ANTHROPOLOGICAL ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Anthropology 3328-1 (15587)/6328-1 (11558) Middle East 3743-1 (16062)
University of Utah - Spring Semester 2011

Dr. Ewa Wasilewska  
 

..

COURSE OUTLINE

Instructor:  Dr. Ewa Wasilewska
Contact Info.: 

Office: Stewart 101. By appointment only.
Office phone: 801-581-6251. Please call between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. and leave your name, phone number, and course number so the instructor can call you back. Telephone appointments are acceptable.
Home phone: 801-596-3105. For emergencies only, unless a telephone appointment is arranged.
Email: Mruczek@AOL.com Preferable for all contacts.
Website: www.ewas.us
Time:  Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Location:  CAMPUS - ST. 208
Course Description:

This course is designed as an analytical survey of major events and discoveries in the Near East, through studying archaeological evidence and available textual sources. While focus of this course is on Mesopotamia, Iran, Anatolia, and Syria-Palestine, other areas such as Egypt and Central Asia will be discussed whenever relevant to the understanding of the primary interest cultures. Chronologically, this course covers data from the Neolithic period of time (prehistory: from hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists and early sedentism), through early urbanization (e.g., Ubaid, Eridu, and Uruk), rise of complex societies (e.g., Sumer, Elam, Jiroft, Akkad), rise and fall of empires (the Hittites, Assyria and Persia) until the beginning of the Hellenistic period (the 4th century B.C.).
Variety of archaeological sites will be discussed with regard to their layouts, character, archaeological landscapes, excavated material remains, etc., as based on available archaeological, anthropological, ethnographic, art-historical, and other data.
In order to introduce students to complexity of issues involved in archaeological interpretation of ancient cultures and their material remains, different methods and theoretical approaches will be discussed from an interdisciplinary point of view. The so-called Asian, Dravidian, Indo-European, Canaanite, and African connections will be explored in their proper archaeological and historical contexts to enhance students’ understanding of “globalization” of ancient cultures of the region. In addition, specific topics will be selected to discuss “specialized archaeologies,” referring to exploration and interpretation of the data regarding, for example, religion, writing, gender and social change.

Disclaimer:

 

Some of the writings, lectures, films, or presentations in this course may include material that conflicts with the core beliefs of some students.  Please review the syllabus carefully to see if the course is one that you are committed to taking.
Course Objectives:

At the end of this course students will:

  1. Acquire knowledge and understanding of history and archaeology of Ancient Near East focusing on Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Syria-Palestine, and Persia.
  2. Be introduced to a variety of issues in archaeology, history, linguistics, and art history, whose methods and theories are used in researching and reconstructing the past.
  3. Be able to list and discuss possible reasons for humans changing their subsistence strategies from hunting-gathering economies to the food-producing ones (domestication of plants and animals) in spite of their perceived original ineffectiveness and possible disastrous effects on human health/population. Consequences of such a decision on the environment will be also discussed.
  4. Learn about the Near East not only as a cradle of well-known civilizations of Mesopotamia (and Egypt) but about less-known and/or barely discovered civilizations of, for example, Anatolia (the Indo-European Hittite Empire) and Iran (at least three: Elam, Jiroft, and “the Burnt City”).
  5. Become acquainted with the origin of gender inequality as reflected in legal systems of the Near East, especially of Mesopotamia (the highest number and continuity of  sources), and by creation stories of the area (including the Old Testament and the Qur’an as the “final” products of a few thousand years of transformation).
  6. Understand principles involved in studying ancient languages and scripts, as well as the impact the first scripts such as cuneiforms and hieroglyphs, and their later offshoot of alphabetic scripts, had on the development of bureaucracy, economy, trade, education, literature, literacy, etc.
  7. Be able to explain continuity in religious beliefs, stories, rituals, and customary traditions as they have been introduced in the ancient polytheistic systems of this area and preserved through modern monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
  8. Learn to be critical when processing information from the Near East as the archaeology of this area has been used and abused for promoting political, ideological, and nationalistic views/interests of various governments and individuals as well as of media.

 
Teaching and Learning Methods: 

This course is a combination of lectures and discussions. While each meeting will be illustrated with various visual aids, students will also be given suggestions of specific movies to browse through to better comprehend the discussed topics. While students are encouraged to initiate and participate in all discussions, they must remain respectful of all classmates and the professor.

Evaluation Methods:
This course requires patience and a fair amount of memorization due to the expansiveness of the area and mélange of its people. Students are expected to:

  1. Attend class meetings.
  2. Do their readings in advance so they can fully participate in any discussions.
  3. Take all required exams on time. Upon a valid request, special arrangements might be made with the professor (e.g., a different exam date).
  4. Complete and turn in on time their assignments and/or papers.
  5. Offer their opinions and argue their points. All must be done in good and edited English.
  6. NO PLAGIARISM OR CHEATING IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM (see below: “Academic Misconduct”).

