Class website: http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~cbeekman/teaching/anth4320.html

INTRODUCTION AND COURSE OBJECTIVES

The archaeology of Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize, and Honduras has often been in the news in recent years, as discovery after discovery has highlighted the seemingly exotic nature of Mesoamerican society. Students have probably heard about the Maya and the recent spectacular decipherments of their hieroglyphs, or the Aztecs and their practice of human sacrifice. However, these cultural practices are not just curious traits of dead peoples, for they can tell us much about the society of which they were a part.

The trajectory of Mesoamerican change has been used to evaluate anthropological theories of society and social change, including the transition to sedentism and agriculture, the origins of social inequality, and the nature of political power. Students will be introduced to these theories, and will also be exposed to the benefits of integrating different datasets, such as archaeological, art historical, ethnographic, and hieroglyphic data. The rich historical database, for example, provides a striking ethnographic quality to our picture of Mesoamerica, despite the passage of time, and will give students exposure to different worldviews and thought in these non-western cultures.

The course is oriented towards four major transitions over the course of Mesoamerican prehistory. The first involves the earliest peoples of Mesoamerica, and examines how nomadic bands of hunters and gatherers became sedentary and dependent upon agriculture. The next big shift was the appearance of ranked societies, in which some individuals become more equal than others. This was the period of the Olmec, and the beginnings of pan-Mesoamerican trading and political networks. The third transition focuses on the Classic period, certainly the most ostentatious epoch in terms of investment in architecture, sculpture, and art. This is the era of Teotihuacan, Monte Alban, the Teuchitlan Tradition, the Maya cities, and the formation of the institution we call The State. This is followed by the dramatic collapse and reorganization of Classic period society into new and less visually impressive forms that nonetheless included the most far-reaching and complex political and economic systems of the entire sequence. The course will end with a discussion of the Spanish Conquest in the 16th century and the final transition, the incorporation of Mesoamerica into a larger world.

The goals of this course are:

· To familiarize students with the general Precolumbian sequence of Mexico and Central America.

· To show how data from this area contribute to our understanding of major social processes and theories in anthropology

EVALUATION OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE

General policies and expectations – As with any course at UCD, there are certain basic policies that students must comply with. Do not bring pets, children, noisy laptops, or active cellphones/beepers to class. Students are responsible for making sure that they are actually enrolled in the course, and for completing coursework on time. This course involves considerable reading and writing – usually 1 hour of class time will necessitate 3 hours of work outside the class. In order to earn the credit that this course (or any other) is worth, you must be willing and able to invest the time that is required – everyone has outside commitments, jobs, and family life, so do not expect that academic standards will be relaxed just because you have overcommitted yourself. Assignments turned in late will be docked one letter grade for each day they are late, i.e. a paper due Tuesday that is turned in Thursday cannot get better than a “C”. Incompletes are granted at the end of the term only for unfinished work, and only when a legitimate and proven excuse exists. Academic dishonesty is never tolerated, and students should familiarize themselves with the regulations on pages 31-36 of the current catalog. Students with special needs should contact the AHEC Disability Service Office immediately to make arrangements, and I should also be informed as soon as possible.

This course is too large for a seminar format, but I do require that students become involved in class discussion. Both lecture and the readings will bring up many issues of interest to this course and I expect that questions will be forthcoming, as long as they pertain to this course and not to material from the prerequisite. I do not expect you to ask questions just to get “points”, but to contribute to the class in a meaningful way. Class participation will be worth 5% of your final grade.

There will be two take home essay exams over the course of the semester, including the final exam. Each exam will be worth 30% of your grade. The midterm will be distributed in class, and will be due at the beginning of class one week later. The final will be distributed the last day of class, and will be due one week later before 4pm in the anthropology office or via email to myself. Further instructions will follow, but a take home exam requires that you draw upon the course readings and lecture to answer the essays. You will need to provide full citations and a bibliography with the exam as well.

A 25 page research paper is also required from students in this class, and will count for 30% of your grade. This is to be of publishable quality and in the format of articles in the journal American Antiquity – this means that you must have an abstract (summary of 100 words), proper citations of other scholar’s ideas, data, or quotations, and a complete bibliography of references cited. The paper will be on a research question in the archaeology of Mexico and Central America, and students will need to submit an abstract and bibliography as preliminary steps over the course of the semester. In addition, if you choose to submit a draft to me at least two weeks prior to the final due date, I will be happy to get feedback to you on your paper. This is a research paper and that means that you need to use professional scholarly books and articles for your bibliography. Do not use popular sources like National Geographic. Do not use reviews of books – use the book itself. Do not just try to lean on a single chapter or book. A research paper means gathering data related to an actual topic and position, and this means that you need to draw together and integrate material from many sources. Do not use student papers online or websites that somebody has stuck out there without any information about where their data are coming from. These kinds of pages are notoriously inaccurate. Do not use websites as sources. People are habitually using web pages with incorrect or misleading information, and by the time I see it in your bibliography, it’s too late and you suffer the consequences. This of course does not apply to actual articles obtained through the Academic Search Premier, Expanded Academic Index, JSTOR, Kluwer Index or other online databases accessible through our library. Those are regular scholarly articles that have been placed online. You will be required to submit an abstract of two summary paragraphs and a preliminary bibliography by October 5 – this will be worth 5% of your grade. The paper will be due November 30^th and will be worth 30%.

