New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Week 4 Notes

by: Kelli Notetaker

Week 4 Notes XANTHRO 2AC

Kelli Notetaker

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Notes before midterm
Introduction to Archaeology
Kent G Lightfoot
Class Notes
intro, to, archaelogy
25 ?




Popular in Introduction to Archaeology

Popular in Department

This 9 page Class Notes was uploaded by Kelli Notetaker on Sunday September 25, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to XANTHRO 2AC at University of California Berkeley taught by Kent G Lightfoot in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 3 views.


Reviews for Week 4 Notes


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 09/25/16
Anthro 2AC 9/23/2016 Read:  Sharer and Ashmore 2014, Chap 2 IV. ARCH. AND CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY         5. Collaboration Is Key to the Future A.  Different Levels of Collaboration i.  Participatory Mode – just invite groups to participate but archaeologists do the work. 2 ii.  Full Collaboration Mode – tribes brought in for everything  iii.  Indigenous Archaeology – with, for, and by native peoples B.  Begin Collaboration As Soon as Possible C.  Work with Diverse Stakeholders Not Just Native American Tribes – work with different  stakeholders but they might be different races and communities.  D.  Archaeologists Must Learn To Share Stewardship Of the Past – must learn to share the  stewardship with relevant stakeholders.  E.  Impact of Collaboration on Archaeology Work with Plurality of People and Views; Develop Collaborative Working Relationships; How impacts Research Questions, Field Methods, Interpretation? Develop and formulate plans of how you’re going to do the research and  field work. Can’t do what you want to do. Some sites and excavating methods are off limits.  Field is in transition point.  V.  HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY 1.  Practice of American Archaeology (1900­1920) – culture history new archaeology, post  processel archaeology.    A.  Roots of Anthropological Archaeology­this is the time you see the rise. Stems from the  study of indigenous people.  Split from Classical Archaeology + Prehistory as Practiced in Europe; different than in  Europe. Closely aligned with ancient history and language. Talks about biblical archaeology.  Archaeology in USA Taught in Anthropology; it separated at the time. We began to develop the  4­field approach of anthropology Cultural, linguistic, biological, and archaeology.    B.  Study of Native American Societies Historic Continuity – Present and Past Societies; Smithsonian Institution; Scholars Trained as Four­Field Anthropologists; Undertake  projects Across the Americas; Observation Made – historic continuity between past and present  people. The Smithsonian Institution sponsored it. It was established by the federal government as being the country’s museum in 1846.  Some Native People Still Using Tools, Foods Similar to those Found in Nearby Archaeological  Sites; Observed Direct­Historical Link between Today and Past; most of these Smithsonian  scholars that studied native people were trained as anthropologists. They were dispatched across  Americas to do studies. They found that in many cases native people were still using traditional  things and practices subsistence in their food. These kind of traditional practices were similar to  what they found in nearby archaeological sites. There was a direct historical link between  contempory people and their ancestors.  C.  Direct Historical Approach – Ethnographic Analogy using the knowledge of the present;  Trace Material Culture Back Through Time; Diachronic long term. Traced the material  culture of a specific group back through time; Holistic Anthropological Perspective the 4  –fields; Use Knowledge of Present to Reconstruct Past Created an innovated approach for studying the material culture. They did good participatory research by watching the  people to help them interpret the past. The basis of ethnographic observations.  D. Case Study: Mound Builders’ Debate;  Cyrus Thomas from Smithsonian Institution; Late Prehistoric Mounds of Midwest and Southeast (Burial, Platform, Geometric  Mounds) undertaken by Cyrus Thompson to solve the myth of these mounds.  Questions Raised: Who Built the Mounds?  Had a whole series of mounds built before  Europeans came to the area. Shell mounds in SF. There are dirt mounds in other areas. Hopewell  mounds in Ohio were a little smaller. Cahokia Mound Complex are one of the largest and  platform mounds outside of St. Louis. Ethogy mounds of long snake like hills. Two opinions: 1)  built by ancestors of natives 2) Mound Builders Myth built by lost civilized people; Early  Development of Historical Anthropology: Archaeology/Ethnography, Ethnohistory,                      Biological Anthropology; Used Direct Historical Approach; By 1880s money needed to go to  finding out who built the mounds.  