University of Florida Homepage

Proseminar

Spring 2015

ANG 6930 – Proseminar II 

Biological and Archaeological Anthropology

__________________
Archaeology Section Readings

Department of Anthropology, University of Florida

 

Download Syllabus (Word document)

Time:  Mondays — 9:35 am to 12:35 pm (Periods 3-5)

Place:  Turlington Hall B304

Instructors:
Dr. James Davidson (Dr. John Krigbaum),

Office: B134 Turlington Hall Basement

Hours: F: 10:00 am to Noon & by appointment

E-mail:  davidson@ufl.edu (* best contact method *)

tel:  (352) 392-2253 x261

 

Objectives, Expectations, & Grading

Anthropology is a holistic discipline. As such, anthropologists attempt to view humans, their activities, and their cultural and biological history in as broad a context as possible.

Proseminar II is designed to introduce first-year Anthropology graduate students to the fields of Biological Anthropology and Archaeological Anthropology.  Lectures will provide background information and thematic context for key issues in these fields.  Connie Mulligan will lead the first module in Biological Anthropology and James Davidson will lead the second module in Anthropological Archaeology.  Readings from the primary literature, class discussion, and writing assignments will focus on the big questions and contemporary issues in these two subfields.  Such topics tackled should resonate across subfields and student interests and are intended to provide students of varied experience in anthropology to critically assess the state of the field.  “Hands on” review of the physical remains and material culture may also be presented in several labs over the course of the semester.

 

Students requesting classroom accommodation must first register with the Dean of Students Office. The Dean of Students Office will provide documentation to the student who must then provide this documentation to the Instructor when requesting accommodation.

 

** TURN OFF CELL PHONES IN CLASS **

 

Required Textbooks:

O’Brien, Michael. J., R. Lee Lyman, and Michael Brian Schiffer
2005    Archaeology as a Process. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Trigger, Bruce G.
2006    A History of Archaeological Thought (Second Edition). Cambridge University Press.

Grading & Student Evaluation (For Archaeology section)

Take Home Exam (N=1)         (25%)

Critical Essays (N=4)              (40%; 10% each)

Attendance & Participation    (15%)

Team Discussion (N=2)          (20%)

percentile breakdown:

A         (93-100%)

A-        (90-92%)

B+       (88-89%)

B         (83-87%)

B-        (80-82%)

C+       (78-79%)

C         (73-77%)

C-        (70-72%)

D+       (68-69%)

D         (63-67%)

D-        (60-62%)

E          (59% or below)

 

Take Home Exams

For each module there will be one take home exam. These two exams combined will constitute 50% of your grade in the course.   Format of each exam is at the discretion of the Instructor.

Written Assignments

Writing assignments or critical essays will be assigned and due at the beginning of class the following week.  These written assignments are intended to precede discussion of that week’s readings.  This will ensure reading of required materials, and provide a baseline for each student to actively engage in discussion.  Written work should be double-spaced, 12-point font, 2-3 pages in length (1000 words maximum) and will be focused on a particular point, idea, and/or theme presented.  Late papers will be docked five points and only accepted no later than the next class meeting, that week.

Attendance & Participation

Attendance and class participation is mandatory.

Team Discussion

Each week, teams of two or three students will lead class discussion.  Each group will be expected to meet outside of class to organize readings and to prepare a list of questions/points of discussion.  As this constitutes a substantial portion of the grade, each team member will be expected to participate and have an active voice.

Academic Honesty:

The University reminds every student of the implied pledge of Academic Honesty:

“on any work submitted for credit the student has neither received nor given unauthorized aid.”

THIS REFERS TO CHEATING AND PLAGIARISM, WHICH WILL NOT BE TOLERATED IN THIS CLASS

Consult the Student Guide at www.dso.ufl.edu/stg/ for further information.  To avoid plagiarism, you must give credit whenever you use another person’s idea, opinion, or theory; any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings (any pieces of information) that are not common knowledge; quotations of another person’s actual spoken or written words; or paraphrase of another person’s spoken or written words.

