Anth
221 Materials and Civilization: An Overview of Archaeometry
Spring 2006.
Tu, Th 9:00-10:20, Campus Honors House 212
"Materials and Civilization..." is an
introduction to archaeometry, the interface between archaeology,
art history, and the natural and physical
sciences. This interdisciplinary field requires close
collaboration between different specialists who
employ modern instrumental techniques (e.g.
carbon-14 dating and neutron activation
analysis) to study aspects of ancient materials. Applications range from
archaeological fieldwork to conservation of museum objects and historic
monuments, including such topics as ancient nutrition and diet, early tool use,
sourcing of ceramics, prospection and geoarchaeology, dating, and art forgery. The class will be enlivened by guest
lectures, classroom debates on topics such as the Shroud of Turin and the First
Americans, and field trips to campus museums and laboratories. Evaluation will
be based both on written work and oral participation.
Prerequisites: Campus Honors
Program or consent of instructor; no prior coursework.
Instructor:
Dr. Sarah U. Wisseman, Director
Program on Ancient Technologies and
Archaeological Materials (ATAM),
116 Observatory, MC 190
tel: 333-6629,
e-mail: wisarc@uiuc.edu
Office hours: by
appointment (e-mail works best!).
After completing a B.A. in Anthropology at
Harvard University and a Ph.D in Classical and Near
Eastern Archaeology at Bryn Mawr College, Dr.
Wisseman worked as a curator and researcher at
the World Heritage/Spurlock Museum prior to
joining ATAM. Her special interests are ceramic technology
and archaeometry, including experimental
replication of Etruscan, Roman, and North American pottery. She has
participated in archaeological excavations in Israel, Italy, and North America
and supervised
numerous archaeometric projects such as the one
on the University of Illinois' Egyptian mummy. She currently works with North
American archaeologists and geologists to source pipestone from the Midwest
using a portable spectrometer.
Guest Lecturers for 2006:
* John
Abelson (Materials Science, UIUC)
* Steve Altaner
(Geology, UIUC)
* Keith Hackley
(Illinois State Geological Survey, UIUC)
*James
Mabon and Mauro Sardela (Materials Research Laboratory)
*Eve
Hargrave and Laura Kozuch (ITARP)
Course requirements and grading:
Students will be expected to participate in
classroom debates and discussions, write two 5 pg. papers plus a couple of
short assignments, and complete one in-class essay.
Grading will be as follows:
Debate presentation: 20%
Short oral report, class participation, and class
attendance: 20%
First paper: 20%
Second paper: 20%
Wiki critiques:
20%
TOTAL: 100%
REQUIRED
BOOK
(available for purchase at UIUC bookstores and on reserve in the
Undergraduate Library):
Joseph
LAMBERT, Traces of the Past: Unraveling the Secrets of Archaeology through
Chemistry (Perseus Books 1997)
CLASS WEB SITE: http://cterhost.ed.uiuc.edu/moodle/login/index.php
Enrollment
key is “archaeometry221”
Check this site frequently for updates, changes
of locations for class, etc.
ELECTRONIC RESERVES: from any connected terminal, go to http://web.library.uiuc.edu/ereserves/querycourse.asp
Choose
“Anth 221- Wisseman, Sarah” to access our readings.
ASSIGNED
READINGS and lecture schedule: (n.b. articles in
bold and with ** are for oral assignment, see below)
(ER=Electronic Reserve, UG=On reserve at
Undergrad library reserve desk, CHP=extra copies on reserve at Campus Honors
house)
WEEK 1. INTRODUCTION TO ARCHAEOMETRY, ANTHROPOLOGICAL AND
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONCEPTS
**P. Zurer, "Archaeological Chemistry"
C&En (Feb. 21, 1983) pp. 26-42 (ER, CHP).
**C. Scarre, “High-Tech Digging,” Archaeology,
September/October 1999, pp.51-55. (ER, CHP)
Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn, Archaeology
(2nd Ed. 1996), ch. 2 "What is Left: the Variety of the Evidence"
(UG)
“Science and Technology: Two Cultures United,”
Economist, Nov. 9, 2002, pp. 83-85. (ER)
WISSEMAN
AND WILLIAMS, ch. 1 "Why study artifacts?..." (ER)
WEEK
2. EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGYA ND CERAMICS
**N. Toth, "The First Technology," Scientific
American (ER)
**LAMBERT, Ch. 3, "Pottery." (UG) OR
Bowman, ch. 3 “Ceramics for All Reasons” (ER, CHP)
I. Freestone, "Ceramic Petrography, " American
Journal of Archaeology 99
(1995) 111-115 (ER).