E.   Rise of Anthropological Archaeology;  Archaeology Taught in Anthropology Depts Harvard, Columbia, UCB (1901); Classic Four­Field Approach in Anthropology; 2.  Culture History Approach (1920­1960)                Anthro 2AC 9/21/2016 Read:  Silliman and Ferguson 2010; Lightfoot 2005 IV. ARCH. AND CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY         2.  NAGPRA ­­1990 federal law signed by George Bush;   Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act; ­ tribes of United states was  not happy because of minimal collaboration, issues of stewards of the past, and  destruction of sites.    B.  NAGPRA and Museum Collections­ problems with repatriation. Allowed a legal process  native to request indigenous remains to go back to their tribes. Repatriation; Human Remains, Associated Funerary Objects(human remains and  funerary objects) they can ask for them back; Museums Produce Inventories had to work  out what each material was associated with;                   Identify Most Likely Descendants; or Culturally Unidentifiable tribes could still claim  materials; Tribes Can Claim Materials C.  NAGPRA and Field Work Preserve and Protect Sacred Sites; Permit Process to undertake fieldwork on Government And Tribal Lands­ must find what tribal group is most affiliated with these remains. Have to an agreement in writing before  going on the field.  3. Perspectives on NAGPRA A.  Tribes – Human Rights Legislation; Tribes as Legitimate Stewards of Past; ­NAGPRA is  human rights legislation. Allows them to control the remains of their past. They now become  stewards of the past. They are making sure their remains are treated with the same respect. B.  Archaeologists and Bioanthropologists  Mixed Opinions­ very volatile time to be in the field.  i.  Positive Step Forward­ an opportunity to make collaborated research projects with  native groups. It will revitalize the field.  ii. Problematic for Field; Fight over Control of Past; Concerns about Loss of Scientific Data; Academic Freedom­ very skeptical of what it would do to the field. They  must share their stewardship of the past and no longer in control. Everything has to be  negotiated. Archaeological remains were very important in scientific data. Many were concerned about losing the science. Ancient DNA analysis provided great info with human remains. We’re  going to lose the science and analysis.  4. Kennewick Man—The Ancient One Early Human Remains (about 9000 years old);­1996 a human skeleton was found on a  river and archaeologist found the radiocarbon date found it was about 9000 year olds.  Kennewick Washington; Under NAGPRA Repatriate Remains to 5 Local Tribes; Lawsuit by Scientists to Stop Repatriation;  Question about Affiliation of Kennewick to Modern Tribes; Craniometrics Study – They  agreed to give it back to tribe. But group of archaeologists decided to fight the  repatriation. Argued that Kennewick man might not be Native American.  Suggests Ainu or Polynesian; Recent DNA Analysis ­­ Indicates Genetic Relation to  Local Tribes­ skeleton remains looked different from the native people. Look more like  Polynesian, northern Japanese people. 1998 someone thought the skeleton looked  Caucasian. Group of 8 scientists the united core of engineers. Court ruled in favor of the  scientists. Is shown in a recent DNA study that it was closely related to Native  Americans. 5. Collaboration Is Key to the Future A.  Different Levels of Collaboration i.  Participatory Mode­ invites a group to participate ii.  Full Collaboration Mode­ collaboration takes place at the whole research level iii.  Indigenous Archaeology­ archaeology’s with, for, and by native peoples.  B.  Begin Collaboration As Soon as Possible C.  Work with Diverse Stakeholders Not Just Native American Tribes D.  Archaeologists Must Learn To Share Stewardship Of the Past; E.  Impact of Collaboration on Archaeology Work with Plurality of People and Views; Develop Collaborative Working Relationships; How impacts Research Questions, Field Methods, Interpretation? V.  HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGY 1.  Practice of American Archaeology (1900­1920)   A.  Roots of Anthropological Archaeology Split from Classical Archaeology; Prehistory as Practiced in Europe; Archaeology in  USA Taught in Anthropology;    B.  Study of Native American Societies Historic Continuity – Present and Past Societies; Smithsonian Institution; Scholars Trained as Four­Field Anthropologists                Anthro 2AC 9/19/2016 Read:  Burke and Smith 2008; Wilcox 2010 Rasmussen et al 2015 (Optional) III.CHALLENGES STUDYING ARCH. MATERIAL  4.  