LAB METHODS IN ARCHAEOLOGY (ANTH 452/552)

WTR 2008

M/W 2:00-3:50

Instructor: Dr. Virginia L. Butler Office: 141L, Cramer Hall

Office Hours: Tue 10:30-11:30; Wed 11:30-12:30; or by appointment

Phone: 503.725-3303; e-mail: butlerv@pdx.edu

“We cannot go out and describe the world in any old way we please and then sit back and demand that an explanatory and predictive theory be built from that description.” (Lewontin, R. 1974: The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change)

This lab methods course will introduce you to classification and analysis of archaeological materials. Classification is a fundamental aspect of archaeological inquiry. Classifications are best viewed not as self-evident and intuitive devices, but as archaeological constructs designed to help identify and explain temporal and spatial patterning in the archaeological record. Any archaeological phenomenon (site, feature, modified and unmodified object) can be classified in a multitude of ways and measured at some scale. Decisions about which attributes to measure and approaches to classification depend on the researcher’s theoretical perspective, the specific research question, as well as the facilities and expertise of the analyst.

This class will examine various approaches to classification, particularly related to technology, function, and style, and will focus on lithics--flaked and ground stone. These materials are ubiquitous in prehistoric archaeological contexts---and their study underlie numerous interpretations of mobility and land use patterns, subsistence, and regional interaction and trade, just to name a few examples. This class will give you a working knowledge of these materials, as well as sufficient background to develop and evaluate classifications and measurements for other archaeological remains.

This class will involve a mix of lecture, discussion and in-class (and out-of-class) analysis of materials. I have tried to organize each week’s meetings around a research topic; in Monday’s class we will review the topic in a lecture-discussion format and in Wednesday’s class you will put some of the issues into practice through a lab exercise, most of which will have to be completed outside of class. The last 2.5 weeks of the course will have an open format--you will primarily be working on a final project that you will develop as a formally written paper. I will be in class to answer questions and give suggestions.

Besides the Banning text, you will also be reading several papers that I will post on WEBCT. These are required and should be read by class time on the date they are listed in the course schedule. Part of your grade is based on class participation--so be prepared to discuss the papers in class. I have also put together a loose packet (available from CLEAN COPY) of descriptions, illustrations, definitions, and short papers that relate to the materials and issues we cover in class. Bring these to class so that you can refer to them during our meeting.

Given the quantitative nature of archaeological data and the importance of quantification to artifact analysis, you will be asked to complete several of the lab exercises using a statistical software package, SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) for Windows. I will provide detailed information on the computer, data entry, and analysis during class. Previous background in computers or statistics is not required for this class. Hopefully, however, after you complete the course, you will appreciate the value of quantitative approaches in archaeology and be inspired to take other classes to increase your knowledge of these most important tools. OPTIONAL: graduate students and others that want additional background using SPSS, may purchase an SPSS user manual from many bookstores (Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and Understanding Data, S.B. Green et al., see listings on Amazon ~$4-5) as well as the software itself (PSU bookstore has copies of SPSS Graduate Pack, 12.0 for windows for PC).

In sum, this class will give you hands-on experience with archaeological materials, hopefully a clear sense of what we can learn from them, how to go about setting up an analysis project, and some facility with the computer so that you can assess the significance of your findings quantitatively.

Class attendance is mandatory. Unless you have a medical excuse or family emergency, I will deduct four points (out of possible 200 pts) from your grade for every missed class, except for the last several sessions, which are open labs for your final projects. I will not make any exceptions to this policy so please do not ask.

Course Requirements: Undergraduates students

-8 Lab exercises (ea. 10 pts; total 80 pts)

-Readings and Class Discussion (30 pts)

-Final Project Write-up (90 pts)

TOTAL 200 points

GRADUATE STUDENTS: in addition to the above requirements, you will have two additional assignments. 1) An annotated bibliography on a topic related to analytic methods in archaeology. And 2) Oral presentation of your final project to the class.

-8 lab exercises (ea. 6 pts; total 48)

-Readings & Discussion (22 pts)

-Final Project (write-up) (60 pts)

- Final project (oral presentation) (40 pts)

- Synthesis of published information on artifacts or features from 10 or more reports. (30 pts)

TOTAL 200 points

I will provide specific information on these assignments on separate handouts. I will not accept any assignments after their due date, unless of illness or family emergency.

Additional Notes:

Incompletes: The Department of Anthropology does not permit instructors to give students "incompletes" unless the student, the faculty, and the Department Chair endorse a student-initiated petition. You need a really, really, good reason (serious illness or family emergency) to obtain an incomplete. Pass/No Pass: Also note that Anthropology majors taking the class to fulfill major requirements must take the course for a grade, not Pass/No Pass.

