Institute of Archaeology ARCL 0031 Archaeology of Mesoamerica Term I, 2018-19 Year 2 Option, 0.5 Unit Wednesdays 9 – 11a.m. Room 612 Prof. Elizabeth Graham [email protected] Room 614, phone: 0207 679 7532 Turnitin codes: Enrollment password = IoA1819; Turnitin ID = 3884049
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 2
Olmec head from the site of Villahermosa in Mexico, on the Gulf Coast.
Wall sculpture from the site of Lambityeco in Oaxaca. The relief is Zapotec, but the site was also occupied by the later Mixtec.
Zapotec sculpture from the site of Monte Alban in Oaxaca. One of the first in Mesoamerica to display glyphs.
One of the feathered serpents adorning the Temple of Quetzalcoatl at the Classic-period site of Teotihuacan, Mexico.
A large dish or shallow bowl from a cache at the site of Lamanai in northern Belize. Probably 7th century A.D.
Line drawing of a stone lintel with a glyphic inscription, providing both dates and historical information, from the site of Yaxchilan in Mexico.
Jade in the form of a clam shell from the site of Kendal in the Stann Creek District of Belize. Probably from a tomb. The glyphs are early, probably Early Classic [ca. A.D. 300] but could even be a bit earlier. They are not yet deciphered. In the collections of the British Museum.
A page from the Aztec (Mexica) Codex Boturini.
Three of the many arrow points found at the site of Tipu in Belize. They date to the early Spanish colonial period (16th century).
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 3
Contents
Course information for ARCL_0031 Office hours, Methods of assessment, Aims, Objectives, Learning Outcomes, Teaching...... 4
Introduction to course outline What to read and where to find it...... 5
Course outline Lecture dates, topics, weekly readings, deadlines for essays...... 5
Essay questions Short essay, Second essay, some sources ...... 15
General course information Course organization, rules for submission of coursework, plagiarism policy...... 20
Essay structure Format, in-text citations, footnotes, references cited, web sources...... 24
Essay assessment for ARCL0031 IoA criteria for assessment, how I meet these criteria in marking, essay comments sheets...... 25
OFFICE SCHEDULE 2018-19 Mondays normally working at home.
Regularly in classes on Wednesdays and Fridays, 9 to 11. Otherwise available unless sign on my door states otherwise (e.g., meeting in the office, off on an errand, etc). Wednesday afternoons are the days for occasional departmental meetings.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 4
Course information
This handbook contains the basic information about the content and administration of the course. Additional handouts will be given out at appropriate points in the course. If any of you have queries about objectives, structure, content assessment or organization of the course, please feel free to consult me.
Office hours: See ‘Office Schedule’ on p. 3. Turnitin codes: Enrollment Password for all classes: IoA1819. Class ID: 3884049.
Methods of assessment: (See also Course Outline and Essay Questions) First essay: 2,500 words, due 21 November. 50% Second essay: 2,500 words, due 23 January 2019. 50% TOTAL 100% Class study sheets: Due more or less weekly, not marked but 5% deducted from final mark if not submitted. KEY web resources for this course: www.famsi.org On-line publications on a range of Mesoamerican topics. www.mesoweb.com Reports by Mesoamerican scholars as well as a range of other resources. Journals: Latin American Antiquity; Ancient Mesomerica; Antiquity; Cambridge Archaeological Journal; Arqueología Mexicana; Mexicon.
Aims: I have two primary aims: 1) That you will see value in learning from Mesoamerican cultural traditions and historical experience; 2) That you will learn to be critical about the ways in which archaeologists, other academics, film makers, popular writers, and the media in general synthesize and make sense of information about the civilisations of Mesoamerica, or about ancient civilisations generally. Objectives: On successful completion of this course: You should be aware of the major environmental zones of Mesoamerica, the resources distinctive to these zones, and the range of human-environmental relationships. You should have a basic understanding of the rise of urbanism across Mesoamerica. You should have some familiarity with the art and architectural styles of Mesoamerica. Learning outcomes: On successful completion of this course you should: Be explicitly aware of how archaeologists acquire, assess, and interpret data. Be able to assess theoretical approaches critically (e.g., climate change, cultural evolution, niche construction) Have acquired a range of research and writing skills. Have learned how to integrate ideas from a variety of sources. Be assiduous in the practice of source citation.
Teaching methods: Illustrated lectures combined with a question-and-answer format. The class is registered on Moodle.
Maya jaguar figurine from a residential house platform, Lamanai, Belize. Drawing by Louise Belanger
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 5
Introduction to the Course Outline: The following is an outline for the course and identifies required ('') and recommended ('') readings for each week. Information is provided on locations of these readings in the UCL library system, on our Moodle site for the course, or via the online reading lists. In most cases in the following outline I include information on the location of the book or journal from which each article is derived, so you can also locate the reading by going to its source. I can sometimes provide a link directly to the source. The recommended readings are also meant as a guide to your essays.
Required readings are drawn from the following text: Evans, Susan Toby, 2004, 2008, 2013 Ancient Mexico and Central America: Archaeology and Culture History. London: Thames and Hudson. Editions were published in 2004, 2008 and 2013. Other required or recommended readings supplement the text and are designed mainly to help you with the essay questions. The library availability of this book is as follows: Institute library: 2004 edition, 1 copy on 1-week loan; 2008 edition, 2 copies on 1-week loan; 2013 edition, 2 copies, 1 in the Institute library and one in the SLC Archaeology library. There seem also to be 2 copies available for 2-day loans (INST ARCH DF 100 EVA); 1 copy available for 3-hour loan at the issue desk (ISSUE DESK IOA EVA 5) Purchasing the text (any edition) is strongly recommended. It is up-to-date, extensively illustrated, and the references will be extremely helpful to you in writing your essays. Chapter names and numbers are identical in the 2004 and 2008 editions. On Amazon, the 2004 edition is offered for as low as about £3; copies of the 2013 edition can be obtained for under £30.00.
Course Outline ______WEEK 1: 03 October Introduction to the course; Culture areas ______WEEK 2: 10 October Environments, domesticates Required: Evans Chapter 1: 'Ancient Mesoamerica, the Civilization and its Antecedents'. Evans Chapter 2: 'Ecology and Culture: Mesoamerican Beginnings', pp. 45-61 ONLY. Study Sheet 1. ______WEEK 3: 17 October Early Mesoamerica – Palaeoindians, Archaic period Required: Evans Chapter 2: pp. 61-70, Mesoamerica’s first inhabitants Evans Chapter 3: 'Archaic Foragers, Collectors, and Farmers (8000-2000 BC)'. Evans Chapter 4: 'The Initial Formative (c. 2000- 1200 BC)'. Study Sheet 2. Recommended for ‘Peopling the New World’ and the Palaeoindian period [Copy to borrow also in tray on my door.] Collins, Michael B. 2014. Initial Peopling of the Americas: Context, Findings, and Issues. In Renfrew, C. & P. Bahn (eds.) The Cambridge World Prehistory, Volume 2: East Asia and the Americas, pp. 1043-1057. INST ARCH AF REN vol 2.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 6
Recommended for the Archaic and Early Formative periods [Copy to borrow in tray on my door.] Love, M. 2014. The Archaic and Formative Periods of Mesoamerica. In: Renfrew, C & Bahn, P (eds.) The Cambridge World Prehistory, Volume 2: East Asia and the Americas, pp. 955-969]. INST ARCH AF REN vol 2. More sources on Peopling the New World, Palaeoindian Stinnesbeck, Wolfgang, Julia Becker, Fabio Hering, Eberhard Frey, Jens Fohlmeister, Sarah Stinnesbeck, Norbert Frank, Martha Benavente, Patrick Zell and Michael Deininger (2017). The earliest settlers of Mesoamerica date back to the late Pleistocene. PLoS ONE Vol.12(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183345 Gonzalez, Silvia, David Huddart, Isabel Israde-Alcántara, Gabriela Domínguez-Vázquez, James Bischoff and Nicholas Felstead (2015). Paleoindian sites from the Basin of Mexico: Evidence from stratigraphy, tephrochronology and dating. Quaternary International 363: 4-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.03.015 More sources on the Archaic and Early Formative Cooke, R. 2005.. Prehistory of Native Americans on the Central American Land Bridge: Colonization, Dispersal and Divergence. Journal of Archaeological Research 13(2):129-187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10804-005- 2486-4 [Focuses mostly on Lower Central America, Archaic and domestication] Rosenswig, R.M.. 2014. A Mosaic of Adaptation: The archaeological record for Mesoamerica’s Archaic Period. Jour. Archaeological Research 23:115-162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10814-014-9080-x [Best to read Introduction then go to the Conclusion and Discussion to get an idea of what we know about the Mesoamerican Archaic.] Voorhies, B, Kennett, D J. Jones, J G, Wake, TA. 2014. Archaic sites in coastal Chiapas, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 13(2): 179-200. Theories on the oirgins of agriculture more generally Fuller, Dorian Q. 2010. An Emerging Paradigm Shift in the Origins of Agriculture. Bulletin of the General Anthropology Division 17(2). Fall 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-3466.2010.00010.x Zeder, Melinda A. 2016. Domestication as a model system for niche construction theory. Evolutionary Ecology 30: 325-348. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10682-015-9801-8 Domestication: Katz, S.H., M.C. Hediger, and L.A. Valleroy, 1974. Traditional Maize Processing Techniques in the New World. Science 184:765-773. Teaching Collection INST ARCH 2227. [This is the definitive research that showed how advantageous dietarily it was to soak corn in lime, so take a look at the Concluding section.] An Asian origin for a 10,000-year-old domesticated plant in the Americas. Erickson, D.L. Smith, B.D., Clarke, A.D., Sandweiss, D.H., & N. Tuross. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 102(51): 18315- 18320. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0509279102 [Really interesting information on the gourd being brought over from Asia with the dog.] Pearsall, Deborah, 1995. Domestication and Agriculture in the New World Tropics. In Last Hunters -- First Farmers, ed. by T. Douglas Price & Anne Birgitte Gebauer, pp. 157-192. Teaching Collection INST ARCH 1407 (2 copies). Book at Issue Desk IOA PRI 5. Book INST ARCH HA PRI. McLung de Tapia, Emily, 1992. The Origins of Agriculture in Mesoamerica and Central America. In Wesley Cowan, C. & Patty Jo Watson, The Origins of Agriculture: An International Perspective, pp. 143-171. INST ARCH Teaching Collection INST ARCH 1419. Book INST ARCH HA COW at Issue Desk and standard. ______WEEK 4: 24 October The Olmecs, Early to Middle Formative Required: Evans Chapter 5: 'The Olmecs: Early Formative (c. 1200-900/800 BC)'. Evans Chapter 6: 'The Olmecs: Middle Formative (c. 900 – 600 BBC)'. Cyphers, A. 2014. The Olmec, 1800-400 BCE. In Renfrew, C. & P. Bahn (eds.) The Cambridge World Prehistory, Volume 2: East Asia and the Americas, pp. 1005-1018. INST ARCH AF REN vol 2. [Also available as a photocopy to borrow, in the tray on my door. Please return!] Study Sheet 3. Recommended book chapters for Olmec-related essays:
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 7
The Preface and Introduction (pp. 7-28) in The Olmecs, America’s First Civilization by Richard A. Diehl. INST ARCH DFA 100 DIE. [Very good overview by an Olmec scholar.] Olmec Beginnings, pp. 92-144 (Ch 4) in Olmec Archaeology & Early Mesoamerica by Christopher A. Pool. INST ARCH DFA 100 POO [Also a very good overview by an Olmec scholar.] The Olmec World, Ritual & Rulership, INST ARCH DFA 300 Qto CLA. [From an exhibition in Princeton, so good for illustrations] Journal articles on the Olmec: VanDerwarker, A.M., R.P. Kruger. 2012. Regional Variation in the Importance and uses of Maize in the Early and Middle Formative Olmec Heartland: New Archaeobotanical Data from the San Carlos Homestead, Southern Veracruz. Latin American Antiquity 23(4): 509-532. Arnold, Philip J. 2003. Early Formative Pottery from the Tuxtla Mountains and implications for Gulf Olmec Origins. Latin American Antiquity 14(1): 29-46. Mora-Marin, David F. 2009. Early Olmec Writing. Latin American Antiquity 20(3): 395-412. Tiesler, V. 2010. “Olmec” head shapes mong the Preclassic period Maya and cultural meanings. Latin American Antiquity 21(3): 290-311. Lesure, R.G. 1997. Early Formative platforms at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. Latin American Antiqutiy 8(3): 217-235. Olmec interaction in the Early Formative Blomster, J.P. 2010. Complexity, interaction, and epistemology: Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Olmecs in Early Formative Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 21(1): 135-149. Pool, C.A., P. Ortiz Ceballos, M. del Carmen Rodriguez Martinez, M.L. Loughlin. 2010. The early horizon at Tres Zapotes: Implications for Olmec interaction. Ancient Mesoamerica 21(1): 95-105. Jaime-Riveron, Olaf. 2010. Olmec greenstone in Early Formative Mesoamerica: Exchange and process of production. Ancient Mesoamerica 21(1): 123-133. Olmec stone carving & sculpture Mollenhauer, J. 2014. Sculpting in the past in Preclassic Mesoamerica: Olmec stone monuments and the production of social memory. Grove, D.C. 1968. Chalcatzingo, Morelos, Mexico: A Reappraisal of the Olmec Rock Carvings. Latin American Antiquity 33(4): 486-491. Grove, D.C., L. I. Paradis. 1971. An Olmec stela from San Miguel Amuco, Guerrero. Latin American Antiquity 36(1): 95-102. Gillespie, S.D. 1994. Llano del Jicaro: An Olmec monument workshop. Ancient Mesoamerica 5(2): 231-242. ______WEEK 5: 31 October The Olmecs, Mesoamerica, and the End of the Formative Required: Evans Chapter 7: 'Middle to Late Formative Cultures (c. 600/500 – 300 BC)'. Evans Chapter 8: 'The Emergence of States in the Late Formative (300 BC- AD 1)'. Evans Chapter 9: 'The Terminal Formative (AD 1-300)'. pp. 235-253. Cyphers, A. 2014. The Olmec, 1800-400 BCE. In Renfrew, C. & P. Bahn (eds.) The Cambridge World Prehistory, Volume 2: East Asia and the Americas, pp. 1018-1025. INST ARCH AF REN vol 2. [Also available as a photocopy to borrow, in the tray on my door. Please return!] Balkansky, Andrew K. Oaxaca. In Renfrew, C. & P. Bahn (eds.) The Cambridge World Prehistory, Volume 2: East Asia and the Americas, pp. 1026-1042. INST ARCH AF REN vol 2. [Also available as a photocopy to borrow, in the tray on my door. Please return!]
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 8
Study Sheet 4. Olmecs, general Coe, Michael D. and Richard Diehl, 1980. In the Land of the Olmec. INST ARCH DFA 10 Qto COE [Classic work on archaeology in the Olmec area. Very well written.] Pool, C.A. 2009. Asking more and better questions: Olmec archaeology for the next katun. 2009. Ancient Mesoamerica 20(2): 241-252. Mollenhauer, J. 2014. Sculpting the past in Preclassic Mesoamerica: Olmec stone monuments and the production of social memory. Ancient Mesoamerica 25(1): 11-27. Olmecs and their neighbours: Sullivan, Timothy D. 2015. Shifting Strategies of Political Authority in the Middle through Terminal Formative Polity of Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 26(4): 452-472. [Just outside the Olmec area proper on the Isthmus; a Zoque polity; interesting changes at the end of the Formative] Knight, C.L.F., M.D. Glascock. 2009. The Terminal formative to Classic period Obsidian Assemblage at Palo Errado, Veracruz, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 20(4): 507-524. Pool, C.A., Georgia Mudd Britt. 2000. A ceramic perspective on the Formative to Classic transition in southern Veracruz, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 11(2): 139-161. Tate, Carolyn E. 1999. Patrons of shamanic power: La Venta’s supernatural entities in light of Mixe beliefs. Ancient mesoamerica 10(2): 169-188. Oaxaca, Zapotecs Marcus, J., K.V. Flannery 1996. Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Thames and Hudson. Balkansky, A.K., V. Perez Rodriguez, S.A. Kowalewski. 2004. Monte Negro and the urban revolution in Oaxaca, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 15(1): 33-60. Spencer, C.S. E.M. Redmond. 2004. A late Monte Alban I Phase (300-100 B.C.) palace in the Valley of Oaxaca. Latin American Antiquity 15(4): 441-455. Blanton, Richard E., Stephen E Kowalewski, Gary M Feinman, and Laura Finsten. 1993 Ancient Mesoamerica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. INST ARCH DF 100 BLA; ISSUE DESK IOA BLA 3 and 4. Ch.3, The Valley of Oaxaca. [Reflects emphases in the 70s through early 90s on evolutionary theories, but could make the subject of an essay comparing past & present theories of the rise of civilisation.] Flannery, K.V., M.J. Kirkby, A.V.T. Kirkby, & A.W. Williams, Jr. 1967. Farming systems and political growth in ancient Oaxaca. Science 158:445-54. Teaching Collection INST ARCH 2095. Older publication but well reasoned. Hayden, Brian and Rob Gargett, 1990. Big Man, Big Heart? A Mesoamerican view of the emergence of complex society. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:3-20. Teaching Collection INST ARCH 2561. [Another perspective on the growth of the state and civilization.] Zeitlin, Robert N. 2000 Two Perspectives on the Rise of Civilization in Mesoamerica’s Oaxaca Valley. Latin American Antiquity 11(1):87-89Teaching Collection INST ARCH 2560. Zeitlin reviews two books on Oaxaca, each of which takes a different approach to the rise of civilization in Oaxaca. Winter, Marcus. 2011. Social memory and the origins of Monte Alban. Ancient Mesoamerica 22(2): 393-409. Zapotec writing Serrano Javier, Urcid. 2004. Zapotec Hieroglyphic Writing. Dumbarton Oaks Research and Library Collection, MStudies in Art & Archaeology 34. Washington, D.C. Joyce, A.A. 1991. Formative period social change in the Lower Rio Verde Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 2(2): 126-150. [Introduction to Zapotec writing] Urcid, Javier. 1993. The Pacific Coast of Oaxaca and Guerrero: The westernmost extent of Zapotec script.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 9
Ancient Mesoamerica 4(1): 141-165. Elsewhere in Mesoamerica Awe, J. P.F. Healy. 1994. Flakes to Blades? Middle Formative development of obsidian artifacts in the Upper Belize River Valley. Latin American Antiquity 5(3): 193-205. Hammond, N., A. Clarke, C. Robin. 1991. Middle Preclassic buildings and burials at Cuello, Belize: 1990 Investigations. Latin American Antiquity 2(4): 352-363. Beekman, C.S. 2008. Corporate power strategies in the Late Formative to Early Classic Tequila Valleys of Central Jalisco. Latin American Antiquity 19(4): 414-434. ______
WEEK 6: 5 to 9 November – R E A D I N G W E E K
First essay due 21 November One copy printed, one copy to Turnitin. Upload to Turnitin using Candidate Number!