Skim
Prudence Rice, Pottery Analysis (1987) ch. 13
"Mineral and Chemical
Characterization," (UG)
WEEK
3. GREEK TILE MAKING
WISSEMAN AND WILLIAMS, ch. 2 “From Pots to
People” (UG, CHP)
WEEK
4. GEOARCHAEOLOGY
**LAMBERT, ch. 1 "Stone." (UG)
**LAMBERT, ch. 2, "Soil." (UG)
**Herz and Wenner, "Tracing the Origins of
Marble," Archaeology 34 no. 5
(Sept./Oct 1981) (ER)
**Margolis, "Authenticating Ancient Marble
Sculpture," Scientific American
(June 1989) (ER)
WEEK
5. GEOARCHAEOLOGY (cont.), DATING
BOWMAN, Ch. 7 (Bowman), "Questions of
Chronology." (UG)
Renfrew and Bahn, Archaeology, ch. 4
"When?" (UG)
**Berry and Bamforth, “Microwear Analysis of
Prehistoric Stone Tools,” MRS Bulletin, March 1989, pp. 45-48. (ER)
T. Sever, "Remote Sensing," and B. Bevan
"Geophysical Prospecting," in P. McGovern, ed., "Science
in Archaeology: A Review," American
Journal of Archaeology 99 (1995) pp. 111-115 and 83-90 (ER)
**F. El-Baz, "Space Age Archaeology," Scientific
American (August 1997) pp. 60-65 (ER).
WEEK
6. MUSEUM APPLICATIONS
**BOWMAN CH. 8,
"Spotting the Fakes," (by P. Craddock and S. Bowman) (UG)
**WISSEMAN AND WILLIAMS, Ch. 9 (Williams),
"Science and the Art Museum...," (UG, CHP)
**Bowman, ch. 10 “The limits of expertise.”
(UG).
WEEK 7: DEBATE ON SHROUD OF TURIN
You
do not need to read everything on this topic—read the starred articles first,
plus what you need for your part of the debate.
*B. Culliton, "The Mystery of the Shroud
of Turin Challenges 20th Century Science," Science 201
(21 July 1978) pp. 235-239 (ER).
*Johnson "Scientists examine The Shroud of
Turin," Industrial
Research/Development
(Feb. 1980) (ER)
*Waldrop "The Shroud of Turin: An answer is
at hand.. "Science 241 (30 Sept.
1988) (ER)
*Damon, et al. "Radiocarbon dating of the
Shroud of Turin," Nature (Feb. 16,
1989) (ER)
Joseph Nickell, Inquest on the Shroud of
Turin (1983), at least chps 11 and
12 (other chps useful for provenance and
imaging: 1-4, 7, 8) (UG)
J. Lambert, Archaeological Chemistry III
(1982) Carter "Formation of the Image…" and Jumper "A
comprehensive examination…" articles (chapters 21 and 22) (UG)
*Kouznetsov, et al., "Effects of Fire..."
Journal of Arch. Science (1996) (ER)
*McCrone, "The Shroud of Turin: Blood or
Artist's Pigment?" Accounts of
Chemical Research
vol. 23 (March 1990) (ER)
*Warner,
"The Shroud of Turin" Anal. Chem. 61, no. 2 (1/15/89)
(ER)
David van Biema, “Science and the Shroud,” Time
(April 20, 1998) (CHP)
Additional
Shroud resources: You may want to check out Ian Wilson,
The Shroud of Turin (1978). Also Relic, Icon, or Hoax? Carbon Dating the
Turin Shroud by Harry E. Gove (1996) (both on reserve UG). Also check out Shroud pages on the web (see
Resources on our website).
WEEK 8. ARCHAEOMETALLURGY
**LAMBERT, ch. 7, "Metals." (UG)
**BOWMAN, ch. 5, “Metalwork: Artiface and
artistry” (UG)
WEEK 9. SOURCING OF STONE
Wisseman, et al.,
“Mineralogical approaches to sourcing pipes and figurines from the eastern
woodlands, U.S.A. Geoarchaeology 17 no. 7 (p 689-715)
(CHP, ER)
WEEK 10: SPRING BREAK (MARCH 20-24)
WEEK 11: BIOMATERIALS
**LAMBERT, ch. 6, "Organics." (UG)
**LAMBERT, ch. 8 "Humans." (UG)
T. Douglas Price, “Tracing the Migrants’ Trail:
Strontium Isotopes Record Prehistoric Journeys,” Scientific American
Discovering Archaeology Sept/Oct 2000, pp. 26-31. (ER)
**Axt-Hanson,
Amy -- Where the elements roam (ER)
**Gorman,
Jessica -- King Midas' modern mourners (ER)
WEEK 12. DEBATE ON J. PAUL GETTY MUSEUM KOUROS
You
do not need to read everything on this topic—read the starred articles first,
plus what you need for your part of the debate.
