This course provides a survey of archaeological research, with an emphasis on the intellectual developments that shape our models of the past and provide the tools of our practice. The course follows the study of archaeology from a historical perspective in order to review the basic field methods and anthropological frameworks that have driven the field to its present multifaceted state. Once up to speed, we will discuss current post-modern perspectives, questions, and research. Along the way, we will learn how theory has affected the practice of archaeology by structuring research questions and the methods that are used to recover, analyze and interpret archaeological remains. This class will not only seek to give you an understanding of archaeological theory, but it should improve your writing and oral skills as well. These ideas and skills are fundamental toward developing your professional abilities in the competitive field of archaeology.

Readings:
Trigger, B.
1990 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Johnson, M.
1999 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Preucel, Robert W., and Ian Hodder
1996 Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

Reserve Readings: In addition to the textbooks, selected articles and monographs are required reading. These will be available from Crimson and Cream Copy Shop in the union and/or from Bizzell library reserve.

Course Requirements: Students are responsible for a substantial number of reading and writing assignments throughout the course. I accept no late assignments, and I give no incompletes.

Weekly Assignments:
Each week we discuss two types of readings: theoretical essays and data-driven studies. Students are expected to debate these readings in a professional manner. The professor is a facilitator of debate in a seminar format, not a lecturer. Copies of articles and notes are welcome in class as they help students remember key points.

Students are responsible for reading all the theoretical essays and writing abstracts on each one. These essays are listed directly under the topic. Generally this means you will read two essays, but on some weeks there are more. Abstracts are short 250 to 400 word summaries (no more than one and a half pages of typed text) covering the major issues discussed in the readings. At the bottom of each abstract provide two questions that you wish to discuss in class. Abstracts and questions will be turned in and graded for content, clarity, and style.

Each week there are five data-driven studies exemplifying research based on a particular theoretical framework. Pairs of students are responsible for presenting these articles. Presentations should include a description of the theoretical framework, context, methodology and conclusions of the selected reading. Presenters should attempt to engage seminar participants in discussion of the issues. Presenters will distribute to all seminar members a short 250-400 word abstract covering their article.

In summary, students will be responsible for reading three major articles per week, writing abstracts for each, and providing two questions per theoretical essay. This set of activities (including participation) makes up 60% of your grade. This works out to be 39 abstracts worth 4 points each equals 156 points plus 24 points for participation in class discussions. Grading scheme (Excellent=4 pts, Good=3pts, Fair=2 pts, Poor=1 pts, no abstract=0 pts).

Research Paper:
Students will write a 15 page paper on new (meaning the last 20 years) research in an area of their choice, for instance Lowland Maya Classic period, feasting among middle-level societies, hunter-gatherer subsistence strategies in the great plains, the pithouse to pueblo transition in the American Southwest, etc. The paper should present new ideas and data on these topics, and how theoretical frameworks have changed in the last twenty years. At least 20 bibliographic sources should be cited. Citation and reference style should follow American Antiquity format (see the 1992 American Antiquity volume 57(4):749-770 for complete details).

Students will present their findings in class, December 11th. Oral presentations should be between 15 and 20 minutes in length. Papers are due one week later, December 18th, and are to be handed to me personally before 4:30 PM that day! Paper bibliographies are due October 23, along with a two-page synopsis describing the topic. This paper makes up 40% of your grade (120 points).

Course Management:

The syllabus is available on my website http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/LeCount.J.LeCount-1/ or at the blackboard site for this course.

The University of Oklahoma is committed to providing reasonable accommodation for all students with disabilities. Students with disabilities who require accommodations in this course are requested to speak with the professor as early in the semester as possible. Students with disabilities must be registrated with the Office of Disability Services prior to receiving accommodations in this course. The Office of Disability is located in Goddard Health Center, Suite 166, phone 405/325-3852 or TDD only 405/325-4173.

Location of additional readings:
(R) = Bizzell Reserve
(C) = Crimson and Cream Copy Center

Topics and readings

Week 1: August 28th – Introduction

Week 2: September 4th – What is Theory: The Beginnings of Scientific Archaeology.
Johnson, Matthew
1999 Common Sense is Not Enough. In Archaeological Theory, chapter 1, pp.1-11, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.
Preucel, R. and Hodder, I.
1996 Communicating Present Pasts. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, pp.3-20. Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.
Trigger, Bruce
1989 The Beginnings of Scientific Archaeology. In A History of Archaeological Thought, chapter 3, pp. 73-109. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Trigger, Bruce
1989 The Imperial Synthesis. In A History of Archaeological Thought, chapter 4, pp. 109-147. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Library tour
Laurie Scrivener, Social Science Reference Librarian, will give a “virtual tour” of OU library resources at 149D (at the far northeast corner of the main floor) from 4-5 pm.

