leiden university research assessment archaeology 2000 - 2005 · • applied physics delft...
TRANSCRIPT
Universiteit Leiden. The university to discover.
Leiden UniversityResearch AssessmentArchaeology2000 - 2005
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGYRESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
In this series, the following reports have been published:
• Computer Science Delft University of Technology / Leiden University 1996-2002
• Applied Physics Delft University of Technology / Physics Leiden University 1998-2002
• Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Vrije Universiteit / Leiden University 2003
• Pallas Research Institute for Historical, Art-Historical and Literary Studies, Leiden University 1998 – 2003
• Biology Leiden University 1998-2004
• Psychology Leiden University 1998-2004
• Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions, Leiden University 1999-2004
• Archaeology Leiden University 2000-2005
Colophon
• Bestuursbureau / Academische Zaken
• GrafiMedia
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
Leiden University
Research Assessment
Faculty of Archaeology
Review period
2000 - 2005
November 2005
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
2
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
3
Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................5
2. Overall assessment of the Faculty ......................................................................................................................................8
3. Assessment of the Research Sections ..............................................................................................................................10
3.1. Prehistoric Archaeology......................................................................................................................................................10
3.2. Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern Archaeology ................................................................................................11
3.3. Ancient America..................................................................................................................................................................12
3.4. Science-based Archaeology ................................................................................................................................................14
4. Assessment of the PhD Programme ................................................................................................................................16
5. Additional advice on specific items..................................................................................................................................18
5.1. Research foci........................................................................................................................................................................18
5.2. Maintaining or enlarging the chosen fields ......................................................................................................................18
5.3. Field-work activities............................................................................................................................................................19
5.4. Research Foci in Science based Archaeology ....................................................................................................................20
6. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................................21
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................................22
I Instruction to the Peer Review Committee ....................................................................................................................22
II Site Visit Programme and Attendance ............................................................................................................................24
III Evaluation Tables ..............................................................................................................................................................28
IV List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................................42
Response of the Faculty of Archaeology on the peer review report ..........................................................................................43
Research Assessment of Archaeology
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
4
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
5
Evaluation proceduresIn 2005, the Leiden University Board set up a Review
Committee in order to assess the quality of research of its
Faculty of Archaeology. The following report is the result
of this Peer Review.
The Review Committee was asked to evaluate the research
carried out between 2000 – 2005 on the basis of a self-
assessment prepared by the Faculty, a site visit, and a con-
sideration of a selection of the Faculty’s research publica-
tions. The self-assessment document was sent to the
Committee members prior to their visit to Leiden. The site
visit took place from 31 October – 2 November 2005.
The responsibilities of the Committee were set out in the
“Assignment for the Quality Assessment of Archaeology
Leiden University” (see Appendix I). In addition to a gen-
eral research quality assessment, the committee was also
asked to evaluate the quality of the Faculty’s PhD pro-
gramme as well as to reflect upon four additional ques-
tions concerning specific choices now facing the Faculty.
The Committee was instructed to carry out its review in
the manner laid down in “Standard Evaluation Protocol
2003 – 2009” (‘SEP’), including following its quantitative
rating system, which made its assessments on the basis of
SEP checklists (see Appendix IV). These checklists were
used by the Committee for the evaluation of the Faculty as
a whole, as well as for its respective Research Sections.
In addition to the selected academic publications which
were made available during the site visit, the Faculty of
Archaeology provided the following documentation:
• “Dynamic Communities, Report on the research Projects
of the Faculty of Archaeology 2000-2005” Faculty of
Archaeology , Universiteit Leiden, August 2005 (here-
after also called: ‘self-assessment’).
• Standard Evaluation Protocol 2003 – 2009 For Public
Research Organisations (SEP), a joint publication of
the VSNU, NWO and the KNAW.
• Graduate School Archaeology, Phd Admission and
Supervision (a draft outline for a PhD coordination
protocol).
