Anth 551: Strategies in

Course Meetings: Wednesdays, 8:30-11:30, Science I, Room 143

Instructors: Ruth Van Dyke, Associate Professor Siobhan Hart, Visiting Ass’t Professor email: [email protected] email: [email protected] ofc phone: 607-777-2487 ofc phone: 607-777-2860 ofc location: Science I Room 110B ofc location: Science I Room 239 ofc hrs: Fri 10 am – 12 pm, or by apt ofc hrs: Mon 3:30-5:30, or by apt

Course Prospectus: Strategies in Archaeology is intended to introduce students to the major theoretical frameworks shaping anthropological archaeology. The course emphasizes current issues and debates in the discipline rather than a comprehensive historical overview. However, the early weeks of the course will be devoted to a consideration of the historical foundations of major trends in the field. Following this introductory section, we will intensively survey current theoretical positions and issues that are having significant impacts on the practice of archaeology today.

A central theme guiding the course is that of the archaeological research design. Throughout the semester we will address the nature of archaeological enquiry by “taking apart” case studies to get at their objectives and the underlying structure of the research design used to address their goals. Issues raised through readings and related discussions will resurface throughout the course as we examine the underpinnings of various perspectives and the attempts by archaeologists to articulate theory and practice.

Some of the major topics we will be examining are processual archaeology (which characterizes much of North American archaeology) and Marxist, feminist, postprocessual, postcolonial, and collaborative approaches. In addition to addressing the concepts that these various perspectives bring to bear on research design, we will be concerned with critically evaluating how researchers’ perceptions are affected by the dialectical relationship between theory and data.

Course Format and Requirements: The format of the course is a three-hour seminar. Some material will be presented in a lecture style, but most meetings will be discussion-based. Regular, informed discussion is expected of all students in a seminar, and you should come to each session prepared to talk about any and all of the readings. Lack of participation in class discussions will have a negative effect on your grade and on your learning.

Course Materials: There are two required texts and one recommended text that can be obtained at the University bookstore or though online booksellers. One copy of each will be on 2-hour reserve in the Newcomb Reading Room at Bartle Library (when they become available).

1 Required Texts Trigger, Bruce (2006) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gamble, Clive (2007) Archaeology: The Basics (2nd edition). London: Routledge.

Recommended Text Bentley, R.A., H.D.G. Maschner and C. Chippendale, eds. (2008) Handbook of Archaeological Theories. Lanham: Altamira.

The Gamble book is a very short and simple introduction that covers archaeology at a general level, bringing everyone into the course at approximately the same place. Trigger provides a comprehensive overview of historical developments in archaeology, and you will read most of it over the course of the semester. Bentley et al. is a useful resource that will clarify many of the theoretical topics we will address.

Other readings: Most of the readings for the course will come from journal articles and book chapters. These can be found on electronic reserve in “Course Reserves” on our course Blackboard site.

Grades This is a graduate level course and all students – undergraduate and graduate – will be graded using the same criteria. Grades are based on your annotations, class participation, midterm essay, research design, and final essay, as follows:

Annotations: 30% Participation: 10% Midterm Essay: 15% Research Design: 30% Final Essay: 15%

Annotations (30%): Annotations are capsule summaries that are descriptive and critical. Over the semester you will write annotations following the framework below. You must submit annotations for TWO works for at least 8 class meetings. You must submit 4 of your 8 sets of annotations before the midterm, and 4 after. We will assign a letter grade to each set of annotations, and we will drop the lowest grade at the end of the semester. You are required to do all 8 sets – you cannot do 7 and then ask to “drop” or omit the final set. You may not submit more than two annotations in one week. Please do not annotate readings from your textbooks (Gamble, Trigger, Bentley et al.) – these readings are descriptive and synthetic and thus are not suitable for annotation. Also, very short reading excerpts are not suitable for these annotations. Each annotation must be submitted at the class for which the reading is assigned. No late annotations will be accepted.

The annotations are aimed at facilitating your efforts to “take apart” scholarly works to get at the researcher’s objectives and the underlying structure of the research design used to address their goals. The emphasis is on thinking critically and reflectively on the readings, not simply

2 summarizing them.