Required Text (available from Bookstore)

Banning, E.B.

2000 The Archaeologist’s Laboratory: the analysis of archaeological data. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.

Class Schedule

Date	Topics

___________________________________________________________________________

1/7	Introduction; Systematics; paradigmatic classification vs. grouping

Banning Ch. preface, 1, 3 (pp. 35-57)

1/9	Classification, What are Data? Scales of Measurement; accuracy vs.	precision; validity; graphs, tables, descriptive statistics; Banning Ch. 1, 2

Lab 1.

_____________________________________________________________________________

1/14	Function, Style, Technology; Campbell, 1984; Allen 1996, Close 1989; Banning Ch. 3 again

1/16	Chi-Square; Bruce Bradley’s FLINTKNAPPING (video); Banning Ch. 2;

Lab 2.

_____________________________________________________________________________

1/21	MLK HOLIDAY

1/23	Flaked Stone; general questions they address; basics of technology

Banning Ch. 8; Campbell 1984;

Finish review of measurement issues—ubiquity, diversity (richness, evenness) –Banning Ch. 5, pp. 109-113. Lab 3

__________________________________________________________________

1/28	What can lithics tell us about hunter-gatherer organization and technology? Binford 1979; Kuhn 1995

1/30	Computer Lab: Intro to SPSS. Lab 4. Class meets-Cramer Rm 1

Banning Ch. 3 (pp. 57-69).

FIELD TRIP: Flintknapping/Ground Stone Tool Manufacturing:

Saturday FEB 2. to AINW. $60/~8 hours. Not required, but strongly recommended. This is great chance to get an in-depth overview of lithic technology and hands-on practice with making stone tools and studying lithic debitage

__________________________________________________________________

2/4	geologic sourcing of raw materials; Hughes 1993; generalized flake cores vs.	bifaces; Teltser 1991.

2/6	Lab 5. Lithic Technology Classification

___________________________________________________________________________

2/11	Approaches to Stylistic Analysis; Projectile Points; Seriation;

Flenniken and Raymond 1986; Thomas 1986; Bettinger

et al. 1991; Banning Ch. 13

2/13	Lab 6. Classifying Lower Columbia River projectile points DID NOT DO

_____________________________________________________________________________

2/18	Establishing Tool Function; Whittaker pp. 280-288;

Ground Stone; Stewart 1996; Lab 6: use wear.

2/20	Lab 7. Classification of Lower Columbia ground stone

_____________________________________________________________________________

2/25	Lab 8. Historic Artifact Analysis

2/27	Final Lab Project – open lab

___________________________________________________________________________

3/3	Final Lab Project

3/5	Final Lab Project _____________________________________________________________________

3/10	Final Lab Project

3/12	Final Lab Project

Wed, Mar 19, 12:30-14:20 (Meet for Grad Student final project presentations)

Required Course Readings (will post on WEBCT)

Allen, M.S.

1996 Style and Function in East Polynesian Fish-Hooks. Antiquity. 70:97-116.

Bettinger, R.L. and J.F. O’Connell, and D.H. Thomas

1991 Projectile Points as Time Markers in the Great Basin. American Anthropologist 93:166-172.

Binford, L.R.

1979 Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255-273.

Campbell, S.K. (editor)

1984 Artifact Analysis. In Research Design for the Chief Joseph Dam Cultural Resources Project, pp. 97-110. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, District.

Close, A.

Identifying style in stone artifacts: a case study from the Nile Valley. In Alternative Approaches to Lithic Analysis (D.Henry and G.Odell, Eds), pp. 3-26. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 1.

Flenniken, J.J. and A.W. Raymond

1986 Morphological Projectile Point Typology: Replication Experimentation and Technological Analysis. American Antiquity 51:603-614.

Kuhn, S.L.

1995 Mousterian Lithic Technology. (excerpt, Ch. 2) Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Stewart, H.

Stone, Bone, Antler, and Shell: Artifacts of the Northwest Coast. University of Washington Press, Seattle. (misc. excerpts on groundstone; Clean Copy course pack)

Teltser, P.A.

1991 Generalized Core Technology and Tool Use: A Mississippian Example. Journal of Field Archaeology 18:363-375.

Thomas, D.H.

1986 Points on Points: A Reply to Flenniken and Raymond. American Antiquity 51:619-627.

Whittaker, John C.

1994	excerpt from Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin. Pp. 280-288 “Figuring out Function”