institute of archaeology 2018-19 arcl 0012 sites & … · 2019-01-22 · introduction to...
TRANSCRIPT
INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2018-19
ARCL 0012 SITES & ARTEFACTS 2018
Year 1, Term 1: Core module, 15 credits
Hand Axe John Frere 1797
LECTURES
Tuesdays 2-4pm
Venue: Room 612 (Institute of Archaeology, sixth floor)
TUTORIAL GROUPS
Thursday 1 hour (9.00 am -1.00 pm Alternate weeks)
Venue: Room 412 (Institute of Archaeology, fourth floor)
Coordinators: Bill Sillar
[email protected] Room B16 Office hours: 4.15 – 5.15 pm Tuesdays, Room B16
and Jennifer French
[email protected] Room 411 Office hours: 10-11am Tuesdays, Room 411
Teaching Assistant: Ivana Jovanovic
Email: [email protected]
Turnitin, Class ID: 3883939 - Class Enrolment Password: IoA1819
Timetable: see final page
Assessment
a) Friday 5th October Experimental Archaeology Course assessment (20%)
(will be returned by 26th October)
b) 11th December Short answers assessment (30%) – held during class
(you will be given marks by 2nd January)
c) Tuesday 18th December maximum 2,625 word essay (roughly 2500 words) (50%)
(returned by 14th January – second week of 2nd term)
2
ARCL 0012 SITES and ARTEFACTS
27th- 30th September Experimental Archaeology Course, West Dean, West Sussex
Lectures – Tuesdays, 2-4 pm
1) 2nd October Introduction: Module Structure, Purpose and Assessment – Bill Sillar
2) ‘Piecing Together the Past’ – Bill Sillar
3) 9th October ‘Activity areas’, ‘contexts’ and ‘formation processes’ – Bill Sillar
4) Archaeological Features: from postholes to fieldsystems - Ulrike Sommer
5) 16th October Ethnoarchaeology and Experimental Archaeology – Jennifer French
6) Habitations: Houses and Communities – Ulrike Sommer
7) 23rd October Dating Artefacts: from seriation to absolute dating – Thomas Kador
8) Graves and Hoards – Ulrike Sommer
9) 30th October Artefact composition and provenance – Ian Freestone
10) Style and Culture - Jennifer French
Reading Week – No Teaching
11) 13th November Technology in Society: Making artefacts – Bill Sillar
12) Lithics – Ivana Jovanovic
13) 20th November Exchange and interpreting distribution in archaeology – Bill Sillar
14) Pottery – Patrick Quinn
15) 27th November Consumption: Artefact function and social identity – Bill Sillar
16) Metals –Miljana Radivojevic
17) 4th December Conservation for archaeologists an introduction – James Hales
18) Revision Session – Bill Sillar
19) 11th December Short Answer Assessment
20) Feedback and discussion – Bill Sillar
Practicals: with Ivana Jovanovic
Thursday small group tutorials run on alternative weeks
To introduce materials, handling of artefacts and laboratory analysis
1) Understanding features and artefact assemblages (IoA collections)
2) Finds distribution / graves
3) Stone
4) Pottery
5) Metals
Assessment
d) Friday 5th October Experimental Archaeology Course assessment (20%)
(will be returned by 26th October)
e) 11th December Short answers assessment (30%) – held during class
(you will be given marks by 2nd January)
f) Tuesday 18th December maximum 2,625 word essay (roughly 2500 words) (50%)
(returned by 14th January – second week of 2nd term)
3
4
Course Summary
This is a core module for 1st year undergraduates at the Institute of Archaeology, UCL. The
course starts with a 4 day field course in experimental archaeology which provides a practical
introduction to ancient technologies and the problem of interpreting archaeological remains.
The lectures and seminars explore how archaeologists have analyzed the material remains of
past societies focusing on different scales of spatial analysis, measuring time/chronology and
the analysis of materials remains.
The Experimental Archaeology Course, at West Dean, provides a practical experience of
technologies used in the past (such as flint knapping, pottery making, metal casting, building
structures, and preparing food) raising issues about the selection of raw materials, production
techniques, skill and artefact function. While at West Dean students will also be asked to
observe and think about the material evidence resulting from their activities. How could
surviving remains be used by future archaeologists to reconstruct these activities? The first
section of taught lectures will discuss how archaeologists think about and identify spatial and
temporal scales starting with the concept of ‘activity areas’ and different types of
archaeological sites, considering how these are located within a wider landscape and how
experimental and ethnographic approaches have been used to understand not just the
activities that took place at these sites, but also their social significance. We will consider
how the archaeological record is created by the overlaying and removal of material remains,
building a stratigraphic record within which artefacts are located and can be dated. In the
second part of the taught module we will review how archaeologists have analysed artefacts
to investigate how they were made and used as well as how objects can express people’s
identities. A selection of major technologies used in the past such as stone tools, pottery and
metal will be used to introduce broad concepts, methods and analytical techniques that can be
used in the study of many artefact types. Towards the end of the module we will come back
to consider how the breakage and disposal of artefacts contributes to the formation of
archaeological sites, and how conservation work can help in the preservation and analysis of
these remains. Throughout the module we will use case studies drawn from a wide range of
geographical areas and archaeological periods, exploring how the applications of scientific
techniques has been used to address archaeological problems. During the module each
student will attend five tutorials that will provide a more ‘hands on’ engagement with
materials discussed in lectures and introduce some of the laboratory facilities used in the
analysis of these materials. These tutorials will also give students an opportunity to discuss
topics covered during lectures. The ‘short-answers assessment’ is designed to assess student’s
knowledge of key points and broad concepts covered in the lectures and assigned readings,
with a longer essay designed to assess their ability to discuss a topic of their choosing in more
depth.
Relationship to other 1st year core modules at the Institute of Archeology:
This module, ‘Sites and Artefacts’ (ARCL 0012), focuses on archaeological approaches used
in the analysis and interpretation of material remains, it aims to help students become familiar
with major concepts and practical techniques used to study past societies (many of which have
been drawn from other disciplines such as chemistry, physics, biology, geography, ecology,
and anthropology). The second term module ‘People and Environments’ (ARCL 0013) will
continue this by focusing on aspect of archaeological analysis that are derived from life-science
approaches such as the analysis of human beings (osteology, paleopathology, diet, genetics,
demography) and past environments (geoarchaeology, zooarchaeology, and archaeobotany).
5
‘Introduction to Archaeology’ (ARCL 0010), will introduce students to the development of
the discipline and some of the larger theoretical concepts and debate within archaeology.
‘Field Methods’ (ARCL 0011), focuses on the practical techniques used in the survey and
excavation of archaeological sites. While ‘World Archaeology’ (ARCL 0014), gives a broad
introduction to cultural developments from early hominids to European colonization of the
Americas where the application of these analytical techniques and theoretical concepts has
been used to gain a better understanding of important issues such as early hominid diet, the
development of agriculture, craft specialization, urbanism and State Formation. Students on
specialist degrees will have some alternative modules that give them a foundation in further
skills and knowledge relevant to their specialisation.
Health and safety The Institute has a Health and Safety policy and code of practice which provides guidance on laboratory
work, etc. This is revised annually, and the new edition will be issued in due course. All work
undertaken in the Institute is governed by these guidelines and students have a duty to be aware of them
and to adhere to them at all times. This is particularly important in the context of the
laboratory/field/placement work which will be undertaken as part of this module.
6
AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT
Aims:
This module aims to introduce students to the problems of interpreting archaeological
remains and raise their awareness of the multiple spatial and temporal scales within which
archaeological analysis is undertaken. It will introduce distinct approaches to artefact studies
including a consideration of ancient technology, material culture and style in archaeology,
and introduce concepts and application of scientific methods used in the analysis and
interpretation of archaeological materials, spatial analysis and dating. Students will learn
basic archaeological concepts (such as assemblage formation, culture and style as well as
approaches to typology, ancient technology, temporality, and landscape). Students will be
introduced to the role of analogy and experiment in archaeological analysis, and gain an
understanding of how material remains are deposited in archaeological context and further
altered through cultural and natural transformation process.
Objectives
On successful completion of this module a student should:
1 Be familiar with some of the major concepts and analytical approaches used in
archaeology
2 Understand the processes that lead to the creation of archaeological deposits.
3 Critical about the rationale guiding choice of analytical techniques employed in
the sampling and investigation of archaeological data.
4 Recognise the potential and problems of applying scientific methods to the
analysis of archaeological problems
5 Be able to critically evaluate approaches taken in the analysis and interpretation of
archaeological material
Learning Outcomes:
On successful completion of this module students should have developed:
Generic Skills that should be developed during this module:
1 Observational skills (including recognising and describing material remains).
2 Research skills (including an awareness of how library based research can be
complimented by laboratory analysis and field recording)
3 Self-management skills.
4 Reasoned and critical assessment of multiple sources of evidence (identifying
problems and evaluate answers or solutions).
