DOCSLIB.ORG

Landscape Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems Di Hu*

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Landscape Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems Di Hu* PIA Volume 21 (2011), 80-90 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pia.381 Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and Geographical Information Systems Di Hu* This paper will focus on how Geographical Information Systems (GIS) have been applied in Landscape Archaeology from the late 1980s to the present. GIS, a tool for organising and analysing spatial information, has exploded in popularity, but we still lack a systematic overview of how it has contributed to archaeological theory, specifically Landscape Archaeology. This paper will examine whether and how GIS has advanced archaeological theory through a historical review of its application in archaeology. Introduction ularity during the 1960s and 1970s at the Despite the increase in popularity of GIS height of the New Archaeology movement in archaeology in the past decade, there (Bintliff 1996: 246). Landscape Archaeology is still a rift between those who are enthu- can be broadly defined as the study of cul- siastic about its promise to advance theory tural and environmental variables influenc- and those who believe that GIS is mainly a ing the way humans interacted with their map-making tool that does not warrant this landscape (Yamin and Bescherer 1996; David high level of enthusiasm. Through a histori- and Lourandos 1999; Ingold 1993). cal treatment of the development of GIS in Despite its great popularity, defining what Landscape Archaeology, this paper seeks to Landscape Archaeology is and has been is evaluate the contributions to theory made by contentious. On a practical level, Landscape GIS applications in Landscape Archaeology. Archaeology is the study of “diffuse” human Has the use of GIS generated new theory? remains or the cultural spaces “between the Have the practical limitations of GIS preju- sites” (Knapp and Ashmore 1999: 2). From a diced its potential to generate archaeological theoretical standpoint, however, ‘landscape’ theory? This paper will argue that while GIS remains difficult to define clearly because cannot be credited with the emergence of there are different conceptions of space and innovations in spatial analysis, such theoreti- thus what a landscape is (Witcher 1999). cal innovations are enriched through testing The two main definitions of ‘landscape’ can with the aid of GIS. be characterised as ‘scientific/abstract’ and ‘humanised’ (Tilley 1994). The first defini- Definitions of Landscape Archaeology tion sees landscape as quantifiable, univer- sal, objective, neutral, a-temporal, static and Landscape Archaeology has played an ever absolute (among other things), whereas the more important role in understanding the second definition sees landscape as qualita- past since the 1920s, and enjoyed great pop- tive, experienced, contextual, relative, tem- poral and dynamic (Tilley 1994: 14). This latter definition of landscape, as summed up * University of California, Berkeley Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS 81 Fig 1: The ‘humanised’ landscape. by Ingold (1993), is “the world as it is known ologists tend to define “landscape” using to those who dwell therein, who inhabit its a combination of the two (Tilley 1994). For places and journey along the paths connect- example, Witcher emphasised that the sec- ing them.” Archaeologists who espouse this ond definition of “landscape” does not pre- second definition argue that space is not a clude the first: “Integral to such hermeneu- neutral receiver of human action but rather tic and phenomenological approaches has a meaningful medium for, and product of, been a de-quantification of space, permitting human action (Wheatley and Gillings 2002: landscape to be social and qualitative, as well 8). This definition of landscape treats space as economic and geometric” (Witcher 1999: as socially constructed, subjectively expe- 13-14). From the two definitions, one can rienced, and inextricably tied to multiple derive a view of landscape as the context in meanings at multiple times (Bender 1993: 3; which humans survive, cognise the world, Boaz and Uleberg 1995: 252; Green 1990b: act, and make meaning. 358; Hirsch 1995). Therefore, there is no Because the advent of the second under- ‘neutral’ space that researchers can abstract standing of landscape coincided with GIS from social life. Since the mid-1980s, this technological advances in the late 1980s and second definition has become much more early 1990s, most of the studies that aimed popular than the ‘scientific/abstract’ view to innovate methodologically often drew (Attema 1999: 23; Winterbottom and Long from some form of the second definition of 2006: 1356; Witcher 1999: 13-14). landscape. For that reason, this paper focuses However, as Tilley has observed, these two on studies that have attempted to under- conceptions of space and landscape are not stand past landscapes through the second mutually exclusive of each other, and archae- ‘humanised’ definition of space. 