of environmental data that I should be employing, or at least trying to employ, but have overlooked? Archeologists are infamous for their arcane arguments over the classification of pottery and other artifacts; is there anything in my narrative that might lead you to believe that it actually matters whether pottery is classified one way or another? Ernst Mayr tells us that "It is, of course,
never possible to prove categorically that a historical narrative
is 'true.' Yet every narrative is open to falsification and can
be tested again and again." This is basic science; a hypothesis
that is not open to falsification is useless. But how do culture
historians go about falsifying hypotheses? Find one good example
of this in the required reading and discuss it briefly. Can you
suggest some way that I, or one of my critics might attempt -
or is Required Reading: It would be best to read these five articles in
the order listed. The short piece by Brain will give you some
sense of the great quantities of goods that were accumulated at
Spiro and it tells the sad tale of how we came to find out what
was there. My introduction to the Sanders site report will serve
as an introduction to that important site. My "historical
narrative" is presented in its entirety, and in a form intended
for general readers, in the paper titled Osage Orange Bows, Indian
Horses, and the Blackland Prairie of Northeastern Texas. The last
two papers are examples, albeit one-sided, of how specialists
argue back and forth about each other's narratives. As such, these
papers are pretty technical, but in them you will find details
that will be helpful in answering the questions I have posed for
discussion and study. Schambach, F. F.| 1997 Continuing the Discussion of the Spiroans and
Their Entrepots: A Reply to Brooks's Critique of My New Paradigm
for the Archeology of the Arkansas Valley. Caddoan Archeology
7(4):17-46. |
|
10.
|
Jeffrey M. Mitchem Student discussion leaders: David
|
SPANISH COLONIAL ARCHAEOLOGY. This topic overviews Spanish colonial archaeology, with special focus on the archaeology of 16th-century Spanish exploration and 17th-century Spanish (Franciscan) missions in the Southeast. As specific examples, I use my dissertation research (on the Tatham Mound and other sites) and Parkin to address the former and Mission San Luis (directed by my wife, Bonnie McEwan) as the latter. These provide easily-grasped examples of the complex and changing interactions between Spaniards and Native Americans that characterized the meeting of two very different worlds. These examples provide good case studies that demonstrate why historical archaeology is the best way (and in some cases the only way) to address anthropological questions concerning the consequences of European/Native American contact. Research at these sites has altered our perceptions of aspects of contact and its aftermath, and has also shown that historical documents alone do not always tell the whole story. Questions: (posted 3-12-03) 1. What sorts of things can archaeology reveal about Spanish/Indian 2. How is historical archaeology uniquely appropriate for examining 3. In the two case studies presented, what results were gained
only Readings: (posted 2-14-03) Deagan, Kathleen A. McEwan, Bonnie G. 2001 The Spiritual Conquest of La Florida. AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 103(3):633-644. Milanich, Jerald T. Mitchem, Jeffrey M. |
|
11.
|
Robert C. Mainfort Student discussion leader: ????
|
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION. Below are some questions to consider: (posted 2-17-03) 1) What is a variable? 2) What is an attribute? 3) What is a group? 4) What is a class? 5) How does a paradigm differ from a key? What are the relative advantages of each? 6) What are the differences between monothetic and polythetic classification? What are the relative advantages of each? 7) Do archaeological types represent types recognized by the society
that created the objects being studied? Readings: Brown, James A. Clarke, David L. Cowgill, George L. Saxe, Arthur A. Voorrips, A. Whittaker, J.C., D. Caulkins, and K.A. Kamp |
|
12.
|
George Sabo Student discussion leader: Sarah
|
ETHNOHISTORY AND THE ARCHEOLOGY OF NATIVE AMERICANS. Several years ago Bruce Trigger challenged archeologists to apply their talents to the study of Native American history, instead of using archeological evidence from Native American sites only to test "scientific" hypotheses. What does this challenge imply concerning the way we do archeological research in North America? One ramification is that we will need to make better use of the documentary record, and in examining historical texts make competent application of the arsenal of critical approaches developed by historians. A second implication is that we need to be attentive to cultural differences in the uses and meanings of the term "history," particularly those associated with the western cultural traditions embraced by most archeologists and the very different traditions that operate within Native American communities. We'll explore these issues via case studies that deal with the archeology and ethnohistory of Native Americans in Arkansas and the mid-South.
Readings: (posted 3-4-03)
"American Archaeology as Native History: A Review Essay" by Bruce Trigger, William and Mary Quarterly 40: 413-452 (available on-line via JSTOR).