5 Understand the importance of health and safety in the work environment.
Subject knowledge, understanding and skills:
1 Demonstrate comprehension of the problematic and varied nature of
archaeological evidence in the field and/or in artefact-based, collections-based, or
records-based studies
2 Analyse and reflect critically upon a range of archaeological data (including how
archaeological artefacts, contexts, sites, and landscapes are identified, described
and compared).
7
Methods of assessment
This module is assessed by means of:
a) Experimental Archaeology Course field notebook assessment (20%)
b) Short answers assessment – 45 minute exam in final week of term (30%)
c) An Essay: maximum 2,625 words (roughly 2500 words long) (50%).
In order to complete and pass the module, students need to submit all three assessments.
Teaching methods
The module starts with a 4 day course in experimental archaeology where students camp and engage
in practical activities related to ancient technologies, subsistence and the interpretation of
archaeological remains. Themes introduced during the 4 day Experimental Archaeology course will
be developed by means of 20 hours of lectures, taught as two consecutive hours a week, using
powerpoint presentations and other learning materials made available via Moodle. There will also be
5 tutorial sessions that will introduce you to the application of analytical techniques within the
laboratories of the Institute of Archaeology.
Lectures will be held 2.00-4.00 pm on Tuesdays, in the Gavin de Beer Lecture room (G04 in the
Anatomy Building).
Practical Tutorial sessions will be held fortnightly within your designated small tutorial groups on
Thursdays, starting in room 412 (although you will go on to visit other lab rooms).
To keep tutorial groups small enough for effective discussion and to facilitate access to limited lab
space, it is essential that students attend in the group and time-slot to which they have been assigned.
If you need to attend at a different time, you should arrange to swap with another student from that
group, and confirm this arrangement with the Tutorial Coordinator so that the register can be altered.
Workload The module will require approximately 185 hours of your time consisting of 20 hours of taught
Lectures, in addition to around 40 hours during the Experimental Archaeology course you will also
have a further 5 hours of practicals.
We expect you to undertake around 70 hours of private reading during the module (about 4 hours for
each lecture) and around 50 hours to prepare work for module assessments.
Online Resources The full UCL Institute of Archaeology coursework guidelines are given here:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook
Attendance A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by
email. Departments are required to report each student’s attendance to UCL Registry at frequent
intervals throughout each term. Students are required to attend at least 70% of classes for each
module and will fail the module if they do not achieve 70% attendance.
Information for intercollegiate and interdepartmental students
8
Students enrolled in Departments outside the Institute should obtain the Institute’s coursework
guidelines from Judy Medrington ([email protected]), or review them on the IoA website.
Coursework submission procedures
All coursework must be submitted both as hard copy and electronically.
You should staple the appropriate colour-coded IoA coversheet (available in the IoA
library and outside room 411a) to the front of each piece of work and submit it room
411a
All coursework should be uploaded to Turnitin by midnight on the day of the
deadline. This will date-stamp your work. It is essential to upload all parts of
your work as this is sometimes the version that will be marked.
Instructions are given below.
Note that Turnitin uses the term ‘class’ for what we normally call a ‘course’ or
‘module’.
1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved as a Word doc.,
docx. or PDF document, and that you have the Class ID for the module
(available from the module handbook) and enrolment password (this is IoA1819
for all modules this session - note that this is capital letter I, lower case letter o,
upper case A, followed by the current academic year)
2. Click on http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login
3. Click on ‘Create account’
4. Select your category as ‘Student’
5. Create an account using your UCL email address. Note that you will be asked to
specify a new password for your account - do not use your UCL password or the
enrolment password, but invent one of your own (Turnitin will permanently
associate this with your account, so you will not have to change it every 6
months, unlike your UCL password). In addition, you will be asked for a “Class
ID” and a “Class enrolment password” (see point 1 above).
6. Once you have created an account you can just log in at
http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login and enrol for your other classes without
going through the new user process again. Simply click on ‘Enrol in a class’.
Make sure you have all the relevant “class IDs” at hand.
7. Click on the course to which you wish to submit your work.
8. Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1).
9. Double-check that you are in the correct module and assignment and then click
‘Submit’
10. Attach document as a “Single file upload”
11. Enter your name (the examiner will not be able to see this)
12. Fill in the “Submission title” field with the right details: It is essential that the
first word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g. YGBR8 In
what sense can culture be said to evolve?),
13. Click “Upload”. When the upload is finished, you will be able to see a text-only
version of your submission.
14 Click on “Submit”
.
9
If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on ioa-
[email protected], explaining the nature of the problem and the exact module
and assignment involved.
One of the Turnitin Advisers will normally respond within 24 hours, Monday-
Friday during term. Please be sure to email the Turnitin Advisers if technical
problems prevent you from uploading work in time to meet a submission deadline
- even if you do not obtain an immediate response from one of the Advisers they
will be able to notify the relevant Module Coordinator that you had attempted to
submit the work before the deadline
Word count for your final essay: 2,375-2,625 words
Your essay should be around 2,500 words long. With a maximum of 2,625 words
The following should not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages, lists of
figure and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, lists of references,
captions and contents of tables and figures, appendices.
Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed 2,625 words. (There is NO penalty for using
fewer words, the lower figure in the range (2,375 words) is simply for your guidance to
indicate the sort of length that is expected.)
You must indicate word length (minus exclusions) on the cover sheet. Exceeding the maximum
word-length expressed for the essay will be penalized in accordance with UCL penalties for
over-length work (above).
The penalties for overlength work will be as follows:
For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than 10% the mark will
be reduced by five percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced
below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.
For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more the mark will
be reduced by ten percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below
the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.
10
1: Introduction: Module Structure, Purpose and assessment Bill Sillar The first part of this lecture will provide practical information on the module, including module
structure, method of assessment, tutorial groups, resources and its relationship to your other 1st year
modules. This will be followed by a brief introduction to the interdisciplinary nature of archaeology,
and the concepts of sites and how they may be preserved in the archaeological record.
The primary book for this module is
Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice. London:
Thames and Hudson. (6th edition). (chapter numbers in the 5th edition are the same as the 6th
with very similar content)
General
Daniels, St., David, N. 1982. The archaeology workbook. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University
Press. INST ARCH AL DAN
David, N., Driver, J. 1989. The next archaeology workbook. Philadelphia, University of
Pennsylvania Press. INST ARCH AH Qto DAV
Greene, K., Morre, T. 2013. Archaeology, an introduction; the history, principles, and
methods of modern archaeology (5th edition) London, Routledge. INST ARCH AL
GRE
Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2005. Archaeology: The Key Concepts. London, Routledge. Plus
website:http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/resourcesforarchaeology/resources_archa
eological_investigation.asp
Sites, Site Formation and Archaeological excavation:
Bonsall, C., Tolan-Smith, Chr. (eds.) 1997. The human use of caves. Oxford, Archaeopress.
INST ARCH BC 100 Qto BON
Carver, M.O.H. 2009. Archaeological Investigation. London: Routledge. (Plus website:
http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/resourcesforarchaeology/resources_archaeological
_investigation.asp)
Evans, Chr. 2012. Archaeology and the repeatable experiment: a comparative agenda. In:
Jones, A. M., Pollard, J., Allen, M. J., Gardiner, J. (eds.), Image, memory and
monumentality: archaeological engagements with the material world: a celebration
of the academic achievements of Professor Richard Bradley. Prehistoric Society
Research Paper 5. Oxford, Oxbow, 295-306. INST ARCH BC 100 Qto MEI.
Menotti, F. 2012. Wetland archaeology and beyond: theory and practice. Oxford, Oxford
University Press. INST ARCH AH MEN
Rosen, A. 1986. Cities of clay: the geoarcheology of tells. Chicago, Chicago University
Press. INST ARCH DBE 100 ROS
Schiffer, M..B.1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press. ORL; ISSUE DESK
Yates, D. 2007. Land, power and prestige: Bronze Age field systems in southern England.
Oxford, Oxbow.
11
Artefacts and their analysis:
Caple, C. 2006 Objects: Reluctant witnesses to the past London, Routledge
Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone Tools and Society. London: Batsford. ORL; DAA 100 EDM
Henderson, J. 2000 The Science and Archaeology of Materials: an investigation of inorganic
materials London, Routledge
Hurcombe, L. 2007 Archaeological artefacts as material culture. London, Routledge. INST
ARCH K HUR
Hurcombe, L. 2014 Perishable material culture in prehistory: investigating the missing
majority. London, Routledge. INST ARCH K HUR
Orton, C. and M. Hughes 2013. Pottery in Archaeology (2nd edition) Cambridge: UP. ORL;
ISSUE DESK; KD 3 ORT
Diagram illustrating the general distribution of artefacts and deposits in English flint mines
English Heritage: The Neolithic Flint Mines of England (1999, 61)
12
2: ‘Piecing Together the Past’ – Bill Sillar
This lecture takes its title from a book written by the 1st Director of the Institute of
Archaeology – Gordon Childe. We will explore how archaeologists use fragmentary material
remains to interpret past societies. The start of this process is defined by the broad questions
that we wish to ask about the structure, organization and beliefs of past societies and how
these changed through time and across the world. But, we also need to consider how
archaeological deposits are created through a range of human activities and natural processes
and how we can use the mute artefacts and silent sediments that are left behind to answer the
questions we want to ask about past societies. To the naïve observer, the archaeological
record might be expected to resemble ash-engulfed Pompeii – an undistorted snapshot of
human life at a particular place and time. But people have varying cultural attitudes to
clearing-up and removing unwanted material and material remains are also transformed by
further natural and cultural processes that shape what we recover as the ‘archaeological
record’. We will consider some of these archaeological ‘formation processes’ in this and
subsequent lectures.
