'S
Tc
Subject
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
7'S
MEMORANDUM
From
?
Dean of Graduate Studies Office
Graduate Calendar Changes -
Date
?
December 21, 1976
MOTION I:
?
That Senate approve the Graduate Calendar
Changes in the Department of Archaeology,
MOTION II:
?
That Senate approve the following new courses:
Arch 840-3, Arch 872 (Non-credit) and Arch 876-5
These changes were approved by the Senate Graduate Studies Committee on
December 13, 1976 and the Executive Committee of the Senate Graduate
Studies Committee on December 20, 1976.
Jon Wheatley
?
çç
Dean of Graduate 'studies.
mm!
0
GRADUATE STUDIES
FACULTY OF ARTS
.
?
CALENDAR SUBMISSION
1977-78
CUCtc
p. 42
?
AREA OF STUDY,
?
Change in Description: From-"The department offers
specialization in Archaeology, I3'sical Anthropology
and Ethnology. ?
Students are expected to gain a
broad theoretical knowledge in the discipline and
engage in one or more areas of specific research."
to: "The department offers s
p
ecialization in
Archaeology, Physical Anthropology, Ethnology,
Archaeometry and Zooarchaeology.
?
The student
is expected to gain a comprehensive understanding
of the discipline.
?
In so doing, he/she should
strive to acquire a general knowledge of world
prehistory, physical anthropology and archaeological
theory and method, in addition to obtaining
knowledge and expertise in particular areas of
research interest."
Rationale: The revision offers a better description
of the current program.
.
?
DEGREE REQUIRE ?
Change in Requirements: From: "A graduate student's
?
MENTS ?
main concentration will be on a thesis and not
on formal course work.
?
For the M.A. degree,
minimum requirements are four one-semester courses
and a thesis. ?
For the Ph.D. degree, requirements
are one course and a thesis, excluding seminars.
This course may extend beyond one semester's
duration and is designed particularly to equip
the candidate for his/her research and thesis.
Although the Department recognizes that a knowledge
of languages other than English is desirable, it
does not have any prescribed language requirements.
However, where it is evident that a language
knowledge is necessary for the candidate's field
work or reading, she/he will be required to attain
the necessary language proficiency."
to: "A distinction is made between students who
are enrolled in the programme and students who
have been formally advanced to degree candidacy.
A candidate is a student who has successfully
completed ?
the requirements for advancement to
candidacy (defined below).
?
Normally it is
expected that advancement to candidacy will
. take place by the time the University residence
requirement is fulfilled but not later than the
end of the 9th semester after admission for Ph.D.
.
.
.
students, not later than the end of the 6th
semester forM.A. students.
M.A. Programme
Course requirements:
?
In addition to the thesis
the normal course requir_emnts for the M.A. degree
Consist of a minimum of one semester courses
including at least 12 semester hours of graduate
Course credit.
Advancement to Candidacy: The
r
equirements for
advancement to Candidacy are:
I. ?
Preparation of thesis prospectus and completion
of at least three courses.
?
The purpose of the
?
prospectus shall be to discuss the proposed
research and general background relevant to
the research.
?
The prospectus is expected to be
submitted to the supervisory committee and
approved before Step 2 is undertaken.
2.
?
After a
p
proval of the thesis prospectus,and
after consultation with the Supervisory Commit-
tee, either a) or b) shall take place:
?
•
a) ?
the student will present a seminar, the
topic of which shall be the substance of
the prospectus, or
b) ?
the student may
?
take a set of
written exams on the area of proposed
research and related topics.
a)
.
above is not to be considered a defense
of the
p
rospectus, per Se, but a means
whereby the student may benefit form fhe
collective expertise of the department.
?
Thesis:
?
After steps I and 2 above are completed
the student will be advanced to candidacy and wi
fl
proceed to complete and defend the thesis.
?
The
topic of the defense should be the thesis itself,
and related matters.
Ph.D. Programme
Course requirements: Course requirements for the Ph.
D. degree are to be determined in consultation
with the student's supervisory committee.
?
In
•
?
addition, students must take ARCH 872.
Advancement to Candidacy: Formal advancement to
candidacy shall take place when the following have
• ?
been completed:
1. ?
The student shall prepare a prospectus and hold
?
a
dep
artmental colloquium on the thesis topic
3
as described in the M.A. programme above.
2. ?
A second colloquium shall center upon a secondary
area of interest.
Topics and scheduling of these colloquia
?
will be
determined in consultation with the student's
supervisory committee.
Thesis: ?
After the above have been accomplished,
?
the student shall be advanced to candidacy and
will proceed to complete and defend the thesis.
The topic of the thesis defense should be the
thesis itself and related matters.
Although the Department recognizes that a
knowledge of language other than English is
desirable, it does not have any prescribed language
re
q
uirements.
?
However, where it is evident that
?
kniowledge of a language is necessary for the candidate's
field work or reading, she/he will be required
to attain the necessary language proficiency."
Rationale:
a)
The distinction between "candidate" and
"student" has been formulated so that the student
has a scale for ongoing progress through the
programme.
b)
A thesis prospectus will be required so that
students formulate their thesis research plans
before, not after,compl.eting fieldwork.
C)
It is proposed that M.A. students present a
department seminar and Ph.D. students hold two
colloquia .
?
These seminars and colloquia
?
will
provide a forum wherein the student may obtain
feedback on his/her research goals, strategies,
etc.; they will also promote a broader awareness
of graduate research projects.
d) Course requirements for the M.A. are unchanged.
Experience has shown that course requirementsif0r
the Ph.D. student is best determined on a case by
case basis.
P. 43
?
ARCH 840
?
NEW COURSE PROPOSAL
?
(APPROVED BY F.A.G.S.ON
NOV.
1+)
ARCH 872
?
NEW COURSE PROPOSAL
?
(SEE APPENDIX A)
0
?
ARCH 876
?
NEW COURSE PROPOSAL (SEE APPENDIX B)
.
•
?
LT -
Z:) .
/ó-1(h'
SPINN F1A: FR UN I V!." TV
New Grathiate Course P r
' sa 1
SDARlNFOATTON:
Department: ?
Archaeology
?
Course Nurher:
?
840
Seminar inZooarchaeology
Title:
Description: ?
Intensive examination of certain key topical areas of faunal studies
in archaeology.
Credit Hours:
?
Vector: ? Prerequtste(s) if
any:_________
ENR0LLtENT AND SCHEDULING:
Eatimated Enrollment:
5
?
10
?
When will the course first he offered:
77 - 3
Mow often will the course be offered:
once every one or two years
JUSTIFICATION:
The course will permit deiled in-depth examination and discussion
of ?
cii. cib
u1
&Ci(.LLLCII
atUdiuS
WLLIILLI
Cm
d eudL)lugLCai.
context.
Which Faculty member will normally teach the course:
?
