DOCSLIB.ORG

Arcl 0012 Sites & Artefacts 2018

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arcl 0012 Sites & Artefacts 2018 INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2018-19 ARCL 0012 SITES & ARTEFACTS 2018 Year 1, Term 1: Core module, 15 credits Hand Axe John Frere 1797 LECTURES Tuesdays 2-4pm Venue: Room 612 (Institute of Archaeology, sixth floor) TUTORIAL GROUPS Thursday 1 hour (9.00 am -1.00 pm Alternate weeks) Venue: Room 412 (Institute of Archaeology, fourth floor) Coordinators: Bill Sillar [email protected] Room B16 Office hours: 4.15 – 5.15 pm Tuesdays, Room B16 and Jennifer French [email protected] Room 411 Office hours: 10-11am Tuesdays, Room 411 Teaching Assistant: Ivana Jovanovic Email: [email protected] Turnitin, Class ID: 3883939 - Class Enrolment Password: IoA1819 Timetable: see final page Assessment a) Friday 5th October Experimental Archaeology Course assessment (20%) (will be returned by 26th October) b) 11th December Short answers assessment (30%) – held during class (you will be given marks by 2nd January) c) Tuesday 18th December maximum 2,625 word essay (roughly 2500 words) (50%) (returned by 14th January – second week of 2nd term) ARCL 0012 SITES and ARTEFACTS 27th- 30th September Experimental Archaeology Course, West Dean, West Sussex Lectures – Tuesdays, 2-4 pm 1) 2nd October Introduction: Module Structure, Purpose and Assessment – Bill Sillar 2) ‘Piecing Together the Past’ – Bill Sillar 3) 9th October ‘Activity areas’, ‘contexts’ and ‘formation processes’ – Bill Sillar 4) Archaeological Features: from postholes to fieldsystems - Ulrike Sommer 5) 16th October Ethnoarchaeology and Experimental Archaeology – Jennifer French 6) Habitations: Houses and Communities – Ulrike Sommer 7) 23rd October Dating Artefacts: from seriation to absolute dating – Thomas Kador 8) Graves and Hoards – Ulrike Sommer 9) 30th October Artefact composition and provenance – Ian Freestone 10) Style and Culture - Jennifer French Reading Week – No Teaching 11) 13th November Technology in Society: Making artefacts – Bill Sillar 12) Lithics – Ivana Jovanovic 13) 20th November Exchange and interpreting distribution in archaeology – Bill Sillar 14) Pottery – Patrick Quinn 15) 27th November Consumption: Artefact function and social identity – Bill Sillar 16) Metals –Miljana Radivojevic 17) 4th December Conservation for archaeologists an introduction – James Hales 18) Revision Session – Bill Sillar 19) 11th December Short Answer Assessment 20) Feedback and discussion – Bill Sillar Practicals: with Ivana Jovanovic Thursday small group tutorials run on alternative weeks To introduce materials, handling of artefacts and laboratory analysis 1) Understanding features and artefact assemblages (IoA collections) 2) Finds distribution / graves 3) Stone 4) Pottery 5) Metals Assessment d) Friday 5th October Experimental Archaeology Course assessment (20%) (will be returned by 26th October) e) 11th December Short answers assessment (30%) – held during class (you will be given marks by 2nd January) f) Tuesday 18th December maximum 2,625 word essay (roughly 2500 words) (50%) (returned by 14th January – second week of 2nd term) 2 3 Course Summary This is a core module for 1st year undergraduates at the Institute of Archaeology, UCL. The course starts with a 4 day field course in experimental archaeology which provides a practical introduction to ancient technologies and the problem of interpreting archaeological remains. The lectures and seminars explore how archaeologists have analyzed the material remains of past societies focusing on different scales of spatial analysis, measuring time/chronology and the analysis of materials remains. The Experimental Archaeology Course, at West Dean, provides a practical experience of technologies used in the past (such as flint knapping, pottery making, metal casting, building structures, and preparing food) raising issues about the selection of raw materials, production techniques, skill and artefact function. While at West Dean students will also be asked to observe and think about the material evidence resulting from their activities. How could surviving remains be used by future archaeologists to reconstruct these activities? The first section of taught lectures will discuss how archaeologists think about and identify spatial and temporal scales starting with the concept of ‘activity areas’ and different types of archaeological sites, considering how these are located within a wider landscape and how experimental and ethnographic approaches have been used to understand not just the activities that took place at these sites, but also their social significance. We will consider how the archaeological record is created by the overlaying and removal of material remains, building a stratigraphic record within which artefacts are located and can be dated. In the second