ARCS3040 Environmental Archaeology University of Queensland School of Social Science Spring 2014 Thursdays 1:00-4:00pm Michie Bldg #9, Rm 331 Course Coordinator: Dr Serena Love
[email protected] Michie Bldg #9, Rm 334 Office Hours: Tuesday 10:00am-12:00pm Environmental Archaeology investigates the long-term history and prehistory of humanenvironment relationships, a study based on the application of the natural and earth sciences in archaeology. The course builds an understanding of key issues such as human ecology, palaeoenvironmental reconstruction, human responses to environmental change and human environmental modification through a combination of lectures, debates and laboratory work. Key methods, including archaebotany, zooarchaeology and geoarchaeology will be discussed and explored through practical participation to solve problems. Case study focuses on the Neolithic settlement of Çatalhöük in Central Anatolia to illustrate concepts and methods, as well as providing a focus for formal critical debate and reflection. Student participation in classes is expected. Students will become familiar with the concepts, techniques, methods and theories of environmental archaeology. This aim will be met by tuition in a series of mixed-activity contact sessions including lecture and practical segments, combined with preparation of a series of technical reports. Students will become familiar with key concepts in environmental archaeology through application of its techniques to the Çatalhöük Research Project in Central Anatolia. Through practice, students will learn how archaeologists identify, understand and theorise the long-term trajectories of human-environment relations. Learning Objectives After successfully completing this course you should be able to: 1. Understand the general concepts, methods and theories of environmental archaeology. 2. Apply analytical techniques commonly used in environmental archaeology to solve research problems as part of everday archaeological investigations 3. Participate successfully in group and individual tasks, including problem solving and discussion of key points 4. Critically evaluate environmental archaeology as an area of practice in archaeology Required readings Two texts are strongly recommended for an understanding of methods, useful for practical assignments: o Balme, J., and Paterson, A (eds). Archaeology in Practice. A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses. Blackwell [ebook] o Reitz and Shackley (2012) Environmental Archaeology. Springer [ebook] This course is designed around a case study from Çatalhöyük so you will need to reference the edited volumes for your lab practicals. Relevant chapters will be made available on Blackboard.
Assessment You will be working with real data sets from Çatalhöyük, including drill core sediments, mudbricks, bird bones, eggshells, fish, shells, seeds and phytoliths. You will submit a total of 4 lab practicals, one for each major theme: geoarchaeology, zooarchaeology and archaeobotany (micro and macrobotany). At the end of the semester, you will have one comprehensive exam that will cover all the material discussed in lecture and lab sessions, relating to the environmental history of Çatalhöyük and how to interpret environmental data.
Attendance (10%) Lab practicals (x 4) based on in-class activities (15%) Final exam (30%)
ARCS3040 is a laboratory-based course and aims to take students through a real-life example of multi-disciplinary post-excavation analysis. As well as developing an understanding of environmental archaeology the course aims to develop further the observation skills, data manipulation and understanding of structured enquiry and laboratory discipline demanded typical of all practical archaeology. The data you generate in class are exactly the same as those produced in a range of professional settings in archaeology and the process of producing new knowledge about the past based on observations and data produced by those observations underpins all archaeological research. COURSE SCHEDULE Wk DATE TOPIC 1 29/7 Introduction to Env. Archaeology 2 5/8 Climate 3 12/8 Geomorphology 4 19/8 Geoarchaeology 5 26/8 Geoarchaeology 6 2/9 Geoarchaeology 7 9/9 Microflora: Starch 8 16/9 Microflora: Pollen 9 23/9 Zooarchaeology Mid-Semester Break: NO CLASS 10 7/10 Zooarchaeology 11 14/10 Zooarchaeology: Fish/Shell 12 21/10 Archaeobotany 13 28/10 Archaeobotany: Charcoal
DUE
5 Sept. 19 Sept.
17 Oct. 31 Oct Exam
There are a total of 4 pieces of assessment for this course. Each assignment is to be uploaded to Turnitin via Blackboard. Late assignments will incur a penalty without an approved extension.
3. COURSE OVERVIEW AND READINGS WEEK 1 INTRODUCTION To get started, we will discuss:
The aims of course and how the readings, classes and assessment fit together; What are environments and why should we study them? Definition and history of environmental archaeology. Class exercise on site formation processes, site preservation and recovery for environmental archaeology.