Essential Reading
Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters 1 and
2). London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
Readings
Binford, L. R. 1964. A consideration of archaeological research design. American Antiquity
29/4, 425-441. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL Binford, L. R. 1964. Behavioral archaeology and the "Pompeii Premise". Journal of
Anthropological Research 37/3, 1981, 195-208. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Brain, C. K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An introduction to African cave taphonomy.
Chicago, University of Chicago Press. DCE BRA
Childe, G. V. 1956 Piecing together the past London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hayden B., Cannon, A. 1983. Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya
highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 117-163. ELECTRONIC
JOURNAL
Hill, J. D. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex. BAR British Series 242,
Oxford, BAR. INST ARCH DAA Qto Series BRI 242 (also INST ARCH 1722)
Kuna, M. 2015. Categories of settlement discard. In: Kristiansen, K., Šmejda, L., Turek, J.
(eds.), Paradigm found. archaeological theory present, past and future. Papers in
honour of Evzen Neustupný. Oxford, Oxbow, 278-292. Academia.edu
Lamotta, V., Schiffer, M. B. 1999. Formation Processes of Housefloor assemblages. In:
Allison, P. M. (ed.) The Archaeology of Household Activities London, Routledge, 19-
29.
Lamotta, V., Schiffer, M. B. 2005. Archaeological formation processes. In: C. Renfrew, P.
Bahn (eds.), Archaeology: The Key Concepts. London, Routledge, 121-127. INST
ARCH AG REN
Lucas, G. 2000. Critical approaches to fieldwork: Contemporary and historical
archaeological practice. London, Routledge. Chapter 5 – ‘Eventful Contexts’
Miksicek, C. H. 1987. Formation processes of the archaeobotanical record. In: M. B. Schiffer
(ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 10. Academic Press, New
York, 211-247 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Schiffer, M. B. 1972 Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity
37:156-65. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
13
Schiffer, M. B. 1975. Behavioural chain analysis: Activities, organization, and the use of
space. Fieldania 65, 103-174 (reprinted in M. B. Schiffer 1995, Behavioral
Archaeology: first principles. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 55-66.). INST
ARCH 2172
Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press. IoA ISSUE DESK
Sommer, U. 1990. Dirt theory, or archaeological sites seen as rubbish heaps. Journal of
Theoretical Archaeology 1, 47-60. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Stein, J. K. 2001. A review of site formation processes and their relevance to geoarchaeology.
In: P. Goldberg, V. T. Holliday, C. R. Ferring (eds.), Earth sciences and archaeology.
New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 37–51. ISSUE DESK
14
3: ‘Activity areas’, the idea of ‘context’ and ‘formation processes’ – Bill
Sillar
We will continue to develop themes from the previous week by drawing upon some of the
activities that students undertook at ‘Prim Tech’ (such as flint knapping, deer butchery, crop
processing and eating round the fire) to consider how these activities would be represented in
the archaeological remains that were left behind. Do we find ‘activity areas’ when
excavating archaeological sites, and what happens over time when many diverse activities
may take place in the same place? How does this relate to the concept of ‘context’ which is
frequently used in archaeology both to describe a layer or deposit on an archaeological site
and to describe the social and physical setting within which activities took place in the past.
Essential Reading:
Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters 1 and
2). London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
Interpreting Occupation Sites
Crown, P., & Wills, W. 2018 The complex history of Pueblo Bonito and its interpretation.
Antiquity, 92(364), 890-904. doi:10.15184/aqy.2018.138
Jakucs, J., Oross, K., Bánffy, E., Voicsek, V., Dunbar, E., Reimer, P., and Whittle, A. 2018
Rows with the neighbours: The short lives of longhouses at the Neolithic site of
Versend-Gilencsa. Antiquity, 92(361), 91-117. doi:10.15184/aqy.2017.218
Salazar, J., & Kuijt, I. (2016). Dynamic places, durable structures: Early Formative
agropastoral settlements of the southern Andes, Argentina. Antiquity, 90(354), 1576-
1593. doi:10.15184/aqy.2016.213
Other Reading
Binford L. R. 1981 Behavioral archaeology and the 'Pompeii premise' Journal of
Anthropological Research 37: 195-208. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Bradley, R. 1982 The destruction of wealth in later prehistory. Man 17: 108-22.
ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Brain, C.K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DCE BRA
Hayden B. & A. Cannon 1983 Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya
highlands Journal of Anthropological Archaeology vol.2. 117-163. ELECTRONIC
JOURNAL
Hodder, I. and Hutson, S. 2003 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [INST ARCH AH HOD;
ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 HOD
LaMotta V. M. And B. Schiffer 1999 Formation Processes of Housefloor assemblages in
Allison P.M. (ed.) The Archaeology of Household Activities London:Routledge 19-29
Lucas G. 2000 Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical
Archaeological Practice London: Routledge Chapter 5 – ‘Eventful Contexts’
Schiffer M. B. 1975 Behavioural Chain Analysis: Activities, Organization, and the Use of
Space Fieldania 65: 103-174. (reprinted in M.B. Schiffer 1995 Behavioral
Archaeology: first principles Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 55-66.) INST
ARCH 2172
Schiffer M. B. 1972 Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity
37:156-65. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Schiffer, M..B.1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press. ORL; ISSUE DESK
15
4: Archaeological Features: from postholes to fieldsystems – Ulrike
Sommer
Most archaeological sites do not consist of standing buildings; they are often revealed by
survey and excavation and consist of buried ‘features’. Under "normal" conditions,
archaeological finds are found embedded in the sediments, often in a hole that was previously
dug by people and subsequently infilled with a selection of artefacts and natural materials
including soil and sediments. We are going to look at the various units of deposition that
make up the archaeological record, and how they are excavated and analysed. Various site-
types offer different types of information and are often excavated and documented differently
accordingly.
Essential Reading:
Chapman, J. 2000. Pit-digging and structured deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 61-87. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Museum of London 1994. Archaeological site manual. London, Museum of London (3rd
edition). INST ARCH AL WES Spence, C. Recording deposits and cuts, chapter 3.1
Readings Barker, P. 1986. Understanding archaeological excavations. London, Batsford. INST ARCH
AL BAR
Carver, M. O. H. 2009. Archaeological Investigation. London, Routledge. ISSUE DESK
(TWO COPIES); AL 10 CAR (SIX COPIES) (Chapter 1 and 2)
Evans, Ch., Pollard, J. Knight, M. 1999. Life in the woods: tree-throws, 'settlement' and forest
cognition. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 241-254. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Disregard the interpretation. But this is one of the only articles I know that describes
a rather ubiquitous feature that is easily confused with a pit!
Harris, E. C. 1989. Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. London, Academic Press.
INST ARCH AL HAR. Chapter 5 and 6
Museum of London 1994. Archaeological site manual. London, Museum of London (3rd
edition). INST ARCH AL WES Spence, C. Recording deposits and cuts, chapter 3.1
Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters 1 and 2).
London, Thames and Hudson (6th edition).
Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. ISSUE DESK, AL
11 ROS (MULTIPLE COPIES)
Section through an LBK ditch, Usingen. Germany (Schallmayer 2002, fig. 121)
16
5: Ethnoarchaeology and Experimental Archaeology: Jennifer French
‘What was this artefact used for?’ or ‘How was this monument built?’ These are frequent
questions about ancient materials. For answers, archaeologists have made comparisons to
how other people have used similar materials or used experimental approaches to replicate
some aspect of past behavior. This lecture will introduce the fields of experimental
archaeology and ethnoarchaeology. Drawing on a range of examples, we will discuss what
these research strategies have in common, how they differ from each other, and their
strengths and limitations as a means of answering questions about both artefacts and the
formation of archaeological sites and structures.