82 Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS What is Geographical Information ideal and versatile tool for the study of land- Systems (GIS)? scapes (Gillings and Mattingly 1999). GIS was Geographical Information Systems (GIS) is a used almost immediately by archaeologists set of computer tools for making and ana- as soon as the tools were available. In fact, lysing spatial information (Bolstad 2005: the case studies in the highly influential vol- 1). While all of the fundamentals of spatial ume Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology analysis methods pre-date computer appli- all dealt with landscape (Allen et al. 1990). cations, the advantage of a GIS is its ability In the volume’s introduction, Green argued to compute thousands of complex spatial that only landscape-based archaeological relationships from data, something impos- approaches could fully take advantage of the sible with traditional maps. In a GIS, data capabilities that GIS has to offer as well as can be computed from a ‘raster’ or a ‘vec- advance archaeological theory (Green 1990b: tor’ model, and layers of vectors and rasters 5). Whether or not only landscape-based can be overlaid, giving even more power in approaches could fully take advantage of GIS computing spatial relationships (Aldender- is debatable, but there is a general consen- fer 1996: 4). ‘Vector’ models employ points, sus that GIS is a very powerful tool to study lines, and areas to represent spatial data, landscapes because of its ability simultane- and are good for non-continuous data like ously to analyse space, time, and form (Green boundaries or representing spatial relation- 1990b: 356). ships in the form of topology. ‘Raster’ mod- In addition to analysing the environmen- els are based on small square cells and are tal and economic factors in culture change, better for representing more continuous or Wheatley argued that GIS was ideal for ana- mixed data, such as frequencies of artefacts, lysing social and ritual landscapes because terrain, and distributions of people (Bolstad one could test different proxies for visual 2005: 33-49). Vector and raster models are perception (Wheatley 1993; 1996). Wheat- easily interchangeable. Because data can be ley also argued that GIS can help research- represented in layers, spatial data over time ers explore social organisation more contex- can be easily analysed, with each layer rep- tually (spatially) instead of using terms like resenting a period in time, not unlike tradi- “chiefdoms” that are ambiguously defined tional archaeological stratigraphy (Allen et al. (Wheatley 1996: 76-77). Wheatley’s argu- 1990). GIS software can help researchers see ment for using GIS to explore social organisa- the contingent effects of many factors over tion came after Crumley’s influential article space and time, which gives it a big advan- about using multi-scalar approaches to study tage over static maps (Bolstad 2005). social organisations and landscapes (Crum- Scale is also less of an issue in GIS because ley 1995). Llobera argued that GIS could be one can analyse different types of spatial used to study social space and meaning from data (for example, artefact distributions at more practice-based approaches (Llobera a single site alongside the inter-visibility of 1996; for a more detailed review of the capa- sites) using one single dataset. The continu- bilities of GIS and how it relates to questions ity of scale and integration of statistical and that researchers attempted to answer, see spatial programmes afforded by GIS there- Kvamme 1999). fore make it ideal for Landscape Archaeology GIS can be used not only to help answer (Aldenderfer 1996; Daly and Lock 2004). archaeological and anthropological ques- tions, but also to help us approach such Applicability of GIS in questions in a multi-scalar way (Daly and Landscape Archaeology Lock 2004). This is especially useful because Because GIS organises spatial data and inte- Trifkovic described how many of the prob- grates tools to analyse spatial data, it is an lems plaguing Landscape Archaeology have Advancing Theory? Landscape Archaeology and GIS 83 to do with the tension between the molecular (e.g., Bevan and Conolly 2002 on ‘site’ defini- (individualised) and global scales of agency- tion), it is not clear whether GIS can advance landscape relationships (Trifkovic 2003: 2-3). higher levels of theory. Is the optimism Daly and Lock also maintained that GIS data- expressed by such archaeologists about GIS bases of survey and excavation data avoid the advancing archaeological and anthropologi- de-contextualisation of archaeological mate- cal theory unwarranted? rial common
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fall Quarter 2018 Class Schedule
