ARCHY 485A
Introduction to Paleoethnobotany: Seminar
Instructor: Dr. Jade d'Alpoim Guedes jguedes@uw.edu
TA: Jillian Corrales corrales@uw.edu
Seminar Meeting: Friday 12:30- 2:20 pm Denny 403
Office hours: by appointment
1.) Course Description:
Plants lie at the base of every food chain and are critical not only to humans but also other animals. Ancient plant remains constitute some of the most ubiquitous forms of ecofacts found on archaeological sites. They can inform us not only about what people ate in the past, but also how they managed their forests and selected wood, and can allow us to reconstruct the past state of the environment in which domestic and wild animals grazed as well as when and how plants were domesticated and what changes happened to plant morphology as they were domesticated. This seminar course presumes that you have some basic knowledge of the origins of agriculture and or traditional plant use in prehistory. This course is meant to be taken in conjunction with ARCHY 459A “Introduction to Paleoethnobotany: Lab”.
Learning Outcomes:
By the end of this class, you will be able to:
- Discuss and debate historical and current trends in archaeobotanical research and understand the social and archaeological relevance of this work,
- Critically assess published research and reports for research design, choice of methods, data presentation and interpretive decisions.
2.) Course Requirements:
You will comment on your reading assignments due weekly. You will also be evaluated on leading a seminar session as a group.
Grading:
A.) Seminar discussion lead (60%)
B.)Hypothesis Annotations (40%)
i.) Seminar presentations: One week during the quarter, you/your group will be assigned a group of articles on which you will lead seminar. Articles assigned for presentation are starred by an *.
You/your group can choose how you lead the seminar and can be creative. You could create a traditional powerpoint presentation or even podcast or a video animation presenting the set of articles assigned for the week.
When your group leads seminar on the assigned articles of the day, try address the following:
1.) Why did I assign this group of articles together? What is the objective of the articles? What problem did they seek raise or address? What issue does it attempt to resolve? What hypotheses are evaluated?
2.) What are the strengths of this reading? What aspects are handled well in the data analysis? Which aspects of the paper are well argued?
3.) What are the weaknesses? What is the lasting significance of this article? Why should it be read beyond when it was published?
4.) Why are these influential pieces of scholarship? I highly recommend doing some background reading to situate each of these pieces in their current context.
As seminar lead, your group should field questions from other students about the reading and create a handout that outlines the key take home points from this set of readings.
ii.) Reading comments: You will write short form comments on the readings by 11:30 pm the night before class using Hypothesis. There will be a total of 20 reading comments. These short-reading and writing assignments will be placed on and turned in on the course website. You will see them appearing in the modules section of the course.
Collaboratively annotating the reading will allow you to share perspectives, ask and answer each other’s questions, and make visible reflections and connections about the text. You can review a quick-start guide Links to an external site. for how to add annotations.
As you review the text, add at least 2-3 annotations. Here’s some guidance for what you might include in your annotations:
- Identify the major research questions explored in the article and paraphrase them in your own words.
- Summarize: What is the state of prior research on this topic? What research gaps does the author intend to ameliorate?
- Summarize the major theoretical propositions.
- Answer: How does the author use the concepts from these theoretical propositions in their study?
- Identify and summarize the data that are used to examine the research questions and test the theoretical propositions.
- Identify and summarize the major findings and the overall implications of the study.
- Answer: What would you challenge or critique about this study?
- At the end of the text, add an annotation to summarize what you believe to be the key ideas/points of the text, or ask a question that you feel was left unanswered, or which you’re still unsure about.
- Reply to a classmate with an additive annotation (add to the conversation by answering their question or extending their response). Here are some ideas on how to start an additive response to a classmate:
- What did you mean by …
- Did you consider …/ You might consider …
- I connect with …/It made me think …
Important notes about annotating:
- Make sure you hit “post” after you complete your annotation, or else your annotation will not be saved.
- Make sure it says “post to [this class]” and not “post to only me,” or else your annotation won’t be able to be reviewed.
- If someone replies to your annotation, you will not receive a notification. Check back periodically to continue the conversation!