“The Unexamined Habitus: Direct Historic Analogy and the Archaeology of the Text” by Patricia Galloway, in Representations in Archaeology, edited by Jean-Claude Gardin and Christopher S. Peebles (1992, Indiana University Press), pp. 178-95.
"Rituals of Encounter: Interpreting Native American Views of European Explorers" by George Sabo III (in Cultural Encounters in Early America: Native Americans and Europeans in Arkansas, edited by Jeannie M. Whayne (1995, University of Arkansas Press), pp. 76-87.
“Encounters and Images: European Contact and the Caddo Indians” by George Sabo III, in The Scholarship of Cultural Contact: Decolonizing Native American History, edited by M. A. Jaimes Guerrero and Joel Martin, Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques, Vol. 21, no. 2 (Spring, 1995): 217-42.
"The Quapaw Indians of Arkansas, 1673-1803" by George Sabo III, in Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan (2000, University Press of Florida), pp. 178-203.
Recommended additional readings if this fascinates you:
A Forest of Time: American Indian Ways of History by Peter Nabokov (2002, Cambridge University Press)
The Emperor’s Mirror: Understanding Cultures Through Primary Sources, by Russell J. Barber and Francis F. Berdan (1998, The University of Arizona Press).
Essay Question:
Sabo’s articles provide various interpretations concerning
structures, principles, and cultural themes that Quapaw and Caddo
Indians employed in their early encounters with European explorers.
What, in brief, are Sabo’s methods for examining textual sources?
How might archeologists employ Sabo’s findings in their attempts
to interpret the archeological record of pre-contact Indian societies?
|
|
13.
4/15 |
Kenneth L. Kvamme Student discussion leader: Crystal |
ARCHAEO-GEOPHYSICAL APPROACHES TO REGIONAL AND LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY. Advances in near-surface geophysics and computer graphic display methods enable the subsurface of large regions to be mapped, often in great detail. The implications are profound because archaeologists now can view human uses of space in terms of tens of hectares compared to the tens of square meters typical of archaeological excavations. A review of available techniques, including magnetometry, electrical resistivity, electromagnetic conductivity, and ground-penetrating radar, is given along with case studies from several areas in North America. Particular focus is given to what archaeogeophysics can offer to regional or landscape archaeology. Prior to class the student should review these web sites
Internet-based examples of large-area projects Readings
For more information about geophysics
The Big Question Consider these issues and questions prior to class and address them in your essay. Do archaeologists need to dig holes to learn about the past? Moreover,
by keeping their heads in holes does it blind their perspectives?
In other words, by focusing principally on small portable artifacts
and features revealed in relatively small excavation exposures (perhaps
a few 10s of square meters), does our view of the archaeological
record, the nature of human activities over settlement-scale or
larger landscapes, and the past possess a scale bias? If the archaeogeophysicist
can reveal cultural phenomena over large spaces, Using geophysical results from the Fort Clark Trading Post, the Sylvester Plantation, Bunker Hill, Whistling Elk, Mit-tutta-hang-kush, Huff, Wroxeter, or other examples located on the internet, discuss the nature of finds that the archaeogeophysicist might deliver to archaeology that are largely different from and augment common results. What benefits does geophysics deliver to the archaeological project? Focus principally on how viewing components of the archaeological record over large areas can alter perspectives about the past, the record itself, human organization at the village level, and large cultural landscapes. |
|
14.
|
Claudine Payne Student discussion leaders: Jason
|
RECOGNIZING CULTURAL COMPLEXITY IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD (RESCHEDULED due to weather) This topic fits in with my current research into the foundations of leadership in small chiefdoms. I envision class discussion of the basic differences between egalitarian societies and nonegalitarian societies and how these are manifested archaeologically. I will also provide archaeological data for the class to evaluate and interpret, so they can get a taste of what archaeologists really do. We will also discuss my research exploring differences in the archaeological record between small chiefdoms and large ones. Preparing for class on April 22: (posted 2-17-03) Be ready to define and discuss the following terms: cultural complexity, status, role, rank. You may have to look beyond the readings for this. Some likely places to start looking are dictionaries and introductory anthropology texts. Read all the materials. As you read, keep the following questions and issues in mind and be ready to discuss in class.
Readings: (posted 2-14-03) Service, Elman R. King, Thomas F. Peebles, Christopher S. and Susan M. Kus |
|
15.
4/29 |
All faculty | Overview of course; course conclusion |
 |
Department
of Anthropology
Old Main 330, University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701 Phone: (479)575-2508; Fax: (479)575-6595 E-mail: chitt@comp.uark.edu Maintained by Course Coordinator |