part of the taught module we will review how archaeologists have analysed artefacts to investigate how they were made and used as well as how objects can express people’s identities. A selection of major technologies used in the past such as stone tools, pottery and metal will be used to introduce broad concepts, methods and analytical techniques that can be used in the study of many artefact types. Towards the end of the module we will come back to consider how the breakage and disposal of artefacts contributes to the formation of archaeological sites, and how conservation work can help in the preservation and analysis of these remains. Throughout the module we will use case studies drawn from a wide range of geographical areas and archaeological periods, exploring how the applications of scientific techniques has been used to address archaeological problems. During the module each student will attend five tutorials that will provide a more ‘hands on’ engagement with materials discussed in lectures and introduce some of the laboratory facilities used in the analysis of these materials. These tutorials will also give students an opportunity to discuss topics covered during lectures. The ‘short-answers assessment’ is designed to assess student’s knowledge of key points and broad concepts covered in the lectures and assigned readings, with a longer essay designed to assess their ability to discuss a topic of their choosing in more depth. Relationship to other 1st year core modules at the Institute of Archeology: This module, ‘Sites and Artefacts’ (ARCL 0012), focuses on archaeological approaches used in the analysis and interpretation of material remains, it aims to help students become familiar with major concepts and practical techniques used to study past societies (many of which have been drawn from other disciplines such as chemistry, physics, biology, geography, ecology, and anthropology). The second term module ‘People and Environments’ (ARCL 0013) will continue this by focusing on aspect of archaeological analysis that are derived from life-science approaches such as the analysis of human beings (osteology, paleopathology, diet, genetics, demography) and past environments (geoarchaeology, zooarchaeology, and archaeobotany). 4 ‘Introduction to Archaeology’ (ARCL 0010), will introduce students to the development of the discipline and some of the larger theoretical concepts and debate within archaeology. ‘Field Methods’ (ARCL 0011), focuses on the practical techniques used in the survey and excavation of archaeological sites. While ‘World Archaeology’ (ARCL 0014), gives a broad introduction to cultural developments from early hominids to European colonization of the Americas where the application of these analytical techniques and theoretical concepts has been used to gain a better understanding of important issues such as early hominid diet, the development of agriculture, craft specialization, urbanism and State Formation. Students on specialist degrees will have some alternative modules that give them a foundation in further skills and knowledge relevant to their specialisation. Health and safety The Institute has a Health and Safety policy and code of practice which provides guidance on laboratory work, etc. This is revised annually, and the new edition will be issued in due course. All work undertaken in the Institute is governed by these guidelines and students have a duty to be aware of them and to adhere to them at all times. This is particularly important in the context of the laboratory/field/placement work which will be undertaken as part of this module. 5 AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT Aims: This module aims to introduce students to the problems of interpreting archaeological remains and raise their awareness of the multiple spatial and temporal scales within which archaeological analysis is undertaken. It will introduce distinct approaches to artefact studies including a consideration of ancient technology, material culture and style in archaeology, and introduce concepts and application of scientific methods used in the analysis and interpretation of archaeological materials, spatial analysis and dating. Students will learn basic archaeological concepts (such as assemblage formation, culture and style as well as approaches to typology, ancient technology, temporality, and landscape). Students will be introduced to the role of analogy and experiment in archaeological analysis, and gain an understanding of how material remains are deposited in archaeological context and further altered through cultural and natural transformation process. Objectives On successful completion of this module a student should: 1 Be familiar with some of the major concepts and analytical approaches used in archaeology 2 Understand the processes that lead to the creation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Playing with the Time. Experimental Archaeology and the Study of the Past