Week 3: September 11—Culture History and Chronology.
Johnson, Matthew
1999 Excerpt from ‘The New Archaeology’. In Archaeological Theory, chapter 2, pp.12-20, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.
Trigger, Bruce
1989 Culture-historical Archaeology. In A History of Archaeological Thought, chapter 5, pp. 148-206. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Culture-history, Stratigraphy, and Classification Studies
Kidder, A.V.
2000 Field Work at Pecos. In An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology, with an introduction by Douglas W. Schwartz, pp. 88-139. Yale University Press, New Haven. (R)
Kroeber, A. L.
1919 On the Principle of Order in Civilizations as Exemplified by Changes in Fashion. American Anthropologist 21(3):235-64. (C)
McKern, W.C.
1939 The Midwest Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Study. American Antiquity 4:301-313. (C)
Nelson, N.
1916 Chronology of Tano Ruins, New Mexico. American Anthropologist 18(2):159-180. (C)
Orr, Kenneth
1946 The Archaeological Situation at Spiro, Oklahoma: A Preliminary Report. American Antiquity 11(4): 228-256. (C)

Week 4: September 18 – Context and Function
Trigger, Bruce
1989 Functionalism in Western archaeology. In A History of Archaeological Thought, chapter 7, pp. 244-288. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Steward, J.
1972 The Concept and Method of Cultural Ecology, chapter 2, Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution, pp. 30-42. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago. (R and C)
Kluckhohn, C.
1973 [1940] The Conceptual Structure in Middle American Studies. In The Maya and Their Neighbors, edited by C. Hay, R Linton, S. Lothrop, H Shapiro, and G. Vaillant, pp. 41-51. Appleton-Century, New York. (R and C)

“Normative” studies
Linton, Ralph
1943 North American Cooking Pots. American Antiquity 9(1):369-380. (C)
MacNeish, R.
1964 Ancient Mesoamerican Civilization. Science 143(3606):531-37. (C)
Steward, Julian
1972 [1937] Lineage to Clan: Ecological Aspect of Southwestern Society. In Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution, pp.151-172. University of Illinois Press, Urbana. (R)
Waring, A.J. Jr., and P. Holder
1977 [1945] A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of A. J. Waring, Jr. edited by S. Williams, pp.9-29, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 58, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.. (C)
Willey, G. R.
1948 A Functional analysis of ‘Horizon Styles’ in Peruvian Archaeology. In A Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology, edited by W. Bennett, pp. 8-15, Society for American Archaeology, Memoir 4. (R)

Week 5: September 25 – Processual Archaeology: Archaeology as Anthropology
Johnson, Matthew
1999 Excerpt from ‘The New Archaeology’. In Archaeological Theory, chapter 2, pp. 20-33, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.
1999 Archaeology as a Science. In Archaeological Theory, chapter 3, pp. 34-47, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.
Binford, Lewis
1972 [1962] Archaeology as Anthropology. In An Archaeological Perspective, pp. 20-32. Seminar Press. New York. (C)
Binford, Lewis
1972 [1965] Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. In An Archaeological Perspective, pp. 195-207. Seminar Press. New York. (C)

Archaeology as anthropology studies
Brown, James
1971 The Dimensions of Status in Burials at Spiro. In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, edited by J. Brown, Society for American Archaeology, Memoir 25, pp. 92-112. Washington D.C. (R)
Deetz, James
1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. University of Illinois Series in Anthropology, no. 4, Urbana. (R)
Longarce, William
1968 Some Aspects of Prehistoric Society in East-Central Arizona. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. Binford and L. Binford, pp. 89-102. Aldine Publishing Company, New York. (R)
Whallon, Robert, Jr.
1968 Investigations of Late Prehistoric Social Organization in New York State. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. Binford and L. Binford, pp. 223-244. Aldine Publishing Company, New York. (R)
Winter, Howard
1968 Value Systems and Trade Cycles of the Late Archaic in the Midwest. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. Binford and L. Binford, pp. 175-221. Aldine Publishing Company, New York. (R)

