ARCHAEOLOGY CORE COURSE (GRADUATE)cepeter/anth 603 syllabus.pdf · ANTH 603 Archaeology Core Course (Graduate) Spring Term 2016 Prof. Christian E. Peterson ... Bruce G. 2006. A History

DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MĀNOAANTH 603 Archaeology Core Course (Graduate)Spring Term 2016 Prof. Christian E. Peterson

ARCHAEOLOGY CORE COURSE (GRADUATE)

CRN: 88746Time: Wed. 10:30-1:00 AMPlace: Dean 104Instructor: Prof. Christian E. Peterson

Office: Saunders 346E Office Hours: TBA

Office Phone: (808) 956-8193 E-mail: [email protected]

[M]any of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.--Obiwan Kenobi to Luke Skywalker, Return of the Jedi, 1983

Archaeology is about facts. If you want the truth, go next door to the Philosophy Department.--Indiana Jones, The Temple of Doom, 1997

Course Description and Objectives

ANTH 603 is an intensive graduate-level introduction to archaeological argument andinvestigation. It covers issues of causality, explanation, epistemology, and methodological practicein empirical social science research, and introduces some of the dominant competing approachesto the structure of archaeological knowledge. It is ostensibly not, however, a course aboutabstract high-level social theory—most empirical social science research proceeds just finewithout such vanity. Nor is it a course in "archaeological methods"—if by this term we mean themechanics of data collection and analysis. Rather, it is a primer in standard Mertonian (i.e.sociological) "middle-range theory" applied to archaeology (don't confuse this definition with theidiosyncratic one of the same name coined by archaeologist Lewis Binford). The first part of thecourse draws heavily on the "philosophy of science" and the "critical thinking and reading"literature, in addition to some unfashionable common sense. A substantial number of earlyreadings are in sociology, history, and political science, where a good deal of attention as beenpaid to such issues. In the second half of the course, we shift gears and apply what we'velearned about the research process to the evaluation of knowledge claims about the human past.Case studies will be drawn largely from the complex societies literature, and a comparativeanalytical framework is heavily emphasized throughout. The course reading load is substantial: atleast 100 pages per week, in addition to writing and other assignments. We will be reading threetexts more or less in their entirety, as well as numerous other articles assigned on a week-by-week basis.

Student Learning Outcomes

By the end of this course, students will:1. Understand the place of archaeological anthropology within the social sciences and itsconnection to other disciplines;2. Recognize the difference between "theory," inference, and explanation;3. Become familiar with both case-based and comparative (cross-case) research;4. Be exposed to empirically-rigorous arguments that are subject to evaluation;5. Be exposed to major research themes and perspectives in the archaeological study ofcomplex societies.

– 1 –

mailto:[email protected]

Course Requirements

This course has five core requirements. Students must: (1) carefully and critically read allassigned texts; (2) contribute regularly to seminar discussions with incisive and articulatecommentary in verbal and written form; (3) prepare one ore more in-class presentations inconjunction with another student, and jointly lead the discussions to follow; (4) produce anoriginal, well-reasoned answer to a practice comprehensive exam question in archaeology; and(5) meet all deadlines specified in the Course Calendar below.

Lectures and Student-Led Discussions: Working in pairs, students are required to develop andpresent one lecture based on the assigned weekly readings during the course of the semester.These lectures will be 60–90 minutes long; use of MS PowerPoint, OO Impress, or similarpresentation software, is required. Each lecture will be followed by a student-led discussion of thesubstantive issues raised therein. (Your instructor will moderate as needed.) Lecturers willprepare a set of discussion questions for circulation by email (in .pdf format) to all members ofthe seminar no later than the morning of the day before the lecture is to be presented. Studentswho are not presenting in a given week should come to class prepared to address thesequestions (and pose any others they feel are relevant). Available lecture slots are January 27,February 03, February 09, February 17,and February 24.