    PLAYING WITH THE TIME. EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE STUDY OF THE PAST Editors: Rodrigo Alonso, Javier Baena & David Canales 4th. International Experimental Archaeology Conference 8-11 may 2014, Museo de la Evolución Huma. Burgos, Spain. Experimenta (the Spanish Experimental Archaeology Association) is a non-profit association created, among other proposes, to organize international experimental archaeology conferences. Previous conferences were successively held in Santander (2005), Ronda (2008) and Banyoles (2011). Organization Scientific committee Experimenta (Asociación española de Arqueología Experimental) Carlos Díez (Universidad de Burgos) Museo de la Evolución Humana, Junta de Castilla y León Marta Navazo(Universidad de Burgos) Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Ángel Carrancho (Universidad de Burgos) EXARC José A. Rodriguez Marcos (Universidad de Burgos) Diego Arceredillo (Fundación Atapuerca) Cooperación institutions Marcos Terradillos (Fundación Atapuerca) Fundación Atapuerca Millán Mozota (Institut Milá i Fontanals, CSIC) Universidad de Burgos Xavier Terradas (Institut Milá i Fontanals, CSIC) Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas - IMF, Barcelona Ignacio Clemente (Institut Milá i Fontanals, CSIC) Asociación Española para el Estudio del Cuaternaro (AEQUA) Antonio Morgado (Universidad de Granada) Gema Chacón (Institut de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social) Organizing committee Josep Maria Verges (Institut de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolució Social) Alejandro Sarmiento (Museo de la Evolución Humana, Junta de Castilla
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2016
    2016 Annual Report Board of Trustees Contents Message from the director 7 MANAGEMENT 9 About us: Big general data for 2016 11 Staff 14 Scientific Advisory Board 19 RESEARCH 21 Research Groups 23 Research Projects Hosted by IPHES 29 Research Projects not Hosted by IPHES 33 Research Fellowships 37 Publications 40 Activity as Referee 54 Fieldwork activity 58 Congresses, workshops & seminars 63 Short-term stay at other research centers 79 ACADEMY 83 Degrees and Doctoral Programme 85 PhD Thesis supervised and defended 87 Master Thesis supervised and defended 89 Participation in assessment Committees to evaluate PhD 93 OUTREACH 95 Conferences and talks 97 Outreach publications 104 Science education 105 Management of exhibitions 107 Participatory activities 109 Didactic contents and materials 109 Science Communication 110 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER & SERVICES 117 2016 Message from the director Robert Sala, IPHES director/IPHES theless they still need an increase in st It is for me a pleasure to introduce the number of papers within the 1 the 2016 Annual Report of Activ- quartile. After accomplishing with ities of the Catalan Institute of Hu- good absolute figures is time for our man Palaeoecology and Social institute to gain the relative score in Evolution. IPHES is a mature institute excellence and increase our cur- st hosting very active research teams rent 31.8% of 1 quartile papers. devoted to the creation and social- isation of knowledge on the human The visibility of the research of an in- evolutionary process in all its dimen- stitute can be also measured by its sions and framework. The scientific presence in the main international activity of our institute is currently congresses.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing a Methodology for Determining Handedness in Lithic Materials As a Proxy for Cognitive Evolution
    EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND HOMINID EVOLUTION: ESTABLISHING A METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING HANDEDNESS IN LITHIC MATERIALS AS A PROXY FOR COGNITIVE EVOLUTION by Lana Ruck A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Dorothy F. Schmidt College of Arts and Letters In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL December 2014 Copyright 2014 by Lana Ruck ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my thesis committee members, Dr. Douglas Broadfield, Dr. Clifford Brown, and Dr. Kate Detwiler, for their constant support and help with developing this project, as well as the head of the Department of Anthropology, Dr. Michael Harris, for his insights. This project would not have been possible without the help of my volunteer flintknappers: Ralph Conrad, Mike Cook, Scott Hartsel, Ed Moser, and Owen Sims, and my raw materials suppliers: Curtis Smith and Elliot Collins. I would also like to thank Miki Matrullo and Katherine Sloate for cataloging my handaxes and flakes and aiding me in creating a blind study. Special thanks to Justin Colón and Dr. Clifford Brown for assessing a random sample of my flakes, adding objectivity to this study. Finally, I would like to thank Dr. Natalie Uomini for her constant help and support of my project. iv ABSTRACT Author: Lana Ruck Title: Experimental Archaeology and Hominid Evolution: Establishing a Methodology for Determining Handedness in Lithic Materials as a Proxy for Cognitive Evolution Institution: Florida Atlantic University Thesis Advisor: Dr. Douglas Broadfield Degree: Master of Arts Year: 2014 Human handedness is likely related to brain lateralization and major cognitive innovations in human evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Ascher. Experimental Archaeology