Week 6: October 2nd -- Processual Archaeology: Middle-range Theory, Ethnographic Analogy, and Ethnoarchaeology
Feder, Kenneth
2002 Epistemology: How You Know What You Know. In Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries, chapter 2, pp. 16-41. McGraw-Hill Mayfield, Boston. (C)
Johnson, Matthew
1999 Testing, Middle-range Theory, and Ethnoarchaeology. In Archaeological Theory, chapter 4, pp. 48-63, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.
Willey, G. and J. Sabloff
1980 The Explanatory Period: Continuing Methodological and Theoretical Innovations (the 1970s). In A History of American Archaeology, chapter 8, pp. 248-264. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. (R and C)

Middle-range theory studies
Binford, Lewis
1972 [1966] Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. In An Archaeological Perspective, pp. 33-51. Seminar Press. New York. (C)
Gifford, Diane
1981 Ethnoarchaeological Observations of Natural Processes Affecting Cultural Materials. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol 4, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 77-101. Academic Press, New York. (C)
Gilman, Patricia
1987 Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American Southwest. American Antiquity, 52(3):538-564. (C)
Hill, James
1968 Broken K Pueblo: Patterns of Form and Function. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by S. Binford and L. Binford, pp. 103-142. Aldine, Chicago. (R)
Skibo, James
1994 The Kalinga Cooking Pot: An Ethnoarchaeological and Experimental Study of Technological Change. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology, edited by W. Longacre and J. Skibo, pp. 113-126. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. (R)

Week 7: October 9th – Processual Archaeology (Culture as a System)
Johnson, Matthew
1999 Culture as a System. In Archaeological Theory, chapter 4, pp. 63-84, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.
Trigger, Bruce
1989 Neo-evolutionism and the New Archaeology. In A History of Archaeological Thought, chapter 8, pp. 289-328. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Systems theory studies
Binford, L.
1996 [1980] Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, 39-60. Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.
1983 Hunters in a Landscape. In Pursuit of the Past, chapter 6, pp. 109-143.Thames and Hudson, London. (R)
Flannery, K.
1968 Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. In Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, edited by B. Meggers, pp. 67-87. Washington, Anthropological Society of Washington. (R)
1972 The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426. (C)
Willey, G. and D. Shimikin
1973 The Maya Collapse: A Summary View. In The Classic Maya Collapse, edited by T. P. Culbert, pp.457-502. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. (R)

Week 8: October 16 – Political Economy Models
Pruecel, R. and I. Hodder
1996 The Production of Value. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 99-113. Blackwell, Oxford.
Roseberry, W.
1988 Political Economy. Annual Review of Anthropology 17: 161-85. (C)

Political economy studies
Anderson, David
1994 Factional Competition and the Political Evolution of Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Southeastern United States. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by E. Brumfiel and J. Fox, pp.61-76. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. (R)
Blanton, Richard, Gary Feinman, Stephen Kowalewski, and Peter Peregrine
1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37(1):1-14 (lacks comments and bibliography). (C)
D’Altroy, T. and T. Earle
1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political Economy. Current Anthropology 26(2): 187-206. (C)
Saitta, D.
1997 Power, Labor, and the Dynamics of Change in Chacoan Political Economy. American Antiquity 62(1):7-26. (C)
Earle, T.K.
1996 [1987] Specialization and the Production of Wealth: Hawaiian Chiefdoms and the Inka Empire. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 165-188. Blackwell, Oxford.

Week 9: October 23 -- Post-Processual Archaeology
Johnson, Matthew
1999 Postprocessual and Interpretative Archaeologies. In Archaeological Theory, chapter 7, pp. 98-115, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.
Hodder, Ian
1990 Post-processual Archaeology. In Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, chapter 8, pp. 147-170. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. (R and C)

Postprocessual studies
Bender, Barbara
1978 Gatherer-hunter to Farmer: A Social Perspective. World Archaeology 10: 204-222. (C)
Bradley, Richard
1993 Monuments as Ideas. In Altering the Earth. pp. 69-90. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series. Sutton Publishing Limited, Stroud, Glos. (C)
Hodder, Ian
1995 The Domestication of Europe. In Theory and Practice in Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 241-253. Routledge, London. (R)
1995 Symbols in Action. In Theory and Practice in Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 241-253. Routledge, London. (R)
1984 Burials, Houses, Women and Men in the European Neolithic. In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited by D. Miller and C. Tilley, pp. 51-68. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. (R)