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 10
______WEEKS 7,8: 14, 21 November THE GREAT CITY OF TEOTIHUACAN In Week 7, I’ll summarise the character, politics, and organisation of the great city. In Week 8, Elizabeth Baquedano will lecture on Teotihuacan art, iconography, and symbolism. Required: Evans Chapter 9: 'The Terminal Formative (AD 1-300)' pp. 253-260. Mazanilla, Linda R. The Basin of Mexico. In Renfrew, C. & P. Bahn (eds.) The Cambridge World Prehistory, Volume 2: East Asia and the Americas, pp. 986-1004. INST ARCH AF REN vol 2. [Also available as a photocopy to borrow, in the tray on my door. Please return!] Evans Chapter 10: 'Teotihuacan and Its International Influence (AD 250/300-600)'. Mandell, Elisa C. 2015. A new analysis of the gender attribution of the “Great Goddess” of Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 26(1): 29-49. Study Sheet 5. Other readings on Teotihuacan Cowgill, George L. 2015. Ancient Teotihuacan: Early urbanism in Central Mexico. Cambridge University Press. Cowgill, George L. 1997. State and Society at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:129-61, Teaching Collection INST ARCH 2563. Also as a periodical INST ARCH Pers. [Cowgill is a very good writer; excellent review of the work carried out at Teo prior to the recent excavations by Saburo Sugiyama. Clayton, Sarah C. 2013. Measuring the long arm of the state: Teotihuacan’s relations in the Basin of Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 24(1): 87-105. Storey, Rebecca. 2008. Residential compound organization and the evolution of the Teotihuacan state. Ancient Mesoamerica 2(1): 107-118. Uriarte, Maria Teresa. 2006. The Teotihuacan ballgame and the beginning of time. Ancient Mesoamerica 17(1): 17-38. Manzanilla, Linda 2002. Houses and ancestors, Altars and Relics: Mortuary Patterns at Teotihuacan, Central Mexico. In The Space and Place of Death, ed. by H. Silverman and D.B. Small, pp. 55-65. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 100. Arlington, Virginia. Book INST ARCH AH SIL. Teaching Collection INST ARCH 2790. Headrick, Annabeth. 1999. The Street of the Dead . . . It Really was: Mortuary bundles at Teothuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 10(1): 69-85. Blanton, Richard E., Stephen E Kowalewski, Gary M Feinman, and Laura Finsten 1993 Ancient Mesoamerica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. INST ARCH DF100 BLA; ISSUE DESK IOA BLA 3 and 4. Chapter 4 on the Valley of Mexico. [Figures 4.1-4.6, 4.8, 4.10, 4.12, 4.14 are a series of settlement maps that show the locations of the various sites in the Basin (or Valley) of Mexico, and you can get an idea of how settlement has changed through time.] White, Christine D., Rebecca Storey, Fred J. Longstaffe, Michael W. Spence. 2004. Immigration, assimilation and status in the ancient city of Teotihuacan: Stable isotopic evidence from Tlajinga 33. Latin American Antiquity 15(2): 176-198. The Teotihuacan mapping project Cowgill, George L. 2015. The Teotihuacan mapping project: Experiences with data files, big questions, and some research priorities for Teotihuacan. Millon, Rene, Jeffrey H. Altschul. 2015. The making of the map: The origin and lessons of the Teotihuacan mapping project. Ancient Mesoamerica 26(1): 135-151. Moon Pyramid
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 11
Sugiyama, Saburo, Rubén Cabrera Castro. 2007. The Moon Pyramid project and the Teotihuacan state polity: A brief summary of the 1998-2004 excavations. Ancient Mesoamerica 18(1): 109-125. Sugiyama, Saburo, Leonardo López Luján. 2007. Dedicatory burial/offering complexes at the Moon Pyramid, Teotihuacan: A preliminary report of 1998=2004 explorations. Ancient Mesoamerica 18(1): 127-146. White, Christine D., T. Douglas Price, Fred J. Longstaffe. 2007. Residential histories of the human sacrifices at the Moon Pyramid, Teotihuacan: Evidence from oxygen and strontium isotopes. Ancient Mesoamerica 18(1): 159-172. Spence, Michael W., Gregory Pereira. 2007. The human skeletal remains of the Moon Pyramid, Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 18(1): 147-157. Carballo, David M. 2007. Implements of state power: weaponry and martially themed obsidian productio near the Moon Pyramid, Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 18(1): 173-190. The Sun Pyramid Sload, Rebecca. 2015. When was the Sun Pyramid Built? Maintaining the status quo at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 26(2): 221-241. Manzanilla, Linda, Claudia López, AnnCorinne Freter. 1996. Dating results from excavations in quarry tunnels behind the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 7(2): 245-266. The Feathered Serpent Pyramid Cabrera Castro, Ruben, Saburo Sugiyama, George L. Cowgill. 1991. The Templo de Quetzalcoatl Project at Teotihuacan: A preliminary report. Ancient Mesoamerica 2(1): 77-92. White, Christine D., Michael W. Spence, Fred J. Longstaffe, Hilary Stuart-Williams, Kimberley R. Law. Geographic Identities of the Sacrificial Victims from the Feathered Serpent Pyramid, Teotihuacan: Iimplications for the Nature of State Power. Latin American Antiquity 13(2): 217-236, 2002. Teaching Collection INST ARCH 2747. [Ground-breaking example of oxygen isotope analysis of skeletal remains—in this case the ‘sacrifices’ from the Feathered Serpent Pyramid—which reveals information on whether individuals were local or foreign.] López Austin, Alfredo, Leonardo López Luján and Saburo Sugiyama. 1991. The Temple of Quetzalcoatl at Teotihuacan: Its Possible Ideological Significance. Ancient Mesoamerica 2(1): 93-105. Spence, Michael W., Christine D. White, Fred J. Longstaffe, Kimberley R. Law. 2004. Victims of the victims: human trophies worn by sacrificed soldiers from the Feathered Serpent Pyramid, Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 15(1): 1-15. Irrigation at Teotihuacan Nichols, Deborah L., Michael W. Spence, Mark D. Borland. 1991. Watering the fields of Teotihuacan: Early irrigation at the ancient city. Ancient Mesoamerica 2(1): 119-129. Teotihuacan interaction Chávez, Raúl García, Lluis Manuel Gamboa Cabezas, Nadia Vélez Saldaña. 2015. Los sitios rurales y la estrategia expansionista del estado Teotihuacano para la captacion de recursos en la cuenca de México. Ancient Mesoamerica 26(2): 423-442. [Interaction with settlements in the Basin of Mexico] Clayton, Sarah C. Interregional relationships in Mesoamerica: Interpreting Maya ceramics at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 16(4): 427-448. [regional interaction] Price, T. Douglas, James H. Burton, Paul D. Fullagar, Lori E. Wright, Jane E. Buikstra, Vera Tiesler. 2008. Strontium isotopes and the study of human mobility in ancient Mesoamerica. [ Several case studies, one of which is the Oaxaca Barrio at Teotihuacan; useful if you do an essay on what isotope analysis has contributed to our understanding of Teotihuacan and its people.] Teotihuacan art, iconography, religion, worldview Pasztory, Esther. 1991. Strategies of organization in Teotihuacan art. Ancient Mesoamerica 2(2): 247-248.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 12
Paulinyi, Zoltan. 2006. The “Great Goddess” of Teotihuacan: Fiction or reality? Ancient Mesoamerica 17(1): 1- 15. Paulinyi, Zoltan. 2014. The butterfly bird god and his myth at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 25(1): 29-48. Sarro, Patricia Joan. 1991. The role of architectural sculpture in ritual space at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 2(2): 249-262. Spence, Michael W. 2015. Personal art in Teotihuacan: the Thin Orange graffiti. Ancient mesoamerica 26(2): 295-311. Mandell, Elisa C. 2015. A new analysis of the gender attribution of the “Great Goddess” of Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 26(1): 29-49. Rattray, Evelyn C. 1990. New findings on the origins of Thin Orange Ceramics. Ancient Mesoamerica 1(2): 181-195. Carballo, David M. 2007. Effigy vessels, religious integration, and the origins of the central Mexican pantheon. Ancient Mesoamerica 18(1): 53- 67. Paulinyi, Zoltán. 2001. Los señores con tocado de borlas: Un estudio sobre el Estado Teotihuacano. Ancient Mesoamerica 12(1): 1-30. Sugiyama, Saburo. 1993. Worldview materialized in Teotihuacan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 4(2): 103- 129. Teotihuacan writing and language Langley, James C. 1991. The Forms and Usage of Notation at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 2:285-298. Teaching Collection INST ARCH 2562. Nielsen, Jesper, Christophe Helmke. 2011. Reinterpreting the Plaza de los Glifos, La Ventilla, Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 22(2): 345-370. Colas, Pierre Robert. 2011. Writing in space: Glottographic and semasiographic notation at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 22(1): 13-25. Macri, Martha J., Matthew G. Looper. 2003. Nahua in ancient Mesoamerica: Evidence from Maya inscriptions. Ancient Mesoamerica 14(2): 285-297. [Evidence against the idea that the Nahuatl language reached the Maya from Teotihuacan.] Nielsen, Jesper, Christophe Helmke. 2008. Spearthrower Owl Hill: A toponym at Atetelco, Teotihuacan. Latin American Antiquity 19(4): 459-474. [Applicable to Maya archaeology as well, because Spearthrower Owl is mentioned in the Maya inscriptions at Tikal.] Michel, Guerrero Joanne. 2014. A Sign Catalog: Glyphs in Selected Text-Like Layouts at Teotihuacan. Paris Monographs in American Archaeology 38, BAR International Series 2670, Archaeopress. Oxford. Cultural heritage Chávez, Sergio Gómez. 2015. La investigación y la conservación del patrimonio arqueológico en Teotihuacan: Problemas, perspectivas y propuestas. Ancient Mesoamerica 26(2): 443-458.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 13