Dr. R. Casteel
What are the budgetary implications of mounting the course:
existing facult
y member's tirie
Are there sufficient Library resources (annend details):
The
1irarv resources are excellent
Appended: a) Outline of the Course
b)
An indication of the com
p
etence-of the Faculty member to give the course.
c)
Library resburccs
Approved
?
Departmental Crmaduatc Studies Com(ttee ?
Date ?
fj
O/7b
Faculty Graduate Studies Corittee:
?
J4t ?
'Z-_tate:
•
?
Faculty:
?
I ?
•
?
1(4
?
Date:
____-
c1
Senate
(;raduntn Studiezi Cri
tL
•:
?
7
Senate:
ARC (Scram
Reserve Reac1itg:
Course Outline:
1-2
3-4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
r in Zooarchtology)
See attached.
Discussion of early approaches to Zooarchaeology
Microscopic Examination
Ethnographic Data and Archaeological Experiments
Estimation of Weight
Cultural vs. Natural Bone
Minimum Number of Individuals
Reconstruction of Human Population Sizes
Seasonal Dating
Environmental Reconstruction
Problems
in
Domestication
.
I
I ?
OCT
:. ?
FactjJ.,
0
Z0OARC1 [A[:0L0c;Y
WDER WORKS:
Hargrave, L.L.
1938.
A plea for more careful preservation of all biological
material from prehistdric sites.
Southwestern Loe,4(3): 47-51.
Wintemberg, W.J..
1919.
Archaeology as an aid to zoology.
Canadian Field
Nczturalist,33: 63-72.
Wyman, J.
1869.
On the fresh-water shell-heaps on the St. John's River, eastern
Florida.
American Naturalist,2: 393-403, 449-463.
Cook, S.F. and A.E. Tréganza.
1947.
The quantitative investigation of aboriginal
sites: comparative physical and chemical analysis of two California Indian mounds.
American Antiquity,13(2): 135-141.
1950.
The quantitative investigation of Indian mounds with special reference
to the relation of the physical components to the probable material culture.
University
of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology,40:
223-261. ?
I
APPROACHES TO FAUNAL ANALYSIS:
Chaplin, R.E.
1965.
Animals in archaeology.
Antiquity,39: 204-211.
.
?
?
. 1971. The Study of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites.
Seminar Press.
New York.
Daly, P.
1969.
Approaches to faunal analysis in archaeology.
American Antiquity,
34(2): 131-145.
FRAMEWORKS FOR INTERPRETATION:
Read, C.E.
1971.
Animal bones and human behavior: approaches to faunal analysis in
archaeology. Ph.D. dissertation, U.C.L.A.
Flannery, K.V.
1968.
Archaeological systems theory and early Mesoarnerica.
In
B.J.
Meggers (ed.),
Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas: 67-87.
Anthropological
Society of Washington.
GENERAL
WORKS:
Non, J.L.
1970.
Procedures for establishing a faunal collection to aid in
archaeological analysis.
American Antiquity,35(3): 387-389.
Olsen, S.J.
1959.
The archaeologist's problem of getting non-artifactual materials
interpreted.
Curator, 2(4): 335-338.
2
GENERAL WORKS (Continued)!:
Grimes, W.F. 1969. On co-operation.
In
P.J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.),
The
Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals: xxii-xxvi.
Aldine. Chicago.
Meighan, C.W., D.M. Pendergast, B.K. Swartz, and M.D. Wissler. 1958. Ecological
interpretation in archaeology: part I.
American Antiquity,24(1):
1-23.
Koloseike, A. 1970. Cots of shell analysis.
American Antiquity, 35 (4):
475-480.
Olsen, S.J. 1968. Fish, amphibian, and reptile remains from archaeological sites.
Part I. Southeastern and southwestern United States.
Papers
of
the Peabody Museum
of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University,54(2).
MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION:,
Kishinouye, K. 1911. Prehistoric fishing in Japan.
Journal of the College
of
Agriculture University of Tokyo,2:
328-382.
Fitch, J.E. 1966. Additional fish remains, mostly otoliths, from a Pleistocene
deposit at Playa del Rey, California.
Los Angeles County Museum Contributions
in Science,119.
Pannella, G. 1971. Fish otoliths: daily growth layers and periodical patterns.
Science,173 (
4002): 1124-1127.
Hibbard, C.W.
1949.
Techniques of collecting microvertebrate fossils.
University
•
of
Michigan Museum
of
Palaeontology Contributions,8(2): 7-19.
Chartkoff, J.L. 1966. Appendix I: evaluating a midden sampling technique at the
Big Tujunga site (LAn'-167).
In
J. Ruby (ed.), "Archaeological investigations of
the Big Tujunga site (LAn-167)".
University of California Archaeological Survey,
Annual Report,8:
123-135.
Samuels, R. 1965. Parasitological study of long-dried fecal samples.
In
B.S. Katz
(ed.), "Contribution of the Wetherill Mesa archaeological project".
Society for
American Archaeology, Mernoirs,19:
175-179.
Dann, F.L. and R. Watkins:. 1970. Parasitological examinations of prehistoric human
coprolites from Lovelock Cave, Nevada.
In
R.F. Heizer and L.K. Napton (eds.),
"Archaeology and the prehistoric Great Basin lacustrine subsistence regime as
seen from Lovelock Cave, Nevada".
Contributions of the University of California
Archaeological Reseach Facility,
10: 176-185.
Radovsky, F.J. 1970. Mites associated with coprolites and mummified human remains in
Nevada.
In
R.F. Heizer and L.K. Napton (eds.), "Archaeology and the prehistoric
Great Basin 1acustriie subsistence regime
,
as seen from Lovelock Cave, Nevada".
Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility,10:
186-190.
W
Pike, A.W. and N. Biddle. 1966. Parasitic eggs in medieval Winchester.
Antiquity,40:
293-296.
3
BIASES
IN
FAUNAL SAMPLING:
Lyon, P.J.
1970.
Differdnial bone destruction: an ethnographic example.
American
ilniquity,35(2) : 213-215.
Casteel, R.W.
1971.
Differential bone destruction: some comments.
American Antiquity,
36(4): 466-469.
Casteel, R.W.
1972.
Some biases in the recovery of archaeological faunal remains.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society,38: 382-388.
Sparks, B.W.
1961.
The ecological interpretation of Quaternary non-marine Mollusca.
Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London,172: 71-80.
Greenwood, R.S.
1961.
Quantitative analysis of shells from a site in Goleta,
California.
American Antiquity,26(3): 416-420.
Struever, S. 1968. Flotation techniques for the recovery of archaeological remains.
American Antiquity, 33 (3): 353-362.
Shock, J.M.
1971.
Indoor flotation - a technique for the recovery of archaeological
materials. Plains Ilnthropologist,16(53): 228-231.
Payne, S.