Melbourne Method Critiques & Responses: From March 02 onward, class will proceed accordingto a modified version of the Melbourne Method, a seminar format used by Marshall Sahlins at theUniversity of Chicago, which he adopted from a visiting Australian scholar. The class will bedivided into two separate groups of roughly equal numbers; the roles of each group will alternateevery week. Both groups will read the assigned texts. Members of the first group will critique thereadings and individually circulate written comments (~2 pp. in length, single spaced, saved in.pdf format) to the rest of the class by Sunday morning; members of the second group will writeshort responses to these critiques (also ~2 pp. long, single spaced, and in .pdf format), which areto be circulated to everybody no later than the morning before class meets. All seminarparticipants are to have read both sets of documents ahead of Wednesday's class, as they willform the basis of our discussion. The following week the roles will rotate, so that by the end ofthe course, each group will have performed both tasks three times. This is obviously a verydemanding schedule—the seminar will only be successful to the extent that these deadlines aremet. The first critique and response paper for each student are worth less than the second andthird to account for any learning curve.

There are several advantages to using the Melbourne Method format: (1) students will developrhetorical skills that are an important component of academic life; (2) by the time we meet as aclass each week, many basic issues will already be on the table, so our discussions can proceedfrom a more advanced level, allowing us to get more out of our engagement with each set ofreadings and each other; and (3) students will leave the course with a robust set of notes,essays, and ideas that may prove useful in future work.

Practice Comprehensive Exam Question Answer: The capstone assignment of the course is toprepare a written answer (~5 pp. in length, single spaced) to a hypothetical comprehensive examquestion in archaeology. The question will be provided by the instructor, and draw upon readingsassigned in class. Answers will take the form of comparative essays that synthesize and analyzeinformation in evaluation of the specified knowledge claim. In order to do so, students will needto apply the critical thinking skills discussed earlier in the course. Practice comprehensive examquestion answers must be submitted to your instructor by email as a .pdf document, no laterthan midnight, May 04.

– 2 –

Required Reading

We will be reading widely in this class. A good half of what we will read is concerned with thestructure of archaeological knowledge, and the recognition of critical differences between variousschools of archaeological thought. The other half is focused on the study of complex societiesand use of the comparative method in archaeology. Among these assigned readings are thefollowing "textbooks" (available online and from the UHM Bookstore):

Tilly, Charles. 2008. Explaining Social Processes. Paradigm Publishers: Boulder.

Diamond, Jared, and James A. Robinson (eds.). 2010. Natural Experiments of History.Belknap Press: Cambridge.

Smith, Michael E. 2012. The Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies. CambridgeUniversity Press: Cambridge.

Other required reading takes the form of journal articles and book chapters. Specific reading listswill be posted online on Laulima at least one week prior to the relevant class meetings.

Recommended Reading

Abbott, Andrew. 2004. Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. W. W.Norton: New York.

Gerring, John. 2012. Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework. Second Edition.Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Optional Textbooks for Those New to Archaeology

Students who have never taken an archaeology course before may benefit from an additionalintroductory textbook, or two. I recommend the following:

Gibbon, Guy. 2014. Critically Reading the Theory and Methods of Archaeology: AnIntroductory Guide. AltaMira Press: New York. (A short primer on making sense ofarchaeological arguments.)

Johnson, Matthew. 2010. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction, 2nd Edition. Wiley-Blackwell: New York. (A concise guide to current archaeological theory and practice.)

Hodder, Ian (editor). 2012. Archaeological Theory Today, 2nd Edition. Polity Press: Malden.(Another edited volume on with an all-star cast of contributors.)

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn. 2012. Archaeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, 6thEdition. Thames and Hudson: New York. (One of the few survey texts geared towardgraduate students.)

Trigger, Bruce G. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd Edition. CambridgeUniversity Press: Cambridge. (The classic historical overview, updated.)

Wenke, Robert J., and Deborah I. Olzewski. 2007. Patterns in Prehistory: Humankind's FirstThree Million Years, 5th Edition. Oxford University Press: Oxford. (Perhaps the bestcomparative treatment of human sociocultural development yet written.)

– 3 –

Grading Policy

There are a total of 100 points available to be earned in this course (each equivalent to onepercent of your final grade). Students earning a cumulative total equal to or more than 83 pointspass the course and will be assigned a letter grade according to the table below. Because this isan ANTH graduate core class, students earning less than 83 points (equivalent to a "B"letter grade) automatically fail the course and must retake it at a later date in orderto advance through the graduate program. NOTE: Only under truly extraordinarycircumstances will I consider giving an incomplete in this course.