• Werkplan 2005 – 2010 van het Centrum voor Kunst,
Archeologie en Exacte Wetenschappen, CAAS (Centre of
Art and Archaeological Surveys)
• PhD registration forms of the selected PhD students of
the respective Sections.
• Various hand-outs giving information about individ-
ual researchers and current activities.
The three-day visit followed the programme set up by the
Faculty of Archaeology. The Review Committee had the
chance to meet and discuss issues with the Faculty Board;
the Scientific Committee; the Rector Magnificus of the
Universiteit Leiden; the Research Section Coordinators
and its researchers. The Archaeology PhD students were
also invited to meet the Committee. The full programme
of the visit including the list of participants may be found
in Appendix II.
The Faculty of Archaeology in briefThe Faculty of Archaeology was created in 1997 from the
fusion of the existing Faculty of Pre-and Protohistory and
the Department of Archaeological Studies (then in the
Faculty of Arts), which brought to the new Faculty expert-
1. Introduction
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
6
ise in the Classical world, the Near East and Ancient
America. Other aspects of archaeology, notably the study
of Ancient Egypt and Asia, remained within the Faculty of
Arts.
In the breadth of its coverage the Faculty of Archaeology is
unique in the Netherlands. In European terms it ranks as a
medium-sized institution. The Faculty embraces a spec-
trum of specialists supported by several scientific labora-
tories. It has a strongly developed emphasis on the
Prehistory of North-West Europe and on Classical
Archaeology in addition to specializations in the
Palaeolithic period and in the archaeology of the Near
East, and the Americas. A number of archaeological sci-
ences, including archaeobotany, palynology, archaeozoolo-
gy, computer science applications, ceramic technology and
micro-wear analysis, are also taught.
In 1997 the Faculty was instrumental in setting up a sepa-
rate company Archol BV with the specific function of car-
rying out site evaluation and rescue archaeology in
advance of redevelopments and new building works. This
was in response to the needs created by the Government’s
ratification of the Valetta Convention (a UNESCO initia-
tive) which made it mandatory that major development be
preceded by archaeological evaluation and mitigation.
Archol provides students with valuable fieldwork opportu-
nities and is a significant contributor to high quality
research.
Today, the Faculty of Archaeology organizes its research
and teaching in four Sections:
1. Prehistoric Archaeology, with two research foci:
Human Origins and Prehistoric Farmers;
2. Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern
Archaeology , with the focus on The Archaeology of
Town and Country in the Circum-Mediterranean
Lands;
3. Ancient America, with Religion and Society (of native
American Cultures) as the focus; and
4. Science-based Archaeology.
The Archaeology self-assessment document, as well as this
Review Report, are both structured around this division
into four Sections.
This reportA previous research assessment reviewed the years 1988 –
1992 (and its results were published in 1994). Archaeology
then was still divided. This report deals with the
Archaeological research carried out between 2000 – 2005.
Chapter 2 gives an overall assessment of the Faculty of
Archaeology.
The Faculty’s four Research Sections are dealt with in
Chapter 3 (paragraphs 3.1 – 3.4).
In Chapter 4 the PhD-programme is discussed; while in
chapter 5 the various questions posed to the Committee in
its Assignment (Appendix I, 6.3 - 6.6) are considered.
The appendices provide mainly factual information about
the site visit and an overview of the evaluation tables
(Appendix III).
Composition of the Review Committee• Prof. Barry Cunliffe (Chairman)
Professor of European Archaeology at the University
of Oxford, United Kingdom.
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
7
• Prof. Graeme Barker
Disney Professor of Archaeology at the University of
Cambridge, United Kingdom and Director of the
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,
Cambridge, UK.
• Prof. Michael E. Smith
Professor of Anthropology, School of Human
Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University,
United States of America.
• Prof. Marc Waelkens
Professor of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology, and
Chairman of the Department of Archaeology, Fine
Arts and Musicology, University of Leuven, Belgium.
Secretary of the Review Committee was Sabine Kuypers
MA, free-lance academic consultant and former Scientific
Secretary of the International Institute for Asian Studies at
Leiden.