Exams, Assignments and Grades:
In addition to three (3) take-home exams each student will have to prepare a site report to be turned in at the end of the semester. A research paper will be acceptable in lieu of a site report with the instructor’s permission. Although students are encouraged to do their own research and select any site in the Near East that dates between the Neolithic and Hellenistic Periods, the instructor is always available for assistance.
The following information will be required to be included and discussed in the site report: 1. General description of the site: location, size, nature of a settlement, its significance.   2. A short summary of history of excavations: who, when, what (archaeological periods). 3. Architectural features of one specific period: settlement layout, defense, public structures (e.g., palaces, temples), residential quarters, etc. Their identification (e.g., artifacts) and interpretation (spatial relationship, function, etc.).  4. Selected installations important for interpretation of the site: altars, fireplaces, ovens, wells, etc. Their relationship to architectural structures (see above) and function. 5. General description of the most important artifacts and their interpretation. 6. Bibliography (at least five sources [avoid Internet sources unless they are official publications of archaeological projects; Wikipedia is NOT accepted as a scientific source]). Any format as long as consistency is preserved.
Each exam and a site report/paper will be worth 25%.
In addition to the undergraduate requirements, graduate students will also be required to prepare outlines for three discussion sessions that they will be in charge of. Each discussion will be worth 10% of the grade, each exam – 15% and a final report will be counted for 25% of the final grade.
  
There won’t be any extra-credit assignments in this class. Each exam and/or assignment and/or paper will be graded using the Letter-Grade scale (“A” as the highest, “E” as the lowest [no-pass] grade). The final grade will be calculated accordingly by setting up values of the Letter-Grade scale using the 4-Point scale. 

Required Format:
All take-home assignments (papers, etc., if such are required) are to be submitted to the professor as hard copies and through email (Mruczek@AOL.com) as PDF or .doc , .docx documents. All other formats won’t be accepted. The professor may use, randomly, a plagiarism detection service in this course, in which case she will submit your to such a service.

Required Readings: 

Mieroop, Marc Van De: A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 B.C.
Blackwell Publishing. 2007. (Mostly for historical background to avoid confusion since compilation/collection of different texts is used throughout the semester.)

Additional required texts are listed under specific topics. They are available at Marriott Library through the electronic reserve. Articles, chapters, etc., that, for different reasons, could not be placed on the electronic reserve are available as hard copies at the Reserve Desk.

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings are included at the end of each meeting. These readings ARE NOT REQUIRED but prepared just in case if a student wants to find additional information or continue to study specific topics in the future.

..
..

WEEK # 1: January 11, 2011

Introduction:
Defining the region: the Near East, the Middle East, and Orient? What, where, who, how?
Defining the discipline: archaeology as a part of humanities or social and behavioral sciences? From robbers to scholars.
Defining subdisciplines of the Near Eastern archaeology (Egyptology, Assyriology, Hittitology, Biblical archaeology, classical archaeology, etc.): labels and reality.
 

Discussion: Archaeology as a modern discipline. One archaeology or many? All about science or ideology? Politics and purity in archaeology.

Readings for Week # 1:

Required:
For defining the region, geography:
Pollock, Susan & Reinhard Bernbeck: “Introduction.” In Susan Pollock and Reinhard Bernbeck eds., Archaeologies of the Middle East. Critical Perspectives. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 2005. Pp. 1-10.

Mieroop, Marc Van De: “ Introductory Concerns.” In A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 B.C. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 2nd edition. 2007. Pp. 1-10.

For discussion and a short review of history of archaeology of the ancient Near East:
Steele, Caroline: “Who Has Not Eaten Cherries with the Devil? Archaeology under Challenge.” In Susan Pollock and Reinhard Bernbeck eds., Archaeologies of the Middle East. Critical Perspectives. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 2005. Pp. 45-65. (Also for Week 16).

Yahya, Adel H.: “Archaeology and Nationalism in the Holy Land.” In Susan Pollock and Reinhard Bernbeck eds., Archaeologies of the Middle East. Critical Perspectives. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 2005. Pp. 66-77. (Also for Week 16).

Chazan, Michael: “Putting the Picture Together.” In World Prehistory and Archaeology. Pathways through Time. Pearson education, Inc., Boston. 2008. Pp.36-71. (Also for Week # 2).

Movie:
Mesopotamia: I Have Conquered the River. CB 311 M48 2003 v.2.

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
For understanding methods and theories in archaeology, their applications, ongoing conflicts, disagreements, and history of excavations at Çatal Hüyük see an excellent book (no jargon, journalistic style, etc.)
Balter, Michael: The Goddess and the Bull. Çatal Hüyük: An ArchaeologicalJourney to the Dawn of Civilization. Free Press. New York. 2005. (Also for Weeks #2 and 16)

For various archaeological discoveries of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. A rare book with interesting stories.
Zehren, Erich & James Cleugh: The Crescent and the Bull: A Survey of Archaeology in the Near East. HathornBooks, New York. Reproduction of 1962 copy.

WEEK # 2: January 18, 2011

The first of the “firsts”?:
The “Neolithic Revolution.” From hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists and early sedentism. Climate, populations, plants, and animals – all in transition?
Neolithic settlements (selected case studies): Jarmo, Jericho, Ain Ghazal, Göbekli Tepe.
Çatal Hüyük: defining a site and its ideology.


