Course surveying the theories and evidence concerning the origins of state-level societies in New and Old World. This course was designed and taught by N. Tripcevich as Anthropology 164 at UC Santa Barbara during the Winter quarter, 2007
Reading questions will be posted below, please hand in responses before class begins on date indicated.
Jan 10 - Wenke 2007, Chapter 1 (pp. 1-32)
1. Explain equifinality and why it limits the potential of historical reconstruction in archaeology.
2. How does the work of Karl Marx inform archaeological investigation of the origins of social inequality?
3. Describe is the connection between New Archaeology and Darwinian evolution.
You won't need to hand in these reading questions until class on Wed, Jan 17. Please note that you'll also have questions from the subsequent reading (Patterson, 1997) due then as well.
Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of at least 400 words.
1. The archaeological record informs models of the past human activity, describe two different examples from Ch 2 of evidence contributing to generalized models about human behavior in an anthropological sense.
2. How does a “problem-oriented” approach aid in making sure archaeological research advances our understanding of the past instead of just providing laundry lists of artifacts and ancient features?
3. What types of materials can be dated with the carbon-14 dating method, and how does dendrochronology contribute correction curves for more accurate carbon-14 dating results?
Questions related to Patterson 1997 article in reader (it is also online).
Reading questions due in class on Jan 17. Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of at least 400 words.
1. Why is Patterson’s account of the English subjugation of the Irish during the 16th century interesting in light of the way that race and ethnicity were used to define “Progress” and “Civilization” by the British and Spanish Empires during the ensuing centuries?
2. During the 19th century, how were Mathusian and Darwinian concepts exploited by early anthropologists and state intellectuals to justify the ongoing genocide against indigenous peoples around the world (see also pp. 21-22 of Wenke book)?
3. Given the political and historical context presented in this essay by Patterson, can you describe a critical application of evolutionary concepts in New Archaeology (as you read in Wenke, pp25-27)? In your opinion, are evolutionary concepts more applicable to Paleolithic archaeology than to the study of more socially complex organization? What relevance do evolutionary concepts have to topics such as state collapse, in your view?
Jan 19 - Fried 1960 (in reader or online), and Wenke and Olszewski 2007 (pp. 279-292).
Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of at least 400 words.1. Describe the positions of prestige versus the persons capable of filling them equation that Fried uses to explain each of the different types of social organization in the article. Further, what role does inheritance have changes from one type of social organization to another?
2. Describe the spatial relationships between complex societies and their less-complex neighbors. What are the regional effects of stratified and state level societies, and how does resource distribution, roads, and other forms of interaction affect both complex societies and their neighbors?
3. What are the principal economic systems associated with each of the four types of social organization as described by Fried (1960) and by Steward (as reviewed by Wenke in pp. 279-292). Terms like reciprocity and redistribution are relevant here.
Theories concerning the origins of agriculture, reading questions. Wenke and Olszewski, pp. 228-246.
Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of no more than 400 words.
1. Discuss the logical fallacy of attributing human intentionality to food domestication. Is there a single linear process of domestication through plant / animal selection by humans that reflects the needs of sedentary communities in different parts of the world?
2. What are the major differences between the Natural Habitat Hypothesis examined by Braidwood and the model proposed by Brian Hayden? With Hayden’s model consider both the diet-change and the feasting (discussed later in the reading) aspects of his model.
3. What is the relationship between human fertility rates and food storage in anthropological models concerning early plant and animal domestication?
Origins of agriculture in the Old World, reading questions. Wenke and Olszewski, pp. 247-261.
Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of no more than 400 words. You can email the responses to me at tripcevich@anth.ucsb.edu, if you wish.
1. According to Chapter 6, what were the most important plant food sources found at sites in Egypt, the Levant, and the Yangtze Valley, and what are the earliest dates associated with evidence of the domestication of these crops?
2. Describe the link between Flannery's concept of food storage in the transition from "compound" to "village" in community architecture and the importance of storage and sedentism for human population growth (female fertility) that was described earlier in Chapter 6.
3. Which of the sites described in the reading provides evidence for trade in some subsistence goods, and why is trade potentially important among sedentary communities? What sort of trade goods are preserved or not preserved in archaeological sites according to the text?
Origins of Agriculture in the New World, Wenke and Olszewski 262-270
Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of no more than 200 words each.
1. What are the morphological changes associated with bean domestication versus the changes associated with maize? Compare this with the morphological changes in the rachis of wheat and barley in the process of south-west Asian plant domestication.
2. If the conditions that permitted plant domestication in Mesoamerica also occurred earlier during the Pleistocene, how does the model proposed by Richerson et al., mentioned earlier in the chapter, square with the evidence from Mesoamerica?