*"Summary of Scientific Research on the
Getty Kouros" (1992 unpublished
paper, given to participants in the Athens
colloquium) (short 3 pg version--UG)
Separate articles:
*M. True, "A Kouros at the Getty
Museum" Burlington Magazine (ER)
*"Summary of Scientific Research on the
Getty Kouros" (long version (30+ pgs—UG, CHP)
Herz,
"Isotopic Analysis of Marble," in George Rapp, Jr., and J. A. Gifford
(Eds) Archaeological Geology (Yale University Press, New Haven 1985). (UG)
*Heller and Herz, "Weathering of Dolomitic
Marble and the Role of Oxalates"
in The Study of Marble and Other Stone...
ed. Y. Maniatis (1995) (UG, CHP)
*Excerpts from the Getty Kouros Colloquium
(1993) by Harrison, Holtzmann
(style) and Rockwell (carving techniques) (UG,
CHP)
**J. Spier, "Blinded by Science" Burlington
Magazine (1990) (ER)
Robert Bianchi, “Saga of The Getty Kouros,” Arcaheology
(May/June 1994) (CHP)
WEEK 13. BIOMATERIALS (cont.)
**WISSEMAN, Ch. 12 , "Imaging the
Past..." (UG, CHP)
**Proefke, et al., “Probing the Mysteries of Ancient Egypt: Chemical analysis of a Roman Period Egyptian Mummy, “ Analytical Chemistry 64, no. 2, Jan 15, 1992, pp. 105A-111A. (ER)
WEEK
14. DEBATE ON THE FIRST AMERICANS
You
do not need to read everything on this topic—read the starred articles first,
plus what you need for your part of the debate.
*Parfit, M. “The Hunt for the First Americans” National
Geographic (December 2000) pp. 41-67. (ER)
* Nemecek, Sasha, “Who were the First
Americans?” Scientific American (September 2000), pp. 78-87. (ER)
*“The Puzzle of the First Americans,” Scientific American Discovering Archaeology,
Jan/Feb 2000, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 30-71 (includes short articles by Dixon, Fiedel, Frison, Gruhn, Harris, Haynes, Hofman, Owsley, Prag, Schurr, Stanford, Steele, Tankersley, Thomas, and Waters). (ER)
**T. Powledge and M. Rose, "The Great DNA Hunt, Part
II: Colonizing the Americas," Archaeology November/December 1996
pp. 58-68. (ER)
**Tankersley, "A Matter of Superior
Spearpoints," Archaeology, July/August 1999, pp.60-63 (ER)
*Charles W. Petit, 1998,“Rediscovering America,” U.S. News and World Report, pp. 56-64. (ER, also web links for “First Americans”)
*David Hurst Thomas, 2000, “Busting the Clovis Barrier,” and “What Modern Archaeologists Think about the Earliest Americans, ” pp. 157-174, Skull Wars (Basic Books, New York) (ER)
Tom
Dillehay, “Lingering Questions,” The
Settlement of the Americas: A New Prehistory, (Basic Books 2000), ch. 11, pp. 281-293. (ER, UG)
*Brian Fagan, 2000, “The First Settlement, “Ancient North America, (Thames and
Hudson, London), ch. 4, pp. 69-90. (ER, UG)
WEEK
15. MRL TOUR AND WIKI ASSIGNMENTS
WEEK
16. WRAP-UP AND PORTFOLIOS
*************************
ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES (on reserve in UG):
Mark
Pollard and Carl Heron, Archaeological Chemistry (Royal Society of
Chemistry 1996)
Enrico Ciliberto and Geuseppe Spoto, eds, Modern
Analytical Methods in Art and Archaeology, (John Wiley and Sons 2000)
Taylor, R.E. and Martin J. Aitken, eds, Chronometric
Dating in Archaeology, Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science, Vol.
2 (Plenum Press,New York, 1997)
Norman
Herz and Ervan G. Garrison, Geological
Methods for Archaeology (Oxford University Press 1998)
Sarah
Wisseman, The Virtual Mummy (Univ. of Illinois Press, 2003).
**A
very useful reference tool is: Art and Archaeology Technical Abstracts,
call # 016.913 IN8.
You
can search it by technique, material or various conservation and technological
topics.