Annotation Template: Each annotation should be approximately 2 double-spaced pages in length. Address the following questions in essay format.

1. What three quotes capture the critical import of the text?

2. What is the main argument of the text?

3. Describe at least three ways that the main argument is supported.

4. Describe the main literatures that the text draws on and contributes to.

5. Describe at least three of the text’s themes or topics that are of significance to our

understanding of the theory and practice of archaeology.

6. Explain how this essay could inform your research (as you imagine it), and/or how it

shifts your understanding of the analytic possibilities of the discipline.

Participation (10%): All students are expected to have completed the readings prior to class meetings and come prepared to synthesize and discuss them in depth. This requires that you come prepared with something to stimulate and contribute to conversation (e.g., cross-cutting themes, questions, or critiques). Because this is a small seminar, it is even more important that students come to class ready to participate in discussion. You will be evaluated on the quality of your contributions. We will provide you with a midterm assessment of your participation to date to let you know where you need to improve.

Midterm Essay (15%): The midterm will consist of a take-home essay exam that will cover the course material up to the date of the midterm. You will receive the question(s) for the midterm no later than 1 week before the exam is due. Due in class on October 27

Final Essay (15%): The final will consist of a take-home essay exam that will cover the course material from the second half of the semester. You will receive the question(s) for the midterm no later than 1 week before the exam is due. Due by 12 noon on December 15

Research Design (30%): The research design consists of a paper of approximately 12-15 pages (12 pt. font, double-spaced, 1” margins), in which you present a specific research problem, linked to a particular theoretical and/or methodological framework, and a plan for investigating the problem. This research design may form the core of your research proposal when you take Anth 592 (Proposal Writing) next fall. Due in class on November 24

3 The specific topic for the research design is at your discretion. However, you are advised to choose a subject and study area with which you already have some familiarity and/or which you may choose for your MA or PhD research. It is to your benefit to choose a topic relatively early in the semester so that you can begin your research as soon as possible. As you begin to think about your topic, please come speak to me about it so I can offer guidance. We will be talking about research design throughout the semester, but we will devote one class, on October 27, to a specific discussion of some of the nuts and bolts of putting a good research design together. You should come prepared to discuss the topic and direction of your research design.

General grading detail for written assignments:

Letter Comments Grade A Excellent. Well-written, clearly communicated, demonstrates a clear understanding of material and shows critical and creative thinking. B/B+/A- Good to very good. Fulfilled the assignment, with a few minor improvements suggested. Shows understanding that goes beyond simple definitions. C/C+/B- Basically completed the assignment as required, but little more. General understanding demonstrated. D/C- Content missing and limited demonstration of understanding. F Missing significant content or did not follow guidelines. Major omissions and no understanding demonstrated.

4 Course Schedule and Readings

September 1 - Introductions

Gamble, Clive (2007) Archaeology: The Basics. London: Routledge. Please read before the first class meeting.

September 8 - no class, Rosh Hashanah

September 15 - Culture History - Siobhan

Trigger, chapters 1, 5, 6

Steward, Julian (1942) The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology. American Antiquity 7(4):337-343.

Rouse, Irving (1960) The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25(3): 313-323.

Childe, V. Gordon (1929) “Chapter IV: Danubian I.” In The Danube in Prehistory, pp. 36-47. Oxford: Clarendon.

September 22 - New and Processual Archaeology - Ruth

Trigger pp. 353-444

Flannery, Kent (1968) Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. In Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, B.J. Meggers (ed.), pp. 67-87. Washington, D.C.: Anthropological Society of Washington.

Steponaitis, Vincas (1978) Location Theory and Complex Chiefdoms: A Mississippian example. In Mississippian Settlement Patterns, Bruce Smith (ed.), pp. 417-453. New York: Academic.

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

September 29 – The “Post-Processual Turn” - Siobhan

Trigger pp. 444-483

Hodder, Ian (1985) Postprocessual Archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 8:1-26.

Kohl, Philip (1993) Limits to a Post-Processual Archaeology (Or, the Dangers of a New Scholasticism). In : Who Sets the Agenda?, Norman Yoffee and Andrew Sherratt (eds.), pp. 13-19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5 Berggren, Åsa and Ian Hodder (2003) Social Practice, Method and Some Problems of Field Archaeology. American Antiquity 68(3):421-434.