 

++++++++++++++++

Week 1 (Jan 6 thru Jan 9)

NO CLASS

Week 2 (Jan 12 thru Jan 16)

Week 3 (Jan 19 thru Jan 23)

NO CLASS – MLK DAY

Week 4 (Jan 26 thru Jan 30)

Week 5 (Feb 2 thru Feb 6)

Week 6 (Feb  9 thru 13)

Week 7 (Feb 16 thru Feb 20)

Week 8 (Feb 23 thru Feb 27)

Week 9 (March 2 thru March 6)

NO CLASSES: SPRING BREAK

Week 10 (March 9 thru March 13)

Politics and Ethical Concerns in Biological and Archaeological Anthropology

Week 11 (March 16 thru March 20)

Paradigms and Schools of Archaeology

Week 12 (March 23 thru March 27)

Material Culture

Writing Assignment over readings for this week

Week 13 (March 30 thru April 3)

Time

Writing Assignment over readings for this week

Week 14 (April 6 thru April 10)

Space and Place (natural and cultural landscapes, ecology, adaptation)

Writing Assignment over readings for this week

 Week 15 (April 13 thru April 17)

Subsistence (diet, economies)

 Writing Assignment over readings for this week

Week 16 (April 20 thru April 22)

Cosmology, Spirituality and Religion

 

READINGS BY WEEK

 

Week 9       NO CLASS – SPRING BREAK__________

Take this opportunity to read ahead in the two required texts (see chapter assignments in following weeks) and articles for next week.

Week 10       Ethics in Biological and Archaeological Anthropology_____

Since you do not have to write a paper this week, spend the time you would be doing that reading more these case studies carefully, and reading ahead for next week.

 Focus on issues relating to ethical codes of conduct as drafted by the SAA and the AAPA (you should know what those stand for).  Issues of descendant community rights and repatriation (e.g., NAGPRA), amateurs, hoaxes, etc., will all be touched upon.

 Ethics Codes:

Anonymous
1961    Four Statements for Archaeology. (Report of the Committee on Ethics and Standards). American Antiquity 27(2):137-138.

Anonymous
1996    Society for American Archaeology Principles of Archaeological Ethics. American Antiquity 61(3):451-452.

Anonymous
2003    American Association of Physical Anthropologists.  www.physanth.org

Lynott, Mark J.
1997    Ethical Principles and Archaeological Practice: Development of an Ethics Policy. American Antiquity 62(4):589-599.

Descendant communities/NAGPRA

Kakaliouras, Ann M.
2012    An Anthropology of Repatriation: Contemporary Physical Anthropological and Native American Ontologies of Practice.  Current Anthropology 53 (S5):S210-S221.

Rose, Jerome C., Thomas J. Green, and Victoria D. Green
1996    Nagpra is Forever: Osteology and the Repatriation of Skeletons. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:81-103.

Owsley, Douglas W. and Richard L. Jantz
2001    Archaeological politics and public interest in paleoamerican studies: lessons from gordon creek woman and kennewick man. American Antiquity 66(4):565-576.

Watkins, Joe
2004    Becoming American or Becoming Indian? NAGPRA, Kennewick, and cultural affiliation. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(1):60-80.

Bruning, Susan B.
2006    Complex Legal Legacies: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Scientific Study, and Kennewick Man. American Antiquity 71(3):501-521.

McDavid, Carol
1997    Descendants, Decisions, and Power: The Public Interpretation of the Archaeology of the Levi Jordan Plantation. . Historical Archaeology 31(3):114-131.

 

Supplementary Readings (not required, but useful; recommended for discussion leaders):

Mallouf, Robert J.
1996    An Unraveling Rope: The Looting of America’s Past. American Indian Quarterly 20(2):197-208.

Preston, Douglas
1995    The Mystery of Sandia Cave. The New Yorker (June 12th).

Franklin, Maria
1997    “Power To the People”: Sociopolitics and the Archaeology of Black Americans. Historical Archaeology 31(3):36-50.

Derry, Linda
1997    Pre-Emancipation Archaeology: Does It Play in Selma, Alabama. Historical Archaeology 31(3).

 Bentzen, Conrad B.
1942    An Inexpensive Method of Recovering Skeletal Material for Museum Displays. American Antiquity 8(2):176-178.

Ferguson, T. J.
1996    Native Americans and the Practice of Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:63-79.

Week 11      Paradigms and Schools of Archaeology_

 There is no essay/paper this week, so take some care reading these case studies carefully, and reading ahead for next week.

Text Excerpts:

Read Introduction, Chapters 1 and 2 (pp. 1-66) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)

Read Chapters 1 and 2 (pp. 1-79) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Processual (New Archaeology):

Binford, Lewis R.
1962    Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217- 225.