Course Policies
We will use an absolute grading scale and will not grade on a curve. The following grading scale will be used:
Percent = Grade
95 = 4.0 88 = 3.3 81 = 2.6 74 = 1.9 67 = 1.2
94 = 3.9 87 = 3.2 80 = 2.5 73 = 1.8 66 = 1.1
93 = 3.8 86 = 3.1 79 = 2.4 72 = 1.7 65 = 1.0
92 = 3.7 85 = 3.0 78 = 2.3 71 = 1.6 64 = 0.9
91 = 3.6 84 = 2.9 77 = 2.2 70 = 1.5 63 = 0.8
Course Schedule:
|
Week |
Date |
Topic |
Readings/Assignments |
|
1 |
Friday April 3rd |
Formation Processes of the Archaeobotanical record
|
Gallagher. 2014. Formation Processes of the Macrobotanical Record in J. M. Marston et al. (Eds.), Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany. University of Colorado Press.
*Miller, Naomi, and Tristine Smart. 1984. Intentional Burning of Dung as Fuel: A Mechanism for the Incorporation of Charred Seeds into the Archaeological Record. Journal of Ethnobiology 4(1):15-28.
*Lepofsky, D., Moss, M. L., & Lyons, N.2001. The Unrealized Potential of Paleoethnobotany in the Archaeology of Northwestern North America: Perspectives from Cape Addington, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology, 38(1), 48–59.
|
|
2 |
Friday April 10th |
Sampling strategies/ laboratory methods/ Flotation
Guest lecture ESA Associates |
Guest lecture: ESA Associates Tom Ostander and Chanda Schneider
d’Alpoim Guedes, Jade and Spengler, Robert. 2014. Sampling strategies in J. M. Marston et al. (Eds.), Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany. University of Colorado Press.
Fritz, Gayle and Nesbitt, Mark. 2014. Laboratory Analysis and Identification of Plant Macroremains. In in J. M. Marston et al. (Eds.), Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany. University Press of Colorado.
White, Chantel and Shelton, China. 2014. Recovering Macrobotanical Remains: Current Methods and Techniques. J. M. Marston et al. (Eds.), Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany. University of Colorado Press.
|
|
3 |
Friday April 17th |
Documenting within site variability
Group 1: Seminar lead
|
*Amber M. VanDerwarker, Jennifer V. Alvarado, and Paul Webb. 2014. Analysis and Interpretation of Intrasite Variability in Paleoethnobotanical Remains: A Consideration and Application of Methods at the Ravensford Site, North Carolina. in J. M. Marston et al. (Eds.), Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany. University of Colorado Press.
*Carney, Molly R, Jade d’Alpoim Guedes Goodman-Elgar, Melissa, Kevin Lyons. 2019. Gendered Places and Depositional Histories: Reconstructing a Menstrual Lodge in the Interior Northwest. American Antiquity 84(3):400-419.
*Molly Carney, Jade d’Alpoim Guedes, Eric Wogelmoth, Shannon Tushingham. 2022. Bulbs and Biographies, Pine Nuts and Palimpsests: Exploring Plant Diversity and Earth Oven Reuse at a Late Period Plateau Site. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 14(130)
*Mayeux, C., C. Alix, O. Mason, N. Bigelow and C. Petit 2024. Formation processes of archaeobotanical assemblages of an early Thule Iñupiaq dwelling at Cape Espenberg, northwest Alaska. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 55: 104459.
|
|
4 |
Friday April 24th |
|
|
|
5 |
Friday May 1st |
Wood and Wood Charcoal
Group 2: Seminar lead |
*Asouti, E., and P. Austin. 2005. Reconstructing woodland vegetation and its relation to human societies, based on the analysis and interpretation of archaeological wood charcoal macro-remains. Environmental Archaeology 10: 1-18.
*Shackleton and Prins. 1992. Charcoal Analysis and the “Principle of Least Effort”: A conceptual Model. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 631-637.
*Marston, John Mac .2009. Modeling wood acquisition strategies from archaeological charcoal remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(10): 2192-2200.