Essential Reading: Ferguson, J.E. 2010. Introduction. In: Ferguson, J. E. (ed.) Designing Experimental Research
in Archaeology: Examining Technology through Production and Use. Boulder,
University Press of Colorado, 1-12. INST ARCH AH FER (Also available online via
UCL Explore)
Reynolds, P. J. 1999. The nature of experiment in archaeology. In: Harding, A.E. (ed.),
Experiment and Design: Archaeological Studies in Honour of John Coles. Oxford,
Oxbow, 156–162. INST ARCH DA Qto HAR
1. Experimental archaeology Lipo, C.P., Hunt, T.L., & Haoa, S.R. 2013. The ‘walking’ Megalithic Statues (moai) of Easter
Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 2859–2866. ELECTRONIC
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Lin, S. C., Rezek, Z., & Dibble, H. L. 2018. Experimental design and experimental inference
in stone artifact archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 25(3):
663-688. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE
Outram, A. 2008. Introduction to experimental archaeology. World Archaeology 40/1:1-6.
ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Shimada, I. 2005. Experimental Archaeology. In: Maschner, H.G.D., & Chippindale, C.
(eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Methods. Lanham, Altamira Press, 603-642. IOA
AH MAS
Tilburg, J.A.V., 1995. Moving the Moai. Archaeology 48: 34–43. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
ARTICLE
2. Ethnoarchaeology and Ethnographic Analogy Jarvenpa, R., & Brumbach, H. 2009. Fun with Dick and Jane: Ethnoarchaeology,
Circumpolar Toolkits, and Gender “Inequality". Ethnoarchaeology 1(1): 57-78.
ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE
David, N., & Kramer, C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. INST ARCH AH DAV, Issue Desk; can also be viewed on-line via UCL
Explore (Focus on Chapters 1 and 14 for an overview; the central chapters provide
case-studies on specific themes)
Hodder, I. 1982. The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists.
London, Batsford. INST ARCH BD 10 HOD
17
Kelly, R. L., Poyer, L., & Tucker, B. 2005. An ethnoarchaeological study of mobility,
architectural investment, and food sharing among Madagascar's Mikea. American
Anthropologist 107(3): 403-416. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE
Lyons, D., and Casey, J. 2016. It’s a material world: the critical and on-going value of
ethnoarchaeology in understanding variation, change and materiality. World
Archaeology 48(5): 609-627. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE
Mallol, C., Marlowe, F. W., Wood, B. M., & Porter, C. C. 2007. Earth, wind, and fire:
ethnoarchaeological signals of Hadza fires. Journal of Archaeological Science 34
(12): 2035-2052. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE
18
6: Habitations: Houses and Communities – Ulrike Sommer
People live in social groups that may be located in campsites, villages or towns where the
cumulative actions of many people create archaeological sites. Distinct locations may be used
for different kinds of activities and this has encouraged archaeologists to interpret distinct
kinds of ‘archaeological sites’ (e.g. settlements, cemeteries and monuments). But, while some
places may have a particular meaning/function (such as a burial ground) most locations have
multiple functions that develop and change over time with changes in population, cultural
values and economies. In this lecture we will explore the variety of ways in which
archaeologist have identified different kinds of habitation sites and how this can be used to
reconstruct social behaviour and the relationship between individuals and communities.
We will discuss the various types of habitations (lean-to's, brushwood shelters, caves, huts,
houses, etc.) and construction types and their archaeological correlates as well as the
problems of reconstructing houses.
Essential Reading:
Carver, M. O. H. 2009. Archaeological Investigation. London, Routledge. ISSUE DESK
(TWO COPIES); AL 10 CAR (SIX COPIES) (Chapter 1 and 2)
Renfrew, C. And Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters 2, 3
and 5). London, Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
Other Reading
Binford, L. R. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. London,
Thames and Hudson. INST ARCH AH BIN Chapter 7, people in their lifespace: site
structure, a challenge to archaeological interpretation, 144-173.
Carver, M. O. H. 1987 Underneath English Towns: Interpreting Urban Archaeology.
London, Batsford. DAA 100 CAR
Carver, M. O. H. 1987. The nature of urban deposits. In: J. Schofield and R. Leech (eds),
Urban Archaeology in Britain. London, Council for British Archaeology Research
Report 61, 9-26. DAA Qto Series COU 61
Drewett, P. 1982. Later Bronze-Age Downland Economy and Excavations at Black Patch,
East Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48, 321-400. ELECTRONIC
JOURNALS
Eickhoff, S. 1990. A spatial analysis of refitted flint artefacts from the Magdalenian site of
Gönnersdorf, Western Germany. In: Cziesla, E., Eickhoff, S. Arts, N., Winter, D.
(eds.), The big puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts,
Monrepos 1987. Studies in modern archaeology. Bonn, Holos, 307-337. INST ARCH
KA Qto BIG
Gardner, A. 2012. Time and empire in the Roman world. Journal of Social Archaeology,
12/2, 145-166. ELECTRONIC JOURNALS
Gerritsen, F. 2007. Domestic times: Houses and temporalities in late prehistric Europe. Jones,
A. (ed.), Prehistoric Europe, Theory and practice. Oxford, Wiley & Blackwell, 143-
161. INST ARCH DA 100 JON.
Lucas, G. 2001. Critical approaches to fieldwork: contemporary and historical
archaeological practice. Routledge, London. Chapter 5. ISSUE DESK IOA LUC
19
10: Dating Artefacts: from seriation to absolute dating – Thomas Kador A fundamental concern of archaeology is to understand how things changed in the past.
Many different concepts and techniques are used to date archaeological materials and sites.
Relative dating compares an excavated artefact with artefacts previously dated based on
seriation (an ordered sequence of changing artefact forms), stratigraphy or 'scientific' dating
techniques. Absolute dating is only possible if artefacts and other materials have a physical
or chemical composition that change in a consistent and predictable way, allowing us to read
this component of their composition as a 'clock'. The search for reliable absolute dates has
partly been the search for such clocks and how to securely calibrate them, but, it still relies on
a secure knowledge of the context within which the material to be dated was found.
Essential Reading:
Greene K., Morre, T. 2013. Archaeology: An introduction (5th edition) London, Routledge.
Chapter 4
Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapter 4).
London, Thames and Hudson (6th edition).
Other
Adams, W. Y. 1988 Archaeological Classification: theory versus practice. Antiquity 62, 40-
56. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Aitken, M. J. 1990. Science-based Dating in Archaeology. London, Longman. ORL; ISSUE
DESK; AJ AIT
Bailey, G. 1981. Concepts, time-scales and explanations in economic prehistory. In: A.
Sheridan, G. Bailey (eds.) Economic Archaeology British Archaeological Reports
international series 96. Oxford, BAR, 97-117. INST ARCH AH SHE (see INST
ARCH 612)
Biers, W. R. 1992. Art, Artefacts and Chronology in Classical Archaeology. London,
Routledge.
Darvill, T., Marshall, P., Parker-Pearson, M., Wainwright, G. 2012. Stonehenge remodeled
Antiquity 86, 1021–1040. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Dee M., D. Wengrow, A. Shorland, A. Stevenson, F. Brock, L. G. Flink, C. B. Ramsey 2013.
An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian
statistical modelling. Proceedings of the Royal Society A 469, #.
Lowe, J. J., Walker, M. J. C. 1997. Reconstructing Quaternary Environments. London,
Longman. (2nd edition), 274-297. ORL; BB6 LOW
Lucas, G. 2004 The Archaeology of Time. London, Routledge
Plog, S., Hantman J. L. 1990. Chronology construction and the study of prehistoric culture
change. Journal of Field Archaeology 17, 439-456. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Smart, P. L., Frances, P. D. (eds.) 1991. Quaternary Dating Methods – a User’s Guide.
Cambridge, Quaternary Research Association. ORL; AJ 10 SMA
Sørensen, M. L. Paradigm lost - on the state of typology in archaeological theory. In:
Kristiansen, K., Šmejda, L., Turek, J. (eds.), Paradigm found, archaeological theory
present, past and future. Papers in honour of Evzen Neustupný. Oxford, Oxbow, 84-
94.
Taylor, R. E., Aitken, M. J. (eds.) 1997. Chronometric Dating in Archaeology. New York,
Plenum Press. ORL; AJ 10 TAY
20
8: Graves and Hoards – Ulrike Sommer
While the finds in houses represent a negative selection, i.e. rubbish, graves and hoards
contain a positive selection of finds. We will discuss the different types of graves and how
this affects their archaeological visibility, and the relation between grave goods and the social
status of the deceased.
Hoards are an important archaeological source especially in the Bronze Age, but they are
difficult to link to other sites and finds. We will look at the different ways hoards and
deposits have been interpreted.
Graves
Cannon, A., 1989. The historical dimension in mortuary expressions of status and Sentiment.
Current Anthropology 30, 437–458.
Carr, Ch., 1995. Mortuary Practices: Their social, philosophical-religious, circumstantial, and
physical determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2 /2, 105–200.
Holst, M. K. 2013. Burials. In: Fokkens, H., Harding, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the
European Bronze Age. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Parker-Pearson, M. K. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud, Sutton. ISSUE
DESK; AH PEA
Taylor, T. 2011. Death. In: T. Insoll (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual
and Religion. Oxford, Oxford Handbooks in Archaeology, 89–104.