Week 10: October 30 – Post-Processual Archaeology and the Radical Critique
Hodder, Ian
1991 Postprocessual Archaeology and the Current Debate. In Processual and Post-Processual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by R. Preucel, pp. 30-41. CAI, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Occasional Paper no. 10. (C and R)
Hill, James
1991 Archaeology and the Accumulation of Knowledge. In Processual and Post-Processual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by R. Preucel, pp. 42-53. CAI, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Occasional Paper no. 10. (C and R)
VanPool, Christine and Todd VanPool
1999 The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism. American Antiquity 64(1):33-53. (C)

New synthesis studies
Cobb, Charles
1991 Social Reproduction and the Longue Durée in the Prehistory of the Midcontinental United States. In Processual and Post-Processual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by R. Preucel, pp. 168-182. CAI, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Occasional Paper no. 10. (R and C)
Duke, Philip
1996 [1992] Braudel and North American Archaeology: An Example from the Northern Plains. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 240-257. Blackwell, Oxford.
Hastorf, C. and S. Johannessenn
1996 [1991] Understanding Changing People/Plant Relationships in the Prehispanic Andes. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 61-78. Blackwell, Oxford.
Johnson, Matthew
1991 Enclosure and Capitalism. In Processual and Post-Processual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by R. Preucel, pp. 159-167. CAI, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Occasional Paper no. 10. (R and C)
Pauketat, T.
2001 Practice and History in Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1(1):73-98. (C and on-line)

Week 11: November 6 -- Agency and Practice
Dobres, Marcia-Anne and J. Robb
2000 Agency in Archaeology: paradigm or platitude? In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Dobres, M.-.A and J. Robb, pp. 3-18. Routledge, London. (R and C)
Brumfiel, Elizabeth
2001 On the Archaeology of Choice: Agency Studies as a Research Stratagem. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Dobres, M.-.A and J. Robb, pp. 249-256. Routledge, London. (R and C)

Agency and practice studies
Clark, John and Michael Blake
1996 [1993] The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 258-281. Blackwell, Oxford.
Levy, Janet
1999 Gender, Power, and Heterarchy in Middle-level Societies. In Manifesting Power: Gender and the Interpretation of Power in Archaeology, edited by T. Sweely, pp. 62-78. Routledge, London. (R and C)
Pauketat, Timothy
2000 The Tragedy of the Commoners. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Dobres, M.-.A and J. Robb, pp. 111-129. Routledge, London. (R)
Thomas, Brian
1998 Power and Community: The Archaeology of Slavery at the Hermitage Plantation. American Antiquity 63(4):531-551. (C)
Yaeger, Jason
2000 The Social Construction of Communities in the Classic Maya Countryside: Strategies of Affiliation in Western Belize. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by M. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 123-142. Routledge, London. (R)

Week 12: November 13 –Archaeology and Gender
Johnson, Matthew
1999 Archaeology and Gender. In Archaeological Theory, chapter 8, pp. 116-131, Blackwell Publisher, Oxford.
Wylie, A.
1996 [1992] The Interplay of Evidential Constraints and Political Interests: Recent Archaeological Research on Gender. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 431-459. Blackwell, Oxford.

Gender studies
Brumfiel, E.
1995 Weaving and Cooking: Women's Production in Aztec Mexico. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by J. Gero and M. Conkey, pp. 224-254. Blackwell, Cambridge Mass. (R)
Hastorf, Christine
1996 [1991] Gender, Space, and Food in Prehistory. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 460-484. Blackwell, Oxford.
Mobley-Tanaka, Jeannette L.
1997 Gender and Ritual Space During the Pithouse to Pueblo Transition: Subterranean Mealing Rooms in the North American Southwest. American Antiquity 62(3): 437-448. (C)
Spector, Janet
1996 [1991] What This Awl Means: Toward a Feminist Archaeology. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 485-500. Blackwell, Oxford.
Sweely, Tracy
1999 Gender, Space, People and Power at Cerén, El Salvador. In Manifesting Power: Gender and the Interpretation of Power in Archaeology, edited by T. Sweely, pp.155-172. Routledge, London. (R)