Discussion: New approaches in archaeology. Binford vs Hodder: strict science vs reflexive method.

Readings for Week # 2:

Required:
For understanding importance of domestication of plants and animals see:
Diamond, Jared: “Evolution, Consequences and Future of Plant and Animal Domestication.” In Nature Magazine, 2002. Vol. 418.

For a short overview of this time period see:
Chazan, Michael: “Towers, Villages, and Longhouses.” In World Prehistory and Archaeology. Pathways through Time. Pearson education, Inc., Boston. 2008. Pp.191-225.

For an excellent summary of major theories and transition to the Neolithic see:
Matthews, Roger: “Chapter 3. Tracking a transition: Hunters becoming farmers.” In The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. Theories and approaches. London & New York: Routledge. 2003. Pp. 67-92.

For interpretation of figural representations of the Neolithic Period see:
Kuijit, Ian & Meredith S. Chesson: “Lumps of Clay and Pieces of Stone: Ambiguity, Bodies, and Identity as Portrayed in Neolithic Figurines.” In Susan Pollock and Reinhard Bernbeck eds.,  Archaeologies of the Middle East. Critical Perspectives. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 2005. Pp. 152-183.

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
For understanding methods and theories in archaeology, their applications, ongoing conflicts, disagreements, and history of excavations at Çatal Hüyük see an excellent book (no jargon, journalistic style, etc.)
Balter, Michael: The Goddess and the Bull. Çatal Hüyük: An Archaeological Journey to the Dawn of Civilization. Free Press. New York. 2005. (Also for weeks #1 and 16)

For an information about dating, C14, maps, and brief references to various sites see:

For learning about ethnoarchaeology and its application to the Neolithic see:
Verhoeven, Marc: “Ethnoarchaeology, Analogy, and Ancient Society.” In Susan Pollock and Reinhard Bernbeck eds.,  Archaeologies of the Middle East. Critical Perspectives. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 2005. Pp. 251-270.

For Cauvin’s controversial ideas about the origin of agriculture see:
Cauvin, Jacques: The Birth of the Gods and the Origins of Agriculture. Cambridge University Press. 2000.

For Çatal Hüyük see:
Balter, Michael: “The First Cities: Why Settle Down? The Mystery of Communities.” In Science 20 November 1998: Vol. 282. no. 5393, p. 1442.

For scientific reports about this site check this website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WEEK # 3: January 25, 2011

The Urban Revolution – figment or reality?:
Defining a city: transition from rural to urban life.
Emergence of social complexities with (e.g., Mesopotamia) or without (?e.g., Egypt) cities.
The Uruk phenomenon: the city of Inana and their “quest” for “power.”
Divine economy and profane writing (invention of cuneiform script).
 

Discussion: Ideology and IRS. Emergence of ceremonial centers, divine cities, and cities of the dead. Contrasting views from Mesopotamia and Egypt.

Readings for Week # 3:

Required:
For understanding emergence of chiefdoms and first cities in the Ancient Near East see:
Matthews, Roger: “Chapter 4: States of mind. Approaching complexity.” In The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. Theories and approaches. Routledge 2003. Pp. 93-126.

Mieroop, Marc Van De: “Part I City States. Section 2: Origins: the Uruk Phenomenon. Section 3: Competing City-States: The Early Dynastic Period.” In A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 B.C. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. Pp. 17-62 (Also for weeks # 4-6, and 9).

Roaf, Michael; “Toward Civilization (7000-4000 B.C.).” In Cultural Atlas. Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Andromeda Oxford Limited. 2002. Pp. 42-56

For origin and development of the cuneiform script see:
Cooper, Jerrold S.: “Babylonian beginnings: the origin of the cuneiform writing system in comparative perspective.” In Stephen D. Houston, ed. The First Writing. Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge University Press. 2004. Pp.71-99.
           
Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
For origin and development of various scripts around the world see (not a very easy reading but extremely informative):
Houston, Stephen D. ed. The First Writing. Script Invention as History and Process. Cambridge University Press. 2004.

WEEK # 4: February 1, 2011

One civilization or too many? (Part 1):
Defining a civilization: methods and/or theory.
From the West to the East: the third millennium B.C. civilizational “boom” (Egypt, Sumer, Akkad, Elam, Jiroft, the Indus Valley).
Monumental structures and their divine occupants: temples, ziggurats and pyramids.

Discussion: Archaeology of death: burial practices and their recognition in archaeological material (e.g., Ur, Giza).

Readings for Weeks # 4 and 5:

Required:
For defining “civilization” see:
Childe, V. Gordon: “The Urban Revolution.” In Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. & Jeremy Sabloff, eds. The Rise and Fall of Civilizations. Cumming Publishing Company. 1974. Pp. 6-14.

Buren, Mary Van & Janet Richards: “Introduction: ideology, wealth, and the comparative study of ‘civilizations.’” In Buren, Mary Van & Janet Richards, eds. Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States. Part I: Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States. Cambridge University Press. 2000. Pp. 3-12.

