4
?
11
?
.
14r0(c
0
?
SYNOPSIS
Archaeological Studies Program - Faculty of Arts
The purpose of this proposal is to change both the administrative
and curricular organization of Archaeology within the Faculty of Arts.
At present Archaeology is administered as a trusteeship of the Dean of
Arts, and offers a series of credit courses which can be taken to
satisfy general Arts degree requirements and in some cases requirements
of a PSA major.
The reorganized programme departs from the present one in the
following particulars: a set of core Archaeology courses are designated
as a major; a set of courses in the disciplines which complement
Archaeology are designated and are recommended for Archaeology majors;
and the administration of the majors programme is provided for through
the usual administrative unit known as a department.
The
reorganization
is predicated on the basis that Archaeology has flourished through
increased enrollments and demand for courses, that the other two
universities in B.C. do not offer a major in Archaeology, and that the
reorganized programme costs no more than the present one.
Evaluations of the revised curriculum by ten outside referees
• ?
indicate that students who complete the programme would be acceptable
for graduate study at other universities. To quote Professor Willey of
Harvard ' The archaeological program which you present in the accompanying
memorandum is certainly of the design and strength that would prepare
any student for graduate work in anthropological archaeology at any
university in the United States or England with which I am familiar.
The reorganization is supported unanimously by the Archaeology
faculty members and by a petition signed by about 200 students.
August 27, 1970
. ?
fig
'
ML .IIacuLu6LLal
Studies Program - Faculty of Arts
Issues
and/or
Questions Raised by the Academic Planning Committee
1.
Why should there be a department of Archaeological Studies
as opposed to a program of Archaeological Studies?
The Dean of Arts indicated that the primary basis for
seeking departmental status is that departments have the
right to offer degrees while programs do not.
2.
Should not the anthropologists and the archaeologists be
combined into one program? Both programs have indicated
that they are not interested in amalagamation, and, in
addition, there are not enough anthropologists in the
PSA Department to assure that a viable program would result
from such an amalgamation.
3.
As a basic policy issue, is it desirable that the University
move to the establishment of additional departments? The
University has said that it is committed to both strong
disciplinary and inter-disciplinary studies. In general,
now having established strong disciplinary programs, the
issue arises as to whether or not interdisciplinary studies
will be facilitated by the establishment of still further
departments within the University. Second, the viability
of small departments can be questioned. If you will
recall, this issue was raised yith regard to the de facto
departments in the Educational Foundations Centre of the
Faculty of Education. Rather than establish a new depart-
ment, it may be better to retain a program in program form
until such time as it is large enough to demonstrate its
viability and then, at that point, consider whether or not
it ought to be shifted to departmental status. Finally,
•
?
there is a certain permanency associated with giving a
• ?
• ?
program departmental status. For this reason, it may again
be better to retain a program in program form until such
• ?
• • time as the viability of the program and the demand for
such a program is tested in the marketplace.
4.
Does not the archaeolo
g ical
p ro g ram have closer ties to
the Science Faculty than to the Faculty of Arts? It was
noted that in an archaeological studies program there is
a choice between emphasizing a highly
,
theoretical program
• ?
oriented primarily towards an inter-disciplinary approach
?
versus the offering of a pure archaeological type of?
program. At this University, the choice has been to
.
...2
4
-2-
C]
emphasize the pure archaeological program. Because of
this, it is acknowledged that the program does have
closer ties to the Science Faculty than to the Faculty of
Arts. Notwithstanding, archaeological studies programs
have usually been placed in the Faculty of Arts and the
argument for its retention in that Faculty is therefore
based on historical precedent.
5.
Should the archaeological program be considered as an
intr-disciplinarv program to be considered in organi-
zational terms under the proposal to come before Senate
garding inter-discipli
?
ms7 For the reasons
noted in item 4 above, there is no justification for
considering the archaeological studies program offered at
Simon Fraser as an inter-disciplinary program.
6.
To what extent would Senate approval of the archaeological
studies program as adeptment constitute a licence for
it to become the large ?
department envisioned in the bud-
get submitted by the director of the program? The budget
proposed for the archaeological studies program reflects
a desirable objective by those involved in the program.
•
?
It
does not constitute a commitment of University resources
in the future. Whether or not the program is constituted
as a department, its request for budgetary support will
have to be considered relative to the other needs of the
faculty with which it is identified and, in a larger
sense, the needs of the entire University.
August
hg
27, 1970
REORGANIZATION OF
.
?
ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES
0
.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this proposal is to change both the
administrative and curricular organization of Archaeology
within the Faculty of Arts. At present Archaeology is
administered as a trusteeship of the Dean of Arts, and
offers a series of credit courses which can be taken to
satisfy general Arts degree requirements and in some
cases requirements of a PSA major.
The reorganized programme departs from the present
one in the following particulars: A set of core Archaeology
courses are designated as a major; a set of courses in the
disciplines which complement Archaeology are designated
and are recommended for Archaeology majors; and the
administration of the majors programme is provided for
through the usual administrative unit known as a
department. The reorganization is predicated on the basis
.
?
that Archaeology has flourished through increased enrollments
and demand for courses, that the other two universities in
B.C. do not offer a major in Archaeology, and that the
reorganized programme costs no more than the present one.
Evaluations of the revised curriculum by ten outside
referees indicate that students who complete the programme
would be acceptable for graduate study at other universities.
To quote Professor Willey of Harvard "The archaeological
program which you present in the accompanying memorandum is
certainly of the design and strength that would prepare any
student for graduate work in anthropological archaeology at
any university in the United States or England with which I
am familiar."
The reorganization is supported unanimously by the
Archaeology faculty members and by a petition signed by
about 200 students.
C
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
?
.
1
II ?
BACKGROUND ?
INFORMATION
..........................
lb
Archaeology
?
in Canadian Universities
.............
lb
Archaeology ?
in ?
British ?
Columbia
..................
2
University ?
of ?
British ?
Columbia
................
2
University ?
of
?
Victoria:
.......................
2
Simon
?
Fraser ?
University
.......................
3
Present ?
Faculty ............................
4
Enrollments
................................
5
Student ?
Demand .............................
6
Interdisciplinarity
........................
7
Research ?
Facilities
........................
8
Library
?
Resources ..........................
8
Growth
.....................................
9
III ?
PROPOSED REORGANIZATION .........................
10
Programme
?
Description ...........................
11
Course Requirements ?
for Majors
..................
11
Course Requirements
?
for ?
Honors ..................
11
Languages ?
Other ?
Than English
....................
12
Description ?
of.Courses
..........................
12
Frequency ?
of ?
Course
?
Offerings
...................
16
Complementary
?
Courses ...........................
17
Sample ?
Course
?
Programme
..........................
23
0 ?
IV ADDENDA
1.
Recording Archaeological Data in British
Columbia by D. N. Abbott.
2.
Faculty Vitae:
H. L. Alexander
R. L. Cannon
P. M. Nobler
3.
Comments by Outside Referees:
University of Arizona - R. H. Thompson
University of Calgary - R. C. Forhis
University of Colorado - J. J. Hester
Cornell University - R. Ascher
Harvard University - C. R. Willey
McGill University - B. C. Trigger
Universite do Montreal - P. Smith
University of Oregon - M. B. Stanislawski
Washington State - R. D. Daugherty
Yale University - I. Rouse
4.
New Course Proposals
0
.
I ?
INTRODUCTION
Archaeology is the science of human prehistory.
It is the organized body of knowledge which refers to
man's prehistoric past. Prehistoric Archaeology traces
its origins from the curio cabinets of the period of
the Enlightenment through 19th Century Natural History
into the present era of scientific method. Its
raison d'etrc is man's curiosity about his past, and
its reason for existence in universities is to teach
the 997, of human history not taught by historians, to
contribute through research to this field of knowledge,
and to critically evaluate ideas regarding man's
prehistoric past in terms of data, method, and theory.
University students as educated individuals should be
aware not only of the conclusions of Archaeology, but
how such conclusions are reached. The objectives of the
Archaeology programme are to provide the students at this
University with the soundest education possible, to
provide the community with accurate information relating
to Archaeology, and to contribute to the growth of
knowledge in the discipline. These goals are met by
0
la
teaching courses, counseling students, conducting
research, publishing scholarly papers, participating
in interdrisáiplinary endeavours, and by providing
information to individuals or groups when.requested.
These aims and goals remain the same for the revised
programme as for the presentlyexisting one. The
re-organized programme departs from the existing one
in that it organizes a set of core Archaeology courses
into a unit known as a major, designates a set of
complementary courses in other disciplines, and
provides
for the
administration
of the programme
through
the usual
administrative
unit known as a
Department. This proposed re-organization is
predicated on the basis that Archaeology was included
in the initial planning stages of this University, has
flourished through increased enrollments and demand for
courses since that time, that the other two universities
in the Province do not offer a major in Archaeology, and
that this re-organization is in keeping with the academic
and administrative structure of Simon Fraser University.
The funding of the revised programme does not differ from
the funding of the present programme. This re-organization
is not dependant upon hiring additional faculty, and does
not require additional space. Students would still fulfill
the requirements of the Bachelor of Arts degree.
0 ?
Archaeological Studies Program - Faculty of Arts
Issues and/or Questions Raised by the Academic Planning Committee
1.
Why should there be a department of Archaeological Studies
as opposed to a program of Archaeological Studies?
The Dean of Arts indicated that the primary basis for
seeking departmental status is that departments have the
right to offer degrees while programs do not.
2. Should not the anthropologists and the archaeologists be
combined into one progiam? Both programs have indicated
that they are not interested in amalagamation, and, in
addition, there are not enough anthropologists in the
PSA Department to assure that a viable program would result
from such an amalgamation.
3. As a basic policy issue, is it desirable that the University
move to the establishment of additional dertnients? The
University has said that it is committed to both strong
disciplinary and inter-disciplinary studies. In general,
•
?
now having established strong disciplinary programs, the
issue-arises as to whether or not interdisciplinary studies
will be facilitated by the establishment of still further
departments within the University. Second, the viability
of small departments can be questioned. If you will
recall, this issue was raised iith regard to the de facto
departments in the Educational Foundations Centre of the
Faculty of Education. Rather than establish a new depart-
ment, it may be better to retain a program in program form
until such time as it is large enough to demonstrate its
viability and then, at that point, consider whether or not
it ought to be shifted to departmental status. Finally,
there is a certain permanency associated with giving a
program departmental status. For this reason, it may again
be better to retain a program in program form until such
time as the viability of the program and the demand for
such a program is tested in the marketplace.
4. Does not the archaeological program have closer ties to
the Science Facult
y
than to the Facult
y of Arts? It was
noted that in an archaeological studies program there is
a choice between emphasizing a highly theoretical program
oriented primarily towards an inter-disciplinary approach
versus the offering of a pure archaeological type of
program. At this University, the choice has been to
.
• .2
II ?
BAC
1(G1 O1JN))INFOflNATION
Archaeology in Canadian Universities
Majors programmes for Bachelor's degrees are
offered by five Canadian Universities: Trent, Waterloo
Lutheran, Saskatoon, Alberta and Calgary. Three of these
same universities - Saskatoon, Alberta and Calgary offer
Master's programmes in Archaeology, and one university -
Calgary, offers a doctoral programme.
1
The University of
Calgary offers the most developed programme with nine
• ?
faculty members and twenty-six undergraduate courses.
Significantly, none of the above universities are in
British Columbia.
1. ?
University Career Outlook, Department of Manpower
and Immigration, Queens Printer, Ottawa. 1969.
pp. 78-83. ?
-
C
MAE
Archaeology iii British Columbia
British Columbia is one of the least known
archaeological areas of native North America, even
though its aboriginal cultures were distinctive
and archaeological sites are in abundance. Part of
this lack of knowledge is the result of the weak
development of Archaeology in the universities of
this Province. (See addenda: Recording Archaeological
Data in British Columbia by D. N. Abbott, 1969).
Universit y
of British Columbia
The University of British Columbia has one
appointment in Archaeology and has maintained this
single appointment for almost the last twenty years.
Of the total of two Archaeology courses, only one is
offered each year.
University of Victoria
The University of Victoria has only one Assistant
Professor specializing in Archaeology. Three courses
are offered.
.
-3-
Simon Fraser Universit
Simon Fraser University has already a much more
developed Archaeology programme than either of the other
two universities in British Columbia. We have three
faculty members in Archaeology', and offer thirteen
undergraduate courses.