Required Reading
Reitz and Shackley (2012) Environmental Archaeology. Chapter 1: “Introduction to Environmental Archaeology” WEEKS 3-6 GEOARCHAEOLOGY A foundation science in archaeology, yet one that is often overlooked is geoarchaeology – the investigation of soils, sediments and landforms as a means of understanding past environments and landscapes. Geoarchaeology is the application of techniques, concepts and principles from the Earth sciences in archaeology and ranges from understanding geomorphology to stratigraphy, sedimentology and soil analysis. It is a fundamental part of archaeological field practice underpinning our attempts to understand the structure and formation of the archaeological record. In these weeks, we will compare natural sediments (recovered from drill cores) with culturally modified sediments (mudbricks).
Recommended Reading
All of these articles are available on Blackboard. ** These articles contain the data you need to interpret the data Reitz and Shackley (2012.) Environmental Archaeology. (read for methodology more than content) Chapter 5. Sediments and Soils. Balme, J., and Paterson, A (eds). Archaeology in Practice. A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses. Chapter 12. Sediments. ** Roberts, N., Boyer, P., & Parish, R. (1996). Preliminary results of geoarchaeological investigation at Çatalhöyük. In I.Hodder (Ed.), On the surface: Çatalhöyük 1993–1995, pp. 19–40. ** Boyer, P., Roberts, N., & Baird, D. (2006). Holocene environment and settlement on Çarşamba alluvial fan, South-Central Turkey: Integrating geoarchaeology and archaeological field survey. Geoarchaeology 21, 675–698. **Love, S. (2012). The Geoarchaeology of Mudbricks in Architecture: A methodological case study from Çatalhöyük. Geoarchaeology 27: 140-156. Love, S (2013). “An Archaeology of Mudbrick Houses from Çatalhöyük”, in I. Hodder (ed), Substantive Technologies at Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-08 seasons. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute, pp. 81-96. **Rosen, A., & Roberts, N. (2005). The nature of Çatalhöyük: People and their changing environments on the Konya plain. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Çatalhöyük perspectives: Themes from the 1995– 99 seasons (pp. 39–54). de Meester, T., 1970, Soils of the Great Konya Basin, Turkey, Agricultural Research Report, 740.
Matthews, W., C.A.I. French, T.Lawrence, D.F Cutler and M.K. Jones 1997, Microstratigraphic traces of site formation processes and human activities. World Archaeology 29.2: 281-308. Middleton, W., Price, D. and D. Meiggs (2005). Chemical Analysis of Floor Sediments for the Identification of Anthropogenic Activity Residues. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from 1995–99 seasons (pp. 399-413). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. WEEKS 7-8 MICROFLORA You will undertake an analysis of microflora, namely the phytolith and pollen remains recovered from Çatalhöyük. You are to examine the taxonomic composition (presence and frequency) of the plant remains but also to contextualize the data- what context were these remains found in and what is the significance of that context, i.e. midden, floor, oven, construction material, fill, etc.? Remember, not all plants were used for food and many plants enter the archaeological record unintentionally so it is your task to distinguish between natural and cultural practices. Your microflora practical will address the following questions: 1. How did the human occupants use plant resources during the occupation of Çatalhöyük? 2. What do the plant remains tell us about non-meat consumption patterns? 3. What can the combined plant record tell us about the greater landscape and Neolithic cultivation practices?
Recommended Reading
All of these articles are available on Blackboard. ** These articles contain the data you need to interpret the data PHYTOLITHS ** Rosen, A. (2005). Phytolith indicators of plant and land use at Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 1995–99 seasons. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 203–212. ** Ryan, P. (2011). Plants as material culture in the Near Eastern Neolithic: Perspectives from the silica skeleton artifactual remains at Çatalhöyük. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 30: 292305. Ryan, P. (2013). Plant Exploitation from Household and Landscape Perspectives: the phytolith evidence, in I. Hodder (Ed.) Humans and landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, pp. 163-212. Shillito, L-M. (2012). Grains of truth or transparent blindfolds? A review of current debates in archaeological phytolith analysis. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 22/1: 71-82. Reitz, E. and M. Shackley (2012). Spores, Pollen, Phytoliths, Starch Grains and other Microbotanical Remains. Environmental Archaeology. New York: Springer. STARCH Hardy, K., R. van de Locht, J. Wilson and O. Tugay (2013). Starch Granules and Complex Carbohydrates at Çatalhöyük, in I. Hodder (Ed.) Humans and landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, pp. 191-212.