Baines, John & Norman Yoffee: “Order, legitimacy, and wealth: setting the terms.” In Buren, Mary Van & Janet Richards, eds. Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States. Part I: Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States. Cambridge University Press. 2000. Pp. 13-17.

For introduction to the third millennium B.C. see:
Mieroop, Marc Van De: “Part I City States. Section 2: Origins: the Uruk Phenomenon. Section 3: Competing City-States: The Early Dynastic Period.” In A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 B.C. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. Pp. 17-62 (Also for week # 3).

For introduction to the Egyptian and the Indus Valley civilizations see:
Chazan, Michael: “12.1 Egypt. 12.2 The Indus Valley.” In World Prehistory and Archaeology: Pathways through Time. Pearson Education. 2008. Pp. 360-380.

For Jiroft civilization and its discovery see:
Covington, Richard: “What Was Jiroft?” In Saudi Aramco World. Sept. Oct. 2004. Vol. 55, No. 5.

For interpretation of the importance of the Royal Cemetery at Ur see:
Cohen, Andrew C.: “Chapter 8. Conclusion: ED III Death Rituals as a Locus for Negotiating Power Relations.” In Death Rituals, Ideology, and the Development of Early Mesopotamian Kingship. Toward a New Understanding of Iraq’s Royal Cemetery at Ur. Brill. Leiden, 2005. Pp. 147-156. (Also see Week # 9)

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
For introduction to death rites and anthropological interpretation of death see:
Davies, Douglas J.: “Interpreting Death Rites.” In Death, Ritual and Belief. The Rhetoric of Funerary Rites. Continuum. London. New York. 2002. Pp. 1-23.

Pearson, Mike Parker: “Learning From the Dead.” In The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Texas A&M University Press College Station. 2000. Pp.1-20.

For Royal Cemetery at Ur see this very introductory site.

Movies:
Egypt: Journey to the Global Civilization. CB 311 M48 2003 v. 1
Indus: The Unvoiced Civilization. CB 311 M48 2003 v. 3

WEEK # 5: February 8, 2011

One civilization or too many? (Part 2):
Defining a civilization: methods and/or theory.
From the West to the East: the third millennium B.C. civilizational “boom” (Egypt, Ebla, Sumer, Akkad, Elam, Jiroft, the Indus Valley).
Monumental structures and their divine occupants: temples, ziggurats and pyramids.

Discussion: Archaeology of death: burial practices and their recognition in archaeological material (e.g., Ur, Giza, Jiroft).

Readings for Week # 4, 5, 6: see above.


WEEK # 6: February 15, 2011

Review of the assigned and discussed material.

TAKE HOME EXAM!!! (TO BE TURNED IN ON MARCH 1, 2011)
 

WEEK # 7: February 22, 2011

Sacred vs profane:
Religion as a non-existing concept in polytheistic and henotheistic societies of the Near East in the third millennium B.C.
Ideological fundamentals: deities, divine rulers, creations, destructions, and maintenance. Thousands gods and goddesses and earthly subjects they ruled.

Discussion: Archaeology of religion: understanding ideology through material remains and ancient texts.

Readings for Week # 7:

Required:
For information regarding religion and literature of the ancient Near East see:
Soden, Wolfram von: “XII. Religion and Magic. XIII: Literature.” In The Ancient Orient: An Introduction to the Study of the Ancient Near East. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids. 1994. Pp. 173-231.

For information about archaeology of religion as a discipline see:
Wasilewska, E.: “Archaeology of Religion. Colors as the Symbolic Markers Dividing the Sacred from Profane.” Journal of Prehistoric Religion, vol. V, 1991. Pp. 36-41.

Wasilewska, E.: “The Search for Impossible: the archaeology of religion of prehistoric societies as an anthropological discipline.” Journal of Prehistoric Religion, vol. VIII, 1994. Pp. 62-75.

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
For an introduction to creation stories and main deities of the ancient Near East see:
Wasilewska, E.: Creation Stories of the Middle East. Jessica Kingsley Press, London. 2000.

For information about the “sacred” see:
Eliade, M.: The Sacred Space and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Harper & Row, Publishers, New York. 1959.

WEEK # 8: March 1, 2011

Great vs Little Traditions:
Royal ideology: from theocracy to divine sponsored secularism.
Political centralization and decentralization at the end of the third millennium B.C. 
Art and architecture: the elite’s orders and people’s delivery.

Discussion: Art history or history through art? Archaeology of aesthetics or ideology? Cognitive archaeology.

Readings for Week # 8:

Required:
Refresh your readings from Weeks # 4-6 on the divine sponsored secularism:
Cohen, Andrew C.: “Chapter 8. Conclusion: ED III Death Rituals as a Locus for Negotiating Power Relations.” In Death Rituals, Ideology, and the Development of Early Mesopotamian Kingship. Toward a New Understanding of Iraq’s Royal Cemetery at Ur. Brill. Leiden, 2005. Pp. 147-156. (Also see Weeks # 4-6)

Refresh your readings from Weeks # 4-6 on the situation in the ancient Near East during the Early Dynastic Period and continue with the rest of the third millennium B.C.:
Mieroop, Marc Van De: “Part I. Section 3: Competing City-States: The Early Dynastic Period. Section 4: Political Centralization in the Late Third Millennium B.C.” In A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 B.C. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. Pp. 41-84.