-4-
Present Faculty:
?
Three archaeologists are on the faculty:
R. L. Carlson, P. N. Hoh].er, and H. L. Alexander. (See Vitae).
All of the courses in the revised curriculum are
within the areas of specialization of present faculty.
Course
?
Faculty Members
.
101 The Prehistoric Past
272 Old World Archaeology
273 New World Archaeology
371 Theory
372 Laboratory Techniques
375 Fossil Man
433 Techniques of Inquiry
434 Techniques of Inquiry
435 Field Reports
436 Readings
473 Africa
474 North America: Southwest
475 North America: Arctic
476 North America: Pacific N.W.
493 Honors Reading
499 Honors Essay
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Alexander
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Carlson, Hobler
Alexander
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
Alexander, Carlson, Hobler
-5-
Enrollments: The first Archaeology course was
offered at this University in September, 1966 with an
enrollment of 58 students. Each trimester period since
that time has witnessed a marked increase in enrollments.
There were 871 enrollments in Archaeology courses in the
last trimester period (January, 1969 - December, 1969).
Student Demand: In an attempt to obtain a measure of
student demand for courses to guide planning, the
questionnaire on the following page was distributed to
• ? students in Archaeology courses, Fall Semester 1969. The
total number of responses have been filled in the blanks
which were originally checked by each student.
9
-6-
S
COURSE REQUEST FORN-ARCHAEOLOGY - Sample taken of students registered in
Archaeology 272, 273, 472, 473 - Fall Semester, 1969.
COURSE
Arc.
101-3
The Prehistoric
Past
Arc.
272-3
Archaeology of
the Old World
Arc.
273-3
Archaeology of the New World
.jsics ?
281-3
Physical Science in Archaeology
(Prerequisite: ?
Physics 100 or
101 or high school Physics)
Arc.
371-5
Archaeological Theory
(Prerequisite: ?
272 or
?
273)
5
c.
372-5
Laboratory Techniques
(Prerequisite:
?
272 or
?
273)
Arc.
375-5
Fossil Man
(Prerequisite: ?
272)
Archaeological
Field School
A
1C.
476-5
Northwest Pacific Archaeology
(Prerequisite: ?
273)
Arc.
473-5
African Archaeology
(Prerequisite:
?
272)
Arc.
474-5
Southwest Archaeology
(Prerequisite: ?
273)
Arc.
475-5
Arctic Archaeology
(Prerequisite: ?
273)
TOTAL:
SEMESTER
SPRING SUMMER FALL SPRING TOTAL
1970 ?
1970
?
1970 ?
1971
•
'Z7
Z7-7
1
1
14
2
42
_
-..
6
48
15
8
1
8
_
13
29
20
25
10
21
5
5
35
51
23
23
9
15
5
29
7
-_-- 12
6
25
:.._
138
23
100
47
308
Place a check ( ) in the blank opposite the course wanted for any of semesters listed.
W
re you an Archaeology major?
?
14
Are you strongly considering majoring in Archaeology?
?
38
-7-
Interdiscipi inarit>:
The present Archaeology curriculum is integrated in
part with the curricular requirements of the PSA Department
so that a student wishing to specialize in Archaeology must
take a number of courses in Political Science, Sociology
and Anthropology. The revised programme broadens the spectrum
of choice in regard to courses complementary to Archaeology
which a student may take, but still permits PSA students as
well as students in other Departments and faculties to take
•
?
Archaeology courses if they so wish.
The majority of the regional Archaeology courses fall
within the three pending interdisciplinary studies programmes:
Canadian Studies, African Studies, and Latin American Studies.
Interdisciplinary Programme
?
Related Archaeology Courses
Canadian Studies
?
Arc. 273, 475, 476
African/Middle East Studies
?
Arc. 272, 473
Latin American Studies
?
Arc. 273
We feel that multidisciplinary participation in teaching and
research are important, and that sound interdisciplinary programmes
are most effective when built on sound disciplinary programmes.
S
S
Resenrch_facilities: The present Archaeology programme
maintains an archaeological laboratory which in addition to
serving as a research and teaching laboratory for advanced
students, houses the archaeological and ethnographic
collections of the University. Additional space for a display
area where those artifacts and osteological material related
to the general teaching programme can be viewed has already
been provided for, upon construction of Phase III, of the
University. Basic field and laboratory equipment, a
. ?
photographic dark room, and one field vehicle are already on
hand. No increase in research space
beyond that already provided
?
7
the revised
programme.?
--S
Archaeological research in Canada is funded by the
Canada Council and our present research programme is funded
by a small grant to Professor Ilobler. The greater portion
of British Columbia is little known archaeologically, but
what research has been done strongly indicates that it is an
area eminently suitable both for increasing our knowledge about
man's past, and for teaching students those techniques of field
research applicable to any area.
LibrayreSoUrCe5
?
The library holdings in Archaeology
5
?
have been developed here since the beginning of the University
and are adequate for the revised programme.
-9-
Growth: Growth of any programme is a function of
demand, academic soundness, available funds, and optimum
effective size. The length of time required to reach
optimum size will depend on the factors mentioned in the
preceding sentence. We are at a minimum effective size
now. Any future faculty which we might obtain would be
required to teach part of the programme outlined here,
and in addition bring in specialized knowledge not
covered by existing faculty. We intend to im lement no
additional lower division courses in the forsceable
future. The following upper division courses will be
added to the curriculum as funds and personnel permit:
301-3 Primitive and Prehistoric Art
477-5 Regional Studies in Archaeology:
Mesoamer ica
478-5 Regional Studies in Archaeology:
Asia.
We view an optimum size as about six faculty members.
When, if ever, we may reach this size will depend upon
whatever policies this University adopts in regard to
growth.
r
C
III PROPOSED REORGANIZATION
The attached programme consists of a set of core
Archaeology courses and a set of complementary courses
offered by other Departments in the University. All of
the courses listed are of one semester duration.
A student major is required to obtain six credit
hours of lower division Archaeology courses, and thirty
credit hours of upper division courses. This credit
hour requirement is in keeping with general practice in
. ?
the Faculty of.Arts. These courses are loosely
structured from the general to the specific, and
pre-requisites are kept at a minimum.
The complementary courses offered by other
Departments are not listed as requirements, as it is
felt that counseling students in regard to complementary
courses, is preferable to the legislation of specific
requirements, and that different students may require
different sets of complementary courses.
The intent of the programme is to provide
Archaeology courses for all University students who wish
to take them, and to provide a core set of Archaeology
courses with recommended complementary courses for students
who wish to major or honor, and to maintain both
flexibility and academic soundness.
- 11 -
rrmTm)e_Description
The Departmcnt offers courses leading to a B.A. degree.
Students planning to major or honor are expected to obtain
a multidisciplinary background by taking courses in a
number of complementary disciplines and are urged to
seek advice from the Department early in their University
careers in regard to the structuring of their individual
programmes.
40
?
-
COURSE REQUIREMENTS FOR MAJORS
Students who plan to major in Archaeology must fulfill
the following course requirements:
Archaeology 272, 273, and at least 30 credits in
Archaeology at the 300 and 400 levels.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS FOR HONORS
Archaeology majors who wish admission to the honors
programme must hold and maintain at least a 3.0 cumulative
• grade point average. In addition the successful completion
of Mathematics 101 or a comparable statistics course, the
Honors Reading and Honors Essay Archaeology courses, and ten
. ?
-12-
credit hours in other Departmentally approved courses
over and above the requirements for a major are necessary.
LANGUAGES OTHER THAN ENGLISH
Students who contemplate graduate work are advised
to acquire a reading knowledge of at least one language
other than English.
DESCRIPTION OF COURSES
101-3 The Prehistoric Past
Method and myth in the study of human prehistory. The
relationship between ideas and archaeological data in
regard to man's prehistoric past. (2-1-0)
272-3 Archaeolo gy
of the
Old
World
A survey of the Old World Prehistory from the Paleolithic
to the Bronze Age. Basic concepts used in reconstructing
prehistoric cultures, and the artifactual, fossil, and
contextual evidence for the evolution of man and culture. (2-1-0)
273-3 Archaeology of the New World
A survey of the prehistoric cultures of North and South
America. The entry of man into the New World, the rise of the
. ?
pre-Columbian civilizations of Mexico and Peru, and the cultural
adaptations by prehistoric populations to other parts of the New
World. ?
(2-1-0)
- 13 -
Physical Science in Archaeo].ogy (Physics 281-3)
Methods of locating buried objects by resistivity surveys,
magnetometers and metal detectors. Dating of objects by
radioactive tracers, thermoremancnt magnetization and
thermoluminescence. Analysis of objects by spectroscope,
neutron activation analysis,
x-ray
fluorescence and beta-
ray back scattering. The courses will include basic
experiments and field trials in some of the techniques.
Prerequisites: Archaeology 272 or 273 and either Physics
100, 101, or high school Physics; or permission of the
40
?
instructor.
371-5 Archaeolo g
ical Theor
The cultural, evolutionary, physical, and distributional
principles which underly the prediction and reconstruction
of man's past.
Prerequisite: Archaeology 272 or 273
372-5 Archaeology Laboratory Techniques
Analysis and interpretation of archaeological data. This
lecture and laboratory course combines the practical problems
of recognition and interpretation of archaeological specimens,
site mapping, typology, seriation, and statistical procedures
with the basic principles of archaeological theory. (1-0-4)
Prerequisite: Archaeology 272 or 273
.
- 14 -
375-5 Fossil Man
The relationship between culture and biology in the
prehistoric evolution of man. The recognition and
critical evaluation of the significance of the
similarities and differences among fossil human types. (1-0-4)
Prerequisite: Archaeology 272
433-5 Techniques of Inquiry
434-5 Techniques of Inquiry
These courses will be arranged for students enrolling for the
archaeological field school, but may also he arranged for
students engaged in technical inquiry at other times.
Prerequisite: Permission of the Instructor
435-2 Field Reports
The course requires the presentation of a field report by
the student of his methods, field experiences, findings and
conclusions done in Arc. 433 and 434. A critical evaluation
of the field experiment is also expected. The course is not
available to students who are not completing courses 433 and
434. ?
(0-2-0)
•
?
436-3 Readingsin Archaeology
Readings in particular topics will be arranged for students
under the direction of a faculty member.
- 15 -
Regional Studies jnArchaeo$i
The prehistory and cultural traditions of the region. The
content, antecedents, relationships and changes in these
cultures through time. Technological, socio-economic,
and environmental factors in culture growth.
473-5
Africa
Prerequisite:
272
474-5
North America -
Southwest
Prerequisite:
273
475-5
North America -
Arctic
Prerequisite:
273
476-5
North America -
Northwest
Prerequisite:
273
Pacific
Only
two of the three
regional North
America courses
may be
taken for credit.
493-5 Directed Honors Reading
Directed readings in a selected field of study under the
direction of a single faculty member. Papers will be
required. (0-5-0)
499-5 Honors Essay
An Honors essay of some 10/15000 words will be written under
the direction of an individual faculty member.
L
101
3
272
3
273
3
371
5
372
5
375
5
433
5
434
5
435
2
436
3
472
5
473
5
474
5
.
475
5
.
2
Honors
Courses
As required
Contact hours
Course ?
I Credits
Frequenyof_Offering
Per Semester
Once
every two years
2
Once
yearly
2
Once yearly
2
Once
yearly
5
Once
yearly
?
.
9
Once yearly
9
Once yearly
Once every two years
Once every two years
Once every two years
Once every two years
Per Year
Vector
1
2-1-0
2
2-1-0
2
2-1-0
1-4-0
9
1-0-4
9
1-0-4
Field
8
School
2.5
5
2.5
?
.
?
.
5
2.5
5
2.5
5
8
5
5
5
5
57
?
48
0
- 17 -
Complementary Courses
The courses which follow are already offered by
other Departments in the University. These courses
increase the breadth of knowledge available to the
undergraduate, and contribute
in one
way or another
to Archaeology.
.
C
- 18 -
Complementary Courses in other Departments
recommended for Archaeoloçy mri
FRESHMAN (1.00 LEVEL) COURSES
Geog. 101-3 General Ceogrhy
Introducing basic geographical concepts and methods;
an analysis of systematic and regional approaches to
Geography.
(2-1-0)
40
?
Geog. 151-3 Cartogra
An introduction to the interpretation of maps and air
photographs; geographical illustration, representation
and analysis of geographical statistics.