Whittle. A. 2012. Being alive and being dead: house and grave in the LBK. In: Jones, A. M.,
Pollard, J., Allen, M. J., Gardiner, J. (eds.), Image, memory and monumentality:
archaeological engagements with the material world: a celebration of the academic
achievements of Professor Richard Bradley. Prehistoric Society Research paper 5.
Oxford, Oxbow, 194-206. INST ARCH BC 100 Qto MEI.
Hoards
Bland, R. 2013. Hoarding in Britain: an Overview. British Numismatic Journal 83, 214-38.
Bradley, R. 2013. Hoards and the deposition of metalwork. In: Fokkens, H., Harding, A.
(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford, Oxford University
Press. Online.
Dietrich, O. 2014. Learning from ‘scrap’ about Late Bronze Age hoarding practices: A
biographical approach to individual acts of dedication in large metal hoards of the
Carpathian Basin. European Journal of Archaeology 17/3, 468–486. Electronic
Journal
Fontijn, D. 2002. Sacrificial landscapes. Cultural biographies of persons, objects and 'natural'
places in the Bronze Age of the southern Netherlands, c. 2300-600 BC. Analecta
Praehistorica Leidensia 33/34. Leiden, University of Leiden Faculty of Archaeology.
Fontijn, D. 2008. Everything in its right place? On selective deposition, landscape and the
construction of identity in Later Prehistory. In: Jones, A. (ed.), Prehistoric Europe,
Theory and practice. Oxford, Wiley & Blackwell, 86-106. INST ARCH DA 100
JON, Academia.edu.
Kristiansen 1978: K. Kristiansen, The consumption of wealth in Bronze Age Denmark, a
study in the dynamics of economic processes in tribal societies. In: K. Kristiansen, C.
Paludan-Muller (Hrsg.), New directions in Scandinavian Archaeology. Kopenhagen,
National Museum of Denmark, 158–190. MAIN SCANDINAVIAN A 52 KRI
Nebelsiek, L. 2000. Rent asunder: ritual violence in Late Bronze Age Hoards. In: Pare, Ch. F.
E. (ed.), Metals make the world go round: the supply and circulation of metals in
21
Bronze Age Europe, proceedings of a conference held at the University of
Birmingham in June 1997. Oxford, Oxbow 2000, 160-175. INST ARCH DA Qto
PAR
Yates, D. Bradley, R. 2010. The siting of metalwork hoards in the bronze age of south-east
England. Antiquaries Journal 90, 41-72.
22
9: Artefact composition and provenance – Ian Freestone
The physical and chemical properties of different raw materials were understood and used by
ancient craftsmen and women to produce a very wide range of artefacts. These properties
were largely determined by the composition and structure of the raw materials and a better
understanding of these can help us to understand the manufacturing techniques and the
selection of distinct materials used for specific artefacts, tools and fuels etc. There are now a
wide range of analytical techniques used to investigate the composition of ancient materials.
Where this can either be compared to other objects from a known production site or raw
material source this may be used to locate the original provenance of artefacts that have been
transported or traded to more distant locations. However, it is important to consider how the
composition of the original raw materials may have been altered during the production, use
and burial of the artefact.
Essential Reading
Hughes, M. (1991) Tracing to source. In Bowman S (ed) Science and The Past. British Museum
Press.
Other Reading
Blomster, J. P., Neff, H., Glascock M. 2005. Olmec pottery production and export in ancient
Mexico through elemental analysis. Science 307, 1068-1072
Henderson, J. 2000. The Science and Archaeology of Materials: An Investigation of
Inorganic Materials, Routledge, London (see for flint, obsidian)
Peacock, D. P. S. 1969. Neolithic pottery production in Cornwall, Antiquity, 43, 145-149.
Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice. London, Thames
and Hudson. (6th edition). (Chapters 8 and 9)
Thomas, H. H. 1923. The source of the stones of Stonehenge. Antiquaries Journal 3, 239-
260.
Tykot, R. H. 2004. Archaeological provenance studies. In: Martini, A., M. Milazzo, M.
Piacentini (eds.), Physics Methods in Archaeometry. Amsterdam; Oxford: IOS Press,
407-432
Wilson, L., Pollard A. M. 2001. The provenance hypothesis. In: Brothwell D R., Pollard A.
M. (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Chichester, John Wiley, 507-517.
23
10: Style and Culture: Jennifer French
Material culture is the primary form of archaeological evidence. Traditionally, archaeologists assumed
that differences in material culture (for example, artefacts and structures used) indicated the existence
of different prehistoric tribes or peoples. Distribution maps of different objects were used to elucidate
the territories of different groups and their movements. Nowadays, this "ethnic" archaeology, is seen
with some suspicion, and other theories are used to explain changes in artefact style. In this lecture,
we will discuss what archaeologists mean when they talk about “cultures” and examine arguments
regarding the extent to which these are both objective entities and proxies for different groups of
people. Following this, we will explore the concept of style in archaeology more broadly, examining
how differences in artefacts are interpreted in view of both form and function.
Essential reading:
Lucy, S. 2005. Ethnic and cultural identities. In: Díaz-Andreu, M. et al. (eds.), The Archaeology of
Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion. London, Routledge, 86-
109. INST ARCH BD 20 DIA (also available on short loan)
Roberts, B. W., & Vander Linden, M. 2011. Investigating archaeological cultures: material culture,
variability, and transmission. In, Roberts, B.W. & Vander Linden, M (Eds.) Investigating
Archaeological Cultures. Springer: New York, NY, pg. 1-21 (Available online via UCL
Explore)
Other readings
Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing Identities in the Past and Present.
London, Routledge. INST ARCH BD JON (Focus on Chapters 2 and 6)
Lycett, S. J. 2015. Cultural evolutionary approaches to artifact variation over time and space: basis,
progress, and prospects. Journal of Archaeological Science 56: 21-31. ELECTRONIC
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Vanhaeren, M., & d'Errico, F. 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by
personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(8): 1105-1128. ELECTRONIC
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Shennan, S. 1989. Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identities. In Shennan,
S. (ed.) Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. London, Routledge pg, 1-32
INST ARCH AH SHE (Also available online via UCL Explore) Wiessner, P. 1983. Style & social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity
48/2: 253-276 (read alongside: Sackett, J. 1985. Style & ethnicity in the Kalahari: a reply
American Antiquity 50: 154-59). ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE
24
11: Technology in Society: Raw materials and the making of artefacts – Bill
Sillar
The study of artefacts has always been at the centre of archaeology, a discipline which partly
emerged out of the antiquarian tradition of collecting curious objects. Recently
anthropologists and sociologists amongst others have revived their interest in the role of
material culture as a medium for display and communication. In archaeology we have also
seen a shift away from the use of artefacts to identify the date and cultural affiliation of
excavated sites to a greater interest in how material culture shapes peoples' participation in
the world, particularly the role of artefacts in constructing, reproducing and changing social
relations. The lecture will explore approaches to the study of material culture, considering
issues of technology, production and consumption.
Essential Reading:
Sillar, B. and Tite, M. 2000. The challenge of ‘technological choices’ for material science
approaches in archaeology. Archaeometry, 42: 2-20. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapter 8).
London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
Other Reading
Barnett, W. K. and J. W. Hoopes 1995 The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and
Innovation in Ancient Societies Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. INST
ARCH BC 100 BAR
Costin, C.L. 1991. Craft specialisation: issues in defining, documenting and explaining the
organisation of production. In: M.B. Schiffer (ed.) Archaeological Method and
Theory, Vol. 3. New York, Academic Press, 1-53 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Kingery, D.W. 1996 Learning from Things: method and theory of material culture studies
Washington, D.C. ; London : Smithsonian Institution Press
Lemonnier, P. (ed.) 1993. Technological choices: transformations in material cultures since
the Neolithic. London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD LEM
Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material culture today: Towards an anthropology of
technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5: 147-186.
ELECTRONIC JOURNAL Lemonnier, P. 1992 Elements for an anthropology of Technology Ann Arbor, Mich: Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan INST ARCH BD LEM
Schlanger, N. 1994. Mindful technology: unleashing the chaîne opératoire for an
archaeology of mind. In: C. Renfrew and E. Zubrow (eds) The Ancient Mind:
elements for cognitive archaeology Cambridge University Press: 143-151
Sigaut, F. 1994 Technology in: T. Ingold (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology
Routledge, London. 420-459.
25
12: Lithics – Ivana Jovanovic
Knapped-stone artefacts provide the earliest evidence of a hominin 'material culture' and play
an important role in all non-industrial societies. This lecture presents the contribution lithic
research can make to the interpretation of human social structure and social change, through
the technological, stylistic, and functional analysis of stone tools. There will be a particular
focus on questions of raw material selection and the techniques of making stone tools.