______WEEK 9: 28 November The Classic Maya Required: Evans Chapter 11: 'The Maya in the Early Classic (AD 250- 600)'. Evans Chapter 12: 'The Lowland Maya: Apogee and Collapse'. Freidel, David. 2014. The origins and development of Lowland Maya Civilisation. In Renfrew, C. & P. Bahn (eds.) The Cambridge World Prehistory, Volume 2: East Asia and the Americas, pp. 1043-1057. INST ARCH AF REN vol 2. [Also available as a photocopy to borrow, in the tray on my door. Please return!] Study Sheet 6. Other readings on Classic rulership Martin, Simon and Nikolai Grube 2008. Read the ‘Preface & Introduction’ in Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens, pp. 6-23. Book INST ARCH DFB 200 MAR. Book at Issue Desk INST ARCH MAR 8. Teaching Collection INST ARCH 2948. Houston, Stephen D. & Takeshi Inomata. The Classic Maya. 2009. Taube, Karl A. 2005. The symbolism of jade in Classic Maya religion. Ancient Mesoamerica 16(1): 23-50. ______WEEK 10: 5 December The Fall of Teotihuacan, Chichen Itza and the Terminal Classic, and The Rise of Tula and the Postclassic Required: Evans Chapter 13: 'The Late Classic and Epiclassic in the West (AD 600- 1000/1100)'. Evans Chapter 14: 'The Maya in the Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic . . .' Evans Chapter 15: 'The Rise of Tula and Other Epiclassic Transformations. . . .' Study Sheet 7. Mesoamerica after the Classic . . . Millon, Rene, 1988. The last years of Teotihuacán dominance. In The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations, ed. N. Yoffee and G. Cowgill, pp. 102-164. Teaching Collection INST ARCH 2097. Book INST ARCH BD YOF (3 copies 1 week; 1 copy 3 hrs). [Problems in discovering how and why cities decline] Baudez, Claude-Francois, Nicolas Latsanopoulos. 2010. Political structure, military training, and ideology at Chichen Itza. Ancient Mesoamerica 21(1): 1-20. Pendergast, David M. 1985. Stability Through Change: Lamanai, Belize, from the Ninth to the Seventeenth Century. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, ed. by Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, pp. 223-249. [A site that persisted through British colonisation.] Aimers, James J. 2007. What Maya Collapse? Terminal Classic Variation in the Maya Lowlands. Jour. Archaeological Research 15: 329-377. [On collapse and the evidence for and against it] Smith, Michael E. & Frances Berdan, eds. 2003. The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. [Good source of papers on the period after the collapse of many city-states.] Papers from my work (and my students & colleagues) on the collapse Ting, Carmen, Marcos Martinón-Torres, Elizabeth Graham, Christophe Helmke. 2015. The production and exchange of moulded-carved ceramics and the Maya Collapse. Jour. of Archaeological Science 62: 15-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2015.06.013 Aoyama, Kazuo and Elizabeth Graham. Ancient Maya warfare: Exploring the significance of lithic variation in Maya weaponry. Lithics: The Journal of the Lithic Studies Society 36: 5-17. Elizabeth Graham, Scott E. Simmons, Christine D. White. 2013. The Spanish Conquest and the Maya collapse: How ‘religious’ is change? World Archaeology 45(1): 1-25.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 14
______
WEEK 11: 12 December The Aztecs Required: Evans Chapter 16: 'The Middle Postclassic (1200s-1430)', pp. 425-429; 437-446. Evans Chapter 17: 'The Aztecs: An Empire Is Born' (1325-1440)'. Evans Chapter 20: 'The Conquest of Mexico and Its Aftermath'. Study Sheet 8. ______
Second Essay Due 23 January 2019! Submit one printed copy and one copy to Turnitin. Upload by Candidate Number!
'Crocodile' effigy from a cache in a large platform, Lamanai. Terminal Postclassic or Early Historic (Late 15th to 16th century). Drawing by Louise Belanger.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 15
Suggested Essay Questions
First Essay, Formative Mesoamerica,#### 2,500 words Choose one question What evidence do we have from Mesoamerica peopling of the New World? How has the evidence contributed to our knowledge of Palaeoindian movement and settlement. How does the landscape of domestication in Mesoamerica compare to domestication in the Old World? (Pick a place: West Asia, China, sub-Saharan Africa, Classical Mediterranean). Which plants and/or animals were selected? How did domestication proceed? How were environments affected and how did they change? What problems are there with theories on the origins of agriculture & domestication in the Old World when they are applied to Mesoamerica? What is different about the course of plant and animal domestication in Mesoamerica? What sorts of figurines were produced in Formative Mesoamerica? Were there changes in style and/or significance over time? (Early Formative to Late Formative) What is so ‘formative’ about the Formative Period in Mesoamerica? What are the various ideas about the ways in which the Olmecs interacted with other parts of Mesoamerica in the Formative? (You would have to describe key points about the Olmec, and then discuss interaction with other places, e.g., Guerrero, Chiapas, Oaxaca, the Gulf coast, the highland Maya, etc. You don’t have to discuss all these places but enough to provide a picture of the interaction.) What evidence do we have for the development of Zapotec writing? (How is it described? In what contexts does the writing appear, and can these contexts tell us anything about the Zapotecs themselves? Is Zapotec writing related to other Mesoamerican scripts?) What do Olmec sculptural traditions (stone monuments and sculptures) have to tell us about Olmec society and culture? What was the significance of jade in Mesoamerican societies? Are there parallel withs—or differences from—the significance of jade in China? What was the role of trade and exchange in the formation of Mesoamerican civilisations? Why are the Olmecs important in Mesoamerican history? What information is there on farming systems in Formative-period Mesoamerica? Pinpointing the domestication of maize has been a long saga. Trace what has been said about the domestication of maize in Mesoamerica from Macneish’s work in the Tehuacan Valley to present discoveries about its origin and early domestication. What did Macneish get wrong? What was the nature of Formative-period urbanism in Mesoamerica? What role did the emergence of an elite stratum play in the development of Formative-period urbanism? What evidence do we have for the emergence and development of writing in Mesoamerica? (Up to the end of the Formative/Preclassic period)
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 16
Second Essay, 2,500 words, Choice No. 1: Select an artefact (or artefacts) from the British Museum Mexico exhibit (e.g., turquoise mosaics, Yaxchilan lintels) . Make sure to reproduce the artefact clearly in your essay—either carefully download the photos from the British Museum web site, or try to find the artefact in the literature, or photograph it or draw it yourself. I will expect a strong visual component. Use the artefact as the basis for exploring the people and culture which produced it. First describe the artefact and why you chose it. Then explore its material, form, function, and symbolism. Is it art? Is the role of the ‘artist’ important in producing the artefact? To what extent does the artefact reflect the cultural values of the respective civilization or society which it represents? Does it reflect cultural or social or individual identity in any way? Please check with me to rough out an outline for the essay. The important concept here is that of ‘art’ and what the term means. If you are in an art or art history department, this is a good way to bring in art theory. Most all of the BM artefacts were not legally excavated, so there is also the fact that we don’t know their original context— how does this affect what we can say?