For discussion of “art” and ideology see:
Ross, Jennifer C.: “Representations, Reality, and Ideology.” In Susan Pollock and Reinhard Bernbeck eds., Archaeologies of the Middle East: Critical Perspectives. Blackwell Publishing. 2005. Pp. 327-350.

For introduction to art and architecture of the 3rd millennium B.C. see:
Collon, Dominique:”Chapter 2. Temple, Cemetery and Palace: the 3rd millennium B.C.” In Ancient Near Eastern Art. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1995. Pp. 56-89.

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
For introduction to cognitive archaeology, art and religion see:
Renfrew, Colin & Paul Bahn: “Chapter 10. What Did They Think? Cognitive Archaeology, Art, and Religion.” In Archaeology. Theories, Methods, and Practice. Thames and Hudson. 1996. Pp. 369-402.

For learning about everyday life see:
Roger Matthews: “Chapter 6: People’s pasts. In The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. Theories and Approaches. Routledge. New York. 2003. Pp. 155-188.

WEEK # 9: March 8, 2011

“Men in power” – a new social reality in the Near East:
Defining nomadism: who, where, when and how?
“Globalization” of the second millennium B.C.: the so-called Asian, Dravidian, Indo-European, Canaanite and African connections.
The Semitic Dominance: Babylon, Ebla, Aleppo, and Mari.

Discussion: Archaeology of gender. From new laws (e.g., Hammurabi’s laws, Middle Assyrian laws) to issues of gender and sexuality as represented in archaeological material.

Readings for Week # 9:

Required:
For introduction to nomadism see:
Castillo, Jorge Silva: “Nomadism through the ages.” In Daniel C. Snell ed., A Companion to the Ancient Near East. Malden MA: Blackwell. 2005. Pp. 126-140.

For historical background of the first part of the second millennium B.C. see:
Mieroop, Marc Van De: “5. The Near East in the Early Second Millennium. 6. The Growth of Territorial States in the Early Second Millennium B.C.” In A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 B.C. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. Pp. 85-126.

For discussion of Syrian archaeology of the first part of the second millennium B.C. see:
Akkermans, Peter M.M.G. & Glenn M. Schwartz: “The Regeneration of Complex Societies.” In The Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000-300 B.C.). Cambridge University Press. 2003. Pp. 288-326.

For discussion of gender and body perceptions see:
Asher-Greve, J.M.: “The Essential Body: Mesopotamian conceptions of the gendered body.” In Maria Wyke ed., Gender and the Body in the Ancient Mediterranean. Blackwell Publishing. 1998. Pp. 8-37.

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
For translations of various texts from the Old Babylonian Period (especially “enjoyable” are letters from Mari) see:
Koppen, Frans van: “4. Old Babylonian Period Inscriptions. 5. Miscellaneous Old Babylonian Period Documents.” In Mark W. Chavalas ed., The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation.  Blackwell Publishing. 2006. Pp. 88-133.

For discussion of issues of gender in archaeology see:
Rautman Alison E. & Lauren E. Talalay: “Chapter 1. Introduction. Diverse Approaches to the Study of Gender in Archaeology.” In Alison E. Rautman ed., Reading the Body. Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2000. Pp. 1-12.

Meskell, Lynn M.: “Chapter 2. Writing the Body in Archaeology.” In Alison E. Rautman ed., Reading the Body. Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2000. Pp. 13-21.

For understanding sexuality in Mesopotamia see:
Leick, Gwendolyn: “Sexuality and religion in Mesopotamia.” In Religion Compass Volume 2, Issue 2, Pp.119-133. Journal Compilation. 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

WEEK # 10: March 15, 2011

Of horses, chariots, boats, and newcomers:
The Hyksos question: merchants and mercenaries.
The Hittite empire: architecture of defense, policy of offense, and freedom of speech for all (Yazilikaya).
The Battle of Qadesh: international conflict and solution.
The end of the 2nd millennium B.C.: the Kassites, Elamites and the Sea People.

Discussion: Archaeology of war and power. Setting foundations for the emergence of nationalism.

Readings for Week # 10:

Required:
For information on weapons etc., in the ancient Near East see:
Philip, Graham: “Weapons and Warfare in Ancient Syria-Palestine.”In Suzanne Richard ed., Near Eastern Archaeology. A Reader. Eisenbrauns. Winona Lake, Indiana. 2003. Pp. 184-192.

For basic information on the Hyksos see:
Fox, Troy: Who Were the Hyksos?
http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/hyksos.html

For historical background of the second part of the second millennium B.C. see:
Mieroop, Marc Van De: “Part II. Territorial States.” In A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 B.C. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. Pp. 127-206.

For information regarding Hittite kingships, warfare and religion see:
Bryce, Trevor: “1. King, Court, and Royal Officials.” In Life and Society in the Hittite World. Oxford University Press. 2002. Pp. 11-31.

Bryce, Trevor: “6. The Warrior.” In Life and Society in the Hittite World. Oxford University Press. 2002. Pp. 98-118.