Shanks, Michael (2004) Three Rooms. Journal of Social Archaeology 4(2):147-181.

Smith, Laurajane (1994) Heritage Management as Postprocessual Archaeology? Antiquity 68(259):300-309.

October 6 – Analogy and Ethnoarchaeology - Ruth

Galloway, Patricia (1992) The Unexamined Habitus: Direct Historic Analogy and the Archaeology of the Text. In Representations in Archaeology, Jean-Claude Gardin and Christopher Peebles (eds.), pp. 178-195. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Harry, Karen (2005) Ceramic Specialization and Agricultural Marginality: Do Ethnographic Models Explain the Development of Specialized Pottery Production in the Prehistoric American Southwest? American Antiquity 70:295-319.

Brown, Kenneth L. (2004) Ethnographic Analogy, Archaeology, and the African Diaspora: Perspectives from a Tenant Community. Historical Archaeology 38(1):79-89.

Kramer, Carol (1979) An Archaeological View of a Contemporary Kurdish Village: Domestic Architecture, Household Size, and Wealth. In Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, edited by Carol Kramer, pp. 139-163. Columbia University Press, New York.

Bowser, Brenda J. (2000). From Pottery to Politics: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Political Factionalism, Ethnicity, and Domestic Pottery Style in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7:219–248.

Lyons, Diane and A. Catherine D’Andrea (2003) Griddles, Ovens, and Agricultural Origins: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Bread Baking in Highland Ethiopia. American Anthropologist 105:515-530.

Optional: Stark, Miriam T. (2003) Current Issues in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(3):193-242.

October 13 - Technology and Style – Siobhan

Schiffer, Michael and James Skibo (1987) Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Change. Current Anthropology 28:595-622.

Spielmann, Katherine, Jeannette Mobley-Tanaka, and James Potter (2006) Style and Resistance in the Seventeenth-Century Salinas Province. American Antiquity 71:621-647.

6 Weissner, Polly (1983) Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48(2):253-276.

Wobst, H. Martin (1977) Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, Charles E. Cleland (ed.), pp. 317-342. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology.

Gosselain, Olivier (1998) Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, edited by Miriam Stark, pp. 78-106. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Cunningham, Jerimy (2003) Rethinking Style in Archaeology. In Essential Tensions in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by T. L. VanPool and C. S. VanPool, pp. 23-40. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

October 20 - Materiality and Practice – Ruth

Dornan, Jennifer L. (2002) Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9:303-329.

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

Ingold, Tim et al. (2008) Materials against Materiality. Archaeological Dialogues 14 (1):1-38.

Pauketat, Timothy (2000) The Tragedy of the Commoners. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John E. Robb, pp. 113-129. Routledge, London.

Silliman, Stephen (2001) Agency, Practical Politics, and the Archaeology of Culture Contact. Journal of Social Archaeology 1(2):190-209.

Joyce, Rosemary (2008) Practice in and as Deposition. In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practices, edited by Barbara J. Mills and William H. Walker, pp. 25-40. SAR Press, Santa Fe.

Optional Taylor, Timothy (2008) “Materiality.” In Handbook of Archaeological Theories, R. A. Bentley, H.D.G. Maschner and C. Chippindale (eds.), pp. 297-320. Lanham: Altamira.

Thomas, Julian (2007) The Trouble with . Journal of Iberian Archaeology 9/10:11-23.

7 October 27 – Research Design/Problems and Politics of Archaeological Knowledge Production – Siobhan MIDTERM ESSAY DUE IN CLASS

NOTE: Come prepared to discuss your ideas for your research design.

Hamilakis, Yannis (1999) La Trahison des Archéologues? Archaeological Practice as Intellectual Activity in Postmodernity. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12:60-79.

Parker Pearson, Mike and Ramilisonina (2004) Public Archaeology and Indigenous Communities. In Public Archaeology, Nick Merriman (ed.), pp. 224-239. London: Routledge.

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

Bernbeck, Reinhard and Susan Pollock (2007) ’Grabe wo Du stehst!’ An Archaeology of Perpetrators. In Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics, Yannis Hamilakis and Philip Duke (eds.), pp. 217-234. Walnut Creek: .