Binford, Lewis R.
1965    Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Cultural Process. American Antiquity 31(2:1):

Reid, J. Jefferson, William L. Rathje, and Michael B. Schiffer
1974    Expanding Archaeology. American Antiquity 39(1):125-126.

Raab, Mark L. and Albert C. Goodyear
1984    Middle-Range Theory in Archaeology: A Critical Review of Origins and Applications. American Antiquity 49(2):255-268.

 

Postprocesual/Postmodern/Marxist:

Leone, Mark P, Parker B. Potter, and Paul A. Shackel
1987    Toward a Critical Archaeology. Current Anthropology 28(3):283-302.

Hodder, Ian
1991    Interpretative Archaeology and Its Role. American Antiquity 56(1):7-18.

Hegmon, Michelle
2003    Setting Theoretical Egos Aside: Issues and Theory in North American Archaeology. American Antiquity 68(2): 213-243.

Moss, Madonna L.
2005    Rifts in the Theoretical Landscape of Archaeology in the United States: A Comment on Hegmon and Watkins. American Antiquity 70 (3):581-587.

McGuire, Randall H., LouAnn Wurst, and Marie O’Donovan
2005    Probing Praxis in Archaeology: The Last 80 Years.  Rethinking Marxism 17(3):355-372.

Critiques/Defenses/Comments:

Flannery, Kent V.
1982    The Golden Marshalltown. American Anthropologist 84 (2):265- 278.

Supplementary Readings (not required, but useful; strongly recommended for discussion leaders):

Taylor, Walter W.
1972    Old Wine and New Skins: A Contemporary Parable. In Contemporary Archaeology: A guide to Theory and Contributions, edited by Mark P. Leone, pp. 28-33. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Meskell, Lynn
2002    The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:279-301.

Watson, Richard A.
1990    Ozymandias, King of Kings: Postprocessual Radical Archaeology as Critique. American Antiquity 55(4):673-689.

Watson, Richard A.
1991    What the New Archaeology Has Accomplished. Current Anthropology 32(3):275-291.

Krieger, Alex D.
1940    “The Basic Needs of Archaeology” – A Commentary. American Antiquity 42 (3:1):543-546.

 Taylor, Walter W.
1948    A Study of Archaeology. Southern Illinois University.

Week 12               Material Culture_______________________________

Writing assignment this week

(2 pages, double-spaced.  Proper citation of work required):

QUESTION: 

How we structure or make sense of material culture is terribly important, but is the Type/Variety system the best means of imposing order on artifacts? 

Are types real? How do Kreiger, Ford, Gifford, and the views expressed in the O’Brien, Lyman, and Schiffer text agree or disagree in regards to their views on artifact typologies?  Should symbols be considered in artifact typologies?

Text Excerpts:

Read Chapters 3 and 4 (pp. 80-165) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Read Chapters 3 and 4 (pp. 67-120) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)


Typology/Issues of Classification:

Krieger, Alex D.
1944    The Typological Concept. American Antiquity 9(3):271-288.

Ford, James A. and Julian H. Stewart
1954    The Type Concept Revisited. American Anthropologist 56(1):42-57.

Gifford, James C.
1960    The Type Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity 25(3):341-347.

Koerper, Henry C. and E. Gary Stickel
1980    Cultural Drift: A Primary Process of Culture Change. Journal of Anthropological Research 36(4):463-469.

Whittaker, John C., Douglas Caulkins, and Kathryn A. Kamp
1998    Evaluating Consistency in Typology and Classification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(2):129-164.

Nature of Artifacts:

Robb, John E.
1998    The Archaeology of Symbols. Annual Review of Anthropology 27:329-346.

Gosden, Chris and Yvonne Marshall
1999    The Cultural Biography of Objects. World Archaeology 31(2):169-178.

Just what the Hell is that Thing? Case Study of a single artifact type —

Mushroom Stones

Borhegyi, Stephen F.
1961    Miniature Mushroom Stones from Guatemala. American Antiquity 26(4):498-504.

Borhegyi, Stephen F.
1964    Pre-Columbian Pottery Mushrooms from Mesoamerica. American Antiquity 28(3):328-338.

Kohler, Ulrich
1976    Mushrooms, Drugs, and Potters: A New Approach to the Function of Precolumbian Mesoamerican Mushroom Stones. American Antiquity 41(2):145-153.