Second Essay, 2,500 words, other choices: Describe and discuss Teotihuacan urns (censers)and their uses (function, iconography, symbolism). Was Teotihuacan the head of an empire? What archaeological evidence is indicative of urbanism at Teotihuacan? Critically discuss Jared Diamond's views on collapse with respect to whether they explain (or not) the end of the Classic period in Mesoamerica. Critically discuss Apocalypto! What about this film is supposed to reflect Maya culture? Is Gibson exceptional in his treatment of the past, or does his treatment reveal something about how societies in general like to view the past, or ‘the other’? Discuss the role of elite women in Classic-period Mesoamerica as seen through archaeology, iconography, and epigraphy (where possible). You can discuss this issue cross-culturally, or select a particular culture or cultures. Compare the art style of a civilisation in Mesoamerica (e.g., Teotihuacan, Maya) to the art style characteristic of an Old World civilisation or culture with which you are familiar (Greco-Roman, Shang, Mohenjo-Daro, etc.). What does the ‘art’ tell us about the respective cultures in terms of their values? What do we know from colonial documents about how Tenochtitlan functioned as an urban centre? Compare Classic Maya cities with the urban centre of Teotihuacan in terms of layout and architecture. What are the similarities and differences? What do you think the similarities and differences reflect in terms of the respective societies’ priorities and values? Discuss the concept of ‘political landscape’ with respect to the ancient Maya. For this you need to use The Political Landscape by Adam T. Smith plus Martin and Grube’s Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. Compare the court as depicted on Classic Maya vases to courts of another culture or civilisation (Medieval Europe, Japan, South Asia, China?) What evidence is there for contact and relationships between Teotihuacan and the Maya in the Early Classic period? The collapse of Classic-period Mesoamerican societies occurred any time from the 7th to early 9th centuries. What collapsed, and why? Discuss the content and structure of the Mixtec codices. Do they deal with history?
Essays that focus on specific aspects of the symbolism or iconography of Teotihuacan, or any other civilisation that we covered, are also possible.
Consult me if you have an idea in mind and I will help you construct a research question.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 17
Details: For domestication: (See also class recommended readings, WEEK 3, Fuller, Zeder and also Bruce Smith.) o Ingold, Tim. 1996. Growing Plants and Raising Animals. In The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, ed. by David Harris, pp. 13-24. INST ARCH HA HAR (ISSUE DESK: 1 copy 3 hr.; 9 copies 1 week). Teaching Collection INST ARCH 1727 (3 copies). This looks at agriculture from the point of view of relationships among people, plants, and animals. o Melville, Elinor G.K. 1994. A Plague of Sheep. LATIN AMER. HIST. C 166 MEL. Teaching Collection INST ARCH 1922. Discusses why grazing animals had such devastating impact in the Americas. o Morse, Stephen S. 1990. Stirring Up Trouble: Environmental Disruption Can Divert Animal Viruses into People. The Sciences, Sept/Oct, Vol. 5, pp. 16-21. Teaching Collection INST ARCH 2269. Morse is a virologist; in this fascinating article he discusses how environmental disruption can divert animal viruses into people. This is something to think about in comparing, for example, Europeans' close relationship with cattle and sheep, which ultimately if unintentionally produced human forms of BSE, and the greater emphasis in Mesoamerica on plant sources. For the Olmecs and the 'Olmec' style: o Benson, E. P. and B. de la Fuente. 1996. Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Washington D.C., National Gallery of Art. o Clark, J. E. and M. E. Pye (editors). 2000. Olmec Art and Iconography in Mesoamerica. National Gallery of Art and Yale University Press, Washington D.C. and New Haven NJ. o Coe, M. D., R. A. Diehl, D. Freidel, P. T. Furst, F. K. Reilly, L. Schele, C. Tate and K. Taube. 1995 The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership. The Art Museum, Princeton University. o Flannery, K. V. 1968. The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A Model for Inter-regional Interaction in Formative Times. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. E. P. Benson. Washington DC, Dumbarton Oaks: 79-110. o Pool, Christopher A. 2007. Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. o Stark and Arnold, Eds. 1997. Olmec to Aztec. Tucson, University of Arizona Press. For the Zaptocs and Mixtecs of the Valley of Oaxaca: (See also 'Cultural evolution and state formation', below.) o Flannery, K.V. & J. Marcus (editors). 1983. The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. Academic Press, New York. o Caso, Alfonso. 1965. Sculpture and Mural Painting of Oaxaca. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 3: Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, part 2, eds. Robert Wauchope and gordon R. Willey, pp. 849-870. University of Texas Press, Austin. o ---1965 Zapotec Writing and Calendar. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 3: Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, part 2, eds. Robert Wauchope and Gordon R. Willey, pp. 931-947. University of Texas Press, Austin. o Paddock, John (ed.). 1966. Ancient Oaxaca: Discoveries in Mexican Archaeology and History. Stanford University Press, Stanford. o Marcus, Joyce. 1980. Zapotec Writing. Scientific American 242:50-64. (See class readings.) o Blanton, Richard, Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowalewski and Linda M. Nicholas. 1999. Ancient Oaxaca: The Monte Albán State. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. INST ARCH DFA 10 BLA. o Sellen, Adam T. 2011. Sowing the blood with the maize: Zapotec effigy vessels and agricultural ritual. Ancient Mesoamerica 22: 71-89. (References for this paper have lots more.) Mixtec codices o Jansen, Maarten. 1990. The search for history in Mixtec codices. Ancient Mesoamerica 1(1): 99-112. o Monaghan, John. 1990. Performance and the structure of the Mixtec codices. Ancient Mesoamerica 1(1): 133-140. Writing: o Marcus, Joyce. 1992. Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, Myth, and History in Four Ancient Civilizations. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. INST ARCH DF 600 MAR. o Benson, Elizabeth (editor). 1973. Mesoamerican Writing Systems. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. INST ARCH DFA 200 BEN.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 18
Archaeological theory - Overviews o Johnson, M. 1999, 2009. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell, Oxford. ISSUE DESK IOA JOH 6 and INST ARCH AH JOH. o Praetzellis, Adrian. 2015. Archaeological Theory in a Nutshell. o Smith, Adam T. The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities. University of California Press, Berkeley, 2003. o Trigger, B. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISSUE DESK IOA TRI 2 and INST ARCH AG TRI. Archaeological theory, examples: o Childe, V.G. 1929. Introduction to The Danube in Prehistory, by V.G. Childe. Clarendon Press, Oxford. INST ARCH DA 100 CHI. o Flannery, K.V. 1967. Culture History vs. Culture Process: A Debate in American Archaeology Scientific American 217:119-22. INST ARCH Teaching Collection 779. o Flannery, K.V. 1968. Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. In B. Meggers (ed.) Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, pp. 67-87. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C. ISSUE DESK IOA DE MEG; INST ARCH Teaching Collection 100. o Hodder, I. 1991, 2003. Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISSUE DESK IOA HOD 6 and INST ARCH AH HOD. o Ingold, T. 1993 The Temporality of the Landscape. World Archaeology 25(2): 152-174. INST ARCH Teaching Collection 1392. o Renfrew, C. 1984. Social evolution, societal change and generalization. In C. Renfrew (ed.) Approaches to Social Archaeology, pp. 3-23. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. ISSUE DESK IOA REN 13; INST ARCH AH REN. o Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987. Chapter 6: Social evolution and societal change. In Shanks, M. and C. Tilley, Social Theory and Archaeology, pp. 137-185. Polity Press, Cambridge. ISSUE DESK IOA AH SHA; INST ARCH AH SHA. o Shennan, S. 2002. Chapter 3: Culture as an evolutionary system. In Shennan, S. Genes, Memes, and Human History, pp. 35-65. ISSUE DESK IOA SHE 10; INST ARCH BB 1 SHE. Cultural evolution, state formation, urbanism: o Feinman, Gary M. & Linda Manzanilla, editors. 2000 Cultural Evolution:Contemporary Viewpoints. Kluwer Academic Publishers,New York. INST ARCH AH FEI. o Feinman, Gary M. & Joyce Marcus, editors. 1998. Archaic States. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. INST ARCH BD FEI. [One or more chapters here might be helpful; it has world- wide coverage.] o Flannery, Kent V. 1972. The cultural evolution of civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426. [This is the ultimate ecosystems approach. Although Flannery uses the term ‘cultural evolution’, this work seems to me to explain change of almost any kind in social systems. See what you think.] INST ARCH Teaching Collection 1045, 4 copies. Also INST ARCH BD FLA. o Fash, William. 1999. Process and Agency in Early State Formation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1):3-21. INST ARCH 1994, INST ARCH 1995. o Blanton, Richard, Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowalewski and Linda M. Nicholas. 1999. Ancient Oaxaca: The Monte Albán State. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. INST ARCH DFA 10 BLA. o Flannery, K.V., M.J. Kirkby, A.V.T. Kirkby, & A.W. Williams, Jr. 1967. Farming systems and political growth in ancient Oaxaca. Science 158:445-54. INST ARCH Teaching Collection 2095. [Relates the growth of farming systems to evolution.] o Kowalewski, Stephen A. 1990. The evolution of complexity in the Valley of Oaxaca. Annual Review of Anthropology 19:39-58. [Kowalewski is a dominant voice in the text, Ancient Mesoamerica, when it comes to evolution in Oaxaca, so you may want to look at this.] For the ARA, INST ARCH Pers or ANTHROPOLOGY Pers. Also http://www.jstor.ac.uk/cgi-bin/jstor/listjournal . o Marcus, Joyce & Kent V. Flannery. 1996. Zapotec Civilization: How urban society evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Thames & Hudson, London. ISSUE DESK IOA MAR 1 and INST ARCH DFA 100 MAR. o Sanders, William T. and David L. Webster. 1988. The Mesoamerican urban tradition. American Anthropologist 90:521-46. [This concentrates on cities, but is a classic cultural evolutionary approach.] INST ARCH Teaching Collection 2295.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 19