1972.
Partial recovery and sample bias: the results of some sieving
experiments.
In
E.S. Higgs (ed.),
Papers in Economic Prehistory: 49-64.
Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
Watson, J.P.N.
1972.
Fragmentation analysis of animal bone samples from archaeological
0
sites.
Archaeometry,14 1
(2): 221-227.
Olsen, S.J.
1961.
The relative value of fragmentary mammalian remains.
American
Antiquity, 26(4): 538-540.
ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS:
Brain, C.K.
1967.
Hottehtot food remains and their bearing on the interpretation of
fossil bone assemblages..
Scientific Papers of the Namib Research Station, No.32.
Issac, G.Li.
1967.
Towards the interpretation of occupation debris: some experiments
and observations.
Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers,
No.
37.
ESTIMATION OF WEIGHT AND RELATIVE DIETARY INDEX:
Thomas, D.H.
1969.
Great Basin hunting patterns: a quantitative method for treating
faunal remains.
Americczn Antiquity,34(4): 392-401.
White, T.E.
1953.
A method of calculating the dietary percentage of various food
animals utilized by aboriginal peoples.
American Antiquity,18(4): 396-398.
Casteel, R.W.
1974.
A method for estimation of live weight of fish from the size of
skeletal elements.
American Ant-iquity,39(i): 94-98.
Parmalee, P.W. and W.E. Klippel.
1974.
Freshwater mussels as a prehistoric food
resource.
American Antiquity,39(3): 421-434.
.
addle, B.A.
1973.
Determination of the body weight of cattle from bone measurements.
In
J. Matolcsi (ed.),
Domestikationsforschung und Geschiohte -1er Raustiere: 377-390.
Akdemjaj Kiado. Budapest.
..
?
4
CULTURAL VS. NATURAL BONE:
Shotwell,
J.A.
1955. An approach to the paleoecology of mammals.
Eco
7
ogy,36(2):
327-337.
. Shotwell,
J.A.
1958. Inter-community relationships
in
}Iernphillian (mid-Pliocene) mammals.
Ecology,39(2):
271-282.
Wilson, R.W. 1960. Eatly Miocene rodents and insectivores from northeastern Colorado.
University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, VerteLrata,
art.7: 7-12.
Thomas, D.H. 1971. On:distinguishing natural from cultural bone in archaeological sites.
American Antiquity,36(3):
366-371.
MINIMUM NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS:
Clason, A.T. 1972. Some remarks on the use and presentation of archaeozoological data.
Reliniuin,12:
139-153,
White, T.E. 1953. Observations on the butchering technique of some aboriginal peoples
No.2. American Antiqiity,19(2):
160-164.
Perkins, D., Jr. 1964. Prehistoric fauna from Shanidar, Iraq.
Science,144:
1565-1566.
Flannery, K.V. 1967. The vertebrate fauna and hunting patterns.
In
D.S. Byers (ed.),
The Prehistory of
the
l
Tehuacan Valley, v.1: Environment
and Subsistence.
University
of Texas Press. Austin.
Krantz, G.S. 1968. A new method of counting mammal bones.
American Journal
of
Archaeology,72(3):
286-288.
Bkönyi, S. 1970. A new method for
'
the determination of the number of individuals in
animal bone material. American Journal
of
Archaeology,74:
291-292.
Chaplin, R.E. 1971.
The Study
of
Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites:
69-75. Seminar
Press. New York.
Grayson, D.K. 1973. On the methodology of faunal analysis.
American Antiquity,38(4):
432-439.
RELATIVE FREQUENCY OF SPECIES: by weight
Greengo, R.E. 1951. Mblluscan species in California shell middens.
University of
California
Archaeological Survey, Report
No.13: 1-29.
Gifford, E.W. 1916. Cbmposition of California shellmounds.
University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology,12(1).
Koloseike,
A.
1969. On calculating the prehistoric food resource value of molluscs.
University
of
Califonia Archaeological Survey, Annual Report,1l:
143-160.
by MNI x average weight
Cleland, C.E. 1966. The prehistoric animal ecology and ethnozoology of the Upper Great
Lakes region. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anthropology Papers,
29.
•
Perkins, D., Jr. and P. Daly. 1968.
A
hunter's village in Neolithic Turkey.
Scientific
American,219(5):
97-105.
Munson, P.J., P.W. Paalee, and R.A. Yarnell. 1971.. Subsistence ecology of Scovill,
t-erminal Middle
Woodland villaqe.
Arnrican Antiqui h,,
36 (4): 410-431.
Freeman, L.G.
1973.
The
significance of mammalian faunas [ram Palcolithic occupations
in Cantabrian Spain.
Amrn
Antiquiti,,38(1) : 3-44.
BUTCHERING TECHNIQUES:
Wood, W.R.
1968.
Missisippian hunting and butchering patterns: bone from the Vista
shelter,
23SR-20,
Missuri.
American Ilntiquity,33(2): 170-179.
White, T.E.
1952.
Observations on the butchering technique of some aboriginal peoples:
I.
American Antiquity, 17(4): 337-338.
Gilbert, B.M.
1969.
Some aspects of diet and butchering techniques among prehistoric
Indians in South Dakota.
Plains /lnthropologist,14: 277-294.
RECONSTRUCTION OF KCAL (MAN-DAYS):
Wheat,
J.B. 1972.
The Olsen-Chubbuck site.
A
paleo-Indian bison kill.
Society for
American Archaeo logy, Memoirs, 26.
Shawcross, W.
1967.
An investigation of prehistoric diet and economy on a coastal
site at Galatea Bay, thew Zealand.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society,33: 107-131.
Shawcross, W.
1972.
Energy and ecology: thermodynamic models in archaeology.
In
D.L.
Clarke (ed.),
Models in Archaeology:
577-622.
Methuen. London.
Ascher, R.
1959.
A prehistoric population estimate using midden analysis and two
population models.
Southwestern Journal
of
Anthropology,15: 168-178.
eGlas-sow, M.A.
1967.
Considerations in estimating prehistoric California coastal
populations.
American ,
Antiquity, 32(3): 354-359.
Cook, S.F.
1946.
A reconsideration of sheilmounds with respect to population and
nutrition.
American Antiquity, 12(1): 50-53.
Isaac, G.Ll.
1971.
The diet of early man: aspects of archaeological evidence from
Lower and Middle Pleistocene sites in Africa.
World Archaeology,2(3): 278-299.
SEASONAL DATING: by speies present
Cleland, C.E.
1966.
(se entry under "relative frequency of species" above)
Bökönyi, S.
1972.
Zoological evidence for seasonal or permanent occupation of prehistoric
settlements.
In
P.J. tJcko, R. Tringham, and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.),
Man, Settlement and
Urbanism: 121-126.
Clark, J.G.D.