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
8
During the last eight years the diverse elements of the for-
mer Faculty of Pre- and Protohistory and the former
Department of Archaeological Studies have been moulded
together into a cohesive academic discipline with a single
overarching research ethos which encourages integration
while at the same time allowing the range and vitality of
the individual subject areas to flourish. The development
has been a considerable success and the University can be
well pleased with its world-quality Faculty of Archaeology.
We believe that there may now be good reasons to consid-
er bringing Egyptology and the archaeology of Asia into
the Faculty. If this were to be done it would be essential
for adequate resources to accompany the transfer.
The leadership of the Faculty and the management structure
which underpins it are both highly effective and the dynam-
ics between them enable a creative dialogue to be maintained.
The small Faculty Board, supported by specialist committees
and a Faculty Council, works effectively. The committees pro-
vide fora where ideas can be generated and procedures over-
seen while the Faculty Board takes executive decisions. Daily
contacts in informal discussion ensure that consensus is
reached and the system does not become too top-down.
The mission and goals of the Faculty are appropriate to an
organization wishing to maintain a high international sta-
tus. They build upon past strengths and are cognizant of
current trends in the discipline world-wide. The Faculty is
entirely correct in putting high quality innovative research
as its main driver and in aiming to continue to develop its
involvement with Dutch prehistory, while at the same time
building strengths in other regions of the world where its
academic staff already have well-focused research interests.
Its great strengths in many aspects of scientific archaeolo-
gy, previously applied largely to Dutch fieldwork, are now
being mobilized to address problems in other regions. This
integration is much to be encouraged as is the stated
desire to achieve a stronger thematic and theoretical focus.
The strategy and policy adopted by the Faculty since its cre-
ation in 1997 are sound. In deciding to build on its research-
intensive character, rather than to deflect significant effort
into cultural heritage management, the Faculty has, we
believe, made the right choice. We particularly commend the
efforts being made to safeguard the research time of staff by
careful readjustment of the teaching programme and by the
provision of sabbatical leave. The links with other faculties
within the University of Leiden, and the collaborations
developed and developing with Groningen and with Delft,
will do much to broaden the scientific base of the Faculty’s
activities. These strategies will further strengthen the
Faculty’s competitive edge in applications for external fund-
ing not least the all-important grants offered by the NWO.
The resources available to the Faculty overall are good
while the library provision in particular is excellent.
However, since archaeology occupies a central position
between the Arts and the hard Sciences, it requires labora-
tories and technicians as well as expensive scientific instru-
ments. We recommend that the University gives particular
consideration to these issues when next it revisits the for-
mulae by which central resources are allocated. In the
medium term, if archaeological sciences develop further,
there will be need for more laboratory space. The expan-
sion of the Masters courses is already putting pressure on
space in teaching laboratories.
The focus on acquiring research funding through NWO is
clearly correct. The Faculty has in place an effective system
for the critical review of new applications before they are
2. Overall assessment of the Faculty
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
9
submitted, to ensure that the combined experience of all is
brought to bear to sharpen funding proposals. The expan-
sion of the graduate programme, especially if completion
rates can be improved, will be a growing source of income.
Internally the Faculty has effective mechanisms for distrib-
uting funds fairly between research Sections and for sup-
porting the research needs of doctoral students.
The academic reputation of the Faculty is excellent overall.
It is world class in most of its research activities and
promises to remain so. While its particular strengths have
been in Dutch prehistory this in no way makes it parochial
since the methodologies and research regimes developed
here have universal value. The breadth of the subject areas
brought together in the 1997 merger make Leiden an espe-
cially attractive place for scholars interested in broad the-
matic approaches and in the close integration of archaeol-
ogy and archaeological science.
The Faculty is evidently cognizant of the wider audience to
be served. This is manifest in a variety of ways from the
publication of popular accounts of excavations and field-
work in Dutch to making films of projects for local con-
sumption. Archol provides a direct involvement with cul-
tural heritage resource management and a vehicle by
which students, taking part in its projects, can gain first-
hand experience of the commercial world. It is a valuable
adjunct to the Faculty’s outreach activities.