o Tainter, Joseph. 1978. Modeling change in prehistoric social systems. In For Theory Building in Archaeology, ed. L.R. Binford, pp. 327-351. Academic Press, New York. [More of a systems viewpoint.] INST ARCH AJ BIN. o Tainter, Joseph. 1990. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge U. Press (there are later editions) o Faulseit, Ronald K. & J. Heath Anderson. Beyond Collapse: Archaeological Perspectives on Resilience, Revitalization, and Transformation in Complex Societies. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper No. 42. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. o Wright, Henry T. 1986. The evolution of civilizations. In American Archaeology: Past and Future, ed. by D. Meltzer, D.Fowler, and J. Sabloff, pp. 323-365. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. [Wright is one of the foundation theorists on the evolution of civilization in archaeology.] ISSUE DESK IOA MEL 12, 3 hr loan. Early Mesoamerica: o Flannery, Kent V. , ed. 2009. The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York. INST ARCH DF 100 FLA, 8 copies on 1 week loan, 3 copies on 3 hour loan. [Selected chapters and comments help to illuminate approaches to cultural evolution.]
The cache associated with Lamanai's first church, mid-16th century. Drawing by Louise Belanger
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 20
General Course Information, Essays – ARCL0031, 2018-19
Most of the following is derived from the Undergraduate Handbook but there are specifics that apply to my course alone.
Course organization: Teaching methods: Lectures and discussion. PowerPoint presentations are the basis for the lectures. Prerequisites: None other than your first-year courses. Workload in terms of breakdown of hours spent on course: Lectures/discussion = 20 hrs. Private reading = 80 hrs. Required essays = 40 hrs. TOTAL = 140 hrs.
Communication between student and course co-ordinator: The main channels of communication are the Moodle site, where I post in the News Forum, and my own e-mail address [email protected]. During the first lectures I will pass around a sheet on which you should provide the e-mail address where you can be contacted. When you e-mail me, PUT THE COURSE NUMBER OR NAME IN THE SUBJECT LINE and I will know to give it priority. If you have a non-UCL address, it would be best for you to arrange for e-mail to be forwarded from your UCL address, because staff and students will expect to be able to reach you through your UCL e-mail, available on the UCL website. Please also make sure that Judy has an up-to-date telephone number for you in case you need to be contacted.
The Course Moodle website I will post lectures, the Course Handbook, and course handouts on Moodle. If you would like to consult or print the handbook, review lectures (after they have been delivered in class), or a get a handout you don’t have, please go to Moodle. If I am slow to add material feel free to remind me by e-mail.
It is my understanding that if you are registered for the course, you have access to the course information on Moodle. If there is a problem, let me know. Individuals can access the site with a password (or enrollment key) if the new Moodle hasn’t changed this option. This is: jade
Attendance: It is a college regulation that attendance at lectures, seminars and practicals be monitored, and a register will be taken. A 70% minimum attendance at all scheduled sessions is required (excluding absences due to illness or other adverse circumstances, provided that these are supported by medical certificates or other documentation, as appropriate). Attendance is reported to College. Students should also be aware that potential employers seeking references often ask about attendance and other indications of reliability. The class study sheets are designed to encourage regular attendance. If you miss a class, get the study sheet to me as soon as possible upon your return.
Libraries and other resources: The libraries with resources most used in this course are the Institute of Archaeology library, the DM Watson Science library and Anthropology Library (UCL) and the Anthropology library at the Centre for Anthropology (British Museum). During the research for your essays you may have to consult the Main library, but in most cases all the resources are found in the three libraries mentioned. The British Library is nearby and is also an excellent resource. Other than
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 21 library resources, artifacts relevant to Mesoamerican civilizations can be found on display in the British Museum in the Mexican Gallery.
Feedback and course evaluations: In trying to make this course as effective as possible, we welcome feedback from students during the course of the year. At the end of each course all students are asked to give their views on the course in an anonymous questionnaire, which will be circulated at one of the last sessions of the course. The summarized responses are considered by the Institute’s Staff-Student Consultative Committee, Teaching Committee, and by the Faculty Teaching Committee.
If you are concerned about any aspect of this course, approach me first about it. If you feel this is not appropriate, or certainly if you feel consultation with me has not proved satisfactory, you should consult your Personal Tutor, Year Tutor, the Academic Administrator (Judy Medrington), or the Chair of the Teaching Committee.
Rules for submission of coursework: (See new Grounds for Extension form at end of Handbook) Deadlines: Because the assessed work contributes to the final mark for the course, the submission deadline for each piece of work is absolute. Late work will incur a penalty unless an extension has been granted in advance. If you are ill or have serious personal or family difficulties you must complete an Extension Request Form (ERF B copies available from Room 411A) and obtain the approval and signature of the Course Co-ordinator AND either your Personal Tutor or the Year Tutor. ERFs should normally be accompanied by a medical certificate or other documentation (e.g. a letter from your Personal Tutor). If you do not submit either the coursework or an ERF on or before the submission deadline, the maximum mark that can be awarded is a minimum Honours pass (40%). If there is an unexpected crisis on the submission day, please e-mail (preferably) or telephone me, and FOLLOW THIS UP WITH AN ERF.
SEE ME FIRST IF YOU ANTICIPATE PROBLEMS WITH A DEADLINE.
Essay submission and return of graded essays to students All assessed work must be submitted to the Reception Desk before midnight on the submission date specified. It will then be passed on to the Course Co-ordinator. IF YOU THINK YOU WILL BE A BIT LATE, LET ME KNOW AND YOU CAN DROP IT OFF IN THE TRAY ON MY DOOR. Allowing for vacations, every effort will be made to return assessed work within 2-3 weeks of the submission date. You are also required to submit your essays to Turnitin USING YOUR CANDIDATE NUMBER. See below for submission instructions.
Assessed work returned to Course Co-ordinator: Within a fortnight of its return to students, the assessed work should be returned by the students to the Course Co- ordinator so that it can be second-marked and is then available to the Board of Examiners. Because assessed work forms part of the student's permanent academic record, it needs to be retained until well after the completion of the degree. If work is not returned to the Course Co-ordinator, the student will be deemed not to have completed the course. Students are strongly advised to keep a copy of all work, and to make a copy for retention of all work after it has been assessed and commented upon by the first examiner, if they wish to make future reference to the comments on the work.
Criteria for assessment: The criteria for assessment used in this course are those agreed by the Board of Examiners in Archaeology, and are included in the Undergraduate Handbook (available on the Institute web-site). In brief, the grades used are A, B, C, D, E and F, with finer distinctions indicated by a plus (+) or a minus (-). All coursework is marked by two internal
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 22 examiners, and can be re-assessed by the Visiting Examiner. Therefore, the mark given by the initial examiner (prior to return) is a provisional assessment for guidance only, and may be modified after consultation with the second internal examiner, or by the Visiting Examiner.
Essay structure and content: Details on the essay questions and on the format and structure of the essays are provided in the last section of this handout. Information on the criteria I keep in mind in assessing your research, writing, and compositional skills will be provided separately.