Cogged Stones

Eberhart, Hal
1961    The Cogged Stones of Southern California. American Antiquity 26(3):361-370.

Apodaca, Paul
2001    Cactus Stones: Symbolism and Representation in Southern California and Seri Indigenous Folk Art and Artifacts. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 23(2):215-228. 

Supplementary Readings (not required, but useful; strongly recommended for discussion leaders):

Kidder, M. A. and A. V. Kidder
1917    Notes on the Pottery of Pecos. American Anthropologist (new series) 19(3):325-360.
(DON’T GET BOGGED DOWN IN DETAILS HERE; JUST BROAD IDEAS)

Sullivan, Alan P. III
1988    Prehistoric Southwestern Ceramic Manufacture: The Limitations of Current Evidence. American Antiquity 53(1):23-35.

Kamp, Kathryn A., Nichole Timmerman, Greg Lind, Jules Graybill, and Ian Natowsky
1999    Discovering Childhood: Using fingerprints to Find Children in the Archaeological Record. American Antiquity 64(2):309-315.

McGuire, Joseph D.
1896    Classification and Development of Primitive Implements. American Anthropologist 9(7):227-236.

Rathje, W. L., W. W. Hughes, D. C. Wilson, M. K. Tani, G. H. Archer, R. G. Hunt, and T. W. Jones
1992    The Archaeology of Contemporary Landfills. American Antiquity 57(3):437-447.

Ford Spaulding Debate:

Spaulding, Albert C.
1953    Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18:305-13.

Ford, James A.
1954b  Spaulding’s Review of Ford. American Anthropologist 56:109-112.

Spaulding, Albert C.
1954    Reply (to Ford). American Anthropologist 56:112-14.

 Ford, James A.
1961    In Favor of Simple Typology. American Antiquity 27:113-14.

Steward, Julian H.
1954    Types of Types. American Anthropologist 56:54-57.

Rouse, Irving R.
1960    The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25:313-23.

WEEK 13            Time________________________________________________

Writing assignment this week

(2 pages, double-spaced.  Proper citation of work required):

Clearly Archaeology is all about time, but whose time?  Was/Are the concepts of time (and implied chronologies) different among the culture historians, processualists, and post processualists? What distinctions can be drawn from diachronic versus synchronic views of time?

How can we reconcile chronometric dating techniques with Richard Bradley’s view of ritual time, and is there a false sense of security in chronometric dating that may suggest a precision that actually could be illusory?

Text Excerpts:

Read Chapters 5 and 6 (pp. 166-313) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Read Chapters 5 and 6 (pp. 121-177) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)

Relative and Chronometric Dating:

Ford, James A.
1938    A Chronological Method Applicable to the Southeast. American Antiquity 3(3):260-264.

Rowe, John Howland
1961    Stratigraphy and Seriation. American Antiquity 26(3):324-330.

Haury, Emil W.
1935    Tree Rings: The Archaeologist’s Time Piece. American Antiquity 1(2):98-108.

Merrill, Robert S.
1948    A Progress Report on the Dating of Archaeological Sites by Means of Radioactive Elements. American Antiquity 13(4):281-286.


Application of Chronology/ Historic Case Studies:

Nelson, N. C.
1916    Chronology of the Tanos Ruins, New Mexico. American Anthropologist (new series) 18(2):159-180.
(READ FOR HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ONLY — DON’T WORRY ABOUT DETAILS)

Krieger, Alex D.
1947    The Eastward Extension of Puebloan Datings toward Cultures of the Mississippi Valley. American Antiquity 12(3):141-148.

Olsen, Alan P.
1962    A History of the Phase Concept in the Southwest. American Antiquity 27(4):457-472.

Concepts of Time:

Meltzer, David J.
2005    The Seventy-Year Itch: Controversies over Human Antiquity and Their Resolution.  Journal of Anthropological Research 61(4):433-468.

Bailey, G. N.
1983    Concepts of Time in Quaternary Prehistory. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:165-192.

Bradley, Richard
1991    Ritual, Time and History. World Archaeology 23(2):209-219.

Foxhall, Lin
2000    The Running Sands of Time: Archaeology and the Short-Term. World
Archaeology 31(3):484-498.

Supplementary Readings (not required, but useful; strongly recommended for discussion leaders):

Woodbury, Richard B.
1960a Nels C. Nelson and Chronological Archaeology. American Antiquity 25(3):400-401.