    FALL QUARTER 2018 CLASS SCHEDULE COURSE NUMBER COURSE TITLE SPECIAL TOPIC (IF APPLICABLE) INSTRUCTOR Core Course Archaeology M201A Graduate Core Seminar Monica Smith Archaeology C220 Archaeology of Death John Papadopoulos Anthropology 219 Selected Topics in Anthropological/Archaeological Theory Issues in Indigenous Archaeology Stephen Acabado Ancient Near East 260 Seminar: Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology Elizabeth Carter Ancient Near East 261 Practical Field Archaeology Archaeological Fieldwork (Ethiopia) Willeke Wendrich Graduate Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, Predynastic Period to Ancient Near East C267A Kara Cooney Seminars New Kingdom Art History C216A Middle Byzantine Art & Architecture Sharon Gerstel Art History C248A Art and Material Culture, Neolithic to 210 B.C. Art & Material Culture of Early China Lothar von Falkenhausen Art History C249A Selected Topics in Chinese Art Lothar von Falkenhausen Classics 245 Computing and Classics Chris Johanson Classics 250 Topics in Greek and Roman Culture and Literature Women's History Amy Richlin Archaeology M205A Selected Laboratory Topics in Archaeology Experimental Archaeology Tom Wake Conservation M210L Cultural Materials Science Laboratory: Technical Study Ioanna Kakoulli Conservation 231 Conservation Laboratory: Stone and Adobe Christian Fischer Conservation 238 Conservation Laboratory: Organic Materials II Ellen Pearlstein Lab Courses Conservation Laboratory: Rock Art, Wall Paintings, and Conservation M250 Ioanna Kakoulli Mosaics Structure, Properties, and Deterioration of
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeology and the Ancient World 1
    Archaeology and the Ancient World 1 ARCH 0100 Field Archaeology in the Ancient World Archaeology and the or a course that addresses similar methodological/scientific topics, which must be approved by the concentration advisor. Appropriate courses could include, for example: Ancient World ARCH 1900 The Archaeology of College Hill ANTH 0500 Past Forward: Discovering Anthropological The concentration in Archaeology and the Ancient World provides an Archaeology opportunity to explore the multi-faceted discipline of archaeology while One introductory course in ancient art history, preferably: 1 examining the critical early civilizations of the so-called ‘Old World’– that ARCH 0030 Art in Antiquity: An Introduction is, the complex societies of the Mediterranean, Egypt, and the Near East. Students will learn about the art, architecture, and material culture of the or an ancient art history course approved by the concentration ancient world, exploring things of beauty and power, as well as the world advisor. Appropriate courses could include, for example: of the everyday. Concentrators will also learn "how to do" archaeology ARCH 0150 Introduction to Egyptian Archaeology and - the techniques of locating, retrieving, and analyzing ancient remains - Art and consider how material culture shapes our understanding of the past. ARCH 0520 Roman Archaeology and Art Concentrators are encouraged to pursue research opportunities through One introductory ARCH course in Egyptian or Near Eastern 1 summer fieldwork, museum experience, or independent study projects. archaeology, art, and/or architecture, for example: The undergraduate concentration in Archaeology and the Ancient ARCH 0152 Egyptomania: Mystery of the Sphinx and World provides students with an opportunity to explore the multi- Other Secrets of Ancient Egypt faceted discipline of archaeology, and encourages an interdisciplinary ARCH 0360 East Meets West: Archaeology of Anatolia approach to engaging with the ancient world.
    [Show full text]
  • Silbury Hill – А Case Study with LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY: SILBURY HILL – a CASE STUDY LIONEL LIONEL SIMS LIONEL SIMS
    VI. LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY AND ARCHAEOASTRONOMY INTEGRATING ARCHAEOASTRONOMY Integrating Archaeology: with Landscape ArchaeoastronomySilbury Hill – а Case Study WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY: SILBURY HILL – A CASE STUDY LIONEL LIONEL SIMS LIONEL SIMS Abstract Weaknesses in both archaeoastronomy and landscape archaeology can be overcome by their combination. This is demonstrat- ed through a new interpretation of Silbury Hill in Avebury, Wiltshire. If monuments in their local landscape are considered as one choice in a system of alternatives, tests can be devised to intepret the prehistoric builders‘ intentions. This exercise finds that the builders chose a prescriptive arrangement of views of Silbury Hill to simulate a facsimile of the moon entering and returning from the underworld. Key words: dark moon, crescent moon, paired alignments, Silbury Hill, West Kennet Avenue, Beckhampton Avenue, Ave- bury, underworld. Introduction with a level circular summit platform.To date, no con- vincing explanation as to its meaning has been offered. Archaeoastronomy has to move on from the legacy of Archaeologists have long expected that excavating the the Thom paradigm if it is to prove its relevance to sci- interior of the hill would reveal burials or deposited ar- ence (Sims 2006). Over the last three decades the dis- tefacts that would provide the clues to its decoding. In cipline has established robust field methods procedures spite of the many tunnels that have been dug, so much and, in so doing, falsified Thom‘s claim for a prehis- so that the Hill has now to be rescued from imminent toric precision astronomy (Thom 1971; Ruggles 1999; collapse, no burials have been found nor interpretive Hoskin 2001, Belmonte 2006; Schaefer 1993; North breakthroughs made.