Week 13: November 20 -- Interaction Theory
Schortman, Edward M., and Patricia A. Urban
1992 Current Trends in Interaction Research. In Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction, edited by E. Schortman and P. Urban, pp.235-255. Plenum, New York. (C)
Hall, Thomas
1996 World-Systems and Evolution: An Appraisal. Journal of World Systems Research 2(4):1-32. (C and on-line)

Interaction studies
Braun, David
1986 Midwestern Hopewellian Exchange and Supralocal Interaction. In Peer-Polity Interaction and Social-Political Change, edited by C. Renefrew and J. Cherry, pp. 117-126. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. (R)
Renfrew, C.
1996 [1986] Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 114-142. Blackwell, Oxford.
Schortman, E. and P. Urban
1996 Living on the Edge: Core/periphery Relations in Ancient Southeast Maya Periphery. Current Anthropology 35(4):401-413 (without comments). (C)
Wells, Peter
1992 Tradition, Identity, and Change Beyond the Roman Frontier. In Resources, Power and Interregional Interaction, edited by E. Schortman and P. Urban, pp.175-188. Plenum Press, New York and London. (C)
Whitecotton, J. and R. Pailes
1986 New World Precolumbian World Systems. In Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New Considerations of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions, edited by F. Mathien and R. McGuire, pp. 183-204. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. (R)

November 27 – Thanksgiving!

Week 14: December 4 – Social Identities and Material Symbols
Schortman, Edward
1989 Interregional Interaction in Prehistory: The Need for a New Perspective. American Antiquity 52(1):52-65. (C)
Robb, John
1998 The Archaeology of Symbols. Annual Review of Anthropology 27:329-46. (C)

Material symbols studies
Bernbeck, Reinhard
1999 Structure Strikes Back: Intuitive Meanings of Ceramics from Qale Rostam, Iran. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, edited by J. Robb, pp.90-111. CAI, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. (C)
Hodder, Ian
1979 Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterning. American Antiquity 44(3):446-454. (C)
Helms, Mary
1999 Why Maya Lords Sat on Jaguar Thrones. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, edited by J. Robb, pp.56-69. CAI, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. (C)
Pauketat, T. and T. Emerson
1991 The Ideology of Authority and the Power of the Pot. American Anthropologist 93(4):919-941. (C)
Thomas, Julian
1996 The Descent of the British Neolithic. In Time, Culture, and Identity, pp.95-140. Routledge, London. (R)

Week 15: December 11 -- Student presentations

Writing Guidelines

How to Approach the Writing Assignment for the Course.
1. Use clear, direct terms in your writing. Employ technical terms where necessary, making certain their meaning has been communicated. Avoid unnecessary use of jargon or long, complicated language merely to sound impressive. A useful strategy is to imagine a person to "speak to" as you write. This should be an intelligent person who does not know much about anthropology.

2. State your ideas clearly. Do not assume that "after all, the instructor knows what I mean." The instructor cannot assume to know what you know, nor can you assume that she knows everything. Take little for granted.

3. Where possible, avoid judgmental terms. For example, describing the beliefs of an ancient culture as "primitive" not only constitutes a possibly unwarranted value-judgement, but indicates that you do not understand the basic perspective of anthropology.

4. Avoid sweeping generalizations. This course is about learning the details of ancient lifeways, not about creating grand theories. Support your statements with evidence from your readings and lectures from this and other courses, as well as additional sources. An example of what you mean is far more persuasive as evidence than an unsupported opinion or inference.

5. Your paper should utilize some of the concepts and substantive knowledge of the course. Ignoring such ideas and data, especially when they directly pertain to the subject you are writing about, will detract from the quality of your paper.

6. Avoid tangential comments or concepts. Side issues related to the main themes of the assigned readings can be integrated into your papers if they are of sufficient interest or importance, but should not be given the major emphasis.

Students wishing to receive writing instruction beyond what is provided by the instructor may contact the Writing Center for assistance (348-5049).

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is simply representing the words of another as one's own. Here are some examples:
1) downloading from the web a term paper or buying a term paper.
2) failing to give proper credit to the source of an idea (see citation guidelines)
3) copying extensive passages without attribution
4) inserting someone else's phrases or sentences, with small changes, into your own prose
5) forgetting to supply a set of quotation markers.