In its assessment of its strengths and weaknesses the Faculty
has been both perceptive and honest with itself, though in
our more detailed assessments of the research groups we
have sometimes offered a more nuanced reading. That said
all the main issues have been identified and an appropriate
set of actions proposed.
In conclusion we may say that this is a Faculty of excel-
lence which is coping soundly with a fast-developing situ-
ation both in the University in general and the discipline
at large. Much of its work is of high international quality
and it has in place the management structures required to
maintain and to build on its excellence.
Table 1. (Institute) Faculty as a whole
Evaluation of the institute with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 5
1.2 Mission and goals 5
1.3 Strategy and policy 4,5
1.4 Adequacy of the resources 4
1.5 Funding policies 4,5
1.6 Facilities 4,5
1.7 Academic reputation 5
1.8 Societal Relevance of the institute 5
1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses of the institute 4,5
Overall assessment of the institute 4,55 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
10
3.1 Research Section PrehistoricArchaeology
The Prehistoric Archaeology Section has a long-estab-
lished international reputation for the excellence of its
research, and continues to thrive. It is characterised by
outstanding leadership, which recognises the importance
of the dynamic between strategic direction and the nur-
turing of developing talent and new ideas.
The mission and goals of the Section are appropriate for a
research unit with considerable strengths in archaeological
theory and practice, and in their application to main-
stream high-level research questions of international sig-
nificance.
In terms of strategy and policy the Section has an excellent
track record in obtaining NWO and other peer-reviewed
research grants and has used these very effectively to
develop a series of outstanding PhD and post-doctoral
researchers. The mix of senior and junior researchers on
the core staff in the Section together with the postdoctoral
and PhD students make for a dynamic research culture.
The Section is characterised by effective partnerships at
many levels, from within the Faculty (especially with the
Science-based Archaeology Section and with Archol) to
international collaborations.
Facilities: the research is well supported by the Faculty in
terms of its budget, library holdings, laboratories, field
equipment, student work space etc, and there is effective
support (on a project-by-project basis as appropriate)
from the laboratories of the Science-Based Archaeology
Section.
Funding policies: there is clear evidence of strategic plan-
ning to maintain the sustainability of the research group
through well-timed high-quality grant applications. The
link with Archol has been particularly productive, enabling
the group to undertake work on a scale that is difficult to
achieve with normal funding for academic research. The
PhD cohort has traditionally been ‘home grown’, but
external PhD students are increasingly being attracted to
the Section, a welcome development given the strengths of
the research culture and training environment.
In terms of academic reputation, notwithstanding the dif-
ferent career stages of members of this group (with both
internationally established scholars as well as more recent-
ly appointed younger researchers) the Human Origins
group remains in many respects the spear-head of the
Faculty’s research excellence, with the consistent produc-
tion of major papers in high-impact international journals
on big and important themes about prehistoric societies,
whilst the Prehistoric Farmers group has an enviable
record of theoretically-informed empirical research with a
primary focus on meticulous field programmes investigat-
ing Dutch later prehistory. The quality of this fieldwork is
widely recognised, and the research findings are of inter-
national significance. The output record of the Section, in
terms of high-quality publications and trained doctoral
researchers, is excellent.
Societal relevance: the Section has recognized its responsi-
bilities to the well-being of rescue archaeology in Holland
by its contribution to the research effort and management
of Archol. Effort is also made to publish results in ways
that are accessible to the local public.
3. Assessment of the research sections
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
11
The Section has a sound appreciation of its strengths and
weaknesses, and is right to seek to publish as much work as
possible in major international journals to ensure that it
has the widest scholarly impact. It correctly identifies the
desirability of strengthening its research portfolio with a
Neolithic specialist, to ensure that the Faculty remains a
significant player in this buoyant and theoretically-impor-
tant research area following the retirement of Professor
Louwe Kooijmans.
