Anthro2AC+Fall+2010+Syllabus

Anthro2AC+Fall+2010+Syllabus - 1 ANTHRO 2AC INTRODUCTION TO...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 1 ANTHRO 2AC: INTRODUCTION TO ARCHAEOLOGY FALL SEMESTER 2010 MWF 11-12; 4 units; 2050 Valley Life Science Building INSTRUCTOR: Kent Lightfoot, Professor of Anthropology Office: 2251 College Building, Room 213; Phone: 510-642-1309; [email protected] Office Hours: M 1:30-2:30, W 2:00-4:00 Matthew Russell, Head GSI Phone: 510.643.1112; [email protected] Office and Office Hours: TBA COURSE ABSTRACT: Anthro 2AC is an introduction to the methods, goals, and theoretical concepts of archaeology. The field of archaeology is concerned with the study of past human societies based primarily on the material culture produced and used by people. For more than a century, archaeologists have been developing and refining a suite of methods for recovering and analyzing material cultural remains that have been deposited into the archaeological record. These material remains (artifacts, ecofacts, features, sites, etc.) often comprise a rather fragmentary, but nonetheless complex data base. This course explores how archaeologists employ these material remains to construct interpretations about past societies. Lecture topics will include discussions on the formation of the archaeological record; the history of archaeology; developing research designs; field methods (survey and excavation) for recovering and recording archaeological data; laboratory methods employed in the analysis of archaeological data; chronology; and generating interpretations about the past. One of the themes that will be addressed throughout this course is the concept of “excluded pasts,” traditional histories written by the dominant culture that are often exclusionary in their accounts of ancient and recent peoples. Mainstream histories often exclude or present in a biased or distorted manner accounts of common or lower status families, members of minority groups, or individuals persecuted for religious, political or sexual persuasions. The reason for touching on this theme is to recognize that the past practices of archaeology were exclusionary. As a western science dominated in its formative years by Euro-American men, archaeologists working in North America excavated burials and sacred sites with minimal consultation with descendant communities. Sensitive materials were appropriated and placed in museums and curation facilities. As will be discussed in class, Native American scholars refer to this kind of archaeology as “scientific colonialism” or” “imperial archaeology.” As a consequence of a growing backlash to these past practices, in combination with recent legislation involving the repatriation of material culture back to descendant communities, the field of archaeology is currently undergoing significant changes in its methods and practices as it attempts to become a more inclusive and collaborative science. The course will explore how archaeologists today are creating 2 close working relationships with diverse stakeholders, participating in collaborative research teams, and undertaking educational outreach with the public. Anthro 2AC will highlight an important goal of contemporary archaeology -- the construction of alternative, pluralistic histories using multiple lines of evidence. Course lectures and readings will consider how archaeology can provide a powerful methodology for constructing alternative histories of excluded peoples (and their encounters with dominant cultures) by examining the material culture of their daily practices. As we will see, the performance of daily routines produces patterned accumulations of material culture that are among the most interpretable kinds of deposits found in archaeological contexts. While most people may perceive these kinds of deposits as simply garbage or refuse collections, when analyzed by archaeologists they can provide critical insights about past people. The course examines how the archaeology of daily practice, when integrated with other sources of relevant information (oral traditions, oral histories, written records), provides the most powerful way to understand the past outside of a time machine. The course will present case studies from California to highlight the potential of writing alternative histories about people with excluded pasts. The case studies will also highlight the benefits and challenges of working with diverse stakeholders descendant communities in contemporary California. Case studies will focus on the archaeology of Native Californian Indians (e.g., the Kashaya Pomo, Coast Miwok, Amah Mutsun Ohlone tribes), Hispanic and Euro-American colonial settlements, and overseas Chinese communities. One case study will consider the construction of ancient histories (prehistory) of Native Californians using archaeological information from the imposing shell mounds of the San Francisco Bay that date back more than 4000 years. Other case studies will examine Native Californians more recent encounters with Hispanic and Euro-American colonists in the greater San Francisco Bay Area using archaeological data, native narratives, and pertinent written documents. These case examples will examine the pluralistic interactions of Native, Hispanic, and