Bryce, Trevor: “8. The Gods.” In Life and Society in the Hittite World. Oxford University Press. 2002. Pp. 134-162.

Macqueen, J.G.: “Warfare and defense.” In The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. Thames & Hudson. 2003. Pp. 53-73.

Macqueen, J.G.: “Religion.” In The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. Thames & Hudson. 2003. Pp. 109-136.

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
For introduction to archaeology of war see:
Hill, Paul & Julie Wileman: “Origins of Warfare.” In Landscapes of War. The Archaeology of Aggression and Defence. Tempus. 2002. Pp. 15-50.

For more information about the Sea People see:
Robbins, Manuel: Collapse of the Bronze Age: The Story of Greece, Troy, Israel, Egypt, and the Peoples of the Sea. AuthorHouse. 2001.

For more information about Hittites and Anatolia see:
Bryce, Trevor: Life and Society in the Hittite World. Oxford University Press. 2002.

Macqueen, J.G.: The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. Thames & Hudson. 2003.

For more information about Syrian powers of the second millennium B.C. see:
Akkermans, Peter M. M. G. & Glenn M. Schwartz: “Empires and Internationalism.” In The Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000-300 B.C.). Cambridge University Press. 2003. Pp. 327-359.

WEEK # 11: March 22, 2011

SPRING BREAK!

 

WEEK # 12: March 29, 2011

Review of the assigned and discussed material.

TAKE HOME EXAM!!! (TO BE TURNED IN ON APRIL 12, 2011)


WEEK # 13: April 5, 2011

Of one god, one sound, and plenty of “money” – Syria-Palestine of the 1st millennium B.C.:
Defining religion and monotheism: is there such a thing?
The rise of Yahweh and “survival” of Canaanite pluralism: inside the Old Testament and outside of material reality (“pagan” sanctuaries and practices). Old stories, new ideology.
At the crossroads of civilizations: trade and politics of wealth in Canaan. Invention of alphabetic scripts.
Who were the Phoenicians? The maritime supremacy and colonization.

Discussion: Underwater archaeology. Ancient populations, genetic markers, and modern reality.

Readings for Week # 13:

Required:
For historical background see:
Mieroop, Marc Van De: “Part III. Empires.11. The Near East at the Start of the First Millennium B.C.” In A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 B.C. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. Pp. 209-228.

For introduction to the Phoenicians and genetic markers see:

Gore, Rick: “Who were the Phoenicians.” In National Geographic Monthly. Oct. 2004.

For introduction to languages and scripts (especially alphabetic scripts) in Levant see:
Rendsburg, Gary A.: “Writing and Scripts (with Special Reference to the Levant).” In Suzanne Richard, ed., Near Eastern Archaeology. A Reader. Eisenbrauns. 2005. Pp. 63-70.

Rendsburg, Gary A.: “Semitic Languages (with Special Reference to the Levant).” In Suzanne Richard, ed., Near Eastern Archaeology. A Reader. Eisenbrauns. 2005. Pp. 71-73.

For introduction to seafaring see:
Carlson, Deborah N.: “Nautical Archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean.” In Suzanne Richard, ed., Near Eastern Archaeology. A Reader. Eisenbrauns. 2005. Pp. 135-141.

For introduction to religion see:
Nakhai, Beth Alpert: “Canaanite Religion.” In Suzanne Richard, ed., Near Eastern Archaeology. A Reader. Eisenbrauns. 2005. Pp. 343-348.

Dever William G.: “Religion and Cult in the Levant: The Archaeological Data.” In Suzanne Richard, ed., Near Eastern Archaeology. A Reader. Eisenbrauns. 2005. Pp. 383-390.

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
For more information about Syria in the first millennium B.C. see:

Akkermans, Peter M. M. G. & Glenn M. Schwartz: “Iron Age Syria.” In The Archaeology of Syria. From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000-300 B.C.). Cambridge University Press. 2003. Pp. 360-397.

For more information about underwater archaeology see:
Robbins, Lawrence: “The Wet Frontier: Underwater Archaeology.” In James M. Bayman & Miriam T. Stark, eds., Exploring the Past. Carolina Academic Press. 2000. Pp. 25-43.

Manning, Sturt W. & Linda Hulin: “Maritime Commerce and Geographies of Mobility in the Late Bronze Age of the Eastern Mediterranean: Problematizations.” In Emma Blake and A. Bernard Knapp eds., The Archaeology of Mediterranean Prehistory. 2005. Pp. 270-302.

“Shipwreck of lost 'Sea People' found.” In CNN news. By Environmental News Network staff.

For introduction to genetics etc., see:
Renfrew, Colin: “Genetics and Language in Contemporary Archaeology.” In Barry Cunliffe, Wendy Davies & Colin Renrew, eds., Archaeology: The Widening Debate. Oxford University Press. 2002. Pp. 43-76.

An excellent website on the National Geographic Genographic Project:

WEEK # 14: April 12, 2011

Of imperial ideology and secular glory:
The shame of Egypt: decentralization of pharaonic power.
From a city-state to a territorial empire: the rise and fall of Assyria.
Art and architecture as visual ideology of Assyrian nationalism (e.g., palace programs).