1952. Prehistoric Europe: the Economic Basis.
Methuen. London. (with
reference to Upper Paleolithic).
Gilbert, B.M. and W.M. Bass.
1967.
Seasonal dating of burials from the presence of
fly pupae.
American Antiquity,32: 534-535.
by age structure of thanatocoenosis
Higgs, E.S. and J.P. White.
1963.
Autumn killing.
Antiquity,37: 282-289.
W
Ewbank, J.M., D.W. Phillipson, R.D. Whitehouse, and E.S. Higgs.
1964.
Sheep in the iron
age: a method of study
.
.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society,30: 423-426.
Nirnmo, B.W.
1971.
Population dynamics of a Wyoming pronghorn cohort from the Eden-Farson
site,
48SW304. Plain3 Anthropoloqist,16(54): 285-288.
by annular structures
Weide, M.L.
1969.
Seasonality of Pismo clam collecting at Ora-82.
University
of
California Archaeological Survey, Annual Report,ll: 127-142.
Coutts, P. and C. Higham.
1971.
The seasonal factor in prehistoric New Zealand.
World Archaeology,2(3): 266-277.
Saxon, A. and C. Higham.
1969.
A new research method for economic prehistorians.
American Antiquity, 34(3): 303-311.
by other methods
Clarke, J.G.D.
1939.
Seasonal settlement in upper Paleolithic times.
Proceedings
of
the
Prehistoric Society,5(2): 268.
INCREMENTAL
GROWTH STRUCTURES: mammals
Norris, P.
1972.
A review of mammalian age determination methods.
Manvnal Review,2(3):
69-104. ?
F
Jonsgard, A.
1969.
Agedetermination of marine mammals.
In
H.T. Andersen (ed.),
The
Biology
of
Marine Mairinals: 1-3.0.
Academic Press. New York.
Kievezal', G.A. and S.E. Kleinenberg.
1967. Age Determination
of
mammals by layered
structure in teeth and bone.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Translation Series
No. 1024.
Gustafson, C.E.
1968.
Prehistoric use of fur seals: evidence from the Olympic coast
of Washington.
Science,161(3836) : '49-51.
reptiles
Senning, W.C.
1940.
A 'study of age determination and growth of
Necturus maculosus
based on the parasphnoid bone.
American Journal
of
Anatoray,66: 483-495.
Peabody, F.E.
1958.
AKansas drouth recorded in growth zones of a bulisnake.
Copsia,
1958(2): 91-94.
?
. . ? .
Peabody, F.E.
1961.
Annual growth zones in living and fossil vertebrates.
Journal of
Morphology,1o8(1): 11-62.,
invertebrates
Clark, G.R., II.
19684
Mollusk shell: daily growth lines.
Science,161: 800-802.
Clark, G.R., II.
1974..
Calcification on an unstable substrate: marginal growth in the
mollusk
Pecten diegeisis. Science, 183(4128).: 968-970.
Barker, R.M.
1970.
Coristituency and origins of cyclic growth layers in pelecypod shells.
University
of
California, Space Sciences Laboratory Series 11, Issue 43.
Olsen, D.
1968.
Banding patterns of
Haliotis refescens
as indication of botanical and
• animal succession.
Biological Builetin,134(l): 139-147.
Pannella, G. and C. MacClintock.
1968.
Biological and environmental rhythms reflected
in molluscan shell growth.
In
D.B. Macurda,Jr. (ed.), "Paleobiological aspects of
growth and development - a symposium".
The Paleontological Society, Memoir No.2: 64-80.
• ? 7
Rhoads, D.C. and G. Phnnella. 1970. The use of molluscan shell growth patterns in
ecology and paleoecoogy.
Lethaia,3:
143-161.
Evans, J.W. 1972. Tidal growth increments in the cockle
Cl&zocardiuzn nutta7
7
i. Sc.ce,
176: 416-417.
Berta, A. 1976. An inJestigation of individual growth and possible age relationships
in a population of
P'otothaca staminea (
Mollusca: Pelecypoda).
PaleoBjos,I\To.21.
Hall, C.A.,Jr., W.A. bollase, and C.E. Corbato. 1974. Shell growth in
Tit.'ela stuitoruni ?
(Mawe, 1823) and
C'allista
chione
(Linnaeus, 1758) (Bilvalvia): annual periodicity,
latitudinal differences, and diminution with age.
Palaeogeography
Palaeoclirnatology,
Palacoecology,
15: 33:-61.
Kennish, N.J. and R.K. Olsson. 1975. Effects of thermal discharges on the
microstructural gro
w
th of
Mercenczria rnercenaria. Environmental Geology,l:
41-64.
Nelson, D.J. 1967. Microchemical constituents in contemporary and pre-Columbian
clamshell.
In
E.J. Cushing and H.E. Wright (eds.),
Quaternary Paleoecology:
185-204.
Yale University Pres.
Coutts, P.J.F. 1970.Bivalve-growth patterning as a method for seasonal dating in
archaeology.
Nature)
226(5248): 874.
Coutts, P.J.F. and K.L. Jones. 1974. A proposed method for deriving seasonal data
•
from the echinoid,
Evechinus chioroticus (Val.),
in archaeological deposits.
American
Ilntiquity,39(1):
98-102.
Koike,
H.
1975. The use of daily and annual growth lines of the clam
Meterix
lusoricz
in estimating seasons of Jomon period shell gathering.
In
R.P. Suggate and M.M.
Cresswell (eds.),
Quaternary Studies:
189-193. The Royal Society of New Zealand.
Wellington.
ENVIRONMENTAL RECONSTRUCTION:
Flannery, K.V. 1966. The postglacial "readaptation" as viewed from Mesoamerica.
American
Antiquity,31(6):
800-805.
Coe, M.D. and K.V. Flannery. 1964. Microenvironinents and Mesoamerican prehistory.
SciCflc,143:
650-654.
Fitzhugh, W.W. 1972. Environmental archaeology and cultural systems in Hamilton Inlet,
Labrador. A survey of the central Labrador coast from 3000 B.C. to the present.
Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology,
No.16.
Bökbnyi, S. 1970. Animal remains from Lepenski vir.
Science,167:
1702-1704.
Snow, D.R. 1972. Rising sea level and prehistoric cultural ecology in northern New
England. American Aztiquity,37(2) :
211-221.
Reed,
C.A.
1962. Snails on a Persian hillside: ecology, prehistory, gastronomy.
i'otilla,66:
1-20.
Trigger, B. 1971. Archaeology and ecology.
World ArchaeolorJy,2(3):
321-336.
A
Shawcross, W.
1975.
Some studies of the influences of prehistoric human predation on
marine animal population dynamics.
In
R.W. Casteel and G.I.. Quimby (eds.),
?ariti.'ne
Adaptations
of
the Pacific: 39-66.
Mouton. The Hague.
Luridelius, E.,Jr.
1964.