The readings in this course are important to provide more detailed coverage of specific issues and problems in the archaeology of the region. They may cover either methodological or theoretical issues in Mesoamerican archaeology and will form part of class lecture and discussion. As you can see from the breakdown of points, your success in this course will depend heavily upon keeping up with readings, because these will help you participate meaningfully in class discussion, do well on the exams, and write an intelligent paper.

Note that this course has a prerequisite that was clearly noted during the registration process. This is an advanced 4000/5000 level course which both undergraduate and graduate students can take for credit, and only people with an adequate background should take the course. Alas, adherence to prerequisites is not enforced by the course enrollment system, by professors, by your respective department advisors, by your mother, nor by me. You need to police yourself on this issue, and watching Discovery Channel or reading National Geographic does not constitute a sufficient background. Therefore be aware that I will often not be able to spend class time on archaeological techniques and approaches – this is why you need to have taken Anth 1302. If you choose to take this course without the appropriate background, you should minimally purchase a copy of a text like Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn’s Archaeology, so that you can bring yourself up to speed on issues that you do not recognize or understand. Unprepared students drag down the level of the course for those who are properly prepared.

For those registered in Anth 5320 – Graduate students will be expected to write longer and more in-depth papers, and will be held to a higher standard.

REQUIRED TEXTBOOKS AND READINGS

× Evans, Susan T. 2004. Ancient Mexico and Central America: Archaeology and Culture History. Thames and Hudson Press. This will serve as your general textbook.

× A series of articles are to be read for the class day they are listed. These articles have been collected and will be available on Electronic Reserve in the Auraria Library. Should there be any problem with the Auraria system at any time, that is no excuse for not reading. A few of the journal articles are available through JSTOR, Expanded Index, Kluwer Online, or one of the other electronic databases available through our library. Others may be physically available in our library, and of course, there is always interlibrary loan through Prospector or Webzap.

COURSE ORGANIZATION AND READINGS

Week	Date	Topic	Readings in Evans text	Coursepack Readings
1	Aug. 24 (T)	Brief introduction to the course
	Aug. 26 (R)	The culture area of Mexico and Central America – an overview	pp. 15-61	Carrasco 1990
2	Aug. 31 (T)	The first settlers
	Sep. 2 (R)	Early adaptations	62-70	Flannery 1968
3	Sep. 7 (T)	The transition to sedentism and agriculture	71-98	Blake, et al. 1992
	Sep. 9 (R)	The appearance of social inequalities	99-126	Clark and Blake 1994
4	Sep. 14(T)	Who were the Olmec?	127-184	Symonds 2000, skim Reilly 1996
	Sep. 16 (R)	The role of the Olmec as a “Mother Culture”	185-204
5	Sep. 21 (T)	The Olmec aftermath and the emergence of the State in Mesoamerica – The Late and Terminal Formative periods	205-260	Grove and Gillespie 1992
	Sep. 23 (R)	Monte Alban and Oaxaca		Joyce 2000
6	Sep. 28 (T)	Teotihuacan as the first urban center	261-280	Santley 1984
	Sep. 30 (R)	Teotihuacan: its role outside of central Mexico	281-290	Clark 1986
7	Oct. 5 (T)	Movie: The Teuchitlan tradition
	Oct. 7 (R)	Far Western Mexico		Beekman 2003
8	Oct. 12 (T)	The Northern Mexican mountains, plains, and deserts Hand out Take Home Midterm Exam		Nelson, et al. 1992
	Oct. 14 (R)	The Classic Maya: The integration of hieroglyphics and archaeology	291-314	Houston and Stuart 1996
9	Oct. 19 (T)	Take Home Midterm Due, 1pm		Robin 2003
	Oct. 21 (R)	The Classic Maya Collapse: Social and Ecological Explanations	315-348	Demarest 2001, Braswell 2001
10	Oct. 26 (T)	The Epiclassic and the disappearance of the old system in northern Mesoamerica	349-398	Hirth 1995
	Oct. 28 (R)	The legend of the Toltecs and the reorganization of Mesoamerican society	399-422
11	Nov. 2 (T)	The Aztecs of central Mexico: Origins and Expansion	423-496
	Nov. 4 (R)	The Aztec Empire	497-524	Brumfiel 1991
12	Nov. 9 (T)			Parsons 1991
	Nov. 11 (R)	There weren’t just Aztecs		Spores 1974, Pollard 1980
13	Nov. 16 (T)	The Spanish Conquest	525-539	Diaz del Castillo 1963 [1568]
	Nov. 18 (R)	The Colonial Period	540-550	Monaghan, et al. 2003, Burkhart 1998
14	Nov. 23 (T)	FALL BREAK – NO CLASS
	Nov. 25 (R)	FALL BREAK – NO CLASS
15	Nov. 30 (T)	How did the New World affect the Old? Papers due		Andrews 1993
	Dec. 2 (R)	Archaeology’s role in modern Mexico and Central America Handout of Final Take Home Exam		Brandes 1998
16	Dec. 6-11	NO CLASS – DEAD WEEK Take Home Final Due Dec. 9, 4pm
17	Dec. 13-18	NO CLASS

READINGS

Carrasco, David. 1990. Religions of Mesoamerica. Cosmovision and Ceremonial Centers. Waveland Press, Prospect Heights. Pp. 24-57.