    [Show full text]
  • Archaeoastronomy in the Ancient Americas
    Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, June 2003 ((CC 2003) Archaeoastronomy in the Ancient Americas Anthony F. Aveni11 Since its popular resurgence in the 1960s, the interdisciplinary field of archaeoas- tronomy, which seeks evidence from the written as well as the unwritten record to shed light on the nature and practice of astronomy and timekeeping in ancient civ- ilizations, has made ever-increasing significant use of the ararchaeological record.d. Thiss esessaybrieflytouchesesontheoriginandd historyy ofofthesesedevelopments,, discussess the methodology of archaeoastronomy, and assesses its contributions via the dis- cussssioionn ofof seselelectcted casese ststudieiess atat sisitetess inin Nortrth,h, Soututh,h, andd Mesosoamerericica.a. Spececifiifi-- cally, archaeology contributes significantly to clarifying the role of sky events in site planning. The rigorous repetition of axial alignments of sites and individual oddly shaped and/or oriented structures can be related to alterations in the calen- darr often initiated by crcrososs-cultururalal contact. TTogetherer withh evevidencee acquirired frfrom other forms of the ancient record, archaeology also helps clarify the relationship between functional and symbolic astronomical knowledge. In state-level societies, it offers graphic evidence that structures that served as chronographic markers also functioned as performative stages for seasonally timed rituals mandated by cosmic connections claimed by the rulership. KEY WORDS: archaeoastronomy; archaeology; architecture; orientation (alignment). HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE Mostst ancicientt cicivivililizazatitionss paidid sosome atattetentntioionn toto whatat goeses on inin ththee skskyy.. Thee periodic cycles of the sun, moon, and planets are the most pristine, predictable, and consequently, the most reliable natural phenomena on which to anchor the counting of the days and the making of the calendar.
    [Show full text]
  • Thoughts on a Method for Zooarchaeological Study of Quotidian Life
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert Interpreting household practices Barcelona, 21-24 november 2007 Treballs d’Arqueologia 13 (2007): 5-27 THOUGHTS ON A METHOD FOR ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF QUOTIDIAN LIFE Diane Gifford-Gonzalez Abstract: The emerging focus on the structures and practices everyday life in archaeology allows us to envision the full range of occupations, activities, and actors involved in social and ecological maintenance and reproduction. Despite this, archaeological interpretation still tends to be framed in terms of grand narratives, in which the "story" is about the agency of large-scale processes as they play out in human existence. This paper offers some comments on these problems from the perspective of a zooarchaeologist analysis, exploring more deeply the articulation of mid- dle-range archaeological theory to practice theory. Resumen: El creciente interés de la arqueología en las estructuras y prác- ticas cotidianas permite contemplar la amplia gama de ocupaciones, actividades y actores que participan del mantenimiento y reproducción social y ecológico. A pesar de ésto, las interpretaciones arqueológicas siguen tendiendo a estructurarse en términos de las grandes narrativas, en las cuales la narración prima los procesos a largo plazo sobre la exis- tencia humana. En este artículo se comentan estos problemas desde una perspectiva zooarqueológica, explorando con mayor profundidad la articulación de la teoría arqueológica de rango medio con la teoría de la práctica y con otras aportaciones teóricas de orden general. Resum: L’interés creixent de l’arqueologia en les estructures i pràctiques quotidianes permet la contemplació de l’ampla varietat d’ocupacions, activitats i actors que participen en el manteniment i la reproducció social i ecològica.