Gassiot Ballbé, Ermengol and Dawnie Wolfe Steadman (2008) The Political, Social and Scientific Contexts of Archaeological Investigations of Mass Graves in Spain. Archaeologies 4(3):429-444.

November 3 – Space, Place, & Landscape - Ruth, with Adam Smith

Inomata, Takeshi (2006) Plazas, Performers, and Spectators: Political Theaters of the Classic Maya. Current Anthropology 47:805-842.

Tilley, Christopher (1994) Chapters 1 & 2. In A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths, and Monuments. Oxford: Berg.

Glowacki, Mary and Michael Malpass (2003). Water, Huacas, and Ancestor Worship: Traces of a Sacred Wari Landscape. Latin American Antiquity 14(4):431-448.

Smith, Adam T. (2003). Chapter 1, from The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities, pages 30-77. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Ashmore, Wendy (2002) “Decisions and Dispositions”: Socializing Spatial Archaeology. American Anthropologist 104(4):1172-1183.

Collwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip and T.J. Ferguson (2006) Memory Pieces and Footprints: Multivocality and the Meanings of Ancient Times and Ancestral Places Among the Zuni and Hopi. American Anthropologist 108(1):148-162.

8 Optional: Van Dyke, Ruth M. (2004) Memory, Meaning, and Masonry: The Late Bonito Chacoan Landscape. American Antiquity 69(3):413-431.

November 10 – Marxism and Time, History, & Evolution – Randy McGuire

Trigger pp. 322-353, and 486-496

Bamforth, Douglas B. (2002) Evidence and Metaphor in Evolutionary Archaeology. American Antiquity 67:435-452.

Coward, Fiona, Stephen Shennan, Sue Colledge, James Connoly, Mark Collard (2008) The Spread of Neolithic Plant Economies from the Near East to Northwest Europe: A Phylogenetic Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:42-56.

Van Dyke, Ruth M. (2008) Temporal Scale and Qualitative Social Transformation at Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 18(1):70-78.

McGuire, Randall (2008) Marxism. In Handbook of Archaeological Theories, R. A. Bentley, H.D.G. Maschner and C. Chippindale (eds.), pp. 73-93. Lanham: Altamira.

Lull, Vicente (2000a) Death and Society: A Marxist Approach. Antiquity 74:576-580.

Lull, Vicente (2000b) Argaric Society: Death at Home. Antiquity 74:581-590.

Optional O’Brien, Michael, R. Lee Lyman and Robert D. Leonard (2003) “What is Evolution? A Response to Bamforth”. American Antiquity 68 (3):573-580.

Bamforth, Douglas B. (2003) “What is Archaeology? (Or, Confusion, Sound, and Fury, Signifying ...)”. American Antiquity 68 (3):581-584.

November 17 – Feminisms and Identities – Siobhan

Conkey, Margaret W. and Joan M. Gero (1997) Programme to Practice: Gender and Feminism in Archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 411-437.

Pollock, Susan (1991) Women in a Men’s World: Images of Sumerian Women. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, Joan Gero and Margaret Conkey (eds.), pp. 366-387. Oxford: Blackwell.

Joyce, Rosemary A. (2000) A Precolumbian Gaze: Male Sexuality Among the Ancient Maya. In Archaeologies of Sexuality, edited by Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, pp. 263-283. New York: Routledge.

9

Voss, Barbara L. (2000) Feminisms, Queer Theories, and the Archaeological Study of Past Sexualities. World Archaeology 32(2):180-192.

Smith, Adam T. (2004) The End of the Essential Archaeological Subject. Archaeological Dialogues 11:1-35 (with comments).

Ferguson, T. J. (2004) Academic, Legal, and Political Contexts of Social Identity and Cultural Affliation Research in the Southwest. In Identity, Feasting, and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest: Proceedings of the 2002 Southwest Symposium, edited by Barbara J. Mills, pp. 27-41. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Optional Rubin, Gayle (2000) Sites, Settlements, and Urban Sex: Archaeology and the Study of Gay Leatherman in San Francisco. In Archaeologies of Sexuality, edited by Robert A. Schmidt and Barbara L. Voss, pp. 62-88. New York: Routledge.