Discussion: Social archaeology and creation of new identities. Archaeology of frontiers and collapse of "clay” economy.

Readings for Week # 14:

Required:
For historical background see:
Mieroop, Marc Van De: “Part III. Empires. 12. The Rise of Assyria. 13. Assyria’s World Domination.” In A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 B.C. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. Pp. 229-269.

For Assyrian palaces and their meaning see:
Lumsden, Stephen: “Power and Identity in the Neo-Assyrian World.” In Nielsen, Inge, ed., The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium B.C. Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens. Vol. 4. 2001. Pp. 33-46.

For art and architecture see:
Collon, Dominique: “Chapter 4. Great Empires: The 1st millennium B.C.” In Ancient Near Eastern Art. University of California Press. Berkeley. Pp. 128-187. (Also for week # 15).

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
For historical texts of the Neo-Assyrian period see:
Melville, Sarah C. et al: “Neo-Assyrian and Syro-Palestinian Texts I.” In Mark W. Chavalas, ed. The Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation. Blackwell Publishing. 2006. Pp. 280-330.

Strawn, Brent A. et al: “Neo-Assyrian and Syro-Palestinian Texts II.” In Mark W. Chavalas, ed. The Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation. Blackwell Publishing. 2006. Pp. 331-381.

For Urartian palace architecture see:
Kanetsyan, Aminia: “Urartian and Early Achaemenid Palaces in Armenia.” In Nielsen, Inge, ed., The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium B.C. Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens. Vol. 4. 2001. Pp. 145-153.

For introduction to archaeology of frontiers see:
Hill, Paul & Julie Wileman: “Frontiers.” In Landscapes of War. The Archaeology of Aggression and Defence. Tempus. 2002. Pp. 95-136.

WEEK # 15: April 19, 2011

Continuity, change, and fusion:
Tower of Babel and royal gardens of Babylon: a perfect city with imperfect rulers.
From nomads to rulers of the civilized world: the Medes and the Persians.
Under the leadership of Ahura Mazda: the free will of Zoroastrianism; justice for all and freedom for many; cosmopolitan art and architecture but … incompetent public relations “office.” The fall of the Persian Empire.

Discussion: Archaeologies of memory. Ancient past and modern politics: Iran as an Axis of Evil?

Readings for Week # 15:

For historical background see:
Mieroop, Marc Van De: “Part III. Empires. 14. The Medes and Babylonians. 15. The Persian Empire.” In A History of the Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 B.C. Blackwell Publishing. 2007. Pp. 270-301.

For royal architecture of Babylon see:
Kuhrt, Amélie: “The Palace(s) of Babylon.” In Nielsen, Inge, ed., The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium B.C. Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens. Vol. 4. 2001. Pp. 77-89.

For Persian palace art and architecture see:
Stronach, David: “From Cyrus to Darius: Notes on Art and Architecture in Early Achaemenid Palaces.” In Nielsen, Inge, ed., The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium B.C. Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens. Vol. 4. 2001. Pp. 95-111.

Boucharlat, Rémy: “The Palace and the Royal Achaemenid City: Two Case Studies -- Pasargadae and Susa.” In Nielsen, Inge, ed., The Royal Palace Institution in the First Millennium B.C. Regional Development and Cultural Interchange between East and West. Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens. Vol. 4. 2001. Pp. 113-123.

For art and architecture see:
Collon, Dominique: “Chapter 4. Great Empires: The 1st millennium B.C.” In Ancient Near Eastern Art. University of California Press. Berkeley. Pp. 128-187. (Also for week # 14).

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
For historical texts of the Neo-Babylonian period see:
Studevent-Hickman Benjamin, Sarah C. Melville, & Scott Noegel: “Neo-Babylonian Period Texts from Babylonia and Syro-Palestine.” In Mark W. Chavalas, ed. The Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation. Blackwell Publishing. 2006. Pp. 382-406.

Arnold, Bill T. & Piotr Michalowski: “Achaemenid Period Historical Texts Concerning Mesopotamia.” In Mark W. Chavalas, ed. The Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation. Blackwell Publishing. 2006. Pp. 407-430.

For understanding of new post-Assyrian dynamics see:
Snell, Daniel C.: “6. Babylon and a Persian World. 6266-332 B.C.E.” In Life in the Ancient Near East. Yale University Press. 1997. Pp. 99-118.

For understanding basics of archaeologies of memories see:
Dyke, Ruth M. Van & Susan E. Alcock: “Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction.” In Ruth M. Van Dyke & Susan E. Alcock eds., Archaeologies of Memories. Blackwell Publishing. 2003. Pp. 1-13.

WEEK # 16: April 26, 2011

Cultural heritage: its politics, economy, and academia.
 

Readings for Week # 16:

Required:
Macintyre, Ben: “Let’s all have tickets to the universal museum.” In The Times, July 10, 2008.

Postgate, Nicholas: “The First Civilizations in the Middle East.” In Archaeology: The Widening Debate. Barry Cunliffe, Wendy Davie, Colin Renfrew, eds. Oxford University Press. 2002. Pp. 383-410.