    [Show full text]
  • ARCHY 469 – Theory in Archaeology
    ARCHY 469 – Theory in Archaeology Lecture: TTh 1:30 – 3:20pm, SMI 307 Instructor: Debora C. Trein Instructor’s office: DEN 133 Office Hours: F 11:30 – 1:30pm, or by appointment Email: [email protected] Source: unknown artist Course Description: How do we go from artifacts to statements about the lives of people in the past? How much of the past can we truly know, when most of the pertinent evidence has long since degraded, and when the people we aim to study are long dead? This course provides a broad survey of the major theoretical trends that have shaped anthropological archaeology over time. We will outline and examine some of the major publications, debates, and shifts in archaeological thought that have influenced the diverse ways in which we claim to know what we know about the past. In this course, we will explore the notion that the various intellectual approaches we employ to make statements about the past are influenced by the different perspectives we have of the relationship between the past and the present, the kinds of meaning we believe can be derived from the archaeological record, the questions we seek to answer, and the methods we use to retrieve (and prioritize) information. This course will start with a broad overview of the major periods of theoretical development in archaeology from the 1800s to the present, followed by discussions of how archaeologists tackle common archaeological questions through diverse theoretical lenses (and why sometimes they don’t tackle these questions at all). While the politics of archaeological practice will be 1 | Page touched upon throughout the course, we will devote the last quarter of the course to the repercussions of archaeological practice to present-day communities and stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Landscape Archaeology - M
    ARCHAEOLOGY – Vol. I - Landscape Archaeology - M. Gojda LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY M. Gojda Institute of Archaeology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic Keywords: landscape, space, site, monument, archaeology, geography, survey, mapping, fieldwalking, non-destructivity. Contents 1. The Concept of Landscape: Past and Present 1.1 Perceptions of the Landscape and their Reflection in the Arts 1.2 Contemporary Views of the Landscape in Philosophy and the Natural Sciences 1.3 The Landscape Phenomenon in Contemporary Archaeology and Anthropology 2. Sites and Monuments in the Context of Landscape 2.1 The Birth of Interest: Founding Fathers 2.2 New Impulses: Crawford and his Discoveries 2.3 From the Archaeology of Settlements to the Archaeology of Landscapes 3. The Main Fields Concerned with Understanding Landscape Archetypes 3.1 Landscape and Spatial Archaeology 3.2 Historical and Settlement Geography, Cartography, GIS 4. Non-Destructiveness and Future Developments in Landscape Archaeology Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary The gradually increasing awareness of the deep mutual relationships between the natural and social environments determines the ever more pronounced contemporary orientation of archaeology towards the protection and study of cultural landscapes and their historical development. The landscape is a phenomenon claimed by the advocates of both positivist (scientific) and postmodern approaches to archaeology. Each has found within it inspiration for the expansion of its paradigms. A summary is presented of the understanding to date of the landscape phenomenon and the expression of man’s relation to it in the arts, philosophy, natural sciences, and particularly in archaeology and anthropology.UNESCO The roots of the –burge EOLSSoning interest in the discovery and documentation of monuments in the landscape, and of the tracing of their relationships both to natural landscapeSAMPLE components and to eaCHAPTERSch other, are examined.
    [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]
  • Visualization and Collaborative Practice in Paleoethnobotany
    ARTICLE VISUALIZATION AND COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE IN PALEOETHNOBOTANY Jessica M. Herlich and Shanti Morell-Hart Jessica M. Herlich is a Ph.D. candidate at the College of William and Mary and Shanti Morell-Hart is Assistant Professor at McMaster University. aleoethnobotany lends unique insight into past lived Methodologies, Practices, and Multi-Proxy Understandings experiences, landscape reconstruction, and ethnoecolog- There are many methodologies within paleoethnobotany that ical connections. A wide array of paleoethnobotanical P lead to distinct yet complementary pieces of information, methodologies equips us to negotiate complementary under- whether due to scale of residue (chemical to architectural) or the standings of the human past. From entire wood sea vessels to technology available (hand loupes to full laboratory facilities). individual plant cells, all sizes of botanical remains can be The limits of archaeobotanical analysis are constantly expand- addressed through the tools available to an archaeobotanist. As ing as the accessibility and capabilities of technology improve. paleoethnobotanical interpretation is interwoven with other This is true for microscopes and software, which make it possi- threads of information, an enriched vision of the relationships ble for a paleoethnobotanist to capture and enhance the small- between landscape and people develops. est of cellular structures, and for telecommunications and digi- tal records, which are expanding the possibilities for decipher- Collaboration is a necessary component for archaeobotanical ing archaeobotanical material and for collaborating with distant analysis and interpretation. Through collaboration we make stakeholders. Improvements in technology are an integral part the invisible visible, the unintelligible intelligible, the unknow- of the exciting future of paleoethnobotany, which includes col- able knowable.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory and Practice in Archaeology