Editing and rewriting.
When you think you have finished your abstract or review paper, read it aloud carefully to yourself, then make changes to rid it of awkwardness, confusion and redundancy. Sometimes it is best to let written work rest. Some people have significant problems editing their own work. Although grammar and organization seem correct and logical one day, errors in structure and logic usually become apparent a few days later. Do not, therefore, wait until the last minute to write. Remember, the three secrets to good writing are: rewrite, rewrite, and rewrite.

Organization of Review Paper

Mechanics of Review Paper Composition.
1. All assignments must be typed or printed on standard size white bond paper.

2. Double space with 1 inch margins on all sides. Use a standard font, such as Courier or Times New Roman, and size (11 or 12 pitch).

3. Staple pages together. Do not place your paper in a folder, cover, or binder.

4. Pages should be numbered consecutively, starting with the first text page (title page is not numbered nor counted as part of text).

5. Title page. At the top of the title page provide the following information: student name, student number, class name and number, and date. Title of the paper should appear in capital letters somewhere on the page, but removed from the author's information.

6. Section headings are recommended to organize information. Style of the section headings is discretionary, but never begin a paper with the heading "Introduction".

7. Paper length should be between 15 and 20 pages. Papers shorter or longer than this will be penalized.

8. Bibliography page(s). The bibliography is separate from the text. At the top of the bibliography page, provide a heading entitled either Bibliography or References Cited. See style guide for format.

9. Make a copy of the paper before you turn it in. This is for your own security in the unlikely event that the instructor loses the paper.

Reference Guidelines

Students are expected to produce thoughtful and independent inquiry. The student who submits a paper that derives from unacknowledged sources plagiarizes by representing as his or her own the words and ideas of others. Every student, therefore, has a serious obligation to himself / herself to acknowledge properly any work that is not his/her own.

Cut-and paste authorship is not acceptable. Students should strive to say what he / she has to say in their own words, and should carefully avoid repeating words and phrases taken from books and articles written by others. Writers may paraphrase what someone else has written, but they must summarize in their own words. Give full credit to the writer whose ideas they are summarizing. Phrases like "according to John Smith," and "Smith (1983:23) suggests" should always accompany a paraphrase of another writer's material.

Citations and citation style.
Internal citations must be used if you are using someone’s data, their exact words, or a major contribution to the field. Citations generally include three sets of information: author's last name, date of publication, and page number(s). Here are four examples of when, where, and how to cite in American Antiquity (a standard social science) citation style. Please pay close attention to punctuation.

1. When you use entire sentences or paragraphs the quote must be single-spaced and indented. This type of citation should be kept to a minimum and reserved for truly impressive quotes, for example.

Darwin though that:
“civilized nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations, excepting where the climate opposes a deadly barrier; and they succeed mainly, though not exclusively, through their arts, which are the products of the intellect. It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual facilities have been gradually perfected through natural selection” (1871:154).

2. Use quotations if you select a very important phase from an author to use in your text. Again this should be something that is so well-written or so well-phrased that you can not put it into your own words. For example:

V. Gordon Child soon rejected any notion of catastrophic climatic change for explaining the shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture. Rather he argued that economic change came from “ever increasing cultural differentiation and specialization of human communities” (Child 1983:23).

3. Use a citation when you mention an author’s name and/or his/her important contributions to research. For example:

Robin Dennell (1983) argues that the development of food production in southeast Europe went through three phases: incipient, transformational, mature.

4. Use a citation when you are reporting specific data that is not considered general knowledge for archaeologists. For example:

Unlike other early Ecuadorian sites, Valdivia maize cobs are less than 2 inches (20 mm) long and lack the ability to disperse their kernels naturally, a clear sign of full domestication (Killion et al. 1992:41-43).

Bibliographic style.
The bibliography follows the text on a separate page. Use the following bibliographic style. If you do not have the capacity to italicizes then underline. Hanging format please.

A book:
Blanton, R., S. Kowalewski, G. Feinman, and J. Appel
1993 Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three Regions. Academic Press, New York.
A journal:
Blanton, R., G. Feinman, S. Kowalewski, and P. Peregrine
1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37: 1-14.
An edited volume:
Brumfiel, E.
1987 Elite and Utilitarian Crafts in the Aztec State. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited by E. M. Brumfiel and T. K. Earle, pp. 102-118. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

List of Books on Reserve at Bizzell

Bennett, Wendell (ed)
1948 A Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology. Society for American Archaeology, Memoir 4.