Essential Reading:
Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone Tools and Society. (Chapter 1). London: Batsford. ORL; DAA 100
EDM
Binford, L. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past. (Chapter 4). London: Thames and Hudson. ORL;
ISSUE DESK; AH BIN
A number of books provide good introductions to lithic technology, terminology, and methods of
analysis. If you are interested in lithic analysis, the Holdaway and Stern, Andrefsky, Odell and Inizan
are good. If you wish to try your hand at flint knapping, then Whittaker is useful. Recent journal
articles give a perspective on the wide range of issues covered by lithic studies.
Adams. J. L. 2014. Ground stone analysis, a technological approach (2nd. edition). Salt Lake
City, University of Utah Press. INST ARCH KA ADA
Andrefsky, Jr., W. 1998. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press. IOA ISSUE DESK: KA AND
Andrefsky, W., 2009. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production and maintenance.
Journal of Archaeological Research 17, 65-103.
Butler, C., 2005. Prehistoric Flintwork. Stroud, Tempus. IOA ISSUE DESK. focus on
British lithics
Holdway, S., Stern, N. 2004. A record in Stone. Victoria, NSW: Aboriginal Studies Press.
IOA ISSUE DESK: DDA HOL (Chapters 1 and 2)
Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H., Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of knapped stone. Meudon, CREP. IOA
ISSUE DESK: DA INI (pages 11-73)
Odell, G. H., 2004. Lithic Analysis. New York/London, Kluwer Academic/Plenum. IOA
ISSUE DESK: IOA KA ODE (chapter 5)
Soulier, M.-C., Mallye, J.-B. 2012. Hominid subsistence strategies in the South-West of
France: A new look at the early Upper Palaeolithic faunal material from Roc-de-
Combe (Lot, France). Quaternary International 252, 99-108.
Wadley, L., Hodgkiss, T., Grant, M., 2009. Implications for complex cognition from the
hafting of tools with compound adhesives in the Middle Stone Age, South Africa.
Proceeding of the National Academy of Science 106 (24), 9590-9594.
White, M. J., Pettit, P. B., 2011. The British Late Middle Paleolithic: an interpretive synthesis
of Neanderthal occupation at the northwestern edge of the Pleistocene world. Jounal
of World Prehistory 24/1, 24-97. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Whittaker, J. C., 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools. Austin,
University of Texas Press. IOA ISSUE DESK: KA WHI.
Wright, K. A. 2008. Craft production and the organisation of ground stone technologies. In:
Rowan, Y. R., Ebeling, J. R. (eds.), New approaches to old stones: recent studies of
ground stone artifacts. London, Equinox, 130-143. INST ARCH KA ROW.
26
13: Exchange and interpreting distribution in archaeology – Bill Sillar
A fundamental feature of human society is our willingness to undertake different tasks, tied
to this is a need to exchange labour, raw materials, finished goods, or information with
others. Exchange takes place within communities, but of more interest to archaeologists is the
kind of exchange that can tell us about how communities (village, towns or cities) interact
with other communities. Archaeologists are interested in exchange for three reasons: 1) The
goods involved can tell us about what the people in a community are interested in acquiring,
and with the right techniques, where such goods originate; 2) If goods can be traced, and
networks can be reconstructed, archaeologists can learn about the social significance of
exchange--for example, do some goods turn up only in elite burials, or are they widely
distributed in households? 3) The actual means by which goods are distributed: Land or sea?
Markets or itinerant merchants? In the lecture, we will consider how archaeologists use inter-
disciplinary approaches to examine the mechanics of trade and exchange; how goods can be
traced; and how it is possible to learn something about the social significance of trade.
Essential Reading
Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapter 9).
London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
Other Reading
Appadurai, A. 1986 Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In: A. Appadurai
(ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press 3-63. INST ARCH 425
Bradley, R. M. Edmonds 1993 Interpreting the Axe Trade. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press. INST ARCH DAA 140 BRA
Graham, E. 1987. Resource Diversity in Belize and its Implications for Models of Lowland
Trade. American Antiquity 52/4, 753-767. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Gregory, C. A. 1994 Exchange and reciprocity. In: T. Ingold (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia
of Anthropology Routledge, London, 911-933.
Peacock D, P. S., Williams, D. F. 1986 Amphorae and the Roman economy; an introductory
guide. London Longman YATES P 70 PEA
Perles, C. 1992. Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece
Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5/2, 115-164. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and
Communication. In Jeremy A. Sabloff & C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, (eds) Ancient
Civilization and Trade. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 3-59. BC 100
SAB
Sahlins, M. 1974. Stone Age economics. London, Tavistock Publications. INST ARCH BD
10 SAH Chapter 5, on the sociology of primitive exchange
Tyers, P. 1996. Roman Pottery in Britain. London, Batsford. ORL; DAA 170 TYE Wolf, G. 1990 World-systems analysis and the Roman empire. Journal of Roman
Archaeology 3, 44-58 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
27
14: Pottery – Patrick Quinn
The plasticity of clay and its behaviour during firing allows it to be manipulated into a huge variety
of functional objects including pottery vessels, refractories and and building materials. The
widespread use of ceramics in past societies and their good preservation even after several
millennia means that they are one of the most abundant types of artefact recovered from
archaeological sites around the world. This lecture will outline the phenomenon of
archaeological ceramics and in particular pottery, covering the main wares and technological
innovations in its long history. Particular emphasis will be given to the valuable cultural
information that ceramics can reveal about the past societies that made and used it and the range
of archaeological and scientific techniques that can be employed to retrieve this from ancient
sherds. Following on from the previous lecture, it will consider the topic of pottery provenance
determination and its role in the study of distribution patterns related to trade, exchange and
migration.
Essential Reading
Rice, P. M. 2015. Pottery and Its History. In: Rice, P. M. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. (2nd
Edition) University of Chicago Press: 3-32. INST ARCH KD 3 RIC Quinn, P. S. and Burton, M. 2015. Ceramic Distribution, Migration and Cultural Interaction
Among Late Prehistoric (1300–200 B.P.) Hunter-Gatherers in the San Diego Region,
Southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports, 5: 285-295.
Other Reading
Allepuz, E. T., Quinn, P. S., López Pérez, M. D. 2015. To the Vicinity and Beyond! Production,
Distribution and Trade of Cooking Greywares in Medieval Catalonia, Spain.
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 6: 397-410. INST ARCH KD 2 PEA
Gaimster, D. and Freestone, I. 1997. Introduction. In: Freestone, I. and Gaimster, D. (eds.)
1997 Pottery in the Making: World Ceramic Traditions British Museum Press, London:
9-19. INST ARCH KD FRE
Orton, C. and Hughes, M. 2013 Fabric Analysis. + Classification of Form and Decoration. In:
Orton, C. and Hughes, M. Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press: 71-92.
INST ARCH KD 3 ORT
Orton, C. and Hughes, M. 2013. History of Pottery Studies. In: Orton, C. and Hughes, M.
Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press: 3-23. INST ARCH KD 3 ORT
Pritchard, A. C. and van der Leeuw, S. E. 1984. Introduction: The Many Dimensions of Pottery.
In: van der Leeuw, S. E. and Pritchard, A. C. (eds.) The Many Dimensions of Pottery; Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology. Amsterdam: Institute for Pre- and Proto-
History, University of Amsterdam: 3-15. INST ARCH KD 3 LEE
Quinn, P. S. 2013. Introduction to Ceramic Petrography. In: Quinn, P. S. Ceramic Petrography: The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery & Related Artefacts in Thin Section.
Oxford: Archaeopress, 1-20. INST ARCH KD 3 QUI
Renfrew, C. 1977. Production and Exchange Early State Societies. the Evidence of Pottery. In:
Peacock, D. P. S. (ed.) Pottery and Early Commerce: Characterization and Trade in Roman and Later Ceramics. Academic Press, London: 1-19. INST ARCH KD 2 PEA
Rye, O. S. 1981. Introduction. In: Rye, O. S. Pottery Technology; Principles and Reconstructions. Manuals on Archaeology no. 4 Washington D.C: 1-5. INST ARCH
KD 1 RYE
28
15: Consumption: Artefact function and social identity – Bill Sillar
‘What was this artefact used for?’ Is frequently the first question asked when finding
something unusual. Artefact form names such as "axe", "jug" or "flint knife" imply a
knowledge about the use of an artefact which may not be justified. Often, these names are
based on analogy to modern implements known from our own experience or ethnographic
work, but these may not always be correct. In some cases the analytical methods can help to
ascertain artefact use, for example wear-traces, residue analysis or the study of starch
remains. However, artefacts can also have had a symbolic meaning or express some aspect of
the users identity which can be even harder to ascertain. Artefacts can inform us about past
social relations, such as an individual’s role in society or perhaps even how an individual
choose to express his or her place or position in society. We can sometimes use the place an
artefact was found in and associated artefacts to work out its meaning.