Plagiarism policy Work submitted All work submitted as part of the requirements for any examination at UCL, which includes all assessed work such as essays, must be expressed in the student’s own words and incorporate the student’s own ideas and judgements. All students have received a copy of the College’s rules on plagiarism; the Institute’s guidelines are included in the Undergraduate Handbook. Examiners for this course will scrutinise all work for evidence of plagiarism or collusion between students. To avoid charges of collusion, students should always ensure that their work is their own, and not lend their essays or essay drafts to other students because they are likely to be penalised if the second student copies the work and submits it as their own.
What is plagiarism? Plagiarism is defined as the presentation of another person’s thoughts or words as though they are one’s own—that is, without citing where you got the information. Cite where the information came from, no problem. Plagiarism constitutes an examination offence under the University Regulations and students found to have committed plagiarism may be excluded from all further examinations of the University and/or College. Plagiarism can take more than one form:
1) If information is copied verbatim from the published or unpublished works of other persons, it must be identified as such by placing the copied information in inverted commas/quotation marks and the source of the information must be referenced appropriately and accurately. Where copied information is neither quoted nor referenced, the information is considered to have been plagiarised.
2) If information is paraphrased by the student from the published or unpublished works of other persons, the source of the information must be provided. That is, the information source must be referenced appropriately and accurately. Where paraphrased information is not referenced, the information is considered to have been plagiarised.
In archaeological writing--as opposed, say, to creative writing in English--we do a great deal of borrowing and paraphrasing of ideas and information from scholarly sources. Therefore it is especially critical for us to recognize our sources by accurate and full referencing.
3) ‘Self-plagiarism’ is a term sometimes used to apply to the extensive use of the same sources and materials in more than one piece of assessed coursework, submitted for the same or for other courses taken as part of the degree. It is not illegal (whereas plagiarism technically is illegal) but it is considered bad practice, and unacceptable at university.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 23
4) Plagiarism is also committed when a student copies the work of another student and submits it as his/her own.
If students are still unclear about the definition of plagiarism, they should review the notes on plagiarism and examples of good and bad practice with respect to sources included in the undergraduate handbook, and consult their personal tutor.
SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK TO TURNITIN In addition to submitting your coursework as described above, it is now a requirement that you submit it electronically to the Turnitin system. You will be provided with the necessary code or Class ID for submitting your work for this course:
Password/enrolment key IoA1819 and Turnitin Course ID 3884049
Students who fail to submit their coursework to Turnitin will not receive the mark for the work in question until they have done so (although they will receive written feedback in the usual way). The maximum mark for work that has not been submitted to Turnitin prior to the meeting of the Board of Examiners will be a bare pass. (Or a bear pass, which can be really painful.)
In advance of submitting your coursework for marking you may, if you wish, run your work through the system in order to obtain a report on the originality of the wording and then make any necessary adjustments prior to final submission. Turnitin advisors will be available to help you at specified times if you need help generating or interpreting the reports. To reach a Turnitin advisor, e-mail: [email protected]
It is important to recognise that the final decision about whether work contains plagiarism rests with academic staff. Consequently, the presence or absence of matches in a Turnitin report does not, by itself, provide a guarantee that the work in question either contains or is free from plagiarism.
GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: New UCL-wide regulations with regard to
the granting of extensions for coursework
have been introduced. Full details will be circulated to all students and will be made available on the IoA intranet. Note that Course Coordinators are no longer permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a new UCL form, together with supporting documentation, via Judy Medrington’s office and will then be referred on for consideration. Please be aware that the grounds that are now acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Student Disability Services to make special arrangements.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 24
Essay Structure
Format: Essays must be word-processed and should be printed (double-spaced). I prefer one-side but it will be cheaper for you to print two-sided. DO NOT SINGLE-SPACE. Adequate margins should be left for written comments by the examiner. Students are encouraged to use diagrams and/or tables where appropriate. These should be clearly referred to at the appropriate point in the text, and if derived from another source, this must be clearly acknowledged. Each essay is 2,500 words. Students should adhere to word limits on essays; such limits are intended to help ensure equality of workloads between courses as well as to encourage the useful transferable skills of clearly structured argumentation and succinct writing. Use double-line spacing, or at least 1 1/2 . DO NOT SINGLE-SPACE. Number all pages except for the title page. NUMBER ALL PAGES. Number all pages. Number all pages. I prefer 12-point font but 11 is okay. DO NOT JUSTIFY THE RIGHT MARGIN. Your adherence to the above is part of my assessment of your overall organization.
Hand in your essay with the IoA cover sheet, and your candidate number, but nothing else. No plastic sheets or other covers. Just use a staple or paper clip in the upper left corner, or fold it and I’ll add the staple.
In-text citations: Scholarly publications in archaeology generally use in-text citations and not footnotes. This means that any information taken from books or sources other than your own research must be followed by the reference in parentheses. The in-text referencing normally includes the author’s name, the year of publication, and the pages from which the information is derived. For guidelines, check the Institute’s 'New Rules for Referencing', available in the Institute Intranet and on the Moodle site for the class). However I will accept any form as long as you are consistent.
Footnotes: Footnotes can be used for information that you feel is important but does not integrate well with the text, but in general, try to incorporate the information into the text and avoid footnotes. The idea is that if it is not important enough for the main body of the text, it is not important enough for a footnote. However, the historians among you will be used to using footnotes for information; if you feel they are necessary, use them, but only for information, not for citations. However if you are from another department and want to stick with what you are used to, just check with me.
References cited: In addition to providing source references in the text in those places in which you either use quotations, or paraphrase information from other sources, you are required in archaeological research and writing to list all the sources you have used for information at the end of your essay. This is not, contrary to popular belief, a Bibliography. It is normally entitled: References Cited or merely References or sometimes Works Cited. (Bibliographies, strictly speaking, can include works you have read but from which you have not drawn specific information for your essay.) In the case of the essays you will submit, no citation should appear in the text that is not also listed in the References Cited section, and no work should appear in the References Cited section that is not also referred to in the text. There are no exceptions to this rule either in this course, or in archaeological publication.
Web sources: (see p. 3 above for some recommended web sites—also Moodle)
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 25
Web sources can and should be used, but they should either be peer-reviewed sites, or originate from a university or research organization (e.g., the FAMSI reports on the field research they sponsor in Mesoamerica). The web sites of individuals are suspect and normally should not be used (e.g., Shaman Fred’s New Age Maya Remedies for the Next Millennium). Where web sites are used, don't put the url in the text. If there is an author, use his/her name, or maybe pick a name to identify the site and then put the details of the url in the References Cited. For example, if the information is from the National Geographic web site, you might put 'National Geographic' in your text, and in the References Cited section provide the web address and any relevant details, including the date you accessed the site. However there may be more information on web citation in the 'New Rules for Referencing' on the Institute's Intranet. ______ Essay Assessment for ARCL0031 Why this handout? The Institute’s criteria for the assessment of undergraduate work are in the Undergraduate Handbook. It is up to me, however, to judge the ways in which these criteria are met. It is not a straightforward process because the system requires me both to judge and to teach. Since we all learn a great deal by making mistakes, the system has inherent contradictions: How do I judge, for example, whether you have demonstrated ‘outstanding critical ability’ when it is my job to teach you the critical process? How do I judge ‘exceptional clarity’ when I hope to teach you how you can maximize clarity in your writing?
On the other hand, you come to university with a range of skills and knowledge, and you are here to use them as the basis for more complex learning. I can teach you, but you must be prepared to be taught. By this I mean that I expect you to show enterprise in reading and research; I expect you to show an interest in learning; and I expect you to want to respond to my recommendations concerning how you can maximize your course performance. What I cannot do is teach enterprise, interest, or responsiveness, but I can reward enterprise, interest, and responsiveness by making my expectations as clear as possible, and by providing as much feedback as possible so that you can improve your performance.
The fundamental criterion for essays is whether or not the question that has been set has been answered and how well it has been answered. You may think you have answered the question very well. I may think you have answered the question poorly. What you think is ‘VERY GOOD’ I may judge to be ‘SATISFACTORY.’ My job is not just to apply the criteria, then; my job is to tell you why and how I reached the assessment. Therefore in addition to the Criteria for Assessment, I will provide a set of criteria I use as guides when I read your essays.
You will see in the list of my essay comments below that I look for a range of things. Good proofreading and clear composition and style are important to the reader (me) in understanding what the writer (you) is trying to say. Therefore proofreading, grammar, composition, and spelling are among my criteria, although they carry very little weight. I use them largely to remind me to point out in your text where you can improve in these areas. Good organization is essential to thoroughness and clarity of presentation, and I have three presentation criteria I follow (organization overall, organizational details, and nature of presentation). Enterprise in reading is more difficult to assess globally because to some extent this depends on the question; but I do look at the range and types of sources you have used, and I pay great attention to referencing – a lot of attention to referencing – because this tells me what you consider to be relevant evidence, and also tells me how you have used the sources you have chosen to construct an argument or to support your discussion in answering the question. Critical ability and perception will always have some subjectivity involved in their assessment. Therefore I have criteria I use that help me to judge critical ability.