Flannery, Kent V. 1968. Archeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. In Anthropological Archeology in the Americas, pp. 67-87. The Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, D.C.

Blake, Michael, Brian S. Chisholm, John E. Clark, Barbara Voorhies, and Michael W. Love. 1992. Prehistoric Subsistence in the Soconusco Region. Current Anthropology 33(1): 83-94.

Clark, John E. and Michael Blake. 1994. The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and John W. Fox, pp. 15-30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Symonds, Stacey. 2000. The Ancient Landscape at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Veracruz, Mexico: Settlement and Nature. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 55-73. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

F. Kent Reilly III. 1996. Art, Ritual and Rulership in the Olmec World. In The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership, pp. 27-46. The Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton.

Grove, David and Susan Gillespie. 1992. Archaeological Indicators of Formative Period Elites: A Perspective from Central Mexico. In Mesoamerican Elites. An Archaeological Assessment, edited by Diane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase, pp. 191-205. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Joyce, Arthur. 2000. The founding of Monte Albán. Sacred Propositions and Social Practices. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John E. Robb, pp. 71-91. Routledge Press, London.

Santley, Robert. 1984. Obsidian Exchange, Economic Stratification, and the Evolution of Complex Society in the Basin of Mexico. In Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica, edited by Kenneth Hirth, pp. 43-86. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Clark, John E. 1986. From Mountains to Mole Hills: A Critical Review of Teotihuacan’s Obsidian Industry. In Economic Aspects of Prehispanic Highland Mexico, edited by Barry L. Isaac, pp. 23-74. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supp. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich.

Beekman, Christopher S. 2003. Agriculture, Ritual and Rulership in Late Formative Jalisco. Ancient Mesoamerica 14(2): 299-318.

Nelson, Ben A., J. Andrew Darling, and David A. Kice. 1992. Mortuary practices and the social order at La Quemada, Zacatecas, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 3: 298-315.

Houston, Stephen, and David Stuart. 1996. Of Gods, Glyphs and Kings: Divinity and Rulership among the Classic Maya. Antiquity 70: 289-312.

Robin, Cynthia. 2003. New Directions in Classic Maya Household Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(4): 307-348.

Demarest, Arthur. 2004. After the Maelstrom: Collapse of the Classic Maya Kingdoms and the Terminal Classic in Western Peten. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands. Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, pp. 102-124. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Braswell, Geoffrey E., Joel D. Gunn, Maria del Rosario Dominguez Carrasco, William J. Folan, Laraine A. Fletcher, Abel Morales Lopez, and Michael D. Glascock. 2004. Defining the Terminal Classic at Calakmul, Campeche. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands. Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, pp. 102-124. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Hirth, Kenneth. 1995. Urbanism, Militarism, and Architectural Design. Ancient Mesoamerica 6: 237-250.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth. 1991. Weaving and Cooking: Women’s Production in Aztec Mexico. In Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, pp. 224-251. Basil Blackwell, London.

Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1991. Political Implications of Prehispanic Chinampa Agriculture in the Valley of Mexico. In Land and Politics in the Valley of Mexico: A Two Thousand Year Perspective, edited by H.R. Harvey, pp. 17-42. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Spores, Ronald. 1974. Marital Alliance in the Political Integration of Mixtec Kingdoms. American Anthropologist 76: 297-311.

Pollard, Helen Perlstein. 1980. Agrarian Potential, Population, and the Tarascan State. Science 209: 274-277.

Diaz del Castillo, Bernal. 1963 [1568]. The Conquest of New Spain, pp. 216-219, 284-306. Penguin Classics, London.

Monaghan, John, Arthur Joyce, and Ronald Spores. 2003. Transformations of the Indigenous Cacicazgo in the Nineteenth Century. Ethnohistory 50(1): 131-150.

Burkhart, Louise M. 1998. Pious Performances: Christian Pageantry and Native Identity in Early Colonial Mexico. In Native Traditions in the Postconquest World, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone and Tom Cummins, pp. 361-381. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Andrews, Jean. 1993. Diffusion of Mesoamerican food complex to Southeastern Europe. The Geographical Review 83: 194-199.

Brandes, Stanley. 1998. Iconography in Mexico's Day of the Dead: Origins and Meaning. Ethnohistory 45: 181-218.

Drop schedule
Through 8 Sep	no faculty or associate dean permission required
9 Sep – 1 Nov	faculty permission required
2 Nov – 12 Nov	faculty permission and associate dean (automatic without review) permission required
13 Nov – 18 Dec	CLAS students will not be allowed to drop, and it is assumed they will receive a grade