ADEQUATE PERFORMANCE INADEQUATEExcellent Good Fair Poor Failing GradeA+ 97–100 B+ 87–89 C+ 77–79 D+ 67–69 F <60A 93–96 B 83–86 C 73–76 D 63–66A- 90–92 B- 80–82 C- 70–72 D- 60–62

GRADE BREAKDOWN:10 points—Lecture & student-led discussion (performed in twos or threes)05 points—Melbourne Method written critique 1 05 points—Melbourne Method written response 110 points—Melbourne Method written critique 2 10 points—Melbourne Method written response 210 points—Melbourne Method written critique 3 10 points—Melbourne Method written response 320 points—Weekly participation in seminar20 points—Practice comprehensive exam question answer (~5 pp.)

Laulima & Email

A course shell has been created for this course on Laulima (https://laulima.hawaii.edu/). I willpost copies of the course syllabus, readings lists, articles, and assignments in .pdf format there;expect these to be updated regularly. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to open, view, and/orprint .pdf documents (available free at http://www.adobe.com).

I will email you important announcements regarding the assigned readings, class cancellations,or scheduling changes as these occur during the semester. It is your responsibility to ensure thatyour UH email account is set to forward these announcements to the account you use mostfrequently (if different from the above) and that your UH inbox is emptied regularly.

Academic Dishonesty

Each student is responsible for the content of work submitted or presented as their own. If youhave any questions about what constitutes acceptable use of others’ ideas or information whenmaking presentations, completing assignments, or writing your practice comprehensive examquestion please come see me and/or consult the University of Hawai'i at Mānoa's online StudentConduct Code: http://www.studentaffairs.manoa.hawaii.edu/policies/conduct_code/. Plagiarismwill not be tolerated under any circumstances. Depending on the severity of the offence,sanctions may range from the receipt of lower or failing grades for the exercise or course inquestion to dismissal from the university without possibility of readmission. Infractions will bereferred to the UH administration for disciplinary action.

– 4 –

http://www.studentaffairs.manoa.hawaii.edu/policies/conduct_code/

http://www.adobe.com/

Disabilities and Special Needs

Students with disabilities or in need of special classroom accommodations must contact theinstructor and UHM KOKUA as soon as possible ([V/T] 956-7511 or [V/T] 956-7612; email:[email protected]). Additional information is available online (http://www.hawaii.edu/kokua/).KOKUA is located on the ground floor of the Queen Lili‘uokalani Center for Student Services,Room 103. Services are confidential and free of charge.

– 5 –

Tentative Course Calendar

WEEK 01 Introduction & Logistics(Jan. 13)

WEEK 02 What Is Archaeology?(Jan. 20) General seminar discussion

WEEK 03 The Art (and Science) of Argumentation(Jan. 27) First presentation and student-led discussion

WEEK 04 Causality, Explanation, Epistemology & Methodological Practice(Feb. 03) Second presentation and student-led discussion

WEEK 05 Theories of the Middle Range(Feb. 10) Third presentation and student-led discussion

WEEK 06 Case Studies, Comparisons & Tests of Ideas(Feb. 17) Fourth presentation and student-led discussion

WEEK 07 Natural Experiments of History(Feb. 24) Fifth presentation and student-led discussion

WEEK 08 Modes of Comparison in Archaeology(Mar. 02) Melbourne Method assignment 1: Group 1 critique/Group 2 response

WEEK 09 Dealing with Diversity(Mar. 09) Melbourne Method assignment 2: Group 2 critique/Group 1 response

WEEK 10 Agents, Aggrandizers, Managers & Mooches(Mar. 16) Melbourne Method assignment 3: Group 1 critique/Group 2 response

WEEK 11 SPRING RECESS—NO CLASS(Mar. 23)

WEEK 12 Households, Communities & Change—Pt. 1(Mar. 30) Melbourne Method assignment 4: Group 2 critique/Group 1 response

WEEK 13 INSTRUCTOR AWAY AT CONFERENCE—NO CLASS(Apr. 06)

WEEK 14 INSTRUCTOR AWAY AT CONFERENCE—NO CLASS(Apr. 13)

WEEK 15 Households, Communities & Change—Pt. 2(Apr. 20) Melbourne Method assignment 5: Group 1 critique/Group 2 response

WEEK 16 Interaction, Integration & Ecology(Apr. 27) Melbourne Method assignment 6: Group 2 critique/Group 1 response

WEEK 17 COMP. QUESTION ANSWER DUE—NO CLASS(May. 04)

– 6 –


What Is Archaeology?Readings for Week 02

Required

Nichols, Deborah L., Rosemary A. Joyce, and Susan D. Gillespie2003 Is Archaeology Anthropology? In Archaeology is Anthropology, edited by Susan D. Gillespie and

Deborah L. Nichols, pp. 3–13. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 13.