Woodbury, Richard B.
1960b  Nelson’s Stratigraphy. American Antiquity 26(1):98-99.

Harris, Edward C.
1979    The Laws of Archaeological Stratigraphy. World Archaeology 11(1):111-117.

Michaels, Joseph W.
1972    Dating Methods. Annual Review of Anthropology 1:113-126.
(USE THIS ARTICLE FOR REFERENCE ONLY — do not get lost in details)

Nash, Stephen E.
2002    Archaeological Tree Ring Dating at the Millennium. Journal of Archaeological Research 10(3):243-275.

 WEEK 14            Space and Place________________________________


Writing assignment this week

(2 pages, double-spaced.  Proper citation of work required):

This week we move from issues of artifacts and resulting typologies, which directly determine site and regional chronologies, to analyses that apply these chronologies — of how and where people lived in the past.  

How do the authors this week grapple with such issues as: determining how long sites were occupied (given the still coarse-grained chronologies we employ); deal with issues of assessing site contemporaneity in regional settlement patterns; and employing ethnographic data and modeling to infer past behavior in regard to site features, population totals in rooms, sites, and regions?  Are environmental factors of overarching importance in detecting and understanding settlement patterns, or is this too mechanical and deterministic a view?

Text Excerpts:

Read Chapter 7 (pp. 314-385) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Read Chapter 7 (pp. 178-218) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)

Intrasite Studies:

Binford, Lewis R.
1967    Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. American Antiquity 32(1):1-12.

Munson, Patrick J.
1969    Comments on Binford’s “Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning.” American Antiquity 34(1):83-85.

Hill, James N. and Richard H. Hevley
1968    Pollen at Broken K Pueblo: Some New Interpretations. American Antiquity 33(2):200-210.

Pauketat, Timothy R.
1989    Monitoring Mississippian Homestead Occupation Span and Economy Using Ceramic Refuse. American Antiquity 54(2):288-310.

Mobley-Tanaka, Jeannette L.
1997    Gender and Ritual Space during the Pithouse to Pueblo Transition: Subterranean Mealing Rooms in the North American Southwest. American Antiquity 62(3):437-448.

Hodder, Ian and Craig Cessford
2004    Daily Practice and Social Memory at Catalhoyuk. American Antiquity 69(1):17-40.

Settlement Pattern/Landscape Studies:

Parsons, Jeffery R.
1972    Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1:127-150.

Fletcher, Roland
1986    Settlement Archaeology: World-Wide Comparisons. World Archaeology 18(1):59-83.

Fleming, Andrew
2006    Post-Processual Landscape Archaeology: A Critique. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16(3):267-280.

Population studies:

Naroll, Raoul
1962    Floor Area and Settlement Population. American Antiquity 27(4):587-589.

Glassow, Michael A.
1967    Considerations in Estimating Prehistoric California Coastal Populations. American Antiquity 32(3):354-359.

Weissner, Polly
1974    A Functional Estimator of Population from Floor Area. American Antiquity 39(2):343-350.

Supplementary Readings (not required, but useful; strongly recommended for discussion leaders):

  Trigger, Bruce G.
1967    Settlement Archaeology: Its Goals and Promise. American Antiquity 32(2):149-160.

Anschuetz, Kurt F., Richard H. Wilshusen, and Cherie L. Scheick
2001    An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(2):157-211.

Diehl, Michael W.
1988    The Interpretation of Archaeological Floor Assemblages: A Case Study from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 63(4):617-634.

Week 15     Subsistence (diet, economies) __________________________

Writing assignment this week
(2 pages, double-spaced. Proper citation of work required). 

Subsistence is a key concept in archaeology, and directly influences settlement patterns and other issues of land use.  

What are the kinds of inferences that can be made regarding past subsistence strategies and diet, and can/should different methodologies (e.g., pollen analysis, faunal remains) be combined?  
Is food always just food, or is it something more?  How can subsistence data be used to extract information beyond simple nutrition (e.g., chronology, status, culture, ethnicity)?

Text Excerpts:

Read Chapter 8 (pp. 386-483) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Read Chapter 8 (pp. 219-252) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)

 

Overviews and Methodologies:

Daly, Patricia
1969    Approaches to Faunal Analysis in Archaeology. American Antiquity 34(2):146-153.