    Experimental Archeology Author(s): Robert Ascher Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 63, No. 4 (Aug., 1961), pp. 793-816 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/666670 Accessed: 05/02/2010 05:27 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist. http://www.jstor.org Experimental Archeology1 ROBERT ASCHER CornellUniversity INTRODUCTION THE term experiment appears in a number of archeological contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology: the Key Concepts Is the Ideal Reference Guide for Students, Teachers and Anyone with an Interest in Archaeology
    ARCHAEOLOGY: THE KEY CONCEPTS This invaluable resource provides an up-to-date and comprehensive survey of key ideas in archaeology and their impact on archaeological thinking and method. Featuring over fifty detailed entries by international experts, the book offers definitions of key terms, explaining their origin and development. Entries also feature guides to further reading and extensive cross-referencing. Subjects covered include: ● Thinking about landscape ● Cultural evolution ● Social archaeology ● Gender archaeology ● Experimental archaeology ● Archaeology of cult and religion ● Concepts of time ● The Antiquity of Man ● Feminist archaeology ● Multiregional evolution Archaeology: The Key Concepts is the ideal reference guide for students, teachers and anyone with an interest in archaeology. Colin Renfrew is Emeritus Disney Professor of Archaeology and Fellow of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Paul Bahn is a freelance writer, translator and broadcaster on archaeology. YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN THE FOLLOWING ROUTLEDGE STUDENT REFERENCE TITLES: Archaeology: The Basics Clive Gamble Ancient History: Key Themes and Approaches Neville Morley Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt Michael Rice Who’s Who in the Ancient Near East Gwendolyn Leick Who’s Who in the Greek World John Hazel Who’s Who in the Roman World John Hazel ARCHAEOLOGY The Key Concepts Edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2005 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX 14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY the Focus of Archaeological Open-Air Museums (Aoams) Is to Present Both the Tangible and Intangible Past to the Public
    Cunningham (eds) Cunningham and Hurcombe THE LIFE CYCLE OF STRUCTURES IN EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY The focus of Archaeological Open-Air Museums (AOAMs) is to present both the tangible and intangible past to the public. The tangible parts of AOAMs are the archaeological remains and the reconstructions. The intangible and, in some respects the most interesting part of an AOAM, is the story of the people the THE LIFE CYCLE OF STRUCTURES IN STRUCTURES OF CYCLE LIFE THE museum represents. This volume explores the research and visitor agendas of structures and their life cycles as they are experienced ARCHAEOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL by experimental archaeology projects and AOAMs. The papers presented include research undertaken by both academics and craft specialists and demonstrate the value of experiential and experimental research to enhance both the visitor experience and research agendas. The papers were brought together as part of the OpenArch Project’s Dialogue with Science Work Package. OpenArch THE LIFE CYCLE is a five year project with eleven international partners funded with support from the European Commission. OF STRUCTURES IN Structures include houses, boats, forges, and other diverse constructions. The structures are not static entities but change EXPERIMENTAL through time going through a life cycle. Key themes are the birth, life and death of structures. To explore these key themes papers in this BIOGRAPHY APPROACH OBJECT AN volume consider the planning phase, the assembling of materials, ARCHAEOLOGY the construction period and then the maintenance and repair needs and the change of use of structures as they age. For some structures AN OBJECT BIOGRAPHY APPROACH this also includes issues surrounding decay, dilapidation, dismantling and destruction of these experimental structures.