Dynamic Nature of Cultural Landscapes C. Case Study: Shell Mounds of SF Bay iv. Chronology; 5000­4000 years old; Places Used over Centuries; Late Occupations; Tsim Schneider 2015; Places of Refuge from Franciscan Missions; Sacred  Spaces­ built mounted landscape before Spanish coming over. They contained 1,000s of ecofacts and artifacts, and thousands of burials. People built houses on top of burials then destroyed  houses. Mounds are dated back to 4,000­5,000 years. Burke and Smith talks about natives tried  to leave and they would go back to these mounds. They are sacred places of their ancestors.  v.  Mounds as Contemporary Palimpsests previous occupations are smeared witht that  today (dynamic landscapes); Modern Cities Built on and around the Mounds; Many of the Mounds Disturbed; Various Transformational Processes at Work Landscapes change over years. Not  perfectly there like Pompeii. They were built by water and good land. Colonists  occupied near fertile land. Many of the sites that weren’t protected were mined  and destroyed. These sites aren’t very recognizable anymore. If you look at early  farm houses were put on high places and on top of mounds.  vi. Lower San Pablo Mounds; West Berkeley Shell Mound; Emeryville Shell Mound;­  1906 Nels Nelson he reported. 1950 UC Berkeley went into that area before a factory was built.  Number of burials excavated. There is shellfish (Midden Deposit). Emeryville basically removed the top of the mound.  IV. ARCH. AND CONTEMPORARY SOCIETY          1. Collaboration in Archaeology: Introduction  how the field in undergoing significant changes.  We don’t undertake archaeology alone. They are collaborated projects.       Shell Mounds of SF Bay – Nice Transition; Field Research Undertaken Differently Today; Natives view shell mounds as sacred  places. And that they way we treated them was okay. There was no collaboration when Berkeley  excavated these mounds. Today, people say that the natives should have a say of what happenes  to their ancestors.  Ohlone, Coast Miwok, Bay Miwok People ­­ View these Sites as Sacred; Growing  Recognition about Need to Collaborate with other Stakeholders: i. Ethical Reasons; It is the right thing to do. We should be sympathetic over  Native’s ancestries.  ii. Federal and State Laws; Mandate archaeological sites with stakeholders or groups with special interests.  2.  NAGPRA ­­1990 law;     Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act;­ Passed by George W Bush,. It was a federal law between Native American tribes, archaeologists and lawyers. Natives  pushed this law through.    A.  Background to NAGPRA Earlier Generations of Archaeologists WorkedWith Tribes they were doing this  Ethnographic Analogy to find material remains of their ancestors. They would ask questions of  how certain things were used.  Kent’s Professors – Worked with Acoma Pueblo; Late 1960s and 1970s – Processual or New Archaeology time of archaeologically where  it wanted to be more scientific; Stress Science; Ethnographic Analogy Out of Favor Old style of archaeology and working with tribes were pushed to  the side; Tribes Excluded from Archaeology; Implications (threefold): There was  movements of native activism. Natives became very resentful.  i.  Minimal Collaboration with Stakeholders – Native people were not brought in for  research. They weren’t apart of the archaeology. Natives felt like they were contributing  to excluded pasts. ii. Desecration of Sacred Sites­ Natives saw archaeologists as gravediggers.  iii. Who Are Stewards of the Past? Archaeologists Trained as Stewards of the Past – who  owns and speaks for the past? Native people think they should decode what happens to  the remains related to them.  B.  NAGPRA and Museum Collections Repatriation; Human Remains, Associated Funerary Objects; Museums Produce  Inventories;                   Identify Most Likely Descendants; or Culturally Unidentifiable; Tribes Can Claim Materials; C.  NAGPRA and Field Work Preserve and Protect Sacred Sites; Permit Process to undertake field work on Government And Tribal Lands 3. Perspectives on NAGPRA A.  Tribes – Human Rights Legislation; Tribes as Legitimate Stewards of Past; B.  Archaeologists and Bioanthropologists  Mixed Opinions i.  Positive Step Forward ii. Problematic for Field; Fight over Control of Past; Concerns about Loss of Scientific Data; Academic Freedom 4. Kennewick Man—The Ancient One Early Human Remains (about 9000 years old); Kennewick Washington; Under NAGPRA Repatriate Remains to 5 Local Tribes; Lawsuit by Scientists to Stop Repatriation; Question about Affiliation of Kennewick to Modern Tribes; Craniometrics Study – Suggests Ainu or Polynesian; Recent DNA Analysis ­­ Indicates Genetic Relation to  Local Tribes 5. Collaboration Is Key to the Future               


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.