Schiffer, Michael B.2011 Archaeology as Anthropology: Where Did We Go Wrong? The SAA Archaeological Record 4:22–28.

Smith, Michael E., Gary M. Feinman, Robert D. Drennan, Timothy Earle, and Ian Morris2012 Archaeology as a Social Science. PNAS 109:7617–7621.

Kintigh, Keith W., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Mary C. Beaudry, Robert D. Drennan, Ann P. Kinzig, Timothy A. Kohler, W. Frederick Limp, Herbert D. G. Maschner, William K. Michener, Timothy R. Pauketat, Peter Peregrine, Jeremy A. Sabloff, Tony J. Wilkinson, Henry T. Wright and Melinda A. Zeder.

2014 Grand Challenges for Archaeology. American Antiquity 79(1):5‒24.

Cobb, Charles R.2014 The Once and Future Archaeology. American Antiquity 79(4):589‒595.

– 1 –


The Art (and Science) of ArgumentationReadings for Week 03

Required

Martin, Michael2011 Geertz and the Interpretive Approach in Anthropology. In Causal Explanation for Social Scientists,

edited by Andrew. P. Vayda and Bradley B. Walters, pp. 56‒71. Alta Mira: New York.

Healy, Kiren2015 F**k Nuance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.

Boyer, Pascal2011 From Studious Irrelevancy to Consilient Knowledge: Modes of Scholarship and Cultural Anthropology.

In Creating Consilience: Evolution, Cognitive Science, and the Humanities, edited by Edward Slingerland and Mark Collard, pp. 113–129. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Smith, Michael E.2015 How Can Archaeologists Make Better Arguments? The SAA Archaeological Record 15(4):18‒23.

Recommended

Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, ad Joseph M. Williams2008 "Part 3: Making a Claim and Supporting It" (Chapters 7–11). In The Craft of Research, 3rd Edition,

pp. 103–170. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. (The text on argumentation in academia.)

Haber, Stephen1999 Anything Goes: Mexico's "New" Cultural History. Hispanic American Historical Review 79:309–330.

(This is a nice discussion of the issues of ontology and epistemology in history that is also relevant toarchaeology. In short, Haber asks the important question: "How would you know if you are wrong?")

– 1 –


Causality, Explanation, Epistemology & Methodological PracticeReadings for Week 04

Required

Tilly, Charles2008 Explaining Social Processes. Parts I and II: "Introduction" and "Concepts and Observations" (Chs.

1‒6, pp. 2‒65. Paradigm Publishers: Boulder.

Wylie, Alison2002 The Reaction Against Analogy. In Thinking From Things: Essays in the Philosophy of Archaeology,

pp. 136‒153. University of California Press: Berkeley.

Recommended

Abbott, Andrew2004 Methods of Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences. W. W. Norton: New York. (A fantastic

primer on different ways of thinking in the social sciences and their underlying mechanics . A must read for those about to embark on research of their own. Ch. 1: "Explanation," is most relevant to this week's subject.)

Kelley, Jane H. and Marsha P. Hanen1988 Archaeology and the Methodology of Science. University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque. (An

excellent but often overlooked text on the application of the scientific method in archaeology.)

Gerring, John2012 Social Science Methodology: A Unified Framework, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press:

Cambridge. (An excellent introduction to epistemological and methodological pluralism in the socialsciences. Gerring presents a "unifying" framework for social science research based in hypothesis formulation, description and causation. Each of these three topics is associated with a set of criteria that help us to define best practice.)

– 1 –


Theories of the Middle RangeReadings for Week 05

Required

Abend, Gabriel2008 The Meaning of "Theory". Sociological Theory 26:173‒199.

Merton, Robert K.1968 Chapter 2: On Sociological Theories of the Middle Range. In Social Theory and Social Structure,

Enlarged Edition, pp. 39‒72. The Free Press: New York.

Raab, L. Mark and Albert C. Goodyear1984 Middle Range Theory in Archaeology: A Critical Review of Origins and Application. American

Antiquity 49:255–268.

Fogelin, Lars2007 Inference to the Best Explanation: A Common and Effective Form of Archaeological Reasoning.

American Antiquity 72:603‒625.