Özdogan, Mehmet: “Ideology and Archaeology in Turkey.” In Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, politics and heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. Lynn Meskell, ed. Routledge. New York. 1998. Pp. 111-123.

Pollock, Susan: “Archaeology Goes to War at the Newsstand.” In Archaeologies of the Middle East: Critical Perspectives. Susan Pollock and Reinhard Bernbeck. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford. 2005. Pp. 78-96.

Kaylan, Melik: “So much for the looted sites.” In Wall Street Journal. July 15, 2008.

Optional and/or recommended and/or future readings:
“Greek Sea Looted by Divers.” In Divemaster News, July 9, 2008.

Cuno, James: Who owns antiquity? Princeton University Press. 2008.

Alberge, Dalya: “Phaistos Disc declared as fake by scholars.” In The Times Online, July 12, 2008.

Review of the assigned and discussed material.

TAKE HOME EXAM!!! (TO BE TURNED IN ON MAY 3, 2011)

Last day to turn in your site report/research paper. 

ADA Statement:
“The University of Utah seeks to provide equal access to its programs, services and activities for people with disabilities. If you will need accommodations in the class, reasonable prior notice needs to be given to the Center for Disability Services, 162 Union Building, 581-5020 (V/TDD). CDS will work with you and the instructor to make arrangements for accommodations.” (www.hr.utah.edu/oeo/ada/guide/faculty)

Faculty Responsibilities:
“All students are expected to maintain professional behavior in the classroom setting, according to the Student Code, spelled out in the Student Handbook. Students have specific rights in the classroom as detailed in Article III of the Code. The Code also specifies proscribed conduct (Article XI) that involves cheating on tests, plagiarism, and/or collusion, as well as fraud, theft, etc. Students should read the Code carefully and know they are responsible for the
content. According to Faculty Rules and Regulations, it is the faculty responsibility to enforce responsible classroom behaviors, and I will do so, beginning with verbal warnings and progressing to dismissal from and class and a failing grade. Students have the right to appeal such action to the Student Behavior Committee.” (www.admin.utah.edu/ppmanual/8/8-12-4.html)

IMPORTANT!!!

 

ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

Please familiarize yourself with the University of Utah CODE OF STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES (“STUDENT CODE”) at www.admin.utah.edu/ppmanual//8/8-10.html
The following is an excerpt from this CODE explaining specific actions, which won’t be tolerated in this class.
“2. “Academic misconduct” includes, but is not limited to, cheating, misrepresenting one's work, inappropriately collaborating, plagiarism, and fabrication or falsification of information, as defined further below. It also includes facilitating academic misconduct by intentionally helping or attempting to help another to commit an act of academic misconduct.
a. “Cheating” involves the unauthorized possession or use of information, materials, notes, study aids, or other devices in any academic exercise, or the unauthorized communication with another person during such an exercise. Common examples of cheating include, but are not limited to, copying from another student's examination, submitting work for an in-class exam that has been prepared in advance, violating rules governing the administration of exams, having another person take an exam, altering one's work after the work has been returned and before resubmitting it, or violating any rules relating to academic conduct of a course or program.
b. Misrepresenting one's work includes, but is not limited to, representing material prepared by another as one's own work, or submitting the same work in more than one course without prior permission of both faculty members.
c. “Plagiarism” means the intentional unacknowledged use or incorporation of any other person's work in, or as a basis for, one's own work offered for academic consideration or credit or for public presentation. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, representing as one's own, without attribution, any other individual’s words, phrasing, ideas, sequence of ideas, information or any other mode or content of expression.
d. “Fabrication” or “falsification” includes reporting experiments or measurements or statistical analyses never performed; manipulating or altering data or other manifestations of research to achieve a desired result; falsifying or misrepresenting background information, credentials or other academically relevant information; or selective reporting, including the deliberate suppression of conflicting or unwanted data. It does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data and/or results.”

The following sanctions will be imposed in this class for a student engaging in academic misconduct:
1. A failing grade for the specific assignment, paper, exam, etc., without possibility to re-write it, re-take it, etc. This academic misconduct will be reported to the Chairman of the Department of Anthropology.
2. The second offense will be sanctioned with a failing grade for the whole course. In such a case, the following rule of the University of Utah CODE OF STUDENT RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES is applicable and will be followed: “If the faculty member imposes the sanction of a failing grade for the course, the faculty member shall, within ten (10) business days of imposing the sanction, notify in writing, the chair of the student’s home department and the senior vice president for academic affairs or senior vice president for health sciences, as appropriate, of the academic misconduct and the circumstances which the faculty member believes support the imposition of a failing grade.”
3. For more information concerning sanctions for academic misconduct (additional sanctions might be imposed) and your rights and procedures to appeal these sanctions please refer to the aforementioned CODE.

If you need more information and/or explanations please don’t hesitate to contact the instructor.

Non-Contract Note:
This syllabus is not a binding legal contract. It may be modified by the instructor when the student is given reasonable notice of the modification. 

Download this document as PDFor Word file

Ewa Wasilewska's Home Page