The use of vertebrates in paleoecological reconstructions.
In
E.R. Smith (ed.), "The reconstruction of past environments":
26-31. Fort Burgiiin
Research Center, No.3.
Smith, B.D.
1974.
Middle Mississippi exploitation of animal populations: a predictive
model.
American Antiquity,39(2): 274-291.
Smith, B.C.
1974.
Predator-prey relationships
in
the eastern Ozarks: A.D.
1300.
Human Ecology,2(1): 311_43.
DOMESTICATION:
Anonymous.
1970.
Bone from domestic and wild animals: crystallographic differences.
MASCA Newsletter,6(l):: 2.
Drew, I.M., D. Perkins, Jr., and P. Daly.
1971.
Prehistoric domestication of animals:
effects on bone structure.
Science,171(3968): 260-282.
McConnell, D. and D.W., Foreman, Jr.
1971.
Texture and composition of bone.
Science,172
(3986): 971-972.
Drew, I., D. Perkins, Jr., and P. Daly.
1971.
Texture and composition of bone: reply
. to McConnell and Fordman.
Science 172(3986): 972-973.
Daly, P., D. Perkins, Jr., and I.. Drew.
1973.
The effects of domestication on the
structure of animal bone.
In
J. Matolcsi (ed.),
Domestikationsforschunq und (Jeschichte
der Haustiere: 157-162.
Akademiai Kiado. Budapest.
Anonymous.
1973.
Technique for determining animal domestication based on study of thin
sections of bone under polarized light.
MASCA Newsletter,9(2): 1-2.
Bökönyi, S.
1969.
Archaeological problems and methods of recognizing domestication.
In
P.J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.),
The Domestication and Exploitation
of
Plants
and Animals: 219-230
Aldine. Chicago.
Simoons, F.J.
1971.
MOre on Higham's study of bovine bones.
Current Anthropology,12(3):
405.
Higham, C.F.W. and B.F. Leach.
1971.
An early center of bovine husbandry in Southeast
Asia.
Science,172: 54-56.
Berry, R.J.
1969.
Thegenetical implications of domestication in animals.
In
P.J. Ucko
and C.W. Dimbleby (eds.),
The Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals:
207-218.
Aldine. ChiOago.
Collier, S. and J.P. White.
1976.
Get them young? Age and sex inferences on animal
domestication in archaeology.
American Antiquity,41(l): 96-102.
Chaplin, R.E.
1969.
The use of non-morphological criteria in the study of animal
domestication from bnes found in archaeological sites.
In
P.J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbieby
(cd.),
The
Domestictjon and Exploitation of Plant:;
and
Animals: 231-246.
Aldine. Chicac;
. riggs, E.S. and M.R. Ja4man. 1969. The origins of agriculture: a reconsideration.
Aniquity,43: 31-41.
Ducos, P.
1969.
Methodology and results of the study of the earliest domesticated
animals in the Near East (Palestine).
In
P.J. Ucko and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.),
The
Domestication and ExplOitation
of
Plants and Animals: 265-276.
Aldine. Chicago.
Vita-Finzi, C. and E.S. Higgs.
1970.
Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of?
Palestine: site catchment analysis.
Proceedings
of
the Prehistoric Society,36(1):
1-37.
NEWER PROBLEMS:
Bowen, J. 1975. Probate, inventories: an evaluation from the perspective of zooarchaeology
and agricultural history at Mott farm.
Historical Archaeology,9: 11-25.
Klein, R.G.
1975.
Middle stone age man-animal relationships in southern Africa:
evidence from Die Kelders and Klasies River mouth.
Science,190 (4211): 265-267.
Butzer, K.W.
1975.
The'ecological approach to archaeology: are we really trying?
American Antiquity,40(1): 106-111.
NOTE: under "Domestication" following ref. to Anon.
1973
please add:
Pollard, G.C. and I.M. Drew.
1975.
Llama herding and settlement in prehispanic northern?
Chile: application of an analysis for determining domestication.
American Antiquity.
40(3): 296-305.
£
CURRICULUM VITAE
Richard W. ?
Casteel
Professional
?
Articles:
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
1970. ?
Core and column sampling.
?
American
Antiquity,35(4): 465-467.
Casteel, ?
R.W.
?
1970. ?
Areal distribution of the native freshwater
fish fauna of California.
?
Center for Archaeological Research
at Dzvis,2: ?
10-26.
Casteel, ?
R.W.
?
1971. ?
Differential ?
bone destruction: ?
some
comments. ?
American Antiquity, 36(4):
?
467-469.
Casteel, R.W. ?
1972. ?
Some biases inthe recovery of archaeological
faunal remains.
?
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society,38:
382-388.
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
1972. ?
Two
static maximum population-density
models for hunter-gatherers: ?
a first approximation. ?
World
Arch&eology,4(l): ?
19-40.
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
1972. ?
Some archaeological ?
uses of fish remains.
Amercan Antiquity,37(3): 404-419.
Casteél, ?
R.W. ?
1972. ?
A' key to the scales of the families of
C1ifornia freshwater fishes.
?
Proceedings of the California
Academy
of
Sciences,
ser .4,39(7): ?
75-86.
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
and J.H. ?
Hutchison.
?
1973. ?
Orthodon
(Actinopterygii,
Cyprinidae) from the Pliocene and Pleistocene of California.
Cope '
ia,1973(2):
?
358-361.
Castee
,
l,R.W. ?
1974. ?
A
method for estimation of live weight
of fish from the size of skeletal elements.
?
American Antiquity,
39(1): ?
94-98.
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
1974.
?
The scales of the native freshwater fish
families of Washington.
?
Northwest Science,47(4): ?
230-238.
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
1974. ?
Identification of the species of Pacific
salmon (Genus
Oncorhynchus)
native to North America based
upon otoliths. ?
Copeia,1974(2): ?
305-311.
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
In
?
press. ?
A preliminary ?
investigation of fish
?
remains
in middenmaterial ?
from northern Chile.
?
In C.W. ?
Me'ighan ?
(editor),
Prehistoric t:"zils of Atacama.
?
Southwest Museum.
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
1974. ?
On the remains of fish scales
?
from
archaeological ?
sites. ?
American
Antiquity39(4): ?
557-531.
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
1974. ?
On the number and ?
sizes of animals
?
in
archaeological ?
faunal ?
assemblages. ?
Archrzeometry. 16(2):
?
238-243.
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
In press. ?
A sample of norther North American hunter-
gatherers and the Malthusian thesis: ?
an explicitly quantified
approach., ?
In D. ?
Browman (editor),
Sub-Arctic paleoanthropology
and prehistoric culLral adaptations in western North
America.
Mouton. ?
The Hague. ? -
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
1974. ?
A method for back-calculating ?
the size of
fish from the s
i'ze of their bones.
?
Zoologischer Anzeiger, 193(1/2): ?