WRITTEN
ASSIGNMENTS:
ARCHAEOMETRY WIKI PROJECT: You will work with the rest of the class to create an internal Wikipedia series of pages on the subject of this class, Archaeometry/Archaeological Science. To get an idea of what I mean, consult the public-access Wiki on "Archaelogical Science" at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_science
Our completed pages may "go public" at the end of the semester (after I investigate the new restrictions imposed by Wikipedia), meaning they can be altered by future contributors. Option 2 is to put it on the ATAM website as a resource for future teachers and students (cannot be altered). Ideally, our final Archaeometry Wiki will include GENERAL TOPICS, such as Geoarchaeology, Bioarchaeology, Authenticity, and Provenance studies, plus SPECIFIC TOPICS on individual analytical techniques (e.g. Radiocarbon dating) and examples of case studies (e.g. your class debates on the Shroud, the Getty Kouros, and the First Americans, or other topics such as the Vinland Map and studies of ancient wine and beer production).
Part 1: Due on Thursday, Feb. 16.
Consult at least 3 websites and 2 Class readings (either paper or ER). Hint: Consult the “Course Conceptual Outline” under “Resources” for general topics. DO include links to other relevant websites. MAKE SURE you credit your sources, either with included references or web links.
Post the equivalent of 2-4 pages, double-spaced, on a GENERAL archaeometry topic of your choice to this Wiki. For this assignment, it doesn’t matter if more than one of you choose the same general topic. **Send a copy to Sarah Wisseman as a back-up.
Part 2: Due on Thursday, March 16.
Choose a Part 1 entry on our internal Wiki written by one of your fellow students.
Do your best to improve the entry by editing, adding to it, and finding new links to relevant websites. **Send a copy to Sarah Wisseman as a back-up. Highlight your changes/additions in a different color.
Part 3: Due on Tuesday, April 18.
Now that you've written a general entry on one of the subtopics of archaeometry, it's time to choose a SPECIFIC TOPIC. Depending on your level of scientific background, you may choose either a specific instrumental technique (eg. Neutron activation analysis) or a specific case study, such as one of our class debates OR an interesting topic such as the Vinland Map, ancient wine production, replication of Greek vases, study of mummies, etc.
**Email Dr. Wisseman with your choice of topic. This time, I will limit the number of people who can work on the same topic so we have some variety.
Again, consult least 3 websites and 2 Class readings (either paper or ER) or the equivalent print sources you find on your own. If you choose a class debate, you should present ALL of the issues, not just the aspect you researched. Remember to write as if you are presenting the topic to a general audience (e.g the public-access Wikipedia).
Post the equivalent of 5 double-spaced pages. **Send a copy to Sarah Wisseman as a back-up.
Part 4: Due on Friday,
April 28.
Your professor will be out of town at in international conference on April 27. NO CLASS on that Thursday. Instead, use your time to edit/add to/ improve the second, specific technique or case study Wiki of one of your classmates.
**Post your additions/ improvements in good time to give your classmates time to read them. **Send a copy to Sarah Wisseman as a back-up. Highlight your changes/additions in a different color.
Our final class on Tuesday, May 2, will include a discussion of the Wiki project.
CRITERIA FOR GRADING OF WIKI ASSIGNMENTS:
· Accuracy of information.
· Correct and complete listing of websites and print references. For print references, used this form for in-text references: (author’s last name, date, page #) e.g (Wisseman 1999) or (Wisseman 1999: 29). At the END of your entry, list the print references like this: Wisseman, Sarah, 1999, “The Mummy Strikes again,” JAIS no. 15, pp. 14-22. Or (for a book): Wisseman, Sarah, 2003, The Virtual Mummy, University of Illinois Press, pp. 29-29.
· On-time postings (and email copy to professor at wisarc@uiuc.edu).
· Language/level: Entry appropriate for general, educated public (not overly technical. Can provide links or references to more detailed and technical material).
· Editing/critiques: No colleague bashing!. Just do you best to improve and expand each entry to make the final product useful for everyone.
ORAL
ASSIGNMENTS:
1. Prepare your debate presentation, planning on no more than 20 minutes. Clarity and organization count as much as
content. Talk to Dr. Wisseman
if you wish to use slides, make handouts, etc. A laptop with Powerpoint is
available from CHP, but we have to reserve it.
2. 5 MINUTE oral report on one of the
double-starred readings (due different days depending on reading chosen).
CRITIQUE your article, don’t regurgitate it. Assume your classmates have read
it. Is it too technical? Does it have a good balance between archaeological/art
historical context and analytical information? Is it appropriate for undergrads
from different majors, or more suited to a graduate student/ specialist? CHOOSE
YOUR ARTICLE asap.
CRITERIA
FOR GRADING OF ORAL ASSIGNMENTS:
Clarity,
organization, and content (in that order). A short, succinct presentation is always better than a long rambling one.