Binford, L.
1983 Pursuit of the Past. Thames and Hudson, London.

Binford S., and L. Binford (eds.)
1968 New Perspectives in Archaeology. Aldine Publishing Company, New York.

Brown, James
1971 Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Society for American Archaeology, Memoir 25. Washington D.C.

Brumfiel, E. and J. Fox (eds)
1994 Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World. CUP, Cambridge, England.

Canuto, M. and Yaeger, Jason (eds.)
2000 The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. Routledge, London.

Culbert, T.P. (ed)
1973 The Classic Maya Collapse. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Dobres, M.-.A and J. Robb (eds)
2001 Agency in Archaeology. Routledge, London.

Deetz, James
1965 The Dynamics of Stylistic Change in Arikara Ceramics. University of Illinois Series in Anthropology, no. 4, Urbana.

Gero J. and M. Conkey (eds)
1995 Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory. Blackwell, Cambridge Mass.

Hay, C., and others (eds)
1940 The Maya and Their Neighbors. Appleton-Century, New York.

Hodder, Ian
1990 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Hodder, Ian
1995 Theory and Practice in Archaeology. Routledge, London.

Kidder, A.V.
2000 An Introduction to the Study of Southwestern Archaeology, with an introduction by Douglas W. Schwartz. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Longacre, W. and Skibo, James
1994 Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London.

Mathien, F., and R. McGuire (eds.)
1986 Ripples in the Chichimec Sea: New Considerations of Southwestern-Mesoamerican Interactions. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Meggers, B. (ed)
1968 Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas. Washington, Anthropological Society of Washington.

Miller, D.and C. Tilley (eds)
1984 Ideology, Power, and Prehistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Preucel, R. (ed)
1991 Processual and Post-Processual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past. CAI, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Occasional Paper no. 10.

Renefrew, C. and J. Cherry (eds)
1986 Peer-Polity Interaction and Social-Political Change. CUP, Cambridge, England.

Steward, Julian
1972 Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Sweely, Tracy (ed)
1999 Manifesting Power: Gender and the Interpretation of Power in Archaeology. Routledge, London.

Thomas, Julian
1996 Time, Culture, and Identity. Routledge, London.

Willey, G. and J. Sabloff
1980 A History of American Archaeology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

Articles on File at Crimson and Cream Copy Center

Bender, Barbara
1978 Gatherer-hunter to Farmer: A Social Perspective. World Archaeology 10: 204-222.

Bernbeck, Reinhard
1999 Structure Strikes Back: Intuitive Meanings of Ceramics from Qale Rostam, Iran. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, edited by J. Robb, pp.90-111. CAI, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Binford, Lewis
1972 [1962] Archaeology as Anthropology. In An Archaeological Perspective, pp. 20-32. Seminar Press. New York.

Binford, Lewis
1972 [1965] Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. In An Archaeological Perspective, pp. 195-207. Seminar Press. New York.

Binford, Lewis
1972 [1966] Smudge Pits and Hide Smoking: The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Reasoning. In An Archaeological Perspective, pp. 33-51. Seminar Press. New York.

Blanton, Richard, Gary Feinman, Stephen Kowalewski, and Peter Peregrine
1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37(1):1-14 (lacks comments and bibliography).

Bradley, Richard
1993 Monuments as Ideas. In Altering the Earth. pp. 69-90. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Monograph Series. Sutton Publishing Limited, Stroud, Glos.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth
2001 On the Archaeology of Choice: Agency Studies as a Research Stratagem, In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Dobres, M.-.A and J. Robb, pp. 249-256. Routledge, London.

D’Altroy, T. and T. Earle
1985 Staple Finance, Wealth Finance, and Storage in the Inka Political Economy. Current Anthropology 26(2): 187-206. (lacks comments and bibliography).

Dobres, Marcia-Anne and J. Robb
2000 Agency in Archaeology: paradigm or platitude? In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Dobres, M.-.A and J. Robb, pp. 3-18. Routledge, London.

Feder, Kenneth
2002 Epistemology: How You Know What You Know. In Frauds, Myths, and Mysteries, chapter 2, pp. 16-41. McGraw-Hill Mayfield, Boston.

Flannery, K.
1972 The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399-426.

Gifford, Diane
1981 Ethnoarchaeological Observations of Natural Processes Affecting Cultural Materials. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol 4, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 77-101. Academic Press, New York.