12-16.
Casteel, ?
R.W.
?
1975. ?
Estimation of size, minimum number of
individuals, ?
and seasonal dating by means of fish scales
from archaeological
?
sites. ?
in
A.T. ?
Clason
?
(editor),
Archaeozoological Studies:
?
70-86. ?
North-Holland.
Amsterdam'.
Casteel, ?
R.W.
?
1974.
?
Use of Pacific salmon otoliths
?
for estimating
fish size with a note on the size of late Pleistocene and
?
Pliocene
salmonids. ?
Northwest Science,48(3); ?
175-179.
Casteel, ?
R.W. ?
1975. ?
An early post-glacial ?
record of the Pacific
sardine,
Sardinops saax, ?
from Saanich Inlet, Vancouver Island,
British Columbia. ?
Copeia,1975(3);
?
576-579.
Casteel, R.W.
?
1974. ?
Growth rate of
Ptychocheiius grandis
in
central California,
4000 -
1600 years ago. ?
Wasmann Jow'al of
Biology. 32(2):
?
281-296.
Casteel, ?
RW. ?
In press. ?
A comparison of methods for back-ca1culatiôn
of fish size from the size of scales found
?
in archaeological ?
sites.
In
D.R. ?
Yesner and J.E.
?
Yellen (editors),
Quantitative Funa1 Analysis.
University of Arizona Press.
I
?
2
d
40 ?
Casteel, R.W. In press. Incremental growth zones in mammals and
their archaeological value.
Papers
of
the Kroeber Anthropological
Society.
Casteel, R.W. and M.J. Rymer.
?
1975. ?
Fossil fishes from the
Pliocene or Pleistocene Cache Formation, Lake County, California.
United States
,
Geological Survey, Journal of Research. 3(5):
619-622.
Leney, L. and R.W. Casteel. ?
1975. ?
Simplified procedure for
examining charcoal specimens for identification.
Journal
of
Archaeological Science, 2(2).:
153-159. ?
-
Casteel, R.W.,D.P. Adam, and J.D. Sims. 1975. Fish remains
from Core 7, Clear Lake, Lake County, California.
U.S.
Geological
Survey, Open-File Report
75-173.
•
?
Casteel, R.W. and D.P. Adam. In press. Pleistocene fishes from
Oak Knoll, Alameda County, California.
United States Geological
Survey, Jour±nal
of
Research,
Casteel, R.W. 1976. Comparison of column and whole unit samples
for recovering fish remains.
World Archaeology,
Pb
Papers Under Review:
•
? Casteel, ?
Identification of the native California cyprinids
?
based upon their basioccipitals.
Paleo-Bioc.
Casteel, R.W. and D.P. Adam. Pleistocene fishes from Oak Knoll,
Alameda County, California.
U.S. Geological
Survey, Journal
of
Research.
(Accepted
for publication).
Casteel, R.W., D.P. Adam, and J.D. Sims. Late Pleistocene and
Holocene' remains of
Hysterocarpus traski
(Tule perch) from
Clear Lake, California, and inferred Holocene temperature
fluctuations.
Quaternary Research.
Casteel, R.W. Human population estimates for hunting and
gathering groups based upon net primary production data:
example from the Central Desert of Baja California.
Human
Ecology.
Books:
Casteel, R.W. and G.I. Quimby (editors).
?
1975.
Nari tizn6 Adaptations of the
Pacific.
Mouton. The Hague.
Casteel,
R.W. In press.
Fish Remains in Archaeology and
Paleoenironmental Studies.
Acaciémic
Press. London.
Professional Papers:
1969The recovery of fish remains from archaeological sites'.
Paper delivered to joint meeting of Society for California
Archaeology and Center for Archaeological Research, Davis.
October
26. Sacramento, California.
1970 "Fish and Indians in the Delta Area". Paper delivered
to California Fish and Game Department, Inland Fisheries
Branch. February 27. Sacramento, California.
1970 "Fish remains and their arcIiaeo1ogicI1 potential. Paper
delivered to joint meeting of Society for American Anthropology
. ?
and Society for California Ac-chaeology. March 26. Asilomar,
California. Paper received honorable mention.
3
1971 ?
"The archaeological utilization of ichthyological data".
Paper delivered as part of symposium on late Pleistocene
and Holocene environmental changes and their human
ecological implications. May 7. Norman, Oklahoma.
1972 "Seasonal dating using the remains of freshwater fishes".
Paper delivered at annual meeting of the Southern California
Academy of Sciences. May 6. University of California,
Los Angeles. Paper received award for most outstanding
student paper presented.
1973 "The relationship between population size and carrying
ca
C
pacity in a sample of North American hunter-gatherers".
Paper
delivered as part of symposium on man's adaptability
to new and difficult environments in the circumpolar
regions. IX International Congress of Anthropological
Ethnological Sciences. August 27 - September 8. Chicago,
Illinois.
1973 "Malthus and northern hunters and gatherers". Invited
honorarium. January 23. University of British Columbia.
1973 "Assessment of live weight and minimum number of
individuals of fishes found in the archaeological
•
?
context." Paper presented at the 38th annual meeting
of the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco,
California, 5 May.
1974 "The use of fish scales in archaeological investigations".
Paper presented at the Groningen Archaeo-zoological
Cpnference 1974, Groningen, The Netherlands, 22-26 April.
1974 'tome uses of sub-fossil fish remains in archaeology,
paleontology, and fisheries." Paper presented at
United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California,
212 March.
1974 "A comparison of the methods for estimation of fish size
from archaeological remains". Paper presented at 39th
annual meeting of the Society forArnerican Archaeology,
tlashington, D.C.,.4 May.
1974 "A re-examination of environmental factors and hunter-
gatherer tribal areas". Paper presented at the 20th
annual Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Carson
City, Nevada, 13 September.
C
4
1975"Fish studies in geology: applications in western
Nprth America". Paper presented to U.S. Geological
Survey, Menlo Park, California, 14 January.
1.975 "Environmental reconstruction in archaeology and
geology". Paper presented at Stanford University,
12 February.
1975 "Ma,n and environment: some. predictive models of
human carrying capacity". Paper presented at the
University of California, Santa Cruz, 28 April.
1975 "Comparison of column and whole unit samples for
recovering fish remains". Paper presented at the
40th annual meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Dallas, Texas, 8 May.
Fellowships and Research Grants:
1.
NDEA IV 1970-1972, University of California, Davis.
2.
Chancellor's Patent Fund Research Grant, June 1970-June 1971,
•
?
University of California, Davis.
3.
Graduate Student Research Funds 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972,
University of California, Davis.
4.
Graduate School Research Fund, Physical Sciences and Engineering
Section, University of Washington, 1973.
•
?
5. Graduate School Research Fund, Arts, Humanities and Social
?
Sciences, University of Washington, 1973.