Euro-American peoples in various colonial institutions (missions, fur trade settlements, ranchos, etc.) recently studied by UC Berkeley and other local archaeologists. Another case study will highlight recent archaeological investigations of historic Chinese communities in the greater San Francisco Bay. PREREQUISITES: None COURSE REQUIREMENTS: Three exams required (two midterms and a final exam) and a short research paper (3-5 pages, typed, double space). The format of the final and midterm exams is a combination of multiple choice, identification, and essay questions. Participation in weekly discussion sections is mandatory. Each student is responsible for signing up for a discussion section listed in the Schedule of Classes. The final grade will be based on participation in the discussion section (20%), the two midterm exams (20% each), the final exam (30%), and short research paper (10%). The purpose of the research paper is to have students select an archaeological site or place in the greater San Francisco Bay Area or somewhere in California that will be the focus of 3 archival/library research. Students will identify reports and publications written about the site, read a sample of the available literature, visit the site (if possible), and write up their observations in a 3-5 page paper (due in the last GSI section of the semester). DISCUSSION SECTIONS: Students must sign up for a discussion section or risk being dropped from the course. Discussion sections are an important component of the course and you are expected to attend them. Discussion section assignments must be turned in on time to receive full credit. Remember that performance in the discussion sections will count for 20% of your final grade. SPECIAL NOTE: Please note that no make-up exams will be given in this class. Please take a look at the exam dates and plan your schedule for the semester so that you will be here for each exam (that is, don’t buy an airline ticket to go home until after the final exam). If you have a legitimate scheduling problem, then please bring it to the attention of your Graduate Student Instructor or instructor within the first two weeks of class so that arrangements can be made ahead of time for you. A very, very rare exception to the “no make-up exam” policy may be made if arrangements are made prior to the exam and a valid doctor’s note excusing you from the exam is presented to the instructor. Also note that questions about the grading of exams can be brought to the attention of your Graduate Student Instructor only within one week after the exam has been handed back to you. In other words, you have one week to look over the exam to make sure that it is correctly graded. After the week is over, no changes will be made in the point scores for any exams. REQUIRED TEXTBOOKS: Ashmore, Wendy and Robert J. Sharer 2010 Discovering Our Past: A Brief Introduction to Archaeology. (5th edition) Mayfield Publishing Co., Mountain View, California. Anthro 2AC COURSE READER. A course reader will be Available at Copy Central on Bancroft Ave. It will contain additional journal articles and book chapters required for the semester. COURSE OUTLINE: I. Introduction Aug. 27 Introductory Remarks II. Why Study Archaeology? Aug. 30 Archaeology Defined Excluded Pasts: Ancient History (Prehistory) Sept. 1 Excluded Pasts: Recent History Historical Archaeology Selective Representation of Past Sept. 3 Biases of Historical Record Case Study: Rathje’s Garbage Project 4 Sept. 6 Sept. 8 III. Study of Cultural Change, Micro and Macro scales Historical Anthropology Labor Day (No Class) Stewardship of the Past, Public Education Challenges of Studying Archaeological Materials Sept. 10 Archaeological Record: Differential Preservation Contexts of Deposition Sept. 13 Introduce Archaeological Data Recovery of Archaeological Remains Sept. 15 Recognition of Archaeological Remains Sampling Issues, Formation Processes, Sept. 17 Dynamic Nature of Cultural Landscapes Use and Reuse of Archaeological Places Sept. 20 Case Study: Long-term Use of the Landscape Prehistoric Shell Mounds of San Francisco Bay Archaeology and Contemporary Society Sept. 22 Stewards and Stakeholders, Archaeology as a Colonialist Enterprise (Scientific Colonialism) Repatriation, NAGPRA Sept. 24 Collaborative (Indigenous) Archaeology Collaboration -- Implications for Field Projects Sept. 27 FIRST MIDTERM EXAM IV. V. History of Archaeology Sept.29 Practice of American Archaeology (1900-1920) Oct. 1 Culture History Approach (1920-1960) Oct. 4 Processual Archaeology (1960-1980) Oct. 6 New Developments (1960-1980) Oct. 8 Postprocessual Archaeology (1980-2010) Oct. 11 Agency in Archaeology, Symbols, Critical Theory, Gender Research Design Oct. 13 Problem-Oriented Research, Cultural Resource Management Reasons for Research Design (Ethical Issues, Public Outreach) Oct. 15 Variation and Flexibility in Research Designs Steps of the Research Design Formulation, Implementation Oct. 18 Research Design Case Study: Duncan Village Oct. 20 Research Design: Summary Data Acquisition C Field Work Oct. 22 Regional Surveys (Macro-Scale) Multi-Phased Field Strategy VI. VII. 5 Oct. 25 Oct 27 Oct. 29 Nov. 1 Nov. 3 Nov. 5 Nov. 8 VIII. Survey Methods, Surface and Subsurface Survey Geophysical