Table 2. Summary Section Prehistoric Archaeology (see Appendix III)
Summary evaluation tables 1 - 5
5 4 3 2 11 Overall evaluation of the programme 5
2 Overall assessment of quality 5
3 Overall assessment of productivity 5
4 Overall assessment of relevance 4,5
5 Overall assessment of vitality 5
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 =
unsatisfactory
3.2 Research Section Classical,Mediterranean and Near EasternArchaeology
Although this Section was created only three years ago, by
bringing together researchers with very varied geographical
and chronological interests, it has already identified a com-
mon research topic in the study of ‘the archaeology of
town and country’. This has provided a focus for several
new doctoral dissertations extending across the
Mediterranean. Of the four research Sections in the
Faculty this one has been the most affected by reorganiza-
tion over the last few years. Thanks to efficient leadership
significant progress has been made in reforming the
Section although there is still work to be done. We suspect
that the interface with the Near East may require some
attention.
The mission and goals are sound but could perhaps be
more carefully integrated in view of the fact that there
appear to be some contradictions in the self-assessment
(compare pages 84 and 93).
The Section has developed a clear, and successful, strategy
of seeking to attract externally funded postgraduates, in
this way following a policy favoured by the University’s
management. However, since this group is not yet bal-
anced by postgraduate and postdoctoral positions
obtained through internal grants and NWO funding, the
continuity of research is not fully guaranteed given that
most self-funded postgraduates are likely to leave after
completing their PhDs. The division has added consider-
ably to its strength, and improved its age profile, by the
recent appointment of highly able young researchers to its
staff.
The funding policies within the group might be improved.
The Classical Section has not yet been successful in
obtaining NWO grants which is surprising considering the
high quality of its research. For the rest of the group
NWO funding is on the low side compared with other
Sections within the Faculty, although improving since
2003. The Faculty’s procedures for reviewing and improv-
ing applications before submission should help to increase
success rates.
The facilities enjoyed by the Section are very good and
were certainly appreciated by the postgraduates.
The international academic reputation of the leading
members of the Section is in general outstanding. The
originality of the approach and the ideas inherent in the
research programme are good though could be improved
with a greater involvement with science-based archaeolo-
gists (not least since interdisciplinary programmes seem to
be more favoured by NWO). We were pleased to see that
this issue was addressed through collaborative work with a
geophysical team from Ljubljana. This type of collabora-
tion should be further encouraged e.g. in the fields of geo-
morphology and palynolology, both of which are extreme-
ly valuable for field surveys. In Classical archaeology the
field survey programmes are highly innovative. The out-
put of scientific publications is high and the quality excel-
lent. The recent focus has been on publication in confer-
ence proceedings and books. To provide a balance and to
give greater impact to the research we feel that more
papers should be placed in the top peer-reviewed journals
where they deserve to be published.
The societal relevance of the group could be improved by
organizing events and producing publications aimed at a
wider audience.
In balancing strengths and weaknesses the Section takes a
realistic view of itself and there is no doubt that it is mov-
ing decisively in the right direction. The two areas that
specifically need to be addressed are the acquisition of
research funding and bringing to final publication long-
running field programmes.
Table 3. Summary Section Classical, Mediterranean andNear Eastern Archaeology (see Appendix III)
Summary evaluation tables 1 - 5
5 4 3 2 11 Overall evaluation of the programme 4
2 Overall assessment of quality 4
3 Overall assessment of productivity 4,5
4 Overall assessment of relevance 4
5 Overall assessment of vitality 4,5
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 =
unsatisfactory
3.3 Research Section Ancient America
The Ancient Americas Section has achieved an excellent
international reputation in the past decade and a half. This
Section contains two regional foci: the Caribbean and
Mesoamerica. The Mesoamerican focus in turn has three
diverse methodological approaches: (1) the analysis of pic-
torial documents (codices); (2) the study of archaeological
data (mainly visual art); and (3) ethnographic study of
modern groups. Since we were given little information on
the second two approaches for Mesoamerica it was more
difficult to assess them in our general discussion or in our
rankings. What follows is based primarily on the Caribbean
programme and on the Mesoamerican codex research in
general. We offer some additional comments on the
archaeological and ethnographic aspects of the
Mesoamerican programme at the end of this section of the
report.