6. N.S.F. Travel Grant GS-41921, Groningen, The Netherlands, 1974.
Foreign Languages ?
Russian, German, Spanish, French
!'\
?
4' ?
11
SIMON FRASER UNIVESTTY
New Graduate Course Pronosal rorm
•
?
CALENDAR
INFORNAT10N
_ H
Department: ?
Archaeology ?
Course Number: ?
872
Title:
?
Seminar in Archaeology and Prehistory
Description: ?
A seminar on selectedproblems in archaeological science and
-
prehistory
Graduate
Credit Uours:_ Non
_credit
?
vector:
Prerequ:[site(s) if any:Standing
ENROLLMENT
AND SCHEDULING:
Estimated Enrollment:
?
15
?
will the course first be offered;
773/ 77-4
How often will the course' be offered:
?
Semesters 1 and
3
annually.
JUSTIFICATION:
A forum is needed for sophisticated, in depth examination of current
-- ?
problems, concepts and empirical research in Archaeology.
RESOURCES:
Which Faculty member will normally teach the course:
What are the budgetary implications of mounting the course:
Are there sufficient Libarv resources (annend details): Yes
Anpended: a) Outline of the Course
?
(Example appended)
b)
An indice.ion of the com
etence—of
p
the
Faculty
member to give the course.
c)
Library resources
Approved:
•
-
i
Facult y
CraduHc StLi'ic'5
Z
O—
r
(flal C
(:;j.hett:
?
-I I.-:; (ni;:r)1 I t((:
(.I
Date:
IIIDate:iH
3/7
IL,
I
.
OUTLINE
The graduate students have in fact been running an informal,
weekly seminar. We wish to formalize and expand it as a valuable
component of the programme (which it has been and continues to be).
The range of potential topics for this course is so wide that
any outline would be misleading. Topics covered this far in the
informal forum are given below:
76-1
1.
Autralian ethno-archaeology
2.
Concepts of cultural-historical unit in Northwest Coast Archaeology
3.
Arhaeology of the Gulf Islands
4.
Ecological approaches to the study of fossil hominids
5.
Quantitative consideration of the distribution of Eskimo Groups
6. Values: a model for human evolution
7.
HIstoric archaeology in the Peace. River District
8. Prehistory of Northeastern North America
9.
Method in salvage archaeology
10. Pictographs and petroglyphs in the B. C. Interior
11. Archaeology in Montana
76-3
1.
Contract archaeology
2.
Human dentition and growth patterns
3.
Mddels in archaeology
4. Archaeology of the Canadian East Coast
5. Stochastic process models and archaeological method
6. Bureaucratic archaeology
7.
Archaeology as archaeology
.
L
I
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
New Graduate Course Pro
p
osal rorm
. CALENDAR INFORMATION:
Department:
Archaeology ?
Course Number:
876
Title:
Selected Topics in Archaeological Method
Description:
Seminar focussing on examination ofarchaeological
method from historical/rnathernatical/st:
:
tis -tical perspective.
Credit Hours: ?
__
Vector:
?
Prerequisite(s) if any:
Graduates
?
1i
and one of ARCH
?
6,
MATH101,PSYC210 or
va lent
ER0!.LMFNT AND SCHEDULING:
Estimated Enrollment: ?
10 ?
When will the course first he offered:
_77-3
How often will the course be offered: ?
annually
JUSTIFICATION:
Use of mathematical and statistical models in archaeological research
is becoming cornmcnplace. Thorou
g
h groundingin -these matters is
undeniablyimportanttosoundgraduatetraining.
RESOURCES:
Which Faculty member will normally teach the course:_
?
Jack D. Nance
What are the budgetary implications of mounting the course:
?
_none
Are there sufficient Library resources (annend details):
?
yes
Appended: ?
) Outline of the Course
) An indication of the com
p etence-of the Faculty member to
g ive the course.
c) Library resources
Approved: Departmental Graduate Studies Committee:
?
Date:______________
Faculty Cradtate Studies
?
Date:'
Faculty: ?
/ ?
t' ?
Date:______________
W ?
Senate Graduate Studie: Committee:
?
.?. ?
cJt37
Senate: ?
Date:______________
. ?
Archaeology 86
Selected Topics in Archaeological Method
SAMPLE COURSE OUTLINE
1. General Considerations
A.
Archaeology: science or natural history?
B.
The empiricist approach: pattern.
C.
The deductivist approach: process
II. Analytic units in archaeological enquiry
A.
Traditional observational units: temporal/spatial
B.
Traditional analytic units: temporal/spatial
C.
Units df observation and analysis in behavioral
context: process.
III. Variety in archaeological variables: measurement and description.
A.
Variables of a continuous nature
B.
Variables of a discrete nature
IV. Description of univariate archaeological phenomena: relating
pattern to process.
. ?
A. Modelihg continuous archaeological variables
B. Modeling discrete archaeological variables
V. Multivariate description of archaeological phenomena
A.
Definition of archaeological "supervariables"
B.
Multivariate space/time/process models of archaeological phenomena
VI. Classification and taxonomy in archaeology.
A.
Polythetic vs. monothetic criteria
B.
Non-dimensional models of archaeological phenomena
VII. Archaeological models and archaeological research design
A.
Time models
B.
Space models
C.
Process models
D.
Sampling models
READING LIST:
.
??
Since the proposed course will be a seminar the students will, in
practice, compose their own reading list with advice of the professor.
A partial list of relevant literature appears below:
Binford, L. R.
1968 ?
An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar Press. London.
Binford, L. R. and S. R. Binford (Editors)
1968
?
1
?
1 ?
New Perspectives in Archaeology. Aldine.
Chang, K. C.
Rethinking Archaeology. Random House.
Clarke, David L.
1972 ? Models in Archaeology. Methuen.
1968
?
Analytic Archaeology. ?
Methuen.
Derman, C., L. J.'Gleser, I. 01km
1973
? A Guide to Probability Theory and Application.?
Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
Doran ?
J. E. and F. R. Hodson
•
?
1975
? Mathematics and Computers in Archaeology.
Edinburgh Press.
Harris, M.
1968 ? The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Crowell.
Krumbein, W.C. and F. A. Graybill
1965 ? An Introduction to Statistical Models in Geology.
McGraw-Hill. New York.
Meuller, J. (Editor)
1975 ?
I ?
Sampling in Archaeology. University of Arizona Press.
Redman, C. L. (Editor)
1975 ?
I ?
Current Research and Theory in Archaeology. Wiley.
Rouse, I.
1972 ?
Introduction to Prehistory. McGraw-Hill
Schiffer, M.B.
1976 ? Behavioral Archaeology. Seminar Press.
Smeath, P.H.A. and R.R. SOkal
1973
? Numerical Taxonomy. W. H. Freeman.
Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohif
.
?
1969
?
I
?