Bernardini, Wesley (2005) Reconsidering Spatial and Temporal Aspects of Prehistoric Cultural Identity: A Case Study from the American Southwest. American Antiquity 70(1):31-54.

November 24 – Memory and Meaning – Ruth

RESEARCH DESIGN DUE

Alcock, Susan E. (2002) Archaeologies of Memory. In Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories, by Susan E. Alcock, pp. 1-35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M Alt (2003) Mounds, Memory, and Contested Mississippian History. In Archaeologies of Memory, edited by Ruth M. Van Dyke and Susan E. Alcock, pp. 151-179. Blackwell, Oxford and Malden, Mass.

Khatchadourian, Lori (2007). Unforgettable Landscapes: Attachments to the Past in Hellenistic Armenia. In Negotiating the Past in the Past: Identity, Memory, and Landscape in Archaeological Research, edited by Norman Yoffee, pages 43-75. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Handsman, Russell G. (2008) Landscapes of Memory in Wampanoag Country–and the Monuments upon Them. In Archaeologies of Placemaking: Monuments, Memories, and Engagement in Native North America, Patricia E. Rubertone (ed.), pp.161-194. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

Lucero, Lisa (2008) Memorializing Place Among Classic Maya Commoners. In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practice, edited by Barbara J. Mills and William H. Walker, pp. 187- 206. SAR Press, Santa Fe.

10

Van Dyke, Ruth M. (2009) Chaco Reloaded: Discursive Social Memory on the Post-Chacoan Landscape. Journal of Social Archaeology 9(2):220-248.

December 1 – Collaborative and Indigenous Archaeologies - Siobhan

McGuire, Randall (2008) Chapter 4: Mexico. In Archaeology as Political Action, pp.140-187. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Atalay, Sonya (2006) Indigenous Archaeology as Decolonizing Practice. American Indian Quarterly 30(3 & 4):280-310.

McDavid, Carol (2008) Archaeologies that Hurt; Descendants that Matter: A Pragmatic Approach to Collaboration in the Public Interpretation of African-American Archaeology. In The Heritage Reader, G. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J.H. Jameson, Jr., J. Schofield (eds.), pp. 514-523. London: Routledge.

Scham, Sandra A. (2001) The Archaeology of the Disenfranchised. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8(2):183-213.

McGhee, Robert (2008) Aboriginalism and the Problems of Indigenous Archaeology. American Antiquity 73(4):579-597.

Silliman, Stephen W. (2010) The Value and Diversity of Indigenous Archaeology: A Response to McGhee. American Antiquity 75(2): 217-220.

Wilcox, Michael (2010) Saving Indigenous Peoples from Ourselves: Separate but Equal Archaoelogy is not Scientific Archaeology. American Antiquity 75(2): 221-227.

Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, T.J. Ferguson, Dorothy Lippert, Randall H. McGuire, George P. Nicholas, Joe E. Watkins, and Larry J. Zimmerman (2010) The Premise and Promise of Indigenous Archaeology. American Antiquity 75(2): 228-238.

Optional McGhee, Robert (2010) Of Strawmen, Herrings, and Frustrated Expectations. American Antiquity 75(2): 229-243.

December 8 - Representations of Archaeology - Ruth

Gibb, James G. et al. (2000) Imaginary, But by No Means Unimaginable: Storytelling, Science, and Historical Archaeology. Historical Archaeology 34(2):1-24.

Gable, Eric and Richard Handler (1996) After Authenticity at an American Heritage Site. American Anthropologist 98(3):568-557.

11

Riley, Mark, David Harvey, Tony Brown, and Sara Mills (2005) Narrating Landscape: The Potential of Oral History for Landscape Archaeology. Public Archaeology 4:15-26.

Watkins, Joe (2006) Communicating Archaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 6:100-118.

Webb, Sharon (2006) Making Museums, Making People: The Representation of the Sámi through Material Culture. Public Archaeology 5:167-183.

Van Dyke, Ruth M. (n.d.) Imagined Narratives: Sensuous Lives in Ancient Chaco. In Making Senses of the Past: Toward a Sensory Archaeology, edited by Jo Day. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Ms. out for review, July 2010.

FINAL ESSAY DUE Wednesday, December 15, noon

12