Essential Reading
Woodward, A. 2002. Beads and beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British Early Bronze
Age. Antiquity 76, 2002, 1040-1047. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Use and use-wear
Lemorini, C., Cesaro, St. N. (eds.) 2014. An integration of the use-wear and residue analysis
for the identification of the function of archaeological stone tools: proceedings of the
international workshop, Rome, March 5th-7th, 2012. BAR International Series 2649.
Oxford, Archaeopress. INST ARCH KA Qto LEM
Manuel Marreiros, J., Gibaja Bao, J. F., Ferreira Bicho, N. 2014. Use-wear and residue
analysis in archaeology. New York, Springer.
van Gijn, A. 2010. Flint in focus: lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden,
Sidestone Press. INST ARCH KA GIJ
van Gijn, A., Whittaker, J., Anderson, P. A. (eds) 2014. Explaining and exploring diversity in
agricultural technology. Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST ARCH HA Qto GIJ
Skibo, J. M, 1992. Pottery function, a use-alteration perspective. New York, Plenum. INST
ARCH KD SKI
Artefact meaning and value
Hodder, I. (ed). 1989. The Meaning of Things. (Chapters 2,15,16). London: Unwin Hyman
(or 1991 paperback Harper Collins). ORL; ISSUE DESK; AH HOD.
Hodder, I. 1991. The Decoration of Containers: An Ethnographic and Historical Study. In:
W. A. Longacre (ed.) Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Arizona: The University of
Arizona Press, 71-94. ORL; KD LON
Kopytoff, I. 1988. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In: A.
Appadurai (ed.) The Social life of things; commodities in cultural perspective.
Cambridge: CUP, 64-94. ORL; BD AP
Larick, R. 1986. Age grading and ethnicity in the style of Loikop (Samburu) spears. World
Archaeology 18, 1986, 269–283. Electronic Journal
Lillios, K. T., Vasileios, T. (eds.) 2010. Material Mnemonics. Every day memory in
prehistoric Europe. Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST ARCH DA 100 LIL
Lucy, S., Díaz-Andreu, M., Babić, St. (eds) 2005. Archaeology of identity, approaches to
gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion. London, Routledge. INST ARCH AH DIA
Wobst, H. M. 1977. Stylistic behaviour and information exchange. In: C. Cleland (ed.),
Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin. Ann Arbor,
29
University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 61, 317-
342.
Sackett, J. 1985. Style and ethnicity in the Kalahari: a reply to Wiessner American Antiquity
50: 154-59. ORL
Shennan, S. 1989. Introduction: Archaeological approaches to cultural identity. In: S.
Shennan (ed.) Archaeological approaches to cultural identity.. London: Unwin
Hyman, 1-32.. ORL; ISSUE DESK
Consumption, Breakage and Disposal of Artefacts
DeBoer, W.R. and Lathrap, D.W. 1979. The making and breaking of Shipibo-Conibo
ceramics. In: Kramer C. (ed.) Ethnoarchaeology: implications of ethnography for
archaeology. New York: Columbia University Press, 102-138. ORL; ISSUE DESK;
AH KRA
Bradley, R. 1982 The destruction of wealth in later prehistory. Man 17: 108-22. INST
ARCH 1047 Chapman, J. 2000 Fragmentation in archaeology: people, places, and broken objects in the
prehistory of south-eastern Europe London: Routledge INST ARCH DAR CHA
Deal, M. 1985 Household pottery disposal in the Maya highlands; An ethnoarchaeological
interpretation, In; Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 243-291. INST
ARCH Pers.
Deal M. and M. B. Hagstrum 1995 Ceramic reuse behavior among the Maya and Wanka:
Implications for Archaeology in J.M. Skibo, W. H. Walker and A. E. Nielsen (eds.)
Expanding Archaeology Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press 111-125. INST
ARCH 2177
30
16: Metals – Miljana Radivojevic
Archaeometallurgical research can provide important evidence for our interpretation of the
nature and scale of mining, smelting, refining and metalworking activities. In this lecture, we
will review the identification and study of a variety of metallurgical remains related to
metallurgy, the techniques employed to analyse them, and the archaeological information we
may obtain in return. We will also consider how technical studies of metallic artefacts can be
used to study the function and use of metal artefacts, and to inform about consumption
patterns.
Essential Reading:
Bayley, J., Dungworth, D. and Paynter, S. 2001. Archaeometallurgy. Centre for Archaeology
Guidelines. Swindon: English Heritage. INST ARCH KEB Qto BAY and available
online: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/cfa_archaeometallurgy2.pdf
Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapter 8).
London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
Other Reading
Bayley, J., Crossley, D. and Ponting, M. 2008. Metals and metalworking. A research
framework for archaeometallurgy. London: Historical Metallurgy Society. ISSUE
DESK AND KEA Qto BAY
Cleere, H. 1984. Ironmaking in the economy of the ancient world: the potential of
archaeometallurgy. In: B. Scott and H. Cleere (eds) The Crafts of the Blacksmith.
USIPP Comité pour la Siderurgie Ancienne: Belfast Northern Ireland Symposium, 1-
6. ORL; ISSUE DESK
Craddock, P. T. 1991. Mining and smelting in Antiquity, in Bowman, S. (ed.), Science and
the Past, 57-73. London: British Museum Press. INST ARCH AJ BOW, ISSUE
DESK IOA BOW
Craddock, P. T. 1995. Early metal mining and production. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press. INST ARCH KE CRA, ISSUE DESK IOA CRA 6
Dolfini, A. 2011. The function of Chalcolithic metalwork in Italy: an assessment based on
use-wear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 38/5, 1037-1049.
ELECTRONIC JOURNAL
Killick, D. and Fenn, T. 2012. Archaeometallurgy: the study of preindustrial mining and
metallurgy. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 559-575.
Rehren, T. and Pernick, E. (2008): Coins, artefacts and isotopes: archaeometallurgy and
Archaeometry. Archaeometry 50, 232-248. ELECTRONIC JOURNALS
Roberts, W. B. and Thornton, C. P. 2014 (eds). Archaeometallurgy in Global Perspective:
Methods and Syntheses. New York: Springer [available online]
Tylecote, R.F. 1987. The Early History of Metallurgy in Europe. London: Longman. ORL;
ISSUE DESK; TYLECOTE TYL
31
17: Conservation for archaeologists an introduction – James Hales
Conservators can provide a vital link between archaeological excavations and museum
displays. There are several different aspects to this that may focus on the careful recovery and
preservation of artefacts, but also allows the opportunity for a more detailed study and
analysis of the object and, in the case of some museum objects, archive work to understand
the ancient context and later history of the artefact. In this lecture we will consider the role of
the conservator in relation to wider archaeological research.
Essential Reading
Cronyn, J. M. 1990. The Elements of Archaeological Conservation. London, Routledge. INST
ARCH L CRO Chapter 1: ‘Introducing Archaeological Conservation’, pp.1-13; if
you have time then also Chapter 2: ‘Agents of Deterioration and Preservation,’ pp.14-
42.
Jones, S., Holden, J. 2008: It's a material world (pp. 27-29 Conservation and its Values)
London, Demos, 2008. INST ARCH AG JON and
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/materialworld
Other Reading
Buttler, C., Davis, M. (eds.) 2006 Things fall apart... Museum conservation in practice. Cardiff:
National Museum Wales Books. INST ARCH LA 1 BUT
Pye, E. 2001. Caring for the Past: Issues in Conservation for Archaeology and Museums. London,
James and James. INST ARCH L PYE See especially Chapters 5 & 6
Sease C., 1987. A Conservation Manual for the Field Archaeologist Los Angeles: Institute of
Archaeology UCLA. (2nd edn 1992, 3rd edn 1994) INST ARCH LA SEA
Watkinson, D., Neal, V., 1998 First Aid for Finds. 3rd edition. London, Rescue - The British
Archaeological Trust, and Archaeology Section of the UK Institute for Conservation, with the
Museum of London. INST ARCH LA Qto WAT
Conservation of a bukranion, Çatal Höyük, Turkey
32
18: Revision Session. – Bill Sillar
Discussion of topics covered in the module and some of the themes that
recurred or linked between distinct lecture topics. We will also discuss some of
the essay questions and the following week’s assessment.
Prior to this session you should read over your notes from previous lectures,
tutorials and your personal reading as well as reviewing the lecture
presentations and other resources on moodle. Where you have questions it
would be useful to e-mail these to the module-coordinator in advance of the
revision session so that your questions can be addressed during the class.
19: Short Answer Assessment
The assessment for this module includes a short (less than one hour) unseen examination, which will
be held in the lecture room on the final day of the taught module. In the examination, students will
have to answer approximately 10 questions with short answers that will vary from a few words to a
short paragraph (e.g. 200 words). An example paper using the same format and examples of the style
of questions to be asked is given bellow, and another will be discussed in class during the revision
session.