3. Discuss the extinct wild maize hypothesis versus teosinte debate.
Haas 2001 - Cultural Evolution and Political Centralization
Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of no more than 200 words each.
1. Haas describes a pattern in 19th and 20th century anthropology where researchers propose generalized and universal models of cultural evolution, and these models are then criticized by subsequent generations of anthropologists. Briefly describe the positions of late 19th century cultural evolutionists, their critics, and the mid-20th century evolutionists and their critics.
2. Consider two of the nine developmental paths at the end of Haas’ article in light of the selectionist and transformational views on evolution described earlier. Present a hypothetical example (you can be creative here) of each of these two showing the crux of the difference between a selectionist interpretation and a transformational interpretation.
3. If the contrast between the selectionist and the transformational approach represents a continuation of the conflict over the universal comparability between cultures in anthropology, explain in a brief but convincing way how the tinkerer model be used to reconcile these in one of the nine processes discussed at the end of Haas’ article. Please don't just use one of Haas' examples from the article but come up with one of your own.
Wenke and Olszewski 565-583 - North American Early Complexity
Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of no more than 200 words each.
1. What were the important crops in eastern North America during the earlier Woodland period, and how is the use of these crops reflected in the pottery?
2. Where are the domestic structures associated with the Adena, Hopewell, and Mississippian sites, and how do studies of domestic structures amplify our understanding of the renowned monuments.
3. Discuss the evidence for decline at Woodland and Mississippian sites.
Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of no more than 200 words each.
1. Compare the issue of the control of water between the polities in the eastern US and those discussed in the south-west.
2. Compare ceremonial architecture in the southwest and in the eastern US.
3. If maize, beans, and squash were the agricultural staples of complex societies in Mesoamerica why did the presence of these crops in the US southwest and east, together with other evidence of cultural contact with groups in Mexico, not result in greater social complexity north of the Rio Grande?
Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of no more than 200 words each.
1. What types of archaeological evidence from food and architecture among the Olmec result in them being categorized as a complex society, and when does this evidence occur?
2. Compare ceremonial architecture in Oaxaca at San Jose Mogote with architecture at Olmec sites.
3. Can evidence of household level trade provide archaeologists with evidence of status differences in Oaxaca society? Explain.
Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of no more than 200 words each.
1. Develop two examples of how contrasting environmental zones in the Andes affected the development of early complex societies in the region. What kinds of archaeological evidence can be used to inform on this issue?
2. How did monumental architecture develop through time in the region?
3. Compare the concept of "mother culture" in the case of Chavin de Huántar and the Olmec in Mesoamerica (from the previous reading) in terms of the role of art and ideology. Why are these arguments so often encountered, and what are the benefits and limitations of this perspective?
Answer two of the following three questions in a two part answer of no more than 200 words each.
1. Describe the evidence Wright uses to differentiate domestic architecture from administrative buildings.
2. Describe the regional resource procurement argument for the Late Uruk expansion.
3. Where are seals found and what do they tell us about activities in the Middle Uruk versus Late Uruk times?
The Stanish article didn't make it into the reader
Stanish, Charles, 2001. The Origin of State Societies in South America. In Annual Review of Anthropology, pp. 41. vol. 30.
Please answer two out of the following three questions. 1. Definitions of “state-level society” vary but based on the recent literature in the region you’re focusing on for your final paper when does “state level” society emerge? Compare the attributes of the earliest state in your region with those described by Stanish 2001 (be sure to read the Comparative section at the end of the article). Which two early Andean state phenomena described by Stanish most closely matches elements of state-level society in your region and why (if your regional focus is on the Andes then compare between three Andean cultures). 2. What was the role of long distance exchange in the Andean state formation based on discussion in Wenke and Olszewski? 3. How does the evidence of labor organization and monumental architecture provide insights into Preceramic, Initial Period, and Middle Horizon formation in the Andes?
1. Consider the region that you are focusing on for your final paper and provide two examples of the materialization of ideology at the beginnings of state-level society. What are the types of archaeological materials involved? Provide specific dates or time periods associated with these examples, if possible.
2. Compare ceremonial events described for either the Moche or the Inka with evidence from your chosen study area. What are the similarities or differences?
3. Describe the effects of scale on materialization of ideology as explained in the article. How do simple chiefdoms, complex chiefdoms/states, and empires differ in their degree of investment and in proportion in their "materialization of ideology"?
Nicholas Tripcevich | Email: tripcevich@anth.ucsb.edu |
Winter Quarter 2007 | Office: HSSB 2049 |
Class: M-W-F 10-11 AM, HSSB 2001a | Office Hours: M, W 11-12 or by appt |
Class website: http://www.MapAspects.org/courses/origins_complex_soc |
Course overview: This course combines archaeological theory and data in an examination of the origins of complex societies. We will look at different anthropological and archaeological approaches to the study of early civilizations. This course specifically focuses on theoretical models for the origins of agriculture and for socio-political changes that led up to the emergence of state-level society. The course employs a comparative method and we will examine the circumstances surrounding state-level organization in a number of regions including Egypt, Mesopotamia, Mesoamerica, and the Andes.