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
12
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
13
The Caribbean programme, although relatively new, has
rapidly become a leading institutional presence in the
archaeology of that region and the Mesoamerican codex
programme is firmly established as one of the very top
international programmes in this area. The leadership of
the Ancient America Section is outstanding, actively
encouraging programmes that are dynamic and relevant to
modern scholarship. There is an excellent level of fruitful
interaction within the Section.
The mission and goals of the Section are forward-looking
and appropriate.
In terms of strategy and policy the Caribbean programme
has an excellent track record in securing NWO grants and a
clear vision of its future direction. There are concerns with
the viability and direction of the second two Mesoamerican
approaches (which we return to below) resulting in our
slightly lower ranking for strategy and policy.
The facilities available to the Section overall are excellent.
The Caribbean programme is well supported by grant
funding while the codex research can be pursued on a
lower level of grant funding. We understand that library
facilities are excellent.
The funding policies are generally well thought out with a
very good success rate overall in obtaining outside grants.
The heavy influx of externally-funded PhDs in the
Mesoamerican non-codex approaches needs to be moni-
tored closely.
The academic reputation is clearly excellent for the
Caribbean and Mesoamerican codex programmes. The for-
mer has rapidly grown into a top international programme
in the realm of Caribbean archaeology and Leiden is known
internationally as a leading centre of Mesoamerican codex
research. Both programmes are original and innovative in
approach but more effort could be made to frame the work
within wider disciplinary concerns and debates. The quali-
ty of the scientific publications is excellent. In particular the
Mesoamerican codex publications – both facsimile editions
and analyses – are among the most important works today
in this field. Overall the number and range of publications
(both scientific and professional) is impressive though we
feel that the impact of the publications would be greater if
more were placed in high-visibility international journals
and more of the Mesoamerican publications were in
English. There would be some benefit to individual scholars
if, in multi-authored publications, the contribution of each
author was made more explicit. A number of the recent
PhDs in the Mesoamerican Codex programmes are now
among the outstanding scholars in the field today.
The societal relevance of these programmes is excellent.
Staff of the Caribbean programme devote considerable
effort to local education initiatives on several of the
Caribbean islands, and the Leiden approach to
Mesoamerican codex research stresses productive interac-
tion with modern native peoples, including work in com-
munity outreach and education.
We rate the assessment of balance of strengths and weak-
nesses somewhat lower than the other categories largely
because of the fact that little information was provided on
the archaeological and ethnographic work of the
Mesoamerican programme.
Additional note on the archaeological and ethnographic
fieldwork of the Mesoamerican programme
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
14
meet student needs and that they conform to the overall
program of the Faculty.
Table 4. Summary section Ancient America (see Appendix III)
Summary evaluation tables 1 - 5
5 4 3 2 11 Overall evaluation of the programme 5
2 Overall assessment of quality 4,5
3 Overall assessment of productivity 5
4 Overall assessment of relevance 4,5
5 Overall assessment of vitality 5
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 =
unsatisfactory
3.4 Research Section Science-basedArchaeology
The Section is characterised by diversity rather than by
overarching research themes or clusters.
There is evidence of leadership, with a sound appreciation
of the existing strengths of the Section and of the potential
for their further development in collaborative projects
within the Faculty and with external collaborators (Archol,
Delft, Groningen etc).
The mission and goals of the Section are appropriate: to
maintain cutting-edge methodological research in its sev-
eral areas of specialism, and to apply those methodologies
to mainstream archaeological questions within collabora-
tive research projects with archaeological colleagues. The
We have found it difficult to assess these aspects of the
Mesoamerican programme largely because we met no PhD
students working in these areas and no scientific publica-
tions were listed in the assessment report.