(1-0-3)
Prerequisite: Geography 101-3
PSA 172-3 Anthropological Concepts
Human physical attributes and the concept of culture.
Cultural accumulation - environmental, diffusionist
and organizational. The significance of kinship,
language and tools. Cultural diversity and similarity.
The concept of cultural threshold and the mechanisms
of cultural stability and change.
(1-2-0)
list. 141-3 Historical Development of the Americas
to 1763
An evaluation of the pre-European Indian cultures; the
S ?
.exploration, conquest and colonization of North and
South America by the French, English, Spanish and
Portuguese. Stress will be placed on the comparative
nature of these new world societies.
(2-1-0)
S ?
19
Math 101-3 Introduction to Statistics
A pre-calculus course in random variables and their
distributions, estimating and hypothesis testing.
(3-0-1)
Math 106-3 Introduction to Computing
Introduction to the concepts of algorithm and
flowchart. Their relation to the structure of a
computer. Use of a high level programming language
for elementary problem solving.
(2-1-1)
Biological Sciences
• ?
101-4 Introduction to_Biol2
The elementary facts and principles of biology; the
fundamental properties and functions of micro-organisms,
plants, and animals; their molecular, microscopic and
visible structure. Instruction is by audio-tutorial
methods.
(2-1-4)
102-4 Introduction to Biology
An introduction to the basic concepts of genetics,
systematics, development and ecology, including both
plants and animals. Instruction is by audiotutorial
methods.
(2-1-4)
Physics 101-3 General Physics I
A general survey of mechanics vectors, statics, dynamics,
work, energy, power, elasticity, simple harmonic motion,
wave motion, and acoustics.
S(3-1-0)
.. ?
-20-
SOPIIONORE (200 LEVEl) COURSES
DML 220-3 Introduction to General Linguistics
Introductory survey to the field of linguistics and
its relation to other disciplines.
PSA 271-3 lypes of Authority in Traditional Societies
The idea of legitimate authority - Durkheim, Max Weber,
Parsons, Easton, Eisenstadt. The use of kinship, age
grades, military organization, religion, cosmology and
the supernatural to legitimate authority. Specialization
of duties and the division of labour. The rite de passage
and the role of ceremonial. Legitimacy in stateless
societies. The problem of legitimacy in some new nation
• ?
states of Africa and South East Asia.
(1-2-0)
Prerequisite: Any PSA 100 level course - or
permission of the Department.
PSA 274-3 Traditional Economy and Technology
Comparative analysis of types of non-industrial economic
activity, referring to the technical knowledge employed,
the social institutions associated with the economics,
the methods of property distribution and the use made of
economic surpluses. The course will include reference to
the limitations on development brought about by technology,
methods of organization and cultural aspirations.
(1-2-0)
Prerequisite: Any PSA 100 level course - or
permission of the Department.
Geog. 211-3 Physical Geography
An introduction to climate, landforms, soils, vegetation;
their origins, distributions, and interrelationships.
Laboratory work and field trips are included.
Prerequisite: Geography 101-3 - or
permission of the Department.
171
-
21 -
Physics 281-3 Physical Science in Archaeology
Methods of locating buried objects by resistivity surveys,
magnetometers and metal
detectors.
Dating of objects by
radioactive tracers, Lliermoremanent magnetization and
thermoluminescence. Analysis of objects by spectroscope,
neutron activation analysis, x-ray fluorescence and
beta-ray back scattering. The course will include basic
experiments and field trials in some of the techniques.
Prerequisites: Archaeology 272 or
273
and either Physics
100, 101, or high school Physics; or permission of the
instructor.
JUNIOR (300 LEVEL) COURSES.
40 ?
Geog. 313-3 eomorphology
An examination of landforms; processes, laws, and
theories of development; types and distributions.
(2-1-0)
Prerequisite: Geography 211-3 or permission
of the Department.
SENIOR (400 LEVEL COURSES
Biology 400-3 Evolution
The comparative biology of change mechanisms in living
systems. The origin of life, major evolutionary trends
in geological time, and the comparison of adaptive
processes at species, population, and individual levels.
Man's origin, and the special biological significance of
human adaptive capacities.
(2-2-0)
Prerequisite: Three years of Biology or
consent of instructor.
0
. ?
-22-
Geog. 413-5 Ceomopho1ogy II
The appreciation of statistical and other methodologies
in the examination of theoretical and applied problems
in landform analysis.
(2-3-0)
Prerequiite ?
Geography 313-3 or permission
of the Department.
Geog. 416-5 Pleistocene Geography
An examination of the physical and cultural geography
of the Pleistocene. Climatic change and associated
geomorphic processes will he studies in relation to
the human occupance of the earth, and the landscape
changes that result.
(2-3-0)
Prerequisite: Geography 211-3 or 241-3 for
non-major or honors students.
PSA 471-5 Anthropological Theory
A critical review of theories and methods, aims and
achievements in modern social anthropology.
(1-4-0)
.
?
- 23 -
Sample Course Progrmmc
?
for Students with regular?
entr y
b y
seniest:er
Arc. 101-3 The Prehistoric Past
Geog. 101-3 General Geography
Physics 100-3 General Physics I
Math 101-3 Introduction to Statistics, or, Bio. Sci.
101-4 Introduction to Biology + 3 credits in Psychology,
Economics, English, Philosophy, History or Modern
Languages.
.
PSA 172-3 Anthropological Concepts
Ceog. 151-3 Cartography
Math 106-3 Introduction to Computing, or, Bio. Sci.
102-4 Introduction to Biology.
list. 141-3 Historical Development of the Americas
+ 3 credits in Psychology, Economics, English, Philosophy,
History or Modern Languages.
Arc. 272-3 Archaeology of the Old World
Ceog. 211-3 Physical Geography
Physics 281-3 Physical Science in Archaeology
• ?
PSA 271-3 Types of Authority, or, PSA 274-3 Traditional
Economy + 3 credits in Psychology, Economics, English,
Philosophy, History or Modern Languages.
- 24 -
Arc. 273-3 Archaeology of the New World
DML 220-3 Introduction to General Linguistics
+ 3 credits in Science and 6 credits in Arts, or,
9 credits in Arts.
Semester 5
Arc.
Arc.
433-5)
4345) Archaeological Field School
Arc. 435-2 Field Reports
Arc. 436-3 Readings in Archaeology
Arc. 371-5 Archaeological Theory
Geog. 313-3 Geomorphology II
Arc. 372-5 Laboratory Techniques
Bio. Sci. 400-3 Evolution
Arc. 375-5 Fossil Man
Geog. 413-5 Geomorphology II
Arc. 472-5 Regional Archaeology: Pacific Northwest
Semester 8
•
?
Geog. 416-5 Pleistocene Environments
Arc. 473-5 African Archaeology, or, 474-5 Southwest
Archaeology, or, 475-5 Arctic Archaeology.
.
.
?
IV ADDENDA
.
1
..a
/ (#
t
,<)
?
RECORIHNG
A :IUEOIAIC1CAL DATA
IN
nw'usii
cOLu;fIiA
B y
DONALO
N. Anru)Tr,
CURATOR
or Aicii :oi.o(;v, I3RITiS11 CorurIri1A
?
PROVINCIAL MUSEUM
Most British Columbians who know anything at all about prehistory are much
more familiar with some. of the prehistoric cultures of Europe, Wcstcrn Asia, and
even Africa than they are with the story of man in their own Province before 1774.
This is hardly surprising since tic relative dearth of information on prehistoric
British Columbia is shared as well by professional archaologists. The science of
prehistoric archcnlogy has been well established in Europe for more than a century.
While a vast amount of research remains to be done in the western half of the Old
World, the main themes of man's story there ae for the most part at least reasonably
confidently blocked out and sonic periods arc known in fair detail. The number of
scientists—archeologists and other specialists—concerned with the prehistory of
Europe alone can be counted in the hundreds today.
B y
contrast, although the first (to my knowled
g
e) published report on some of
the archmoioeical resources of this Province appeared in
1876,1
it was not until
1949 that a professional archaoiooist was appointed (on a half-time basis until
1969) by a Provincial institution to carry out research into the prehistory of British
Columbia. During the last five years the number of archcologists so employed has
increased, by 1,200 per cent, which still makes a total of only six individuals. At
present there ate two positions at Simon Fraser University and one each at the
. University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria, the Vancouver Centen-
nial Museum, and the Provincial Museum. In some of these cases one or two
technical assistants are permiiaiiently employed and variable numbers of temporary
assistants, normally university students, are hired or volunteer seasonally, mainly
for field projects. In addition to the research carried out by local archologists
(which is limited both by funds and by the fact that they are required to spend
much or most of their time performing teaching or curatorial duties), archaological
projects have been sponsored recently in British Columbia by outside institutions,
M ?
m
notably by the National Museum of an (National Museus of Canada), the Uni-
versity of Colorado, the National Historic Sites Service, and, to a lesser degree,
by the University of Calgary and the University of Washin
g ton. The Provincial
Arch:rological Sites Advisory Board annually supports small crews engaged in locat-
ing and salvaging archaological sites threatened by imminent destruction. Finally,
the Archtcological Society of British Columbia, an amateur group of professional
orientation, has been doing sonic very competent volunteer work in the Vancouver
area during the last couple of years.
Despite this superficially impressive amount of activity in recent years, the
archaological sites and potential information destro y
ed annually without any record
in
British Columbia far exceed the amount of data recovered by archaologists. The
agencies of destruction—natural causes, vandalism (whether intentional or not),
construction projects of all kinds—arc active everywhere and frequently depressingly
efficient. Furthermore, the destruction we actually hear about ma
y
be comparable
to the visible part of an iceberg. How much more is there that never comes to our
attention? The implications of this situation were expressed recently in a report
issued by the Council for Canadian Archeology, as follows:-
"Arch:eologists throughout Canada have expressed deep concern for many years
that. sites which form the very foundations of their discipline are being destroyed by
. ?
Pinarl. Alohoncc, A French SckntRt Fxphres the Indian Mounds of the Pacific Coast
j
ndiai Remains
of,
Vanco uver Island." hour British Colonial, Sept. 1, 1876, Victoria. ?
/
S
cultural and natural forces before they can be investigated. Unlike the basic docu-
ments of most other natural sciences, arcliaological sites are non-renewable re-
sources; once destroyed, a part of the record of human history is forever obliterated.
The loss to arcliaolopy is tragic; it is also of serious conscqucncc to other
Quaternary scientists. The full record of human prehistory is intimately related to
the total environment in which man once lived. Therefore, archLeologists must
combine their efforts with geologists, paleontologists, pal eobolanists, and others if
they are to paint a true picture of man in his natural setting. This interdisciplinary
approach produces an ever-accumulating backlog of information that benefits a
ll
of the contrihutidg sciences.
The loss is not only to natural science,
but
also to the humanities. One of
the primary goals of archeology is the reconstruction of the history of man at all
stages of development. Widespread general interest in the subject is evident in book
sales alone; similarl
y
, it is reflected in the relativel
y
recent expansion of museum
facilities throughout Canada, and in increasing museum attendance.
"As for the social sciences, the preliterate background of modern society is the
special realm of archeology. Attempts to understand and compare prehistoric cul-
tural developments throughout the world are largely dependent upon the success or
failure that archaologists have in unravelling the skeins of prehistory everywhere
in the world.112
The story of the groups of human beings who, millenia ago, entered the dif-
fercñt regions of British Columbia, modified their cultures to cope with the new
environments, interacted with one another, and evolved the brilliant Indian cultures
. known from the 1 9th century, is potentially one of the most fascinating and signifi-
cant of these many worldwide "skeins of prehistory." While it is the duty of the
archaologists active in this Province to investigate and interpret the available clues
to our prehistorv, it must be a responsibility upon ever
y
one in British Columbia to
ensure that as many as possible of these clues he preserved intact and brought to
the attention of archeologists for ultimate investigation.
As with other fields of research, it is possible. to define the processes of
archmological inquiry into a series of steps, distinguished by the relative degree of
abstraction and interpretation involved, as follows:-
1. The assembling of data:—
(a)
The location and superficial description of archeological manifestations
(which normally means sites) on the ground.
(b)
The recovery of a statistically adequate proportion of the cultural and
environmental evidence preserved within a site or group of sites.
(c)
The systematic collation of the information so recovered with other rele-
vant cultural and environmental data.