Evaluation format: Grades will be determined based on the following criteria. Written responses/participation: 30%, midterm: 30%, final paper: 40%.
Written responses are 400 word (1-2 page) responses to the reading questions in essay form. Reading Questions are posted online. These will be due at the beginning of each day of class. There will be 26 sets of questions assigned, and you can drop two of them so that 24 of these will count towards your grade.
The midterm exam will be an in-class exam, short and long answer questions. The final paper will be a 15 page research paper covering the emergence of the state in one of the regions covered in the course. You’ll need to find at least 20 bibliographical references for this paper (from the published literature, not from the Web) and an outline will be due several weeks before the end of the quarter.
Required Texts: Wenke, Robert J. and Deborah L. Olszewski (2007). Patterns in Prehistory: Humankind’s First Three Million Years. Oxford University Press, New York.
Additional readings will be posted to the web in PDF format. Printing these articles out (rather than reading online) is highly recommended and it can be done in a UCSB computer lab.
Plagiarism note: All students are expected to follow the university’s standards of academic honesty; there will be no tolerance for plagiarism. Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty that occurs when you present work belonging to someone else, either from a book, from the web, or from a classmate, as your own work. If you have questions about the proper way to cite another author’s work we can discuss it in class or during office hours.
Course schedule and reading assignments for Anth 164. Responses totaling at least 400 words will be due before class that day.
Wk 1, Mon, Jan 8 – Outline of the course, syllabus, readings, grading, introductions.
Wed, Jan 10 – Archaeological approaches: Wenke and Olszewski, Ch 1
Fri, Jan 12 – Archaeological data and inference: Wenke and Olszewski, Ch 2. Movie shown in class.
Wk 2, Mon, Jan 15 – UCSB Holiday, Martin Luther King day
Wed, Jan 17 – Civilization and its boosters, Patterson 1997 article.
Fri, Jan 19 – Typological approaches: Fried, 1960 article. Wenke and Olszewski, 279-292
Wk 3, Mon, Jan 22 – Theories concerning the origins of agriculture: Wenke and Olszewski 228-246
Wed, Jan 24 – Origins of Agriculture in Mesopotamia: Wenke and Olszewski 247-261
Fri, Jan 26 – Origins of Agriculture in the New World: Wenke and Olszewski 262-270.
Wk 4, Mon, Jan 29 – Political centralization: Haas 2001 chapter in From Leaders to Rulers
Wed, Jan 31 – Regional polities in North America: Wenke and Olszewski 565-583
Fri, Feb 2 – Regional polities in North America: Wenke and Olszewski 583 – 595. Movie
Wk 5, Mon, Feb 5 – Early complexity in Mesoamerica (Olmec): Wenke and Olszewski 481 - 495
Wed, Feb 7 – Early complexity in the Andes: Wenke and Olszewski 533-549
Fri, Feb 9 – Midterm Exam
Wk 6, Mon, Feb 12 – The evolution of complex societies: Wenke and Olszewski 292-316
Wed, Feb 14 – Mesopotamia: Wenke and Olszewski 325 - 341
Fri, Feb 16 – Mesopotamia: Wenke and Olszewski 341 – 362, Movie (Archaeology in Mesopotamia)
Wk 7, Mon, Feb 19 – UCSB Holiday, President’s Day
Wed, Feb 21 – Uruk states in Southwestern Iran, Wright 1998
Fri, Feb 23 – Egypt: Wenke and Olszewski 369 - 384
Wk 8, Mon, Feb 26 – Egypt : Wenke and Olszewski 384 - 397
Wed, Feb 28 – Ideology in Egyptian complex society: Bard 1992 article
Fri, Mar 2 – Mesoamerica: Wenke 495 – 524. Outline for Final Paper and draft of bibliography is due
Wk 9, Mon, Mar 5 – Monte Alban, Joyce 2000 article.
Wed, Mar 7 – Aztec state-making, Brumfiel 1983 article.
Fri, Mar 9 – Andean South America: Wenke and Olszewski 549 – 559, Stanish 2001 article
Wk 10, Mon, Mar 12 – Ideology, materialization, and power. Demarrais, Castillo, Earle 1996 article
Wed, Mar 14 – Long distance contact, Helms 1992 article.
Fri, Mar 16 – Process and agency in early states: Flannery 1999 article
Tues, Mar 20 –FINAL PAPER DUE before 10AM!