– 1 –


Case Studies, Comparisons & Tests of IdeasReadings for Week 06

Required

Gerring, John2006 Chapter 1: The Conundrum of the Case Study; Chapter 2: What is a Case Study?; and Chapter 3:

What is a Case Study Good For? In Case Study Research: Principles and Practices, pp. 1–63. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. (This reading is not as long as it appears at first to be. Understand what Gerring is saying here, but don't don't get mired down in too many details.)

Tilly, Charles2008 Explaining Social Processes. Part III: "Explanations and Comparisons" (Chs. 7‒10), pp. 68‒117.

Paradigm Publishers: Boulder.

– 1 –


Natural Experiments of HistoryReadings for Week 07

Required

Dunning, Thad2008 Improving Causal Inference: Strengths and Limitations of Natural Experiments. Political Research

Quarterly 61(2): 282–293.

Kirch, Patrick V.2011 Controlled Comparison and Polynesian Cultural Evolution. In Natural Experiments in History, edited

by Jared Diamond and James A. Robinson, pp. 15–52. Belknap Press: Cambridge.

Nunn, Nathan2011 Shackled to the Past: The Causes and Consequences of Africa's Slave Trades. In Natural

Experiments in History, edited by Jared Diamond and James A. Robinson, pp. 142–184. Belknap Press: Cambridge.

Banerjee, Abhijit, and Lakshmi Iyer2011 Colonial Land Tenure, Electoral Competition, and Public Goods in India. In Natural Experiments in

History, edited by Jared Diamond and James A. Robinson, pp. 185–220. Belknap Press: Cambridge.

Diamond, Jared, and James A. Robinson2011 Afterword: Using Comparative Methods in Studies of Human History. In Natural Experiments in

History, edited by Jared Diamond and James A. Robinson, pp. 257–275. Belknap Press: Cambridge.

Recommended

Dunning, Thad2012 Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge University Press:

Cambridge. (An extensive, up-to-date treatment that covers the discovery, analysis, and evaluation of natural experiments.)

– 1 –


Modes of Comparison in ArchaeologyReadings for Week 08

Required

Smith, Michael E., and Peter Peregrine2012 Approaches to Comparative Analysis in Archaeology. In The Comparative Archaeology of Complex

Societies, edited by Michael E. Smith, pp. 4–20. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Smith, Michael E.2012 Archaeology, Early Complex Societies, and Comparative Social Science History. In The Comparative

Archaeology of Complex Societies, edited by Michael E. Smith, pp. 321–329. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Trigger, Bruce G.2003 Chapter 2: Comparative Studies. In Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study, pp. 15–

39. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Peregrine, Peter2012 Power and Legitimation: Political Strategies, Typology, and Cultural Evolution. In The Comparative


Earle, Timothy, and Kristian Kristiansen2010 Introduction: Theory and Practice in the Late Prehistory of Europe. In Organizing Bronze Age

Societies: The Mediterranean, Central Europe, and Scandinavia Compared, edited by Timothy Earleand Kristian Kristiansen, pp. 1–33. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Recommended

Kirch, Patrick V.1984 The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. (Kirch, like

everyone else working on Polynesia, relies unduly heavily on ethnographic information, even though by the time this volume appeared there was beginning to be some useful archaeological data to provide time depth. Despite what I see as some conceptual confusion about what Kirch is up to, it’s a classic work anyone seriously interested in comparative archaeology must read sooner or later.)

Earle, Timothy1997 How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford University Press:

Stanford. (Earle compares three regions: the Upper Mantaro Valley [Peru], Thy [Denmark], and Hawai'i. He places aspiring elites' self-aggrandizing strategies at the core of the forces of social change in each region. Earle identifies three such forces: economic, ideological, and military. Although he considers political power in all societies to be based on a shifting balance of all three forces, finally, it is control over economic production that carries the day for Earle.)

– 1 –

Smith, Adam T.2003 The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities. University of

California Press, Berkeley. (A very good book by the intellectual successor to Bruce Trigger [who died in 2006]. Like Trigger, it is similarities, not differences that Smith finds compelling and in need of explanation).

Peregrine, Peter N., Carol R. Ember, and Melvin Ember2007 Modeling State Origins Using Cross-Cultural Data. Cross-Cultural Research 41:75–86. (Peregrine

and the Embers join forces in an application of the archaeoethnological approach.)