2. The generation, modification, and selection of hypotheses which will explain
satisfactorily all the relevant data in terms of past events and processes. At this
stage the archcologist is attempting to ' write the prehistory " of the region with
which he is concerned.
3. The generalization from the results of many such endeavours around the
world about the nature and history of man and culture.
Of these, the last is, of course, the ultimate justification for archTology in that
it helps to satisfy humanity's need for self-knowledge. Enormous progress has been
made toward this goal over the last centur
y
, but prehistoric British Columbia's
contribution to the total story of man remains very largely unknown.
2 Frbis. R. G., Compiler, 1969. ' Salvage Archaology.' 3 report compiled by the council for Canadian
5 ?
arehc'1ogy. ?
-
The
?
total story
?
is
?
made up of a great many chapters, which are
the regional
prcliistorics. ?
At that second level of abstraction our archaologists have not been
particularly loath to venture forth, in print and
?
otherwise, with hypotheses that
attempt to relate and explain the data at their current command.
?
While many of
these interpretations, we ma y
liopc, must conform fairly closely to thc prehistoric
events and processes v. hicli actually occurred, a fccling of uncertainty and even
uneasiness exsts related to doubts about the statistical adequacy of the data upon
which some of them are based. ?
This feeling is compounded by thc knowled
g
e that
much of the potential data wldcli could serve to clear up these doubts has been or
will he destro
y
ed without bein
g
investigated.
?
More of it continues to exist, but the
fact of its existence remains unknown to archcologists.
It
is, therore, with this fundamental stratum of primary archicologicai data
in British Columbia that 1 wish to deal here.
?
It is obvious at the outset that the
professional archeologists are never in the foreseeable future going to be able, in
the race against the destruction of our archological resources, to do all that has to
be done by way of locatin
g
, preserving, and
?
recording these basic documents of
our science. ?
Fortunatel y
, in this respect there is a great deal that members of the
general public can contribute, even without special training.
?
It is doubly fortunate
that there exist
?
numbers
?
of individuals—amateur ?
archa'ologists ?
and ?
collectors,
naturalists, etc—and of groups such as local museums and archeological, historical,
and natural history societies, which have special interests in this field as well as the
time and energy to do something worth while about it.
Since ?
1960, in addition to the appointment of archeolo
g
ists, a number of
preliminary steps have been taken on an official and semi-official basis to organize
the collection of archeological information in British Columbia.
?
The legal frame-
work was set
by the
Arc/ma'eiogical and
Historic Sites Protection Act, 1960,
copies
of which are available for 10 cents from the Queen's Printer, Victoria.
?
This legis-
.
lation provides legal protection from disturbance to certain categories of sites, sets
UI) a
system of permits to control and co-ordinate archcological fieldwork in the
Province, allots at the discretion of the Government a small annual grant for site
location and salvage, provides an instrument by which corporations carrying out
large construction projects can be required to support preliminary salvage of arch-
ological sites that will be destroyed by their activities, and stipulates penalties for
acts of archaological vandalism or other violations of this law.
Arising out of the Act, an Arckeological Sites Adivsor
y
Board was appointed,
whose primary function is to advise the Minister responsible (the Provincial Secre-
tary) regarding the administration of the Act, but which has also been able to
sponsor a considerable quantity of fieldwork—site surveying and salvage excavation
—since 1961.
?
From 1966 the Board's fieldwork has been co-ordinated by a part-
time Field Director, a task which is presently being carried out by the archa'ologist
at
the University of Victoria.
Contemplated as a desirable possibility for the near future is the appointment
by the Board of a full-time Provincial Salvage Archaologist who would assume the
present duties of the Field Director, undertake the day-to-day administration of the
Act, and be available at short notice to inspect archeological sites reported as being
threatened by disturbance.
?
Where the need for archaological salvage is apparent, it
would then be his responsibility either to undertake the work himself or, more
frequently, to contract the project to another institution.
?
Also being considered is
the establishment of a system of honorary "wardens," knowledgeable and respon-
sible amateur archa'ologisis in centres throughout the Province who would be in a
position to seek out and receive reports of arckcological significance in their own
areas and pass the information on to the Provincial Archeolo
g
ist or to the Provin-
cial Museum.
. ?
3
By agreement among the archa'ologists active in this Province, the Provincial
Museum has been designated the central repository of archenlogical data files relat-
ing to British Columbia. A start has been made on assembling and organizing this
material here, and conidcration is bcing iivefl to a (lain processing system by which
the collation of this informal loll might be efficiently processed.
These files consist primarily of the site tile and copies of manuscript reports
resulting from Board-sponsored prnjcts and reports required as a condition of
permits issued under the Act. In addition, though far from complete, there may
be duplicate copies of arifact catalogues, field notes, and comparable data resulting
from the activities of oilier institutions and individuals.
The site file is the key to the organization of all the rest of the archcological
data for the sin
g
le most important fact which must be known to assess the signifi-
cance of material remains from past cultures is their orig;nal location or context.
Sites are numbered according to a scheme bsed on geographic co-ordinates, which
was proposed b y
Dr. Charles F. Borden of the University of British Columbia in
1
952.
3
This sclicnie has since been adopted for
g eneral use b
y
archeolo g
ists across
Canada. As indicated b
y
the map, the countr
y
is divided for this purpose into large
units, two degrees of latitude north-south b
y
four de g
rees of lon
g
itude cast-west.
Each of these units, which is identified b
y
a pair of capital letters, is further sub-
divided into smaller units, 10 minutes in each direction. These small unit areas are
the primary entities by which sites are located, and they are designated by the addi-
tion of a lower-case letter following each of the capitals which identif
y
the large
Unit areas. All of the latter, therefore, have subdivisions a-I running south to north
and a-x running cast to west. This results in a four-letter designation distinguishing
an
adequately small geographic block from every other in Canada. Within that
block, sites are assincd consecutive numbers as they are recorded. For example,
the important Millikcn site in the Fraser Canyon is listed as DjRi 3, which means it
is the third site recorded in the area between 49° 30' and 49° 40' N. and between
120 0
20' and 120° 30' W. In practice, although anyone can determine the unit
area in which a given location occurs, the site numbers have to he assigned by the
Provincial Museum in order to avoid duplication.
It is in the reporting of information about archaological sites that non-
professionals can make the greatest contribution. Indeed, despite an intensive pro-
gramme of site surveying in certain parts of the Province over the last few years,
most of the sites on record were originally reported by members of the public. We
can be sure that only a small minority of the locations showing evidence of utiliza-
tion by prehistoric Indians are presently recorded. Large areas of the Province are
totally unreported, for many more we have only sketch
y
and sporadic information,
and even from relatively well-known districts we continue to learn of new site
locations. Many old sites are quite hidden from view until development involving
clearing or disturbance of the ground surface reveals them. It is best to assume,
therefore, that any site
of
which you may have knowledge is probably not recorded
and should be reported. Even if it is alrady on file, your observations may well
add additional information of value.
The site record form in current use is illustrated. Copies of this ma
y be ob-
tained by writin
g
the Provincial Museum or this may simply be used as a guide to
the sort of information sought which can he written out on an
y
sheet and forwarded
to the Museum. Obviousl
y
, not all categories of information provided for on the
form are appropriate to every site, and some of the information solicited may not he
available to
yOU.
Incompleteness, however, need not be considered any reason to
hesitate in submitting a site report.
3
Borden, C. F., 1952. ''A 111tif
t
rin Site !)esin:tIion Shenw for ( iiida" •
. I,,ifuoj'oI'ri in
Jirjtjth (,t!smi-
10
?
4
bla, No. 3, pp. 44-48, Prmincial SI rrcurn, \
tOt It.
While the frm shown should be largely self-explanatory, a few comments may
be helpful:-
1. Local ion and ?
CCCSS : ?
This is obviously the most important single query.
A terse description
?
rclat nv, Inc
.
location ?
by (1i\tIllCC and conipas direction from
obvious mapi cd landmarks so the spot niay 1)0111
1x ?
Pinpointed on a map and
located in the field from your description is (lesirccj. ?
Section, lot, and plan numbers,
if known, and geographical co-ordinates are useful, as is a rough sketch map.
2 and 3. An
y
names by which the site is or, to your knowledge, has been
known.
4. Type of site:
?
For example, occupation, camp or village site; shell midden;
pithouse villo;c ?
burial ground; ?
quarry or wot ksliop; ?
pictograph ?
or petroglyph
location, etc.
?
In the case of the latter (Indian paintings and carvings on rock),
categories 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14. and 20 are unlikely to be pertinent, but sketches
and photographs are especially desirable.
6. Depth of deposit may only be visible where the site has been partly dis-
turbed, as for instance where a bank has been eroded back by wave action.
8. Water: ?
Nearest suitable source of drinking-water.
9 and 10. ?
\'cgetation actually growing out of an archao!ogical deposit may be
significantly difTcrcm from that immediatel y
surrounding the site,
11 and 12. A similar distinction is made between the material of which the
site is composcd and the natural surface of the vicinity.
14. Habitations: ?
An y
visible evidence, such as standing or collapsed house
frames, house pits (sometimes called kickwillies, kekullis, etc., in the Interior), or
depressions in the ground. of former Indian dwellings.
15.
?
Other features: Such as, for example, cairns (artificial rock piles), mounds,
.
grave houses, cache pits, or any other features of interest.
16 and 17. To what degree and by what agencies has the site deposit been
disturbed and what is the likelihood of disturbance or destruction occurring in the
future?
18. What artifacts or other material are known to have been found at the site
and who has them now?
21.
Where could a professional field party conveniently camp or rent accom-
modation if investigation of the site should be carried out?
22. if
you do not know what Indians occupied the region, this can be added
by the Museum.
24. informants: ?
Any Indians or pioneers of the area who may have special
knowledge about the site and of its former patterns of use by the Indians.
25
and 26. Enter appropriate Government map and aerial photograph num-
bers, if known.
27. Reference to any useful photographs of the site or of material from the site.
30. Name and address of person reporting the site.
31.
Name of person with archco1ogical training who has looked at the. site.
32.
Name and address of individual \vIin has made out this report.
The other main category of archdcological data with which non-archcolo(yists
and amateurs are most likely to be concerned has to do with artifacts, material
objects which are in some way modified by human use. ?
Artifact collecting is a
(
favourite hobby of a great many people, but anybody who visits an archeological
site has a chance of finding one or more Indian artifacts. ?
\Vhen recording a site it
is usually desirable to make a systematic search over some proportion of its surface
to
recover
all
artifacts (no matter how fragmentary or unprepossessing) that may
be lying there. ?
This constitutes an important part of the information about the
site.
?
In
any case, it is most essential that artifacts found at one site
be kept together
L
and not mixed up with iiiatcrial fiom a dilicretit sc. The original context of a find
is its most significant attribute and artifacts, however beautiful, whose original
location has hcen lost, forte (ten, or confused become very hugely frustralimuily
meaningless baubles. Havi;o picked tip sonic artifacts and recorded their locations,
the finder then has to decide whether to hccp them for his Own collection or to turn
them over to a responsible niuseunt or arch:ec aaica I
y
laborator . 'lime lal icr choice
obviously has much to recommend it from a scientific point of view and if you are
not so kccn as to want to accept time resonsibihitics that go with Leepjng a cohlcclu)n,
it is the better course to follow. Which inst lotion should receive it is obviously for
the finder to decide, but, he should be sute
(a) that the site from which they came is within the museum's geographical
field of interest and competence;
( b)
that the museum will catalogue them properly;
( c)
Ihat the museum is in a position to clisure their preservation and that of
the information associated with them for posterity;
(d)
that the material will he made available for professional stud
y
and the
data concerning them be deposited \\ it h the central data files at the Pro-
vincial Museum or with one of the imrch:cologists who is in a position to
handle it.
It is not desirable that a collection should be dispersed by giving pieces awa
y to
private collectors or even (as has happened surprisingly often) to casually interested
visitors.
Anyone who elects to keep an artifact collection for himself should feel a
moral obligation to observe personally the. same four points just outlined. The most
• vital single step which must be taken as soon as possible is to catalogue the objects
according to site so that this essential information will never he. lost. The principle
of cataloguing is very simple. Each artifact is assigned a unique number which is
written upon it and which corresponds to a written entry in a hook or file. Therein
is recorded after its number a brief description of the artifact, the precise location
where it was found, the date, finder, and an y
thing else that might seem significant
regarding the circumstances or location of the find. The description should include
the material of which the object is made, the nature of the human alteration to the
raw material, and, if possible, a tentative functional interpretation: For exaniple,
"Chipped obsidian projectile point"; "Ground slate knife." Dimensions should
be given and it should be noted which if any are fragmentary. A sketch or outline
drawing is highly desirable.