    [Show full text]
  • TAG 2012 Abstracts
    34TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE THEORETICAL ARCHAEOLOGY GROUP Monday 17th – Sunday 19th December 2012 Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology, University of Liverpool CONFERENCE PROGRAMME 1 th Welcome to the 34 ‘Theoretical Archaeology Group’ conference! This conference is organised by the Department of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology (University of Liverpool). Papers will be presented in the Lecture Theatres and a Seminar Room of the Rendall Building, where breaks will be held. There will also be a book sale. This abstracts booklet is structured chronologically by session and Lecture Theatre. The keynote address and wine reception will be located in the Art & Design Academy (Liverpool John Moores University). The TAG party will be held at the Baa Baa at the top of Hardman Street. Acknowledgements are due to the Department for allowing us to host the conference this year. We are grateful to all our speakers and chairs. We hope you enjoy the conference! The TAG2012 Organising Committee 2 Contents Page The application of method and theory in professional archaeology 5 Dressing Sensibly: sensory approaches to dress for archaeologists 7 Time out of Mind? 10 Archaeologies of Rules and Regulations 14 The Role and Importance of the Sky in Archaeology 17 Recreating past lives: themes in bioarchaeology 20 Decentering the Discipline? Archaeology and Extra-Archaeological Communities 23 Disability and Archaeology: Critical Perspectives and Inclusive Practices 28 Trapping in Hunter-Gatherer Prehistoric Europe 31 The Chiming of Crack’d
    [Show full text]
  • Speculation Made Material: Experimental Archaeology & Maker’S
    Speculation Made Material: Experimental Archaeology & Maker’s Knowledge Adrian Currie Penultimate Version, forthcoming in Philosophy of Science Abstract Experimental archaeology is often understood both as testing hypotheses about processes shaping the archaeological record and as generating tacit knowledge. Considering lithic technologies, I examine the relationship between these conceptions. Experimental archaeology is usefully understood via ‘maker’s knowledge’: archaeological experiments generate embodied know-how enabling archaeological hypotheses to be grasped and challenged, further well- positioning archaeologists to generate integrated interpretations. Finally, experimental archaeology involves ‘material speculation’: the constraints and affordances of archaeologists and their materials shape productive exploration of the capacities of objects and human skill in ways relevant to archaeological questions. Acknowledgements This paper has benefited greatly from feedback from two anonymous reviewers, Lucy Osler, Michelle Turner, Cate Frieman, Assaf Nativ, Bruce Routledge, Alison Wylie, as well as from audiences at ANU’s Synapse seminar series, the ArchWorks Virtual Reading Group and the UC Davis Biolab. 1 1. Introduction When philosophers discuss speculation, it is as a theoretical, imaginative, activity. The generation of ideas and hypotheses is implicitly removed from the material activities of experimentation and observation1. When archaeologists consider experimental archaeology, it is often in a hypothesis-testing mode: archaeologists perform experiments to probe ideas about how past processes shape the material record. I won’t deny the importance of archaeological experiments in validating theories of past processes, nor of theoretical speculation. I’ll highlight sins of omission. Speculation in experimental archaeology is intimately linked with the materiality of the archaeological record and proxies: it is speculation made material.
    [Show full text]
  • Experimental Archaeology
    School of Human & Environmental Sciences Experimental archaeology Developing experimental approaches in archaeology at Reading What is experimental archaeology? All archaeologists study the fragmentary records of past human activities, which have been formed and modified over long timescales. Yet the traces we find often relate to activities and skills with which we are not familiar. These traces therefore need to be inter- preted in terms of past ways of life and presented to the wider public in an accessible, questioning and engaging way. Experimental archaeology has an important contribu- tion to make to the achievement of both of these goals. For example it may help us to understand how a build- ing represented only by postholes was constructed, while experimental replication helps us to understand how things were made and used in the past. In partic- ular the microscopic wear traces produced by known experimental activities can be compared with those found on ancient tools. Experiment also helps us to understand how the archaeological record is formed: how artefacts are transported by rivers, the changes that take place when a soil is buried or an earthwork weathers, and the inclusion of micro-traces in the sediments of archaeological sites as a result of specific activities. Like all rigorous scientific methodologies, archaeo- logical experiments seek to control variables in order to make precise measurements concerning those elements of particular interest or importance. For instance, excavations may be conducted at defined intervals to measure how an earthwork changes over time. The key is that good experiments are those which are carried out to test particular theories or hypotheses about the past.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Premises in Experimental Design and Their Bearing on the Use of Analogy: an Example from Experiments on Cut Marks