    THEORY AND PRACTICE IN ARCHAEOLOGY This book aims to show through a series of examples that an interpretive archaeology dealing with past meanings can be applied in practice to archaeological data, and that it can also contribute effectively to social practice in the world of today. Seven of the nineteen contributions included have been specifically written for this volume to act as an overview of the way archaeology has developed over the last ten years. Yet Ian Hodder goes beyond this: he aims to break down the separation of theory and practice and to reconcile the division between the intellectual and the ‘dirt’ archaeologist. Faced with public controversy over the ownership and interpretation of the past, archaeology needs a clear image of itself, be able to gain funding, win public confidence and manage the heritage professionally and sensitively. Hodder asserts that archaeologists cannot afford to ignore general theory in favour of practice any more than they can afford an ivory-tower approach. Theoretical debate is important to any discipline, particularly in archaeology, if it is not to become complacent, self-interested and uncritical Theory and Practice in Archaeology captures and extends the lively debate of the 1980s over symbolic and structural approaches to archaeology. It will be essential reading for students of archaeology and for those involved in, and responsible for, heritage management. Ian Hodder is a Reader in Archaeology at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of Darwin College and a Director of the Cambridge
    [Show full text]
  • Shanti Morell-Hart's CV
    SHANTI MORELL-HART Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Building 50, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305-2034 39 Boardman Place, #204, San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415) 747-0698 Email: [email protected] _______________________________________________________________________________ EDUCATION: 2002-2011: Ph.D. in Anthropology, the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) Dissertation title: Paradigms and Syntagms of Ethnobotanical Practice in Ancient Northwestern Honduras . Committee members: Rosemary Joyce (Anthropology), Christine Hastorf (Anthropology), Louise Fortmann (Environmental Science and Policy Management). 2003: M.A. in Anthropology, the University of California at Berkeley (UCB). 1999-2002: M.A. coursework in Anthropology, the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). 1994-1998: B.A. in Latin American Studies (Concentration in Anthropology) B.A. in Anthropology (Bio-Archaeology Track) Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT Senior Project title: Insect Feasts of Mexico: Aztec Entomophagy and its Eradication and/or Appropriation by the Spanish. 1997: Coursework in History, Literature, and Archaeology (conducted in Spanish) at La Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Mexico. TEACHING EXPERIENCE: 2013-present: Lecturer at Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Courses ([undergraduate course number]/ [graduate course number]): Anthro 100B/200B: Lifeways of the Ancient Maya (AU13) Anthro 114B/200B: Landscape Archaeology and Global Information Systematics (WI14) Anthro 100B/200B: Peoples and Cultures of Ancient Mesoamerica
    [Show full text]
  • Arcl0042 Theory and Methods for the Archaeology of the Ancient World 2018-2019
    UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 1 ARCL0042 THEORY AND METHODS FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD 2018-2019 Core module for second year BA ClassiCal ArChaeology and ClassiCal Civilisation 15 Credits; Thursday 9:00–11:00, Room B13 IoA Turnitin Class ID: 3884000 Turnitin Password: IoA1819 Deadlines for coursework for this module: Monday 22/11/18; Monday 14/01/19 Target dates for return of marked coursework to students: 13/12/18; 09/02/19 Coordinator: Dr. Corinna Riva Room: 406; Telephone: 07679 7536 Email: [email protected] Please see tHe last page of tHis docuMent for iMportant inforMation about subMission and Marking procedures, or links to tHe relevant webpages. 1. OVERVIEW Module Contents: This module provides students witH an introduction to arcHaeological tHeory and MetHodology relevant to tHe understanding and analysis of tHe societies and cultures of tHe ancient world. THe module will include an introduction to key paradigMs in tHe History of arcHaeological tHeory (antiquarianisM, culture History, processual arcHaeology, interpretive arcHaeology, agency tHeory etc); and key issues and MetHods in data-analysis (excavation strategies, asseMblage analysis, artifact typologies, regional analysis etc). Summary weekly sChedule: (Term 1) 1. 04/10/18: History and THeory of Classical ArcHaeology 2. 11/10/18: New ArcHaeology and Ancient Ecologies 3. 18/10/18: Interpreting Classical ArcHaeology, in tHe UK and Europe 4. 25/10/18: Individuals and Identities 5. 01/11/18: Gender and Politics in Classical ArcHaeology [5–10/11/18 – Reading Week] 6. 15/11/18: ResearcH designs in arcHaeology 7. 22/11/18: Site forMation processes 8.
    [Show full text]