Obviously, rather than devising a makeshift site and artifact numbering system
of your own, it would be a good idea to integrate your artifact records with the
national system. This can be readily done by writing to the Provincial Museum with
a descriptive list of the sites from which you have collected and the number of arti-
facts you have to record from each. We will then assign blocks of numbers you can
use to record your own collection with the assurance that these will not duplicate the
numbers on artifacts in any other collections. NAn artifact number will then take
the form " DjlU 3: 1079 " of which the " DjRi 3 identifies it as having come
from the particular site and the 1079 is uniquely assi
g
ned to that object from that site.
In return we will ask for a carbon copy of your artifact catalogue.
The most efficient technique for writing the number upon an artifact is to apply
a small dab of colourless nail polish to a reasonably inconspicuous spot on the
cleaned object. When that is dry, write the number on it in India, white, black, or
red ink (to contrast with the shade of the object ) , using a tine mapping-pen. This
should finall y
he covered over with another dab of clear nail polish. The result is a
•
?
permanent marking which can onl
y
be removed with acetone or nail-polish remover.
6
In thus cncouraginc amateur collectors of artifacts, perhaps it is necessary to
emphasize once again that no one without seciatixed Iriuiuuin in archa'ological
techniques and a sophisticated k nowicdge of prehistory should attempt to dig into
or otherwise disturb intact arcliaoloeicat deposits. In somecases this is against the
law, but in all eases it is destructive. Only with the Inn" Wdge and tecluniqucs ade-
quate to be able to rccun xc and record on paper the in formnalioui and meaningful
relationships which are being destroyed by excavation is such action justified and
then only provided that the excavator is able to ensure that [lie essential subsequent
stages of analysis and jmhicutoii of ihcsc raw data are followed through. In fact it
has been observed
I%
and again that excavation is a much less productive and
efficient tcclmniqucfor acquiring artifacts (as opposed to information) than is surface
collection, where natural erosion has already (lone the heavy work.
It is to he hoped that by the increased attention of both professional and ama-
teur archeologists to the preservation, recovery, and recordinc of arch:eoloeicai data
here, prehistoric British Columbia vill now begin to emerge more rapidly into the
light of human knowledge.
BRITISH COLUMBIA
DISTRII'3UTION MAP
/COLUB ?
OCL 'USU
W
?
1s;
NO
I ?
'
?
\5\
J
U
I
?
/
L
E/T
4ZiI
?
E P
I ?
.
LL ±L±ffI
±I ?
tiP
Fig. 1. Ste designation scheme. Large unit areas in I3ritish Columhia.
. ?
7
.
.
.
Site No
BRJ'fJSk CC
II
?
A
ARCTJ!OLOG [CAL SITE
SURVEY
FORM
1.
?
Location ?
and
?
access
?
..................................................................................................................
See-------------------- ?
I'm ?
................
Plan
?
----------- --- --
?
--------- ---- --
?
' .......
.
N
.......................
"W.
2. ?
Site ?
name ?
.............................................
19. Owner(s)/tenant(s) past and present........
3. ?
Previous ?
designations
?
.....................................................................................
4. ?
Type
..............................................................................................................................
S.
?
Dimensions .................
?
...
?
. ?
..... .. ..................
. .
20.
?
Attitude ?
to excavation .................................
6.
?
Depth ?
of deposit
...............
... ?
.......... ?
........
21. ?
Camping
?
facilities
?
.....................................
7. ?
Elevation
.....................................................................................................................
8.
?
Water ---------------------
?
............... .---------------------
.22. ?
Historically
?
territory of
..............................
9.
?
Vegetation
?
on
?
site
?
.....................................................................................
Indians.
23. Site was/was not occupied by Indians in
10.
?
Surrounding vegetation
...............................
historic ?
times
?
until
?
...................................
z---------------------------------............. ---------------
----------
24. ?
Informants
.................................................
11.
?
Fill ?
of ?
site
...................................................................................................................
25. ?
Map ....... ?
... .......... ?
.............. ?
........................
12. ?
Subsoil and surrounding soil
?
....................
26. ?
Air ?
photo ?
......................................
27.
?
Photographs
....................................
13.
?
Burials
.......................... ........ .........................
28.
?
Published ?
references
..................................
14. ?
Habitations...........................................................................................................................
29. ?
Remarks and
recommendations..................
15. ?
Other ?
features.................................................................................................................
16.
?
Present ?
condition...........................................................................................................
....................................................................
17. ?
Possibility of future
?
disturbance.....................................................................................
18.
?
Known
finds and present location ..............
30. ?
Reported
?
by..............................................
31.
?
Observed
?
by.................................................
32.
?
Recorded ?
by.................................................
33.
?
Date..........................................................
(Continue or expand on back
if necessary. ?
Sketch map is desirable.)
Fig. 2.
Printed by A. SuvroN, Pt inter to the Queen's Most Excettent Majesty
?
in right of the Pt ovincc of British Cotiintbia.
?
1959
250.1060.8198
?
9
General Inforn-tiori
Place of birth:
Date of b.rth:
Family Sttu s:
Present_Posit:ion
Houston Texas
Docemíb.r
27,
1932
Married, 2 children.
.
0
Assistant Professor Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr
College, Pennsylvania,
Research Associate, American Section, University Museum,
Universit
y
of Pennsylvania.
Education
Undergraduate study: Universit
y
of Texas, 13A.,
1954.
Graduate Study: Yale University, N.A.,
1963.
University of Oregon, Ph.D., 1969, Dissertation completed.
Profossiona1Ej.enee
?
1969-70
?
Assistant Professor, University of Alaska.
?
19 6
6-69
?
Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology,
Bryn Mawr College.
?
1966-68
?
Research Associate, University of Pennsylvania
Museum.
?
1965-66 ?
Lecturer, Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
Bryn Mawr College.
?
1963-65
?
Teaching Assistant, Department of Anthropology,
University of Oregon,
?
1962-63
?
Research Associate in Paleontology, Peabody Museum
of Natural History, Yale University.
?
1961-62 ?
Student Assistant in Anthropo1oy, Peabody Museum
?
of Natural History, Yale University.
?
1958-59
?
Teaching Assistant, University of Texas.
If
-2-
.
Yerribership
Society for American Aehaeoiogy
Aniericn A
1
thro polo
çical Assoiation
American Association for the
/krivancnment
of Science
Arctic Institute of North America
Sigma Xi
Cressman Prize in Anftro
p
olo.,y, Un:i.versit of Oregon,
196!4..
Boios Fellowship, Yale University,
1961.
Research and Taehini Interests
Arctic prehistory
Archaeolo
gy
of Nesoanorica
Fossil Nan
Paleo-Indi.an cultures
Cultural ocology
Old World prehistory
Primitive technology
Human paleontology
0 ?
Publications
Articles
19 6 7
?
An Alaskan Survey. Yj2editio2, Vol.
9,
No.
3.
1965
?
Archaeological Survey and Ecavations in the
Fall Creek Dam Reservoir, A. Survey and Interim
Report to the National Park Service, The Museum
of Natural History, University of Oregon,
Eugene.
1964 ?
A
Carbon Date on the Aden Crater Northrothoriunl
Shastense, AmericanAntiauity, Vol. 28, No.
4.
1963
?
The Levi. Site: A R&leo-Indian Campsite in Central
Texas. American
A
11
oit
y
, Vol. 28,
No0
4.
Thesis
1969
?
Prehistor1 of the Central Brooks RanrZe: An
ArchaeolotiCal Analysis.
Ph.D.
Dissertation,
University of Oregon.
(I
.
?
-3-
Editorial __1
?
nsbilatj es
Associate 11itoi', Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology.
1966-68
Papers Read at S ntif Ic Mcstinqs
1968 ?
The Atigum Site: New Vista for Brooks Range
Archaeo1ogy. Paper accepted £ or 1968 Society
for American Archaeology Meetings at Santa Fe.
1968 ?
Research in the Arctic, Society Of the Sigma Xi,
Bryn Mawr Chapter, Bryn Mawr.
1967
?
Report of the 1967 Excavations in the Brooks
Range, Alaska. Society for Pennsylvania
Archaeology, Southeastern Chanter, Philadelphia.
1967 ?
Recent Finds in the Ati.curn Valley, Alaska.
Societ y
for Pennsylvania Archaeology, Southeastern
Chapter, Philadelphia.
1963 ?
The Archaic Period of the Texas Plains. 20th
Plain
s
Conference,
Lincoln,
1959 ?
An early Man Site in Travis County Texas. American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago.
1959 ?
An Angostura Complex Site in Travis
County, Texas,
American Anthropological Association, Mexico City.
Field Experience
1967
?
Director, Archaeological Investigation in the Brooks
Range, Alaska.
1966 ?
Director, Archaeological survey of the Atigum Valley,
Alaska.
19
6
5
?
Assistant Field Chief, University of Oregon Field
School in Archaeology.
1964 ?
Conducted Archaeological salvage project, Fall Creek,
Oregon.
.
1962 ?
Archaeological survey, Central Brooks Range, Alaska.
-
1 -I , -
1959-60
?
Student excavations in
Texas.
195
8
?
Archaeo].oiea1 survey in IJp
p r Colorado
River Basin, Utah.
.
0
.
VITA ?
-
?
ROY I. CARLEON
?
February. 1970
General Informat:i on
Place of Birth:
Date of Birth:
Family Status:
Present Position
Bremer ton , Wa
11
ington
JW1C
25th, 1930.
Married, 4 children.
Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University; Director of
Archaeological Studies.
Education
Undergraduate stud
y
: Olympic College, Bremerton, Washington,
1948-49; University of Washington, Seattle, B.A. , granted
1952.
• ?
Graduate study: University of Washington, M.A., (Anthropology)
1955: University of Arizona, Tucson, Ph.D., (Anthropology)
1961.
Professional Experiences
1967 - present: Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University.
1.966 ?
- 67:
Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University.
1.963
?
- 66:
Assistant Professor, University of Colorado.
1.961
-
?
63:
Research Associate In Anthropology, University
of Colorado Museum.
1960
- ?
61:
Research Assistant, University of Arizona.
1959
- ?
60:
Teaching Assistant, University of Arizona.
1957
- ?
58:
Director-Curator, Klamath County Museum,
Klamath Falls, Oregon.
1951
- ?
54:
Museum Assistant, Washington State Museum,
University of Washington, Seattle.
Membership in ProfessionalSocieties and Honoraries
American Anthropological Association, Fellow.
Society for American Archaeology.
Society for Canadian Archaeology.
Associate, Current Anthropology.
Member, British Columbia Archaeological Sites Advisory Board.
Sigma Xi.
. ?
-2-
Vita - Roy L Carlson - Continued
American
Association
for the Advancement: of Science.
Arcliacologica]. Institute of America, President of Vancouver
Chapter.
Honorary member and Advisor, B.C. Archaeological Society.
Research and Teaching Interests
Archaeology and Ethnology of the Pacific North-west, World
Prehistory, African Prehistory, Stylistic change, primitive art,
Paleolithic typology, Archaeology
If
the South-west, native
cultures of North America, field and laboratory techniques in
Archaeology, Archaeological theory.
Publications
Monographs
1965 ?
Eighteenth Century Navajo Fortresses of Gobernador
District, Universit
y
of Colorado Studies, Series in
Anthropology, No. 10.
1963
?
Basket Maker III Sites near Durango, Colorado.
University of Colorado Studies, Series in Anthropology,
No. 8.
Theses
1954 ?
Archaeological Investigations in the San Juan Islands,
M.A. Thesis, University of Washington.
1961 ?
White Mt. Red Ware: A Stylistic Tradition in the
Prehistoric Pottery of East Central Arizona. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Arizona.
Articles
1968 ?
Culture of the B.C. Coast Indians. Proceedings of the?
EthnomusicologiCal Conference, 1967, Victoria.
1967
?
Excavations at Khor Abu Anga and in Nubia. Research
Report, Current Anthropology.
1966 ?
A Neolithic Site in the Murshid District, Nubia. Kush,
Vol. XIV, Khartoum.
0
..
Vit:a - Ro
y
L. Carlson - Con tin ed
1966 ?