*Armstrong CG, Lyons N, McAlvay AC, Lepofsky D, Blake M. 2023. Historical ecology of forest management in Laxyuubm Ts'msyen and beyond. Ecosystems and People 19(1).
*Delhon, C. 2021. Is choice acceptable? How the anthracological paradigm may hinder the consideration of fuel gathering as a cultural behaviour. Environmental Archaeology 26(2):159–167
|
|
6 |
Friday May 8th |
Plant Domestication
Group 3: Seminar lead |
* Fuller, Dorian Q., Allaby, Robin G., and Stevens, Chris. 2010. Domestication as innovation: the entanglement of techniques, technology and chance in the domestication of cereal crops. World Archaeology, 42(1), 13-28.
*Spengler, Robert N., and Natalie Mueller. 2019. Grazing animals drove domestication of grain crops. Nature Plants. 5, 656–662.
*Rindos, David. 1980. Symbiosis, instability, and the origins and spread of agriculture: a new model. Current Anthropology 21(6):751-772.
*Carney, Molly; Tushingham, Shannon; McLaughlin, Tara; d’Alpoim Guedes, Jade. 2021. Harvesting strategies as evidence for 4,000 years of camas (Camassia quamash) management in the North American Columbia Plateau. Royal Society Open Science. 8: 202213.
*Armstrong CG, Earnshaw J. McAlvay AC. 2022. Coupled archaeological and ecological analyses reveal ancient cultivation and land-use in Nuchatlaht (Nuu-chah-nulth) territories in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Archaeological Science 143: 105611. Link
*Carney, M., & Connolly, T. 2024. Scales of plant stewardship in the precontact Pacific Northwest, USA. The Holocene, 34(8), 1112-1127. |
|
7 |
Friday May 15th |
Documenting Regional Variability: Crop Processing Models and exchange
Group 4: Seminar lead |
* Chris J. Stevens. 2015. Intersite Variation within Archaeobotanical Charred Assemblages: A Case Study Exploring the Social Organization of Agricultural Husbandry in Iron Age and Roman Britain. In Method and Theory in Paleoethnobotany. University Press of Colorado. * Ren L, Dong G, Liu F, et al. 2020. Foraging and farming: archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological evidence for Neolithic exchange on the Tibetan Plateau. Antiquity. 94(375):637-652. *Jenkins JA, Gallivan MD and Hatch B. 2026. A commoning framework for environmental archaeology: beyond resource management in Indigenous North America. Frontiers in Environmental Archaeology 5:1669507. doi: 10.3389/fearc.2026.1669507 *Alaine C. Hippee, Scott M. Geib, Wren Renquist, Sheina B. Sim, Christian L. Weinrich, Natalie G. Mueller, Andrew Kitchen, Andrew A. Forbes; Evidence from a specialist parasitic insect supports range expansion of cultivated sunchoke (Helianthus tuberosus) in the Eastern Agricultural Complex. Proceedings of Biological Sciences 1 March 2026; 293 (2066): 20253044.
|
|
8 |
Friday May 22 |
Archaeobotany and food sovereignty
Group 5: Seminar lead |
*Logan, Amanda L. 2016. “Why Can’t People Feed Themselves?”: Archaeology as Alternative Archive of Food Security in Banda, Ghana. American Anthropologist 118 (3): 508-524.
* Lyons, N., Hoffmann, T., Leon, R., Leon, M., Blake, M., Armstrong, C. G., & Peacock, S. (2023). How can archaeobotany be put into service of Katzie food sovereignty? BC Studies, 218, 19–153.
*Soma T, Armstrong CG, Walsh C, Atleo C. 2023. Indigenous food asset mapping: A case study from Gitselasu Nation. Journal of the American Planning Association.
|
|
9 |
Friday May 29th |
Work time
|
Work on final posters |
|
10 |
Friday June 5th |
Poster presentations |
Poster Presentations |
90 = 3.5 83 = 2.8 76 = 2.1 69 = 1.4 60-62 = 0.7
89 = 3.4 82 = 2.7 75 = 2.0 68 = 1.3 <60 = 0.0