Riley, Thomas J., Richard Edging, and Jack Rossen
1990    Cultigens in Prehistoric Eastern North America: Changing Paradigms. Current Anthropology 31(5):525-541.

Smith, Bruce D.
2011    The Cultural Context of Plant Domestication in Eastern North America. Current Anthropology 52(S4):S471-S484.
 
DeFrance, Susan
2009    Zooarchaeology in Complex Societies: Political Economy, Status, and Ideology. Journal of Archaeological Research 17(2):105-168.

Problems, Critiques, Case Studies:

Begler, Elsie B. and Richard W. Keatinge
1979    Theoretical Goals and Methodological Realities: Problems in the Reconstruction of Prehistoric Subsistence Economies. World Archaeology 11(2):208-226.

Munson, Patrick J., Paul W. Parmalee, and Richard A. Yarnell
1971    Subsistence Ecology of Scovill, a Terminal Middle Woodland Village. American Antiquity 36(4):410-431.

Hart, John P., Hetty Jo Brumbach and Robert Lusteck
2007    Extending the Phytolith Evidence for Early Maize (Zea mays ssp. mays) and Squash (Cucurbitasp.) in Central New York.  American Antiquity 72(3):563-583.

Wesson, Cameron B.
1999    Chiefly Power and Food Storage in Southeastern North America. World Archaeology 31(1):145-164.

Roth, Barbara J.
2006    The Role of Gender in the Adoption of Agriculture in the Southern Southwest. Journal of Anthropological Research 62(4):513-538.

Atalay, Sonya and Christine A. Hastorf
2006    Food, Meals, and Daily Activities: Food Habitus at Neolithic �atalh�y�k. American Antiquity 71(2)283-319.

Supplementary Readings (not required, but useful; strongly recommended for discussion leaders):

Berlin, G. Lennis, J. Richard Ambler, Richard H. Hevley, and Gerald G. Schaber
1977    Identification of a Sinagua Agricultural Field by Aerial Thermography, Soil Chemistry, Pollen/Plant Analysis, and Archaeology. American Antiquity 42(4):588-600. 

Hastorf, Christine
1999 Recent Research in Paleoethnobotony. Journal of Archaeological Research 7(1):55-103. (READ THIS ARTICLE FOR REFERENCE ONLY — do not get lost in details)

Smith, Bruce D
2001    Low-Level Food Production. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(1):1-43.  (Focus on broad themes; do not get lost in details)

Lyman, R. Lee
1979    Available Meat from Faunal Remains: A Consideration of Techniques. American Antiquity 44(3):536-546.

Bryant, Vaughn M. Jr. and Stephen A. Hall
1993    Archaeological Palynology in the United States: A Critique. American Antiquity 58(2):277-286.

Week 16    Cosmology, Spirituality and Religion____________________ 

Text Excerpts:

Read Chapters 9 and 10 (pp. 484-548) of Trigger 2006 (A History of Archaeological Thought)

Read Chapter 9 (pp. 253-268) of O’Brien et al. 2005 (Archaeology as a Process)

 ———————————-

Culotta, Elizabeth
2009    On the Origin of Religion. Science 326 (No. 5954):784-787.

Curry, Andrew
2008    Seeking the Roots of Ritual. Science 319 (No. 5861):278-280.

Barrett, John C.
1990    The Monumentality of Death: The Character of Early Bronze Age Mortuary Mounds in Southern Britain. World Archaeology 22(2):179-189.

Brown, James A.
1997    The Archaeology of Ancient Religion in the Eastern Woodlands. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:465-485.

Fennell, Christopher C.
2003    Group Identity, Individual Creativity, and Symbolic Generation in a BaKongo Diaspora. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 7(1):1-31.

Davidson, James M.
2004    Rituals Captured in Context and Time: Charm Use in North Dallas Freedman’s Town (1869-1907), Dallas, Texas. Historical Archaeology 38(2):22-54.

Gazin-Schwartz, Amy
2001    Archaeology and Folklore of Material Culture, Ritual, and Everyday Life. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5(4):263-280.

Howey, Meghan C. L. and John M. O’Shea
2006    Bear’s Journey and the Study of Ritual in Archaeology. American Antiquity 71(2):261-282.

Mason, Ronald J.2009    Bear’s journey and the study of ritual in archaeology: some comments on Howey and O’Shea’s Midewiwin paper. American Antiquity 74(1):189-192.

—————————————————————–