Example Short Answer Questions:
1) Explain what is meant by TWO of the following terms:
Craft Specialisation
Artefact
Site Formation Processes
2) Describe a significant contributions to archaeology made by one of the following:
Willard Libby
Oscar Montelius
3) Discuss two factors which limit the applications of the following approaches to
archaeological research:
Experimental Archaeology
Trade and Exchange
4) Convert the following into numerical dates expressed as BC or AD
3rd Millennium BC
500 BP
5000 years ago
1 CE
33
5) Discuss what is being shown in the picture below – if you wish you may annotate the picture.
6) Describe 5 significant steps or techniques you might use to make a Pottery vessel
7) Discuss what kind of data can be recorded, analysed and/or interpreted using one of the
following techniques:
XRF (X-ray fluorescence)
Geographical Information Systems
8) Identify an artefact and discuss how the selection of raw materials would have affected its
production, function and value.
9) What techniques would you use to investigate where a piece of pottery came from
34
20: Feedback and Discussion
Comment on plants & animals as raw material sources for craft production Plants and animals have multiple roles in human society and play an active role in the
creation and transformation of archaeological sites. This should be considered during your
second term module ‘People and Environments’ as animals and plants provide vital raw
materials for a number of important technologies such as leatherwork, textiles, bone and
antler tools, woodworking, basketry and fuels which have implications for resource
management and environmental change as well as the form and function of archaeological
sites.
Readings
Barber, E. J. W. 1991 Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and
Bronze Ages. Princeton, Princeton University Press. INST ARCH KJ BAR
Brumfiel, E. 1996 The quality of tribute cloth: the place of evidence in archaeological
argument. American Antiquity 61:453-62. ELECTRONIC JOURNALS
Davis, S. 1987/1995. The Archaeology of Animals, (Chapters 1, 3 and 4, 5 if time). London:
Batsford. ISSUE DESK; BB3 DAV
Dijkamn, W., and A. Ervynck 1998 Antler, bone, horn, ivory and teeth : the use of animal
skeletal materials in Roman and early medieval Maastricht Maastricht: Dep. of Urban
Development INST ARCH DAHA Qto DIJ
Mc Donnell, J. G. 2001. Pyrotechnology. In D. R. Brothwell, Pollard, A.M. (eds), Handbook
of archaeological sciences, Chichester, John Wiley, 493-312. ORL; AJ BRO
McCorriston, J. 1997 The fiber revolution Current Anthropology 38(4): 517-549.
ELECTRONIC JOURNALS
Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters 6 and
8). London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
Sillar, B. 2000 Dung by Preference: The choice of fuel as an example of how Andean pottery
production is embedded within wider technical, social and economic practices.
Archaeometry 42(1), 43-60 ELECTRONIC JOURNALS
Wild, J. P. 1988 Textiles in archaeology. Shire. INST ARCH KJ WIL
35
APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2018-19 (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY)
This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to modules. It is not
a substitute for the full documentation, with which all students should become familiar. For
full information on Institute policies and procedures, see the IoA Student Administration
section of Moodle: https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/module/view.php?id=40867
For UCL policies and procedures, see the Academic Regulations and the UCL Academic Manual: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulations ; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/
GENERAL MATTERS ATTENDANCE: A minimum attendance of 70% is required. A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email. DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers whether there is any way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia should indicate it on each coursework cover sheet. COURSEWORK LATE SUBMISSION: Late submission will be penalized in accordance with current UCL regulations, unless formal permission for late submission has been granted. The UCL penalties are as follows:
The marks for coursework received up to two working days after the published date and time will incur a 10 percentage point deduction in marks (but no lower than the pass mark).
The marks for coursework received more than two working days and up to five working days after the published date and time will receive no more than the pass mark (40% for UG modules, 50% for PGT modules).
Work submitted more than five working days after the published date and time, but before the second week of the third term will receive a mark of zero but will be considered complete.
GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: Please note that there are strict UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of extensions for coursework. You are reminded that Module Coordinators are not permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a the appropriate UCL form, together with supporting documentation, via Judy Medrington’s office and will then be referred on for consideration. Please be aware that the grounds that are acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Student Disability Services to make special arrangements. Please see the IoA website for further information. Additional information is given here http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/
RETURN OF COURSEWORK AND RESUBMISSION: You should receive your marked
coursework within one month of the submission deadline. If you do not receive your work
within this period, or a written explanation, notify the Academic Administrator. When your
marked essay is returned to you, return it to the Module Co-ordinator within two weeks. You
must retain a copy of all coursework submitted.
36
CITING OF SOURCES and AVOIDING PLAGIARISM: Coursework must be expressed in
your own words, citing the exact source (author, date and page number; website address if
applicable) of any ideas, information, diagrams, etc., that are taken from the work of others.
This applies to all media (books, articles, websites, images, figures, etc.). Any direct
quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed
between quotation marks. Plagiarism is a very serious irregularity, which can carry heavy
penalties. It is your responsibility to abide by requirements for presentation, referencing and
avoidance of plagiarism. Make sure you understand definitions of plagiarism and the
procedures and penalties as detailed in UCL regulations: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current-
students/guidelines/plagiarism
RESOURCES MOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the module on Moodle. For help with Moodle, please contact Charlotte Frearson ([email protected])
Assessment This module is assessed by means of:
a) Experimental Archaeology Course field notebook assessment 1000 words (20%)
b) Short answers assessment – 1 hour test taken on final day of taught module (30%)
c) 2500 word essay (50% ) – submitted as hard-copy and Turnitin (see below)
If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should discuss this with the Module
Coordinator.
Students are not permitted to re-write and re-submit essays in order to try to improve their marks. The
nature of the assignments and possible approaches to the will be discussed in class, in advance of the
submission deadline. The Module Co-ordinator is willing to discuss a brief outline of the student's
approach to the assignment, provided this is planned suitably in advance of the submission date.
EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY COURSE – see previous information
SHORT ANSWER ASSESSMENT – done in class (see above)
ESSAY QUESTIONS
Although these questions relate most strongly to a few specific lectures and the
accompanying readings, students are encouraged to read widely and to draw on alternative
examples to illustrate their argument.
Choose one of the following:
1. With reference to at least two occupation sites, discuss what evidence archaeologists have used to
identify human occupation (e.g. hearths, post holes, wall foundations or artefact scatters) and whether
their interpretation of this evidence (e.g. as a seasonal camp, house or village) is justified.
2. Using two examples of archaeological sites from anywhere in the world, discuss how the
preservation of materials at the site has influenced their interpretation.
3. Using examples of how ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological data has been used to interpret
archaeological remains, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of using ethnographic analogies.
37
4. Choose two different artefact production technologies (e.g. lithics, pottery, metal, textiles or
woodworking) and compare how differences in the raw materials, processes of production and
preservation affects how archaeologists analyse and interpret the remains of these activities?
5. For this essay you should visit the British Museum and study the artefacts
Found with the cremation burial at Welwyn Garden City on display in Room 50. Then answer the
following question: ‘What influenced the selection of artefacts placed in this burial?’
38
ARCL 0012 SITES and ARTEFACTS
27th- 30th September Experimental Archaeology Course, West Dean, West Sussex
Lectures – Tuesdays, 2-4 pm
21) 2nd October Introduction: Module Structure, Purpose and Assessment – Bill Sillar
22) ‘Piecing Together the Past’ – Bill Sillar
23) 9th October ‘Activity areas’, ‘contexts’ and ‘formation processes’ – Bill Sillar
24) Archaeological Features: from postholes to fieldsystems - Ulrike Sommer
25) 16th October Ethnoarchaeology and Experimental Archaeology – Jennifer French
26) Habitations: Houses and Communities – Ulrike Sommer
27) 23rd October Dating Artefacts: from seriation to absolute dating – Thomas Kador
28) Graves and Hoards – Ulrike Sommer
29) 30th October Artefact composition and provenance – Ian Freestone
30) Style and Culture - Jennifer French
Reading Week – No Teaching
31) 13th November Technology in Society: Making artefacts – Bill Sillar
32) Lithics – Ivana Jovanovic
33) 20th November Exchange and interpreting distribution in archaeology – Bill Sillar
34) Pottery – Patrick Quinn
35) 27th November Consumption: Artefact function and social identity – Bill Sillar
36) Metals –Miljana Radivojevic
37) 4th December Conservation for archaeologists an introduction – James Hales
38) Revision Session – Bill Sillar
39) 11th December Short Answer Assessment
40) Feedback and discussion – Bill Sillar
Practicals: with Ivana Jovanovic
Thursday small group tutorials run on alternative weeks
To introduce materials, handling of artefacts and laboratory analysis
1) Understanding features and artefact assemblages (IoA collections)
2) Finds distribution / graves
3) Stone
4) Pottery
5) Metals
Assessment
g) Friday 5th October Experimental Archaeology Course assessment (20%)
(will be returned by 26th October)
h) 11th December Short answers assessment (30%) – held during class
(you will be given marks by 2nd January)
i) Tuesday 18th December maximum 2,625 word essay (roughly 2500 words) (50%)
(returned by 14th January – second week of 2nd term)