Cover sheets for essays
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 26
When I return your essays to you, I will do so accompanied by an official Institute cover sheet with comments on separate sheets. These constitute my assessment of your grade. I keep records on my computer so I can also e-mail the comments to you.
Essay Comments The format laid out in the following two pages is my own frame of reference that helps me to assess your work according to the official marking criteria. It is meant to provide the maximum amount of feedback to facilitate improvement and maximum results on your part.
These criteria appear on the Essay Comments Sheet on the reverse of the Cover Sheet: DOES THE ESSAY ANSWER THE QUESTION? Depth of approach This category and the next reflect creativity and initiative. Here I account for the range and depth of thinking involved in answering the question, and in the intellectual breadth of information applied to answering the question. Often this is a relative issue – that is, I am guided in part by how students in the class perform generally, and do not always evaluate this category with preconceived notions about necessary depth or breadth. On the other hand, I will let you know if I feel that you have not given sufficient attention to particular points or issues. Clarity of approach I expect you to explain your approach to addressing the essay question in your introduction. I then look at how well you have followed through on the approach; how effective your approach is in answering the essay question; and in some circumstances your rationale for using the approach.
STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENT (structure rather than content) Organization overall Is your essay structured to comprise an introduction, a body of text, and a conclusion or wrap-up? I look for these essential elements before I proceed to the organizational details. The essay must have an introduction outlining the theme or purpose of the essay, and the conclusion should reiterate the most important points or provide closure in some way. Organization: details One long narrative is not acceptable. Use headings and perhaps sub-headings to improve organization of your ideas. Headings and sub-headings help to facilitate getting your points across to the reader. Decide how your paragraphs illustrate various points and make sure that the sub-headings reflect this. Do your points have a logical order and lead to the conclusion? Do you impart information in a sequence that facilitates (or hinders) understanding and comprehension?
SOURCES Sources: Range I will acknowledge the number of sources you have used related to your topic and I will make a judgement about the effort you have made in seeking a range relevant to your topic. Sources: Types I will also look at the kinds of sources you have used: books on a topic; edited books; general texts; monographs. I will look especially to see if you have consulted journals so that you have the most up-to-date information. I do not judge all the literature by date because some of the best information is from early sources, particularly with regard to site reports. But the use of journal articles is usually a plus. Remember that there are not many journals that focus on the New World, so I feel this is a fair criterion and does not require an inordinate amount of searching. I also expect you to use scholarly sources and not popular sources (unless of course your essay is on the topic of popularisation).
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 27
In-text citations Is there appropriate in-text citation? That is, do you cite the source of your information where you have used or presented the information? Are page numbers given? PAGE NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED UNLESS YOU ARE INDEED REFERRING TO THE ENTIRE BOOK OR ARTICLE. Is every source cited in the text listed in the References Cites section at the end? No sources should appear in the in-text citations that do not also appear in the References Cited. Provide source citations for ALL information that is not something you have discovered through your own independent work. Since few or none of you have yet done primary research of your own and discovered new data, almost all of your information should have a source citation. Consult the section in the Course Handbook on plagiarism for other information relevant to this criterion. References cited Is your References Cited section clearly presented? Is the publication information correct? Have you provided the publisher’s name and place of publication? I prefer the publisher first, followed by the place because place is not as important as it once was, when publishers used to be associated with specific cities. Have you made sure when you use a paper in an edited volume that you have cited the paper, its author, and its page numbers in the volume? Is every reference cited at the end also in the text? DO NOT USE THE TERM ‘BIBLIOGRAPHY’ to refer to your list of references. What you will provide is not a bibliography in any case. See above.
USE OF EVIDENCE Selection & nature of evidence This covers what information you have chosen from the literature (or other sources) to address the essay question. Have you shown good judgment in selecting the evidence and can it be used to sustain the argument? Does the evidence bear on the question? Presentation (judgment, assessment) This refers to how you present the information for discussion of the various points in order to make your case. I think of it a bit differently from Organisation (above) because for Organisation I am looking at structure not substance– almost the framework that you set up physically. Here I will assess substance—your ability to use the structure effectively to develop your argument, discuss the data cogently, and/or make a strong case. Integration This is part of the presentation, but I look here specifically at how effectively you have integrated the data and information from your sources to make your case. (Information should not just be dropped down in no particular rder.) I consider your understanding of the information you have used, as well as your critical abilitites in balancing, through your hierarchy of presentation, the variety of information on which you draw. I may also consider the range and types of sources here, not in terms of sheer numbers, but in terms of how the information is integrated. Use of tables, charts, illustrations In archaeology, illustrations are almost always useful and I will expect you to use illustrations to clarify or supplement your text. Make sure they are clear. Scanning is okay if it’s clear, but don’t be afraid to trace maps. Sometimes this makes the information clearer. The term to use then in your in-text citation is: ‘. . . adapted from xxxxx’
WRITING QUALITY Proofreading Have you proofread the text well, or is it filled with errors, run-on sentences, erratic margins, faint printing, or blurry illustrations? Is the print overly small? Does the essay lack page numbers? ALL ESSAYS MUST BE PAGINATED.
Grammar, composition, spelling, style Try not to use spell-check blindly without making sure of the correct context of individual words. Be wary of the thesaurus; always look up the suggested synonym (e.g., ‘plethora’, ‘parameters,’ and ‘ecology’ are invariably used
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 28 incorrectly). The web is now great for this as major dictionaries have free on-line resources (e.g. Oxford or Merriam- Webster). Don’t assume you know the meaning; check on the meaning. Make every effort to use words correctly and succinctly; it will simplify understanding. Keep in mind that I do not grade on grammar per se, but on how clarity and understanding are affected by writing skills.
ORIGINALITY AND INDEPENDENT THINKING Originality Here I judge the way you have strung the various ideas together from your sources to make points. This is related to ‘integration’, above, except that above I look more at how effectively or smoothly you have integrated the data whereas here I consider the extent to which your essay reflects original thinking—your product—and not simply a string of quotations. Critical thinking Have you thought critically about the sources of your data, the logic behind the assumptions your authors make, and whether the conclusions are valid?
INTEGRATION OF THEORY, METHODS AND DATA The Institute’s cover sheet states: ‘Ability to relate argument to core concepts in general archaeological method and theory; reasoning from problem to methods to data to build a sustained argument’. Given that the question does not always lend itself to archaeological method and theory, and also that there are people taking the course who are not in archaeology, I focus more here on whether theoretical reasoning has contributed to your answer. I consider this category more heavily in the second essay and less so in the first, and I will try to comment in the first essay to show you how you might contextualise your answer within a broad theoretical framework. ‘Theory’ may not always be relevant, but I do encourage you to think about your specific essay issue within a broad context. For example, if you write on women and gender, you might think at some point whether gender is only a Mesoamerican issue or a broader societal issue. Or, if you discuss table-top altars, how does this reflect hierarchy in societies? If you are from History of Art or Classics or History, draw on theory in your discipline if you can.
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 29
Second Year Course Candidate No. of Student: Assessment No: Course No. ARCL0031 MARKER'S COMMENTS DOES THE ESSAY ANSWER THE QUESTION? – Demonstrate understanding of the issues; build to a relevant conclusion Excellent Poor Depth of approach Clarity of approach
STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENT Excellent Poor Relevance, analysis, logic and coherence. Organization overall Organizational details
SOURCES? Excellent Poor Use of appropriate types and range of sources; discrimination of relative value of sources; clear in-text citation and reference practices. Range Types In-text citations References cited
Excellent Poor USE OF EVIDENCE Selection of evidence bearing on the question; judgment in assessing lines of evidence; appropriate examples, methods; reasoning in building a sustained argument Selection & nature of evidence Presentation (judgment, assessment) Integration Use of tables, charts, illustrations
WRITING QUALITY (Communication and reader comprehension) Excellent Poor Spelling, grammar, punctuation, paragraphing and general fluency; use of appropriate vocabulary Proof reading Grammar, punctuation, style
USE OF TABLES, CHARTS, ILLUSTRATIONS (See USE OF EVIDENCE, above)
2018-19, ARCL0031, Page 30
ORIGINALITY AND INDEPENDENT THINKING E xcellent Poor Critical reflection; ability to criticise assumptions of other writers; independent thinking in the evaluation of evidence; insight in the application of knowledge. Independent thinking
Critical thinking I n INTEGRATION OF THEORY, METHODS AND DATA d Excellent Poor Ability to relate argument to core concepts in general archaeological method and theory, or to e core concepts and broad ideas in other disciplines (anthropology, biology, history); p justification of the approach; Relating to broader concepts e
n
d Rationale e n t t The best features: h i Suggestions for improvement: n k First examiner's signature: First examiner’s mark based on content: Provisional Overall Mark: i n g
Penalty (if any, & reason):
Date: Second Examiner’s Agreed Internal Final Mark: C Mark: Mark: r
i t i c a l t h i n k i n g