Twi.n
AngeJs Pueblo.
American_Antiquity, Vol.
31,
No.
5.
1965 ?
Cradleboard
Floods, Not Corsets.
?
Science, ?
Vol.
149,
No. 3680, ?
(with C.
Armelagos).
1964 ?
Two
Rosa Phase Pit houses.
?
Southwestern Lore,
Vol.
29,
No. ?
4.
1960 ?
Chronology and Culture Change in the San Juan Islands,
Washington. American Antiquity, Vol. 25, No. 4.
1959 ?
Klamath lienwas and other Stone Sculpture, American
Anthropologist, Vol. 61, No. 1.
1954 ?
Further Documentation of "Stone Piling" during the
. ?
Plateau Vision Quest. American Anthropologist, Vol.
56, No. 3, (with W. W. Caidwell).
Reviews
1967 ?
Mitchell: DjRi 7, A Cobble Tool Site in the Fraser
Canyon, B.C. Anthropologist.
1965
?
Bryan: An Archaeological Survey of Northern Puget
Sound. American Antiquity, Vol. 31, No. 1.
1965 ?
Capes: Contributions to the Prehistory of Vancouver
?
Island. American Antiquity, Vol. 31., No. 1.
1Q6:3 ?
Gibson: The Kickapoos. Southwestern Lore, Vol. 28.
1963 ?
Greenman: The Upper Paleolithic in the New World.
Current Anthropology, Vol. 4, No. 1.
1962 ?
Butler: The Old Cordilleran Culture, American
Antiquity, Vol. 27, No. 3.
1961 ?
Cressman: Cultural Sequences at the Dalles, Oregon.
American Journal of Archaeolog
y
, Vol. 65.
-4-
F-
Vita - Roy L. Carison - Continued
1958 ?
Osborne: Excavations in the 11cNary Reservoir.
Oregon
His tor icai. Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 3.
Articles in Press
Field work accomplished by the Fourth Colorado Expedition:
196566.
?
(With J. S. Sigstacl). Accepted for Kush, Vol. XIV.
Professional Lecturing
1968 ?
Lecture on Old World Preli:i.story, University of
British Columbia Extension.
1967 ?
A series of six lectures on Archaeology for the?
University of the Air, Channel 8 T.V.
1967
?
A series of four CBC radio talks on Archaeology.
1967 ?
Four lectures on the Archaeology of British
Columbia, University of British Columbia Extension.
1.966 ?
Four lectures on the Archaeology of British
Columbia, University of British Columbia Extension.
Editorial Responsibilities
Associate Editor, Northwest
_Anthropological Research Notes,
University of Idaho. Moscow.
Member of editorial board of Syesis, Journal of the Provincial
Museum, Victoria.
Member of the editorial board of B.C. studies, University of
British Columbia.
Pa p
rs Read at Scientific Meetings (Since 1962)
1969 ?
Implications of Middle and Late Palcolithic Sequences
in the Nile Valle
y
. Invited paper, joint meeting of the
African Studies Association and the Canadian Committee
on African Studies. Montreal.
1968 ?
Excavations at Khor Abu Anga. Invited paper, symposium
on Nile Valley prehistory, AAAS meetings, Dallas.
. ?
-5-
Vita - Ro
y
L. Carlson - Continued
?
1967 ?
"Cult:urai. Chronology at Rhor Abu Anga" . Annual
Meeting of the American Anthropology Association,
Washing ton , D.C.
?
1964 ?
Eighteenth Centur y
Navajo Fortress of the Cobernador
District. "
American Anthropology Association, San
Francisco.
?
1963 ?
"Ceramic Seriation at Kawaika-a." Colorado Academy
of Sciences, Golden.
?
1963
?
"Navajo-Pueblo Acculturation." Pecos Conference,
Fort Burgwin Research Centre.
?
1962 ?
"Basket Maker II Sites near Durango," Colorado.
Society for American Archaeology, Boulder.
Field Experience
?
is
1968 ?
Directed Archaeological Excavations, Mayne Island,
British Columbia (for S.F.U.).
1965-66 Field director archaeological excavations in the
Aswan Reservoir, Republic of the Sudan for the
University of Colorado.
?
1964 ?
Archaeological Survey of second Cateract area, Nile
Valley, University of Colorado.
?
1963
?
Archaeological Survey of Canyon del Muerto, Arizona,
University of Colorado.
?
1962 ?
Archaeological Survey of Gohernador District, New
Mexico.
?
1960
?
Assistant Dig Foreman, University of Arizona, Field
School, Point of Pines, Arizona.
?
1959 ?
Field Assistant, University of British Columbia
excavations in Fraser Canyon, British Columbia.
?
1958
?
Conducted Archaeological excavations, Lower Klamath
Lake, Oregon.
0
Vita - Roy L.
Carlson - Continued
1954
?
Field Assistant, University of British
Columbia,
site survey of 1<utenai drainage.
1953 ?
Field Assistant, Excavations at Wakernap
mound, The
?
Dalies , Oregon, University of Washington
1952 ?
Field Assistant, University of British
Columbia,
Twe ecimu ir Park Excavations
1951
?
Field Assistant, Washington State College excavations,
Lind Coulee, Washington.
1950 ?
Student, Archaeological excavations in the San Juan
Islands, Washington.
S
0
VITA ?
-
?
PhILIP N. 1!0IThER
?
February ,1970.
General Information
Place of Birth:
Date of Birth:
Family Status:
Present Position
Binghamp ton , New York
March 20th, 1936,
Married, 2 children.
Assistant
Professor,
Simon Fraser University, Archaeological
Studies.
Education
Undergraduate Study: University of New Mexico, B.A.,
1958.
Graduate Study: University of Arizona, M.A., 1964.
Professional Experience:
1967 - present: Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University.
1965 - 67:
?
Instructor in Anthropology, University of
Montana.
1963 - 65:
?
Archaeologist for Combined Prehistoric
Expedition in Egypt and Libyan Desert.
1962 - 63:
?
Archaeologist, Glen Canyon Project, Museum
of Northern Arizona.
Membership in Professional Societies
American Anthropological Association.
Society for American Archaeology.
Research and Teaching interests
Archaeology of British Columbia, African Prehistory, Archaeology
of the Plains, Archaeological photography, cultural ecology,
Archaeology of North America, Inductive methods in Archaeology.
Publications
.
?
Articles
1967 ?
Navajo Racing Circles. Plateau, Flagstaff.
.
. ?
-2-
Vita - Philip H. Hobl.er - Continued
The s, :15
1964
?
The Late Survival of Pithouse Architecture in the
Kayenta Anasazi Region, University of Arizona.
Publications in Press
"Survey and Excavations in thO Northeast Navajo Mountain Region,
Utah,
"
Museum of Northern Arizona Glen Can
y on series No. 8.
(co-author).
"Survey and Excavations on Painte Mesa, 1960 and 1962,"
Museum of Northern
Arizona Glen
Canyon
scri.es , No. 9.
(co-author)
"Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Libyan Desert, Egypt,"
Anthropological Papers of the University of Utah, Nubian Series
No. 4. ?
(co-author).
"Prehistory and Environment in the Libyan Desert, Egypt,"
40 ?
South African Archaeological Bulletin. Publication date, 1968,
promised.
"The Grant Creek Rock Piles," Archaeology in Montana, 1968.
Articles in Preparation
"The Garrison Site, An Early Man Site in Western Montana," To
be submitted to American Antiquity.
"Roman Roads in Nubia," To be submitted to American Journal of
Ar chaeo1.
"An Archaeological Survey in the Upper White Canyon, Utah," To
be submitted to University of Utah Press.
Books Underway
"The Face of Nasser's Egypt." Co-author. Southern Methodist
University Press has agreed to publish.
Professional Lecturing
1968 ?
Lecture on New World Prehistory. University of
British Columbia Extension.
-3-
Vita - Philip M. Hobl.er - Continued
Field Experience
1968
?
Directed and conducted archaeological survey of the
Bella Coola. Bella Bella area, British Columbia.
1966
?
Directed and conducted excavation of the Garrison
Site, Montana.
1965 ?
Reconnaissance of the known major prehistoric sites
in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Tanganyika
1963-65 Archaeological survey and excavation in Dungal Oasis,
Kurkur Oasis, the Nile Valley, and the Libyan Desert
for Combined Prehistoric Expedition, Southern
Methodist University.
1962-63 Excavation and survey of the Glen Canyon Reservoir in
Arizona for Museum of Northern Arizona.
1961
?
Excavations, Navajo Archaeological Project, Museum
of New Mexico.
1959-60 Archaeological survey in White C'nyon area, Utah.
Work sponsored by U.S. National Park Service.
1957 ?
Excavation of protohistoric sites in Oahe Reservoir,
South Dakota.
S
0
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85721
COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
?
id
)ruary 9, 1970
Dr. Ro
y
F. Carlson
Director, Arch acoiog:Lcal Studios
Simon I i'aser University
Burnab
y
2, Br.i.t:i.sh Columbia
Canada
Dear Dr. Carlson:
Thank you for asking me to comment on your proposed new
archaeology major at Simon Fraser University.
[n genera]., 1 am well impressed by the breadth of the
program and by the flexibility that it provides. The latter is
especially important when one tries to find the proper match
between the complex:Lty of today's knowledge and the varied career
goals and intellectual interests of
todayTs
students. I am also
pleased to see that you place strong emphasis on the roundness of
40 ?
the program. It' seems to me that the fragmentary and incomplete
nature of the archaeological record demands a vigorous and un-
compromising sot of standards of qua:Lity and va1dity. Your pro-
gram seems to achieve this by the careful coordination of the core
and complementary courses.
I see no reason why a student who receives his B.A. with
a major in archaeolo g
y at Simon Fraser University should be' in
any way disadvantaged in seeking admission to our graduate program.
In fact, your students would be pretty well prepared. As you per-
haps know, at least 60 of all entering graduate students at the
University of Arizona are lacking some basic part of their under-
graduate-preparation. We do not see this situation as a problem.
Rather ii. means that our graduate student population is enriched
by this diversity of background. Graduate study in anthropology
involves a wide range of subjects, so wide that it is unreasonable
to expect most students to come to graduate school 'fully prepared.
We find that students who have specialized too early in their
undergraduate careers are terribly narrow.
Your program provides for a good deal of choice and will
apparently he administered in a very flexible manner. I would
anticipate, therefore, that your students would he welcome members
of our graduate student community.
•
?
?
One of the reasons that our graduate students often have
major deficiencies in their undergraduate preparation is that thre
O-2-
Dr. Roy L. Carlson
?
February 9, 1970
is great diversity in the U. S. system of li:Lgher education. This
diversity is one of the major strengths of ii :i. s system. I applaud
the fact that many Canadian uiciversit:i.cs expand this d:i.versity
because of the different: traditions of higher education that under-
lie them. Your program is, to my way of looking at it,
a creative
step in the right drcction -- the
perl-)cYtuat:Lon
of diversity. You
have recognized that as knowledge becomes more complex, we must seek
new arrangements of knowledge and new approaches to it, sLim order to
continue to advance its frontiers.
As you can judge from thc
se
brief
ref coents,
mm
I thiinlc that
your program
is
a good one. I hope my reactions will he useful.
Please do not hesitate to write again if I can be of any help.
Sincerely,
Raymor d fl. Thompson
Fiend
RHT :hkg
:.4.
FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCILNCE
OE:PARTM[N1 OF :LIIAI.r)L)(,y
February 2, 1970.
Dr. Roy L. Carlson, Director
Archaeological Studies
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby 2, B.C.
Dear Roy:
This year we have made extensive changes in our curriculum and, as I am
on leave, I cannot claim to have studied their overall significancein respect
to our undergraduate programme. Therefore, let me make a few comments, and
turn your letter over to Dave Kelley, who is acting as Head of this Department,
and who is aware of recent modifications. No doubt you will hear from him
separately if he wishes to make any comments or corrections.
My feeling is that you have produced a thoroughly workable scheme, and
.
?
that students who completed the course programme at Simon Fraser would be
totally
acceptable here provided that the work in the programme was sufficiently
distinguished. Superior performance should he stressed, of course, since a 3.0
grade point average is no guarantee of admission to graduate school.
I think that you are quite correct in leaving the programme flexible. You
can then prescribe courses to prepare students for graduate work at a number of
institutions, all of which may have substantially different entrance requirements.