Blanton, Richard, and Lane Fargher2008 Collective Action in the Formation of Premodern States. Springer: New York. (Blanton and

Fargher are the current belles of the comparative archaeology ball. Their concern is in studying egalitarianism [that is, democratizing mechanisms] in early state structures. They utilize a standard causal analysis of HRAF-variable codings for a large number of archaeological and historical cases.)

Mann, Michael1986 The Sources of Social Power, Volume 1: A History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760.

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. (The definitive, magisterial work of comparative analysis in sociology. Volume 1 is a must read for archaeologists—the inspiration for Earle's 1997book cited above.)

– 2 –


Dealing with DiversityReadings for Week 09

Required

Feinman, Gary M.2012 Comparative Frames for the Diachronic Analysis of Complex Societies: Next Steps. In The

Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies, edited by Michael E. Smith, pp. 21–43. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Wilson, Gregory D., Jon Marcoux, and Brad Koldehoff 2006 Square Pegs in Round Holes: Organizational Diversity between Early Moundville and Cahokia. In

Leadership and Polity in Mississippian Society, edited by Brian M. Butler and Paul D. Welch, pp. 43–72. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Occasional Paper, No. 33.

Drennan, Robert D., Christian E. Peterson, and Jake R. Fox2010 Degrees and Kinds of Inequality. In Pathways to Power, edited by T. Doug Price and Gary M.

Feinman, pp. 45–76. Springer: New York.

Lillios, Katina T.2011 Conclusions. In Comparative Archaeologies: The American Southwest (AD 900–1600) and the

Iberian Peninsula (3000–1500 BC), edited by Katina T. Lillios, pp. 277–286. Oxbow Books: Oxford

Recommended

Sahlins, Marshall D.1963 Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative

Studies in Sociology and History 5:285–303.

Sanders, William T., and David Webster1978 Unilinealism, Multilinealism, and the Evolution of Complex Societies. In Social Archaeology: Beyond

Subsistence and Dating, edited by Charles L. Redman, Mary Jane Berman, Edward V. Curtin,William T. Langhorne, Jr., Nina M. Versaggi, and Jeffery C. Wanser, pp. 249–302. Academic Press:New York.

Rautman, Alison E.1998 Hierarchy and Heterarchy in the American Southwest: A Comment on McGuire and Saitta.

American Antiquity 63:325–333.

Feinman, Gary M., Kent G. Lightfoot, and Steadman Upham2000 Political Hierarchies and Organizational Strategies in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity

65:449–470.

– 1 –


Agents, Aggrandizers, Managers & MoochesReadings for Week 10

Required

Clark, John E., and Michael Blake 1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland

Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and John W. Fox, pp. 17–30. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Spencer, Charles S.1993 Human Agency, Biased Transmission, and the Cultural Evolution of Chiefly Authority. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 12:41–74.

Smith, Eric Alden, and Jung-Kyoo Choi2007 The Emergence of Inequality in Small-Scale Societies: Simple Scenarios and Agent-Based

Simulations. In The Model-Based Archaeology of Socionatural Systems, edited by Timothy A. Kohler and Sander E. van der Leeuw, pp. 105–119. School for Advanced Research Press: Santa Fe.

Eerkens, Jelmer W.2013 Free-Riding, Cooperation, and Population Growth: The Evolution of Privatization and Leaders in

Owens Valley, California. In Cooperation and Collective Action: Archaeological Perspectives, edited byDavid Carballo, pp 151–174. University Press of Colorado: Boulder.

Recommended

Hayden, Brian1995 Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. In Foundations of Social

Inequality, edited by T. Douglas Price and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 15–86. Plenum Press: New York.

Weissner, Polly2009 The Power of One? Big Men Revisited. In The Evolution of Leadership: Transitions in Decision Making

from Small-Scale to Middle-Range Societies, edited by Keven J. Vaughn, Jelmer W. Eerkens, and Jonathan Kantner, pp. 195–222. School of Advanced Research Press: Santa Fe.

Kennett, Douglas J., Bruce Winterhalder, Jacob Bartruff, and Jon M. Erlandson2009 An Ecological Model for the Emergence of Institutionalized Social Hierarchies on California’s Northern

Channel Islands. In Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution, edited by Stephen Shennan, pp. 297–314. University of California Press: Berkeley.

Kohler, Timothy A., Denton Cockburn, Paul L. Hooper, R. Kyle Bocinsky, and Ziad Kobti2012 The Coevolution of Group Size and Leadership: An Agent-Based Public Goods Model For Prehispanic

Pueblo Societies. Advances in Complex Systems 15. DOI: 10.1142/S0219525911003256.