Survey Field Decisions, Sampling Considerations Introduction to Excavation (Micro-Scale) Formation Processes, Context Matrix, Provenience, Association Excavation Steps (Penetrating, Clearing) Excavation Methods; Low Impact Field Practices Field Methods: Summary SECOND MIDTERM Case Study: Overseas Chinese Archaeology in California Analysis and Interpretation Nov. 10 Museum Research and Outreach, Mainstream Museums, Tribal Museums Nov. 12 Issues Concerning Museum Research, Curation Crisis Case Study: Working with 100 Year Old Archaeology Collections, Hearst Museum of Anthropology, UC Berkeley Nov. 15 Constructing Interpretations, Reflexive Methodology Using Multiple Lines of Evidence Nov 17 Other sources of Data: Inclusion of Oral Traditions in Archaeological Research Nov. 19 Decision Making in Laboratory Research Classification Nov. 22 Analysis of Artifacts, Ecofacts, and Features Nov 24 Analysis of Artifacts, Ecofacts and Features Nov. 26 Thanksgiving Holiday (no Class) Nov. 29 Chronology Dec. 1 Analytical Approaches Conclusion Dec. 3 Concluding Statements Reading, Review, Recitation Dec. 6,8,10 Final Exam Dec. 13 FINAL EXAM Exam Group 2; 11:30am-12:30 pm Location of Final Exam to be announced later IX X. XI. 6 REQUIRED READINGS Aug. 27 Aug. 30 Introductory Remarks Excluded Pasts: Ancient History (Prehistory) Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 1 Lightfoot, Kent and Otis Parrish 2009 Why California Indians Matter, pp. 2-36. In California Indians and their Environment: An Introduction. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Sept. 1 Excluded Pasts: Recent History Deagan, Kathleen 1991 Historical Archaeology's Contributions to Our Understanding of Early America. In Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, edited by L. Falk, pp. 97-112. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Lightfoot, Kent, Sara Gonzalez, D. Modzelewski, Lee Panich, Otis Parrish, T. Schneider 2007 Cultures in Contact at Colony Ross. In Seeking Our Past: An Introduction to North American Archaeology, edited by Sara Neusius and G. Tim Gross, pp. 302-309. Oxford University Press. Sept. 3 Introduction to the Garbage Project Rathje, William and Cullen Murphy 2001 Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Chapter 1 (pp 3-29) and Chapter 3 (pp 53-78) Sept. 8 Stewardship of the Past, Public Education McManamon, Francis P. 1994 Presenting Archaeology to the Public in the USA. In The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums, and Education, edited by P. G. Stone and B. L. Molyneaux, pp. 6181. Routledge, London Lightfoot, Kent G. 2005 Archaeology and Indians: Thawing an Icy Relationship. News from Native California 19(1): 37-39. Sept. 10 Archaeological Record: Differential Preservation Fagan, Brian 1994 The Makah Find their History. In Quest for the Past: Great Discoveries in Archaeology. (2nd edition), pp. 81-97. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, Illinois. Sept. 13 Recovery of Archaeological Remains Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 4, pp 60-65 Sept. 15 Recognition of Archaeological Remains 7 Stewart, R. M. 2002 The Archaeological Record and the Recognition of Evidence (pp. 19-35). In Archaeology: Basic Field Methods. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Sept. 17 Dynamic Nature of Cultural Landscapes Schneider, Tsim D. 2007/2008 Shellmounds and Colonial Encounters in the San Francisco Bay Area. News from Native California 21(2):14-16, 36. Sept. 20 Case Study: Shell Mounds of the San Francisco Bay Lightfoot, Kent G. and Edward M. Luby in press Mound Building by California Hunter-Gatherers. In The Oxford Handbook of North American Archaeology, edited by Timothy R. Pauketat Sept. 22 Stewards and Stakeholders, Scientific Colonialism Zimmerman, L. J. 2001 Usurping Native American Voice. In The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans, and Repatriation, edited by T. L. Bray, pp. 169-184. Garland Publishing, New York. Watkins, Joe E. 2003 Beyond the Margin: American Indians, First Nations, and Archaeology in North America. American Antiquity 68(2):273-285. Sept. 24 Collaborative Archaeology Lightfoot, Kent G. 2005 Collaboration: The Future of the Study of the Past. News from Native California 19(2):28-31. Russell, Matthew A. 2008 California Indians, Shipwrecks, and Archaeology: Sixteenth-Century Crosscultural Encounters in Point Reyes National Seashore. News from Native California 21(4): 11-15. Sept. 27 FIRST MIDTERM EXAM Sept. 29 Practice of American Archaeology Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 2 Oct. 1 Culture History Approach (1920-1960) Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 3 Oct. 4 Processual Archaeology (1960-1980) Johnson, Matthew H. 1999 The >New Archaeology= (pp 12-33). In Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. 8 Oct. 6 New Developments (1960-1980) Johnson, Matthew H. 1999 Archaeology as Science (pp 34-47). In Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Oct. 8 Postprocessual Archaeology (1980-2010) Johnson, Matthew H. 1999 Postprocessual and Interpretive Archaeologies (pp 98-115). In Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Oct. 11 Archaeology and Gender, Summary of Three Approaches Johnson, Mathew H. 1999 Archaeology and Gender (pp. 116-131). Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap. 9 Oct. 13 Problem-Oriented Research Stewart, R. M. 2002 Fieldwork: Motivations and Design (pp. 37-54). In Archaeology: Basic Field Methods. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. Oct. 15 Steps of the Research Design Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 4, pp 79-85 Oct. 18 Research Design Case Study: Duncan Village Project Lightfoot, Kent G. 1984 The Duncan Project: A Study of the Occupation Duration and Settlement Pattern of an Early Mogollon Pithouse Village. Anthropological Field Studies No. 6. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona. Read pp. 1-15. Oct. 20 Research Design: Summary Lightfoot, Kent G. 2006 Rethinking Archaeological Field Methods. News from Native California 19(3): 21-24. Oct. 22 Multi-Phased Field Strategy Redman, C. E. 1987 Surface Collection, Sampling, and Research Design: A Retrospective. American Antiquity 52:249-265. Lightfoot, Kent G. 2006 Experimenting with Low-Impact Field Methods. News from Native California 19(4):16-19. 9 Oct. 25 Survey Methods, Surface and Subsurface Survey Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 5, pp 86-101 Lightfoot, Kent G. 2006 Sensing Archaeology Under Our Feet: The Potential for Geophysical Survey in Native California. News from Native California 20(1):29-31, 37. Oct. 27 Field Decisions, Sampling Considerations Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 4, pp 76-79 Lightfoot, Kent, Otis Parrish, Roberta Jewett, Breck Parkman, Daniel Murley 2001 The Metini Village Project: Collaborative Research in the Fort Ross State Historic Park. Society for California Archaeology Newsletter 35(2):1,2326. Oct. 29 Formation Processes, Archaeological Context Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 4, pp 65-75 Nov. 1 Penetrating/Clearing Excavation Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 5, pp 101-123 Nov. 3 Nov. 5 Field Methods: Summary SECOND MIDTERM EXAM Nov. 8 Case Study: Overseas Chinese Archaeology Voss, Barbara L. 2005 The Archaeology of Overseas Chinese Communities. World Archaeology 37(3):424-439. Van Bueren, Thad M. 2008 Late-Nineteenth-Century Chinese Farm Workers in the California Mother Lode. Historical Archaeology 42(3):80-96. Nov. 10 Museum Research, Tribal Museums Erikson, P. 1999 A-Whaling We Will Go: Encounters of Knowledge and Memory at the Makah Museum. Cultural Anthropology 14(4):556-583. Nov. 12 Issues Concerning Museum Research, Curation Crisis Lightfoot, Kent, Edward M. Luby and Lisa Pesnichak In press Mounded Landscapes of Central California. In Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology as Historical Process, edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and Donald H. Holly. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Nov. 15 Constructing Interpretations: Reflexive Methodology Using Multiple Lines of Evidence 10 Hodder, Ian 1999 Towards a Reflexive Method (Chap. 5, pp. 80-104). The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Lightfoot, Kent G. 2006 California Colonial Histories: The Integration of Historical Documents, Native Oral Traditions, and Archaeology. In Pedagogies of the Global, edited by Arif Dirlik, pp. 255-271. Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, Colorado. Nov. 17 Inclusion of Oral Traditions in Archaeological Research Echo-Hawk, Roger C. 2000 Exploring Ancient Worlds. In Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists, edited by K. E. Dongoske, M. Aldenderfer and K. Doehner, pp. 3-7. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Farris, Glenn J. 1988 Recognizing Indian Folk History as Real History: A Fort Ross Example. American Indian Quarterly 13(4):471-480. Nov. 19 Decision Making in Laboratory Research Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 6 Nov. 22 Analysis of Artifacts, Ecofacts, and Features Lightfoot, Kent, Chuck Striplen and Rob Cuthrell 2008/2009 The Collaborative Research Program at Quiroste Valley. News from Native California 22(2):30-33. Cuthrell, Rob, Chuck Striplen, and Kent Lightfoot 2009 Exploring Indigenous Landscape Management at Quioste Valley, The Archaeological Approach. News from Native California 22 (3):26-29. Nov. 24 Analysis of Artifacts, Ecofacts, and Features Michaels, Gina 2005 Peck-Marked Vessels from San José Market Street Chinatown: A Study of Distribution and Significance. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 9(2): 123134. Voss, Barbara 2008 Between the Household and the World System: Social Collectivity and Community Agency in Overseas Chinese Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 42(3):3752. Shackley, Steven 2001 The Stone Tool Technology of Ishi and the Yana of North Central California: Inferences for Hunter-Gatherer Cultural Identity in Historic California. American Anthropologist 102(40):693-712. 11 Nov. 29 Chronology Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 7 Dec. 1 Analytical Approaches Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 8 Dec. 3 Conclusion Ashmore and Sharer 2010, Chap 10 Dec. 13 FINAL EXAM ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 11

Anthro2AC+Fall+2010+Syllabus - 1 ANTHRO 2AC INTRODUCTION TO...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online