POLLEN **Woldring, H. (1998). A pollen diagram from a river sediment in Central Anatolia. Tüba-Ar, 1, 105-111. ** Eastwood, W., Roberts, N, & Boyer, P. (2005). Pollen analysis at Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (Ed), Excavating Çatalhöyük: South, North and KOPAL area reports from the 1995-99 seasons. Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 573-581. WEEKS 9-11 ZOOARCHAEOLOGY Zooarchaeology studies the remains of animals as a means of understanding past environments and human-animal interactions. The animal assemblage will include non-mammal faunal assemblages, focusing on fish, bird and shell (eggshell, mollusk, microshell), recovered from Neolithic Çatalhöyük. We will examine the taxonomic composition (presence and frequency) of the animal remains and reference this against the context data, i.e. a midden, construction material, floor, burial, etc. Remember, not all animal remains are edible, several edible species are not being eaten and many animals enter the archaeological record unintentionally so it is your task to distinguish between natural and cultural practices.
Recommended Reading
All of these articles are available on Blackboard. ** These articles contain the data you need to interpret the data O'Connor, T. and Barrett J. 2006. Animal Bones. In Balme, J., and Paterson, A (eds). Archaeology in Practice. A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses. Blackwell pp. 260-291 ** Bar-Yosef Mayer, D. (2013). Mollusc Exploitation at Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (ed.) Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from 200-2008 seasons, Pp. 329-338. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute. ** W. van Neer, R. Gravendeel, W. Wouters and N. Russell (2013). The exploitation of fish at Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (ed.) Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from 200-2008 seasons, Pp. 317-328. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute. ** Russell, N. and K. McGowan 2005. Çatalhöyük Bird Bones. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from 1995–99 seasons, pp.99-111. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. ** Sidell, J. and C. Scudder 2005. The Eggshell from Çatalhöyük: a pilot study. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from 1995–99 seasons, pp.117-121. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. ** Reese, D. 2005. The Çatalhöyük Shells. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from 1995–99 seasons, pp.123-127. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. ** Russell, N., and K. McGowan 2003. Dance of the Cranes: Crane Symbolism at Çatalhöyük and Beyond, Antiquity 77 (297): 445-455 Russell, N. and L. Martin 2005. Çatalhöyük mammal remains. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Inhabiting Çatalhöyük: Reports from 1995–99 seasons, pp. 33–98. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Gümüş, B. and Daniella E. Bar-Yosef Mayer (2013). Micro-freshwater gastropods at Çatalhöyük as environmental indicators. In I. Hodder (ed.) Humans and Landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from 200-2008 seasons, pp. 81-86. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute. WEEKS 12-13 ARCHAEOBOTANY Archaeobotany is the study of past environments, plants and plant use through investigation of the remains of those plants in archaeological and sedimentary settings. We will focus on the macro-botanical and charcoal remains recovered from Çatalhöyük and examine the taxonomic composition (presence and frequency) of the plant remains but also to contextualize the datawhat context were these remains found in and what is the significance of that context, i.e. midden, floor, oven, construction material, fill, etc.? Remember, not all plants were used for food and many plants enter the archaeological record unintentionally so it is your task to distinguish between natural and cultural practices. Wood charcoal analysis (anthracology) is employed by archaeologist in a range of environments and archaeological site types across the globe. Wood has been used by humans for tens of thousands of years as fuel, in construction, for ceremony and exchange. These activities are preserved in the archaeological record often as distinct contextual features. Wood charcoal also provides researchers with a palaeoenvironmental data set which is tied in space and time to the archaeological record. Through the analysis and identification of individual pieces of charcoal researchers can reconstruct the anthropogenic use of wood diachronically.
Recommended Readings
MACROBOTANICAL ** Fairbairn, A., E. Asouti, J. Near, and D. Martinoli (2002). Macro-botanical Evidence for Plant Use at Neolithic Çatalhöyük south-central Anatolia, Turkey. Vegetation History Archaeobotany 11: 41-54. ** Fairbarin, A. (2005). A History of Agricultural Production at Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey. World Archaeology 37/2: 197-210. ** Fairbairn, A., D. Martinoli, A. Butler and G. Hillman (2007). Wild Plant Seed Storage at Neolithic Çatalhöyük East, Turkey. Vegetation History Archaeobotany 16: 467-479. CHARCOAL ** Asouti, E. (2013). Woodland Vegetation, Firewood Management and Woodcrafts at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, in I. Hodder (Ed.) Humans and landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, pp. 129-162. Asouti, E. and J. Hather (2001) Charcoal analysis and the reconstruction of ancient woodland vegetation in the Konya Basin, south-central Anatolia, Turkey: results from the Neolithic site of Çatalhöyük East. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 10, 23-32. Reitz, E. and M. Shackley (2012). Wood, Wood Charcoal, Stems, Fibers, Leaves, and Roots. Environmental Archaeology. New York: Springer.