Speaking (unofficially) for this Department, I think it safe to say that we
would like to see a little more emphasis on cultural anthropology than is
indicated in your sample course programme, since it is in this area that many
of our graduate students run into problems. And I believe that the course in
linguistics should be virtually mandatory. In both cases, of course, the
problem can be handled bystudent counselling. Other graduate schools may not
desire the same undergraduate background that we do, and legislation resulting
in making your system too rigid would not he wise.
So, in my opinion, your programme is soundly conceived, and I can see no
reason why students who have successfully completed it should need to take any
make-up work here.
Sincerely yours,
R. C,,Forbis
'HE UNIVERSITY Or CALGARY CALGARY 44. ALE3ERTA. CANADA AREA CODE 403. TELEPHONE
284-5227
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
fl
?
EOULDER. CC)I.
OFRADO
DEPARTMENT Or ANTHROPOLOGY
?
February 11, 1970
Dr. Roy L. Carlson, Director
Archaeological Studies
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby 2, British Columbia
Dear Dr. Carlson:
You have requested an evaluation of your proposed
departmental majors programme in Archaeology as it relates
to our graduate admissions policy here at Colorado. In
general, I find your proposal to provide a very adequate
background for a student wishing to continue on to graduate
study in a department such as ours. At present we have no
undergraduate majors requirement for graduate admission,
therefore we may admit students who have an undergraduate
major in a completely unrelated field such as En
g lish or
Architecture. However, on the other hand, undergraduate
majors with an archaeology specialization in our department
would possess a strong overlap in their training with the
program you propose. For example, our offerings include
courses similar to your course numbers 101, 272, 273, 372,
375, 433, 435, 436, 473, 474-476, 493, 499, and 477.
?
In
addition, we have been discussing curriculum changes here
at Colorado and would like to introduce courses similar to
your No. 371 and Physics 281.
Students entering graduate studies in our department
have to work toward competence in the four fields of
anthropology, Cultural, Physical, Archaeology, and Linguis-
tics, as demonstrated in the Master's comprehensive exam-
inations. Preparation for such exams is partially offered
by our core course offering 501-2, 6 hours per semester, which
is specially designed to provide students with a broad
background in the four fields. This course is part of the
Master's curriculum and therefore is given with full graduate
credit.
With respect to the avoidance of any deficiencies your
graduate should also take the following courses in other
departments at SFU: PSA 172, DML 220, Biology 400, and
. ?
PSA 471.
Dr. Roy L. Carlson, Director
February 11, 1970
Page 2
With the completion of the program as outlined, I would
anticipate that your graduates would be admirably prepared
to enter a graduate program such as ours and would have no
undergraduate deficiencies to make up.
Inasmuch as I sit on our admissions committee in
Archaeology and have checked your program over with our
graduate advisor, Mr. McCullough, I believe you can accept
this letter as an indication of our current departmental
admission policies.
Sincerely,
James J.H4ster
Assistant Professor
40
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
111 JACA, N. V.
i,5i)
S
DEI'Ak'r.frNT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
February 10, 1970
Professor Roy L. Carlson
Archaeoloqicnl Studios
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby 2, British Columbia
Canada
Dear Professor Carlson:
I am pleased to comment cn your proposed departmental
major in Archaeology.
A student who completed the major you describe would
certainly he considered for admission to this Univcrsity's
graduate program in anthropology and archaeology. The
courses you describe cover the areas of concern in
archaeology and I appreciate the brief, cogent descriptions
of the material in each course.
Everyone, of course, would do it a little differently.
For exam
p
le, on page 3 I note your re
q uirement of
"Mathematics 101 or a comparable statistics course."
I do Snot know what Mathematics 101 is, but I would permit
a student to meet this requirement with the calculus or
with finite mathematics. I have one other suggestion.
On page 8 you list additional regional courses. Instead
of addin
g
these, I would stress what is sometimes called
"historical archaeology." I mean things including
"industrial archaeology" and archaeology of very recent
times. For example, archaeology mightwell be applied to
near contemporary situations long overlooked or neglected
by historians. In Canada, for example, I think of early
pioneer and frontier camps and towns.
All of the above is by way of comment to help
further your program. I think that it is a fine step,
and I wish you much fun, luck, and learning.
Sincerely,
Robert Ascher
Vice-Chairman, Anthropology
Chairman, Concentration in Archaeology
HALL
LI.
?1c(uA\x'
RA:j
PEABODY MUSEUM OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND ETHNOLOGY
HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CAMORIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02138 U.S..
Tolophono (617) UN8-7600
Cfflk
Addrs PEAMUSE
7
!?rbru
.
y
1020
Prof 'ssor Roy
1•
Cqr7.son
Simon Froseir Tjrversity
Burnaby 2, B
r
itish Co1umb
Dear Professor Cr1.son:
In
re p
y
to
y our .
r
tt
.
er of
27
J1111v1
r
,
ipt r
'
5q\t
tht
?
me'norru
the
p .rch.
?
p o l
'
c
'
-
co1 ?
i-117
rorn
of
l
?
.
'
hi h
s
yru
?
?
rpcnt-rd
c
l.r'r
?
ththe ?
?
cmnir'
wu1d
nrepAre anir stit for
?
''te wv'
1
' '- -
?
n1o1.
rcheo-
loy ot
?
rirer+y
?
t ?
Tnted St.otes or Er
. rThnr,
?
11-1-1
which I
q
r r
,
f q
iY
I
i p
r.
?
As
q
rti1r of fo 1
?
hr -t Ho.rvr ?
ip
a
re
not part:oi:t
?
jir
?
1t.t
irçr
th
?
nr ?
of une'cr3unto
specjri
j
ton for
?
'?)S1ofl
to
OUT'
Pr
11t'
vour5 : ,
?
S.
0
S
IflA.
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
13th February 1970.
Professor Roy Carlesori,
Department of Archaeological Studies,
Simon Fraser University,
BURNABY 2, BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Dear Professor Carleson,
Thank you very much for your letter of January 27th and
the enclosed programme.
?
Professor Fumi.ko Smith and I have
•
?
examined it with care
-
and we both agree that it outlines an
excellent programme of training for archaeology at the under-
graduate level.
Since I am t7ot entirel y
familiar with the grading system,
I am not certain of exactly how many courses an undergraduate
would be taking but it does appear to me that an exposure to
the large number of courses would provide more than enough
background to enter a fully fledged programme of graduate
studies without delay.
I
The only problem which does give me some concern, however,
is whether or not your students would have enough courses in
other areas of anthropology to get admitted without doing make-
up work to most departments of anthropology wherein programmes
of graduate studies in Prehistoric Archaeology are found.
?
This,
I think, is a matter of some importance as long as graduate
training in archaeology remains centred in anthropology departments.
With best wishes for your new programme.
Yours sincerely,
.
Bruce G. Trigger,
Associate Professor.
I3GT:
j
GORDON R_, WILLEY, Ph.D., Columbia University, is
currently Bouditch Professor of Mexican and Central
American Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard
University. A member of the National Academy of
Sciences and a past president (1961) of the American
Anthropological Association, Dr. Willey is a
recipient of the Viking Fund Medal for Achievement
in Archaeology
(1953).
He had conducted excavations
and research in the North American Southwest and
Southwestern states, in Central America, and in Peru.
Professor Willey is the author of Excavations in
the Chancay Valley, Peru; Archaeology of the Florida
Gulf Coast; Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the
Viru Valley, Peru; Method and Theory in American
Archaeology (with P. Phillips); Courses to Urban Life
(co-author and editor with R. J. Braidwood); Prehistoric
Ma y
a Settlements in the Belize Valley, British Honduras;
and, An Introduction to American
_Archaeology, Volume 1.
.
UN1vEJsIT DE
MONTR1AL
?
Cl 'Anthropologic
LS
February
1970
Profe
ss
or Roy L. Carlson
Archaeoi ojr
?
Studies
Simon Prcser
Univcrsity
Burnaby
2, B.-C.
Dear Professor Carlson,
I have
read
the proposal
for
in Simon
a de
p
Fraser
artmental
University
majors
p
which
rorarrrne
you
in
recently
archaeology
sent
me.
In my opinion a
Own
Provided
be
student
accepted
graduate
who
he met
for
has
programie
the
graduate
completed
entrance
and
study
this
that
requirem
at
pro:ramme
we
this
were
?
university,
satisfied
would
of our
faculty.that
the courses were being tau
g
ht b
y
competent
Yours sincerely,
Philip E. L. Smith
Professor
17'^
Case postale
61
28,Montral 101
.
I
1
•1
I
)
pit
?
iti
?
fl
(II
\
(:1)1.1. El;
?
(I F
?
I It I.E ?
i. ?
A it
UNIVERSITY 01
:
OREGON
Fiiti
ti ?
On ?
wi
974
1)3
?
cbruar
r
?
9, 1970
L
U N I V F R S I 1' Y OF OREGON
.
Dr. ITo L.
Onlnc.n,
Di:cector
Arcbcolo:.T
Si.en 'ra:er
?
y
rr'riai;y 2, Enitish Col_u:.bip
Dear Dr. Carison:
The nroncneci.
rLl'C)
?
O1On
;rL
.
ior [t
1IOfl
Fraser
University scer. to
ie
tc
1)e
7,
ei
nrcd :nd i'oparod
The nronosed b,: lance o
-
1.
c ounsco in o I.od,
?
ar Area
Cniture Tatory is:
?
ronit.o . ;
otncJcrt
.:i
n
orkea in
this nrora,i
?
uld he ?
ahead of the nornal
U.s.
orraduate oro .Eolo;y ?
poctation, anC.
auuL11flA
-
3113.t
he
also had the normal rount of
?
c)
I
')
in social anthropoio.y,
lirigusics,ane. Thyoicai srchropolcfy, uculd c able o easily
enter our :rathiate jno;ra:: at Crc:on.
?
r:.fnct, tIllS proposal
seer1is unusually uell balanced, arid should offer suficicnt
background to the student so 'clint
11C
could cnter our
prograrti
at
an advanced 1rol.
I would stron;ly
support this curniculuii, along with
the noted supportinf couLses in the
o:bcr :Tielcls
af anthropology.
Erely,
iL
j14
?
'f3 -
?
4Ai
JWM
ic -
iao1. F. tariislauski
0
WASH I NGTON STATE U N IVEfLSITY
•
PULLMAN, WASHINGTON
,
99163
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
?
LAROItATOHY UI' ANTHROPOLOGY
February
7, 1970
Dr. Roy L. Carlson
Associate Professor
Archaeological Studies
Simon Jraser University
Burnaby 2, British Columbia
Dear Roy:
I have studied your proposed departmental program in
Archaeology with a great deal of interest. It is my view
that in most universities where progr'arns in archaeology exist,
these programs have just gTovm over tue
years
without anyone
ever asking the question whether or not the total program now
makes any sense in terms of modern archaeology. Too many
. ?
professors have vested interests in particular courses which
makes snob courses difficult to drop, change, or update. I
am
very much impressed with the depth, breadth, and modern
orientation of the program you are proposing. Any student
who
would
satisfactorily complete such a program would, he
in excellent shape to pursue a graduate degree at any university
in
the 1nited States. I might add that in addition to the
question of course offerings, ther is the matter of depth of
coverage in the courses. Your students have the reputation
* ?
of
having had excellent training in the courses they have taken.
I am delighted at the prospect of your university developing
such a sVong program in archaeology.
Sincerely yours,
Richard D. Daugherty
Professor
Yale University
T
.u' I laren, (nimcfiCi,t
06520
SDEPARTMENT OFANTHROPOLOGY
February 7, 1970
Professor Ro
y
L. Carlson
Director, Archcolopicai Studies
Simon Fraser Wniversity
Pwrnaby
2,
B.C. , Canada
Dear Professor Carlson:
Your letter of Januar
y
27
has been received, and I
haxe read your pro
p
osal of a departmental major in
rchaeoloqy with interest.
?
I find it impossible to
answer your question, however, since our Department
requires no preparation whatever on the part of enter-
ing graduate students.
We
offer each student the oppor-
tunity to pursue an individual course of study depend-
ing upon his undergraduate background and his personal
interests. Some students arrive here with a training
In all branches-of anthropology--not just archeology
—
others will have had training only in archeology, equiv-
alent to your program; and still others will have had
no courses in an y
branch of anthropology. We do not
require the students in the last two cateqor ies to make
p any courses. They are asked only to develop a pro-
gram of sufficient length and scope to prepare them for
their own personal interests in teaching and research.