Biometry. W. H. Freeman
Taylor, W. W.
1949 ?
A Study of Archaeology. Illinois.
Watson, P.J., C.L. Redman and S. Leblanc
Archaeology: A Scientific Approach Columbia Univ. Press.
Reading List (Contkd.)
?
-2-
Willey,C.R. and J.P Sabloff
19 ?
A History of North American Archaeology. University of
Chicago Press.
Willey, C.R. and P. Phillips
Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of
Chicago Press.
Curriculum Vitae
JACK i'WAIN NANCE
Born: January '7th, 1942; Paducah, Kentucky, U.S.A.
Marital Status: Married; one child
Education
Undergraduate
1. University of California, Davis
Fall 1964-Spring 1968 Anthropology
Bachelor of Arts: June 1968
Graduate
1.
University of California, Davis
Fall 1968-Springj969 Anthropology
Mastef of Arts: June 1969
2.
University of Calgary
Fall 1969-Winter 1971 Archaeology
Ph.D.: May 1972
Areas of
concentration:
a.
Theory and method in archaeology
b.
Quantitative and computer applications
C.
North American archaeology
d. Physical anthropology and human evolution
Dissertation: "Classification of Artifacts"
Research interests
1.
Quantitative techniques in archaeology
2.
Archaeological systematics
3.
Archaeology of North America
4.
Physical anthropology
Employment
1. February 1960-November 1967 United States Air Force
2. 'Summer 1969 - Instructor, anthropology and geography
Department of Social Sciences, Boise State
College, Boise, Idaho.
a.
Introduction to physical anthropology
b.
Introduction to physical .geography
3. September 1969-April 1970:
Teaching
assistant,
Department of Archaeology, University of
Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.
a. Introduction to physical anthropology
.
?
2 . .
-2-
4. Summer 1970 - Instructor in anthropology and
geography, Department of Social Sciences,
Boise
a.
State
Introduction
College, Boise,
to cultural
Idaho.
anthropology
b.
Introduction to physical geography
5. September 1970-April 1971: Graduate teaching
assistant, Department of Archaeology, University
of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
a. Introduction to physical anthropology
6. Summer 1971: Instructor in archaeology, Department
of Archaeology, University of Calgary,
Calgary, Alberta.
a.
Introduction to physical anthropology
b.
Introduction to archaeological science
7. August-September 1972: Inter-university-TVA
coordinator (TVA-Murray State University-
University of Tennessee) for experimental
history course. Involved directing field
excavations employing students in historical
research from the University of Tennessee.
Associate: Dr. Charles Ogilvie.
8. January 1972 - August 1973: Assistant Professor of
Anthropology, Murray State University,
Murray, Kentucky
a.
Introduction to physical anthropology
b.
Introduction to cultural anthropology
C.
Introduction to archaeological science
d.
Archaeological Field experience
e.
Comparative cultural analysis
9. January 1972-August 1973: Advising archaeologist to
the Tennessee Valley Authority, Land Between
the Lakes National Recreation Area
10 August 1973-January 1974: Independent research
under contract #39558A to Tennessee Valley
Authority
11. January 1974-August 1974: Acting Director,
Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton,
Alberta
12
,
. September 1974-present: Assistant Professor of
Archaeology, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, B.C.
.
?
. . .3
S
-3-
Fieldwork
1.
Excavation of site CA-YOL-17
?
September-October
Yolo county, California
?
1968
2.
Excavtion of site CA-SAC-43
? January-May
Sacramento County, California ?
1969
3.
Land Between the Lakes Archaeological ?
January-May
Project, Phase I - Archaeological ?
1972
Site Survey
4. Land Between the Lakes Archaeological
?
January-May
Project, Phase II - Archaeological
?
1973
site survey and excavation.
5.
Land Between the Lakes Archaeological
?
June-August
Project, Phase Ill-excavation project.
?
1973
Publications
1. Somesignificant differences in certain foot elements of
elk and bison. Archaeological Society of Alberta, Newsletter,
No. 22:3-12, 1969.
. ?
2. The methodological basis of archaeological classification.
Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology, 2:83-91, 1971.
3. Lithlc analysis: implications for the prehistory of central
California. University of California Archaeological Survey,
Los Angeles, Annual Report No. 12:61-90. 1971.
4.
Functional interpretations from microscopic analysis.
American Antiquity 36: 361-365, 1971.
5.
A summary of work and assessment of archaeological
resources in the Land Between the Lakes. School of Arts
and Sciences, Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky, 1972.
6.
Jackson's Purchase Archaeological Society. Jackson's Purchase
Archaeological Society, Newsletter, 1, 1973.
7.
Ancient Man in Land Between the Lakes. Tennessee Valley
Auth9rity, Knoxville, 1973.
8.
Experiments in sexing human crania by cluster analysis,
Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology, 5:12-32, 1975.
9. An archaeological survey of the Land Between the Lakes
N;itioiial Recreation Area.
?
Tennessee Arc!aeo1.ot, ?
31.: 62-77, 1975.
.
.
-4-
Publications (Cont' d)
10.
On the theoretical bases of artifact analysis. In: Primitive Art
and Technology, B. Loveseth and S. Raymond (Editors). University of
Calgary Archaeological Association.
pp.
60-71, 1975.
11.
Archaeological research in Jackson's Purchase and the lower Tennessee -
Cumberland region, a historical account. Kentucky Archaeological
Association, Bulletin, 4, pp. 1-18, 1976.
12.
Numerical taxonomy and cultural stratigraphy in archaeological sites.
In: Canadian Archaeology Abroad, J. Robertson and P. Shinnie (Editors).
pp.
261-281, 1976.
13.
The Dead Beaver site, an Archaic campsite in Land Between the Lakes.
Kentucky Archaeological Association, Bulletin, 4,
pp.
19-45, 1976.
14.
A preliminary assessment of variability in late Mississippian mortuary
customs in thelower Cumberland River Valley. Kentucky Archaeological
Association, Bulletin 4,
pp.
46-75, 1976.
15.
Numerical tax oiomy studies of microwear on the Los Tapiales artifacts.
American Philosophical
Society .,
Proceedings, (in press).
Papers Currently Under Review.
1. Application of p inferential statistics in archaeology. American
Antiquity.
2. Aspects of late! Archaic culture in the lower Cumberland River Valley.
Tennessee Archaeologist.
Works in Preparation.
1.
Quantitative method in Archaeology (textbook on use of statistics in
archaeology).
2.
Principal components analysis of variation in late Mississippian mortuary
customs.
3.
Models from the. mediocre: surface site archaeology in the lower
Cumberland River Valley.
4.
Sites, samples and surface collections: late Archaic culture in the
lower Cumberland region.
5.
Probability models and the description of archaeological variables.
6.
The Copeland site collection: a late Palaeoindian surface collection
from western Kentucky.
L