Gilman, Patricia
1987 Architecture as Artifact: Pit Structures and Pueblos in the American Southwest. American Antiquity, 52(3):538-564.

Hall, Thomas
1996 World-Systems and Evolution: An Appraisal. Journal of World Systems Research 2(4):1-32.

Helms, Mary
1999 Why Maya Lords Sat on Jaguar Thrones. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehistory, edited by J. Robb, pp.56-69. CAI, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Hill, James
1991 Archaeology and the Accumulation of Knowledge. In Processual and Post-Processual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by R. Preucel, pp. 42-53. CAI, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Occasional Paper no. 10.

Hodder, Ian
1991 Postprocessual Archaeology and the Current Debate. In Processual and Post-Processual Archaeologies: Multiple Ways of Knowing the Past, edited by R. Preucel, pp. 30-41. CAI, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Occasional Paper no. 10.

Hodder, Ian
1979 Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterning. American Antiquity 44(3):446-454.

Hodder, Ian
1990 Post-processual Archaeology. In Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, chapter 8, pp. 147-170. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Kluckhohn, C.
1973 [1940] The Conceptual Structure in Middle American Studies. In The Maya and Their Neighbors, edited by C. Hay, R Linton, S. Lothrop, H Shapiro, and G. Vaillant, pp. 41-51. Appleton-Century, New York.

Kroeber, A. L.
1919 On the Principle of Order in Civilizations as Exemplified by Changes in Fashion. American Anthropologist 21(3):235-64.

Linton, Ralph
1943 North American Cooking Pots. American Antiquity 9(1):369-380.

MacNeish, R.
1964 Ancient Mesoamerican Civilization. Science 143(3606):531-37.

McKern, W.C.
1939 The Midwest Taxonomic Method as an Aid to Archaeological Study. American Antiquity 4:301-313.

Mobley-Tanaka, Jeannette L.
1997 Gender and Ritual Space During the Pithouse to Pueblo Transition: Subterranean Mealing Rooms in the North American Southwest. American Antiquity 62(3): 437-448.

Nelson, N.
1916 Chronology of Tano Ruins, New Mexico. American Anthropologist 18(2):159-180.

Orr, Kenneth
1946 The Archaeological Situation at Spiro, Oklahoma: A Preliminary Report. American Antiquity 11(4)228-256.

Pauketat, T.
2001 Practice and History in Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1(1):73-98.

Pauketat, T. and T. Emerson
1991 The Ideology of Authority and the Power of the Pot. American Anthropologist 93(4):919-941.

Robb, John
1998 The Archaeology of Symbols. Annual Review of Anthropology 27:329-46.

Roseberry, W.
1988 Political Economy. Annual Review of Anthropology 17: 161-85.

Saitta, D.
1997 Power, Labor, and the Dynamics of Change in Chacoan Political Economy. American Antiquity 62(1):7-26.

Schortman, Edward
1989 Interregional Interaction in Prehistory: The Need for a New Perspective. American Antiquity 52(1):52-65.

Schortman, E. and P. Urban
1994 Living on the Edge: Core/periphery Relations in Ancient Southeast Maya Periphery. Current Anthropology 35(4):401-413.

Schortman, Edward M., and Patricia A. Urban
1992 Current Trends in Interaction Research. In Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction, edited by E. Schortman and P. Urban, pp.235-255. Plenum, New York.

Steward, J.
1972 The Concept and Method of Cultural Ecology, chapter 2, Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution, pp. 30-42. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago.

Thomas, Brian
1998 Power and Community: The Archaeology of Slavery at the Hermitage Plantation. American Antiquity 63(4):531-551.

VanPool, Christine and Todd VanPool
1999 The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism. American Antiquity 64(1):33-53.

Waring, A.J. Jr., and P. Holder
1945 A Prehistoric Ceremonial Complex in the Southeastern United States. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of A. J. Waring, Jr. edited by S. Williams, pp.9-29, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 58, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass..

Wells, Peter
1992 Tradition, Identity, and Change Beyond the Roman Frontier. In Resources, Power and Interregional Interaction, edited by E. Schortman and P. Urban, pp.175-188. Plenum Press, New York and London.

Willey, G. and J. Sabloff
1980 The Explanatory Period: Continuing Methodological and Theoretical Innovations (the 1970s). In A History of American Archaeology, chapter 8, pp. 248-264. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.