Sincerely yours,
a
Irving Rouse
Professor of Anthropology
IR :em
0
FACULTY
OF
ARTS
November, 1969
NEW COURSE PROPOSAL
1. CALENDAR
INFORMATION
Department:
?
Archaeology
?
Course Number: 371 ?
Title: Archaeological
Sub-title or Description:
?
Theory
The cultural, evolutinnary,
, physical, and distrihitional principles
which underly the prediction and reconstruction of man's past.
Credit Hours:
5 ?
Vector'Description: 1-4-0
Pre-requisite (s) : 272 or 273
2.
ENROLMENT AND SCHEDULING
Estimated Enrolment: 30 - 40
Semester Offered (e.g. yearly, every Spring; twice yearly, Fall
and Spring)
No more than once a year; at least every two years
When will course first he offered?
?
71-1
3. JUSTIFICATION
A. What is the detailed description of the course including
differentiation from lower level courses, from similar courses
in
the same department, and from courses in other departments
in the University?
This course consists of a bringing together of all theory introduced
in lower level courses and the consideration of it abstractly as
theory. Our other upper division courses have either a technical
or a regional emphasis.
B.
What is the range of topics that may be dealt with in the
course?
Historic causality; technological, environmental, biological, and
• ?
economic determinism; attributes, artifacts, and cultures examined
in the context of systems theory; historical reconstruction using
time-space distributions; similarities and differences and their
meaning; parallism, convergence, and divergence in human prehistory
and models thereof; stylistic change; superposition.
2.
• ?
C. How does this
course fit the 90ai.
3
of the deartment?
A student
well rounded
in Archaeology should have a regional
technical,
and
theoretical background.
This course amplifies
the theoretical.
D.
How does this course affect degree requirements?
Majors and honors
are
expected to take this course.
E.
What are the calendar chancjes necessary to reflect the
addition of this course?
See revised calendar proposal
F.
What course, if any, is being dropped from the calendar if
this course is approved?
None
G.
What is the nature of student demand for this course?
We have 29 requests
H. Other reasons for introducing the course.
0
*
? 3.
4. BUDGETARY AND SPACE FACTORS
A.
Which faculty will he available to teach this course?
All faculty can give it.
B.
What are the special space and/or equipment requirements
for this course?
None
C.
Any other budgetary implications of mounting this course:
None
Approval:
Curriculum Committee: Approved, November 4th, 1969.
Dean of Faculty:
Senate:
.
FACULTY OF ARTS
?
November, 1969
NEW COURSE PROPOSAL
1.
CALENDAR INFORMATION
Department:
?
Archaeology
?
Course Number:
375 ?
Title: Fossil Nan.
Sub-title or Description:
The relationship between culture and biology in the prehistoric evolution
of man. Examination of the similarities and differences among fossil
human types.
Credit Hours: ?
5 ? Vector Description:
?
1-0-4
Pre-rpquisite(s):
?
272
2. ENROLMENT AND SCHEDULING
Estimated Enrolment:
?
30 -40
Semester Offered (e.g. yearly, every Spring; twice yearly, Fall
and Spring)
Not more than once ayear; at least every two years.
.
?
When will course first be offered?
?
70-3
3. JUSTIFICATION
A.
What is the detailed description of the course including
differentiation from lower level courses, from similar courses
in the same department, and from courses in other departments
in the University?
This course differs from 272 in being a detailed examination of the
problem of human origins from the standpoint of skeletal morphology
and the intertwined roles of biology and culture. It also differs
from 272 in being a laboratory course.
B.
What is the range of topics that may be dealt with in the
course?
Ramapithecus, Australopithecus, Homo erectus, and Neanderthal in
particular; hominid osteology; evolutionary processes; race
formation; cultural forms associated with the fossil men and their
.
?
stratigraphic positions.
2.
C.
HOW
does this
course
fit the goals of:
the
department?
The evaluation of ideas concerning human origins and development
rests in part on the empirical
examination of
the sequent forms
of fossil man. StudenLs par ticul any in t:crested in the phenomena
of mart need a strong background in the hio-cultural aspect in
order to be
able
to critically evaluate inferences made
concerning this development
D.
}1ow does this course affect degree requirements?
It is not required of majors, but is recommended.
E.
What are the calendar chanqes necessary to reflect the
addition of this course?
Addition to the calendar.
F.
What course, if any, is being dropped from the calendar
this course is approved?
None
C. What is the nature of student demand for this course?
Student demand is as great if not greater for this course than
for other upper level courses. We have about 50 student
requests for this course.
H. Other reasons for introducing the course.
This is a field of Archaeology of increasing importance. New
finds coming to light each year require new interpretations
and often necessitate reevaluation of long standing ideas.
0
.
?
4. BUDGETARY AND ;PACE FACTORS
A.
Which faculty will he available to teach this course?
Professor
II. L. Alexander.
B.
What are the special space and/or equipment requirements
for this
course?
Existing lab space will he used; most of the specialized teaching
aids arc already available.
C.
Any other budgetary implications of mounting this course:
None.
Approval:
Curriculum Committee: Approved November 4th, 1969.
Dean of Faculty:
Senate:
a
9 ?
FACULTY OF ARTS ?
November, 1969
NEW
COURSE PROPOSAL
1. CALENDAR INFORMATION
Department: Archaeology ?
Course Number:
?
Title: Regional Studies
Sub-title or Description: ?
in Archaeology -
North America
474-5
North America - Southwest
475-5
North America - Arctic
476-5
North America - Northwest Pacific
Credit Hours:
?
Vector Description:
1-4-0
Pre-requisite(s) : 273
2.
ENROLMENT AND SCHEDULING
Estimated Enrolment: ?
30 - 40
Semester Offered (e.g. yearly, every Spring; twice yearly, Fall
and Spring)
0 ?
'
At least once every two years
When'will course first be offered? 71-1
3.
JUSTIFICATION
A.
What is the detailed description of the course including
differentiation from lower level courses, from similar courses
in the same department, and from courses in other departments
in
the University?
Each of these three courses covers in depth the archaeology and traditional
thnography of a small region. The lower division regional courses cover
much larger areas and are characterized by breadth rather than depth.
B.
What is the range of topics that may be dealt with in the
course?
The prehistory and cultural traditions of the region. The content,
antecedents, relationships, and changes in these cultures through
• ?
time. Technological, socio-economic, and environmntal factors in
culture growth.
2.
C. How does this course fit the qoa
5
of the department?
Students should obtain a balance in regional studies, techniques,
and theory.
D. How does this course affect
degree
requirements?
A student may take only two of the three regional North
America courses to satisfy degree requirements
E. What are the
calendar
changes necessary to reflect the
addition of this course?
Deletion of old number 472 addition of course descriptions
F. What course, if any, is being dropped from the calendar if
• ?
this course is approved?
472 - Regional Studies in Archaeology - North America.
G. What is the nature of student demand for this course?
474 -
?
15 requests
475 - ?
29 requests
476 -
?
29 requests
H. Other reasons for introducing the course.
At present a student may receive credit for 472 twice, depending
on the content of the course. This is confusing. It is better
to have the different regional North America courses have
different numbers.
3.
4. BUDGETARY AND SPACE FACTORS
A. Which faculty will he available to teach this course?
474 - Carlson, Ilobler
475 -
Alexander
476 -
Carlson, Hohier
B. What are the special space and/or equipment requirements
for this course?
None
C. Any other budgetary implications of mounting this course:
None
Approval:
Curriculum Committee
?
Approved November 4th, 1969.
Dean of Faculty:
Senate:
.
0
I-
Archaeology
- Five Year Planning Budget
1970-75
5th May, 1970
-----.
Account
Item
70171
?
f
71/72 72/73
73/74 74/75
code
-
700
Faculty
1. R. Carlson
13,900
13,900
13,900
13,900
13,900
2. ?
P. ?
Hobler
10,900
10,900
10,900 10,900
10,900
3.,H. Alexander
8,334(1)
12,500
12,500
12,500
12,500
-
4. New Position
- ?
-
8,334
12$00
12,500
12,500
5. New Position
-
-
?
- 8,334w
12
3
500 12,500
6. New Position
-
-
-
8,334(1)
12,500
7. Chairman's Stipend
2,000
3,000
3,000
: ?
33,000
3,000
702
Teaching Assistants
10,350
13,800
13,800
13,800
13,800
704
Technicians
1. New Position
3,666
5,500
5,500
5,500
5,500
705
Secretarial
1.: ?
J. ?
Waite
5,311
5$11
5,311
5,311
5,311
706
Temporary Support
?
- 900
900
900
900
900
720-880
Operating Expenses
7,000
7,000 7,000
- ?
7,000 ?
:
7,000
Total
62,361
81,145 ?
- 93,645
106,145
110,311
(1) ?
Fiscal year salary
Final figure in each column is estimated total yearly budget
including
inflationary
increases.
—z -
o
Account
Code ?
Item ?
70/71 ?
71/72 ?
72/73 ?
73/74 ?
74/75
Inflationary Increases
107 inflation
on salaries
over 9 months
of fiscal
year 70/71
4,2Li 2
4,242
?
1 4,242
43,242
4,242
Total ?
66,603
85,387
10 ?
inflation
71/72
8,539
83,539
89539
8,539
Total
93,926
106,426
107 inflation
72/73
10,643
101643
10,643
Total
1173069
129,569
10 6
1. inflation
73/74
0
12,957
12,957
Total
142,526 146,692
10 inflation 74/75
?
14,669
Total ?
161,361
(1) ?
Fiscal year salary
Final figure in each column is estimated totnl yearly budget including inflationary
increases.
P3
P..
I-I
z
C)
0
Cl)
C
'-e
txl
1-3
H
C)
Cl)
C)
tzi
rh
C
C)
C
Cl)
rn
Cl)
Cl)
Cl)
'1
H
I-.
CD
> ?
. p - .
.p.-
?
.is
w ?
t'
H
(...
?
( ?
w
.-4
?
i
14 ?
4
J
-4 ?
.-4
-I ?
-J
0
Ui,
ON Ui
Ui
?
rj
Ui
- ?
Ui
H
N
'<CD
'<O CD
'<CD
'<O CD
k-4
?
(D
CD<
CDrr<
CD<
CDrt<
CD<
0
3
?
(D
CD
3CDCD
CD
1r
'CD1
P1
1P1
^/O^a
C)
C)
C)
H
H
U)
Co
U)
o
o
0
o
0
0
CD
CD
CD
CD
o
0
0
cr
CD
- H -
CD
CD
CD
-
C)
-
C)
--
C)
D
-- H
U)
U)
Cl)
o
0
0
o
0
0
a
H
H
H
CD
CD
CD
'1
'-1
Il
C)
C)
C)
HH -
Cl)
U)
U)
o
0
0
C)
CD ?
H
CD
H
'1 ?
CD
'1 CD
H ?
>4
H
>4
U) ?
CD
U)
CD
0 ?
z
0
CD-
(D
(D
CD
--4
Ui
O ?
H I-
0
CD
?
CD CD
?
0
H
>4 >4
H
CD
?
CD CD
Cl)
P..
p
CD CD
--4
C)
CD ?
-
l-
CD
'-I
?
CD ?
CD
?
P-I
U)
H >4>4
CD CD
-
U)
o ?
0
P- CD-
CD CD
11 ?
'-1
-is
-4
Ui
.
H
HO 0
CD
CD
c
>4
>4
-
H
CD
CD
CD
CD
'-I P-I ?
CD
P..
CD..
CD
CD
CD
P-I
P1
--4
Ui
C)
CD
H
CD
P -I
CD
CD
'-I ?
I
I -
.
>4>4
F-
0
0 ?
P3
la. CL
,
?
P-I
CD
CD
P 1
'1
H
-Is
H
-4
-Is
-
0
0
-
CD
CD
Cr
CD
>4
-
H
>4
CD
CD
CD
CD
P -I
P1
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
-
H
>4>4
H
CD
CD
0
H
-4
0'
Ui
CD-P..
CD
CD
CD
-
-
?
.
?
.-.-
H H
?
CD ?
CD
>4
CD
>4
CD
CD..
?
(D ?
(D
CD ?
?
'-I ?
l-I
-I:--
-4
0
C) C) C)
P) CD
U)
H H
U)
H
U)
o
0 0
o
0 0
0
- -
H
CD
'i
CD
ZJ