    Conceptual premises in experimental design and their bearing on the use of analogy: an example from experiments on cut marks Manuel Domı´nguez-Rodrigo Abstract Experimental archaeology embodies a large array of conceptual approaches. In the present work, it is argued that only those methodological approaches maximizing comparability between experiments and case-specific archaeological problems are heuristically scientific. This reduces the range of analogies that can be applied to the past. The adequateness of analogies depends on how the conceptual premises of experiments are designed. A practical example of this is provided through the comparison of referential frameworks created to understand the utility of cut marks to reconstruct butchering behaviors. Keywords Analogy; assumptions; premises; hypothesis testing; cut marks. Introduction Experimental archaeology and actualistic research are integral parts of ‘middle-range’ theory and thus of modern scientific archaeology, which is based on the testing of alternative hypotheses (Binford 1981; Gifford 1981). Hypotheses are framed within specific referential analogs created by careful observation. These referential frameworks are elaborated by controlled documentation of processes in which behaviors of independent agents are understood within their specific contexts and the resulting actions of these agents are diagnosed (Binford 1981; Gifford 1981; Gifford-Gonza´lez 1991; Gould 1965, 1979; Wylie 1982, 1988, 1989). World Archaeology Vol. 40(1): 67–82 Experimental Archaeology ª 2008 Taylor & Francis ISSN 0043-8243 print/1470-1375 online DOI: 10.1080/00438240701843629 68 Manuel Domı´nguez-Rodrigo If there is a hierarchy of principles that can be applied to the components of actualistic research, it can be argued that the most important one is the adequate use of premises (see Wylie 1988) in the elaboration of referential frameworks.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoethnobotany and Household Archaeology at The
    PALEOETHNOBOTANY AND HOUSEHOLD ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE BERGEN SITE: A MIDDLE HOLOCENE OCCUPATION IN THE FORT ROCK BASIN, OREGON by MARGARET MARY HELZER A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Anthropology and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2001 11 "Paleoethnobotany and Household Archaeology at the Bergen Site: A Middle Holocene Occupation in the Fort Rock Basin, Oregon," a dissertation prepared by Margaret M. Helzer in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Anthropology. This dissertation has been approved and accepted by: Dr. C. Melvin Aikens, Chair of the Examining Committee /J- 2 7- 0 [ Date ! l I Committee in charge: Dr. C. Melvin Aikens, Chair Dr. Theresa O'Neil Dr. Dennis Jenkins Dr. Daniel Close Accepted by: Dean of the Graduate School r lll An Abstract of the Dissertation of Margaret Mary Helzer for the degree of Doctor O'f Philosophy in the Department of Anthropology to be taken December 2001 Title: PALEOETHNOBOTANYAND HOUSEHOLD ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE BERGEN SITE: A MIDDLE HOLOCENE OCCUPATION IN THE FORT ROCK BASIN, OREGON Approved: _____;_ ___________________ Dr. C. Melvin Aikens This study analyzes the botanical and archaeological material from a Middle Holocene occupation at the Bergen site, located in the Fort Rock Basin, Oregon. It serves to complement and enhance over a decade of research focused on regional settlement patterns in the Northern Great Basin. While previous studies in the region have focused on broadly based settlement patterns, this study shifted the interpretive lens toward an in-depth analysis of a single family dwelling, which was occupied some 6000 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Paleoethnobotany in Practice Instructor: Shanti Mo
    Anthro 3BB3: Ancient Agriculture to Criminal Investigations: Paleoethnobotany in Practice Instructor: Shanti Morell‐Hart <[email protected]> Instructional Assistant: Christine J. Cluney <[email protected]> Meeting Schedule: Mondays 2:30pm‐ 5:20pm Meeting Location: Kenneth Taylor Hall, Room B122 SMH Office Hours: 11:00am‐1:00pm on Wednesdays SMH Office Location: Chester New Hall, Room 534 CJC Office Hours: by appointment CJC Office Location: Kenneth Taylor Hall, Room B128A Course Description: How can we use botanical evidence to understand the past, from cold cases to very cold cases? What roles did plants play in ancient communities? What aspects of daily life are framed by flora and negotiated through ethnobotanical practice? What happens to plant remains after they become incorporated into the archaeological record, and what are the methods used to study these "ecofacts"? How do paleoethnobotanical interpretations contribute to our understanding of history and structure our public policy? How is botanical forensic evidence used in law enforcement investigations? This course trains students in laboratory methods and interpretations of botanical evidence through hands‐on practice. We explore the major classes of plant remains likely to be encountered in forensic cases and archaeological sites; identify botanical residues and organize the data to make interpretable results; and address major issues within the discipline including preservation, analytical methods, sampling, collection, and interpretation. The course is arranged around 1) exploring the major classes of plant remains likely to be encountered in archaeological sites and court cases; 2) identifying these remains and organizing data to make interpretable results; and 3) addressing major issues within archaeology and forensic botany including preservation, analytical methods, sampling, collection, and interpretation.
    [Show full text]