– 1 –


Households, Communities & Change—Pt. 1Readings for Week 12

Required

Arnold, Jeanne E. 2006 Households and Production on the Pacific Coast: The Northwest Coast and California in Comparative

Perspective. In Household Archaeology on the Northwest Coast, edited by Elizabeth A. Sobel, D. Ann Trieu Gahr, and Kenneth M. Ames, pp. 270–285. International Monographs in Prehistory: Ann Arbor.

Van Gijseghem, Hendrik, and Kevin J. Vaughn 2008 Regional Integration and the Built Environment in Middle-Range Societies: Paracas and Early Nasca

Houses and Communities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:111–130.

Peterson, Christian E., and Gideon Shelach2010 The Evolution of Early Yangshao Period Village Organization in the Middle Reaches of Northern

China's Yellow River Valley. In Becoming Villagers: Comparing Early Village Societies, edited by Matthew S. Bandy and Jake R. Fox, pp. 246–275. University of Arizona Press: Tucson.

Hastorf, Christine A.2010 Sea Changes in Stable Communities: What Do Small Changes in Practices at Catalhoyuk and Chiripa

Imply About Community Making? In Becoming Villagers: Comparing Early Village Societies, edited by Matthew S. Bandy and Jake R. Fox, pp. 140–161. University of Arizona Press: Tuscon.

Recommended

Lesure, Richard G., and Michael Blake2002 Interpretive Challenges in the Study of Early Complexity: Economy, Ritual, and Architecture at Paso

de la Amada, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:1–24.

– 1 –


Households, Communities & Change—Pt. 2Readings for Week 15

Required

Drennan, Robert D., and Christian E. Peterson2012 Challenges for Comparative Study of Early Complex Societies. In The Comparative Archaeology

of Complex Societies, edited by Michael E. Smith, pp. 62–87. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Peterson, Christian E., and Robert D. Drennan2012 Patterned Variation in Regional Trajectories of Community Growth. In The Comparative


Kuijt, Ian2009 Population, Sociopolitical Simplification, and Cultural Evolution of Levantine Neolithic Villages. In

Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution, edited by Stephen Shennan, pp. 315–328. University of California Press: Berkeley.

– 1 –


Interaction, Integration & EcologyReadings for Week 16

Required

Berrey, C. Adam2015 Inequality, Demography, and Variability Among Early Complex Societies in Central Pacific Panama.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 40:196–212.

Kennett, Douglas J., Bruce Winterhalder, Jacob Bartruff, and Jon M. Erlandson2009 An Ecological Model for the Emergence of Institutionalized Social Hierarchies on California’s Northern

Channel Islands. In Pattern and Process in Cultural Evolution, edited by Stephen Shennan, pp. 297–314. University of California Press: Berkeley.

Fletcher, Roland2012 Low-Density, Agrarian-Based Urbanism: Scale, Power, and Ecology. In The Comparative Archaeology

of Complex Societies, edited by Michael E. Smith, pp. 285–320. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Artursson, Magnus, Timothy Early, and James Brown2016 The Construction of Monumental Landscapes in Low-Density Societies: New Evidence from the

Early Neolithic of Southern Scandinavia (4000–3300 BC) in Comparative Perspective. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 41:1–18.

Recommended

Kohler, Timothy A., Denton Cockburn, Paul L. Hooper, R. Kyle Bocinsky, and Ziad Kobti2012 The Coevolution of Group Size and Leadership: An Agent-Based Public Goods Model For Prehispanic

Pueblo Societies. Advances in Complex Systems 15. DOI: 10.1142/S0219525911003256.

Kolb, Michael J.2012 The Genesis of Monuments in Island Societies. In The Comparative Archaeology of Complex

Societies, edited by Michael E. Smith, pp. 138–164. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Wills, W. H., and Wetherbee Bryan Dorshow2012 Agriculture and Community in Chaco Canyon: Revisiting Pueblo Alto. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 31:138–155.

– 1 –

Documents

ARCHAEOLOGY CORE COURSE (GRADUATE)cepeter/anth 603 syllabus.pdf · ANTH 603 Archaeology Core Course (Graduate) Spring Term 2016 Prof. Christian E. Peterson ... Bruce G. 2006. A History