It would be advisable for the Faculty to have an experienced
Mesoamerican field archaeologist in case PhD fieldwork in
Mesoamerican archaeology should have to be supervised.
We understand that for several years Leiden researchers
have not been involved in fieldwork in Mexico although in
the past some PhD candidates have taken part in archaeo-
logical fieldwork projects in association with staff archaeol-
ogists affiliated with the regional centre of the Instituto
Nacional de Antropologia e Historia in Oaxaca (INAH).
Foreign fieldwork always presents logistical and administra-
tive complexities, and these are best addressed by experi-
enced fieldworkers on the faculty who can instruct PhDs in
procedures such as obtaining proper permission from the
host country. If the faculty intends to continue to pursue
archaeological fieldwork in Mesoamerica, the best course of
action might be to appoint a senior academic with field-
work experience in this area.
The ethnographic study of modern groups is said to con-
tribute to aspects of iconographical and ethnohistorical
research on the Oaxaca region. There is no full-time ethno-
grapher on the Faculty but students receive training and
supervision from the Department of Cultural
Anthropology (Faculty of Social Sciences) and the National
Museum of Ethnology at Leiden. The supervision of
Mexican PhD students in this field is augmented by spe-
cialists in INAH Oaxaca and the University of Utrecht. We
feel that the Department should be encouraged to review
these arrangements to ensure that they are adequate to
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
15
notable weakness of the Section is in strategic thinking (see
“strengths and weaknesses” below).
The resources of the Section are very good: there are some
good to excellent laboratory facilities, along with technical
expertise, to support the activities of Faculty staff and the
existing (rather small) number of postdoctoral and PhD
students, though some of the facilities appear to be less fit
for purpose and laboratory layouts and sizes are likely to
restrict growth in graduate work (Masters training and
PhD research).
Research funding consists of a combination of NWO
grants and Archol contract work; there are areas of
strength, but funding appears to be spread unevenly, with
consequent effects on the size and vitality of the post-
graduate and graduate body. The graduate group is rela-
tively small considering the size of the group and the
career stages of its members.
The Section has a strong long-standing academic reputa-
tion in Science-based archaeology, especially for its work
on human-environment interactions in the Netherlands,
developed over the years in tandem with the Prehistoric
Archaeology Section. Today there are a number of well-
established specialisms in archaeological science, including
environmental archaeology (archaeobotany, archaeozoolo-
gy, geomorphology, palynology), computer modelling, and
lithic and ceramic analysis. There are undoubted areas of
excellence in terms of publications in top international
journals, research grants, collaborations, and graduate
training, but there are also areas with more modest
achievements, aspirations, and plans. The best work needs
to be targeted more consistently at high quality interna-
tional journals to achieve maximum impact.
The research results of the Section have also been brought
to the attention of the wider public effectively especially
within Dutch-language publications of collaborative
research projects on Dutch prehistory conducted with the
Prehistory Section.
The Section’s assessment of its strengths and weaknesses is
correct as far as it goes, but an additional weakness is that
strategic thinking does not appear to be well developed
across the Section as a whole. The staff profile is such that
choices and priorities will need to be made in the coming
years about how Leiden’s portfolio of Science-based
Archaeology specialisms should best be developed in rela-
tion to developments within archaeological science interna-
tionally on the one hand, and opportunities for potential
collaborations on the other (within the Faculty; with other
science departments in the institution, and with external
collaborators such as the very promising link being
planned with the University of Delft). The Section and the
Faculty will need to work together to agree strategic priori-
ties for maintenance, investment, and/or disinvestment in
Science-based Archaeology.
Table 5. Summary Section Science-based Archaeology (see Appendix III)
Summary evaluation tables 1 - 5
5 4 3 2 11 Overall evaluation of the programme 4
2 Overall assessment of quality 4
3 Overall assessment of productivity 4,5
4 Overall assessment of relevance 4,5
5 Overall assessment of vitality 4
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 =
unsatisfactory
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
16
4. Assessment of the PhD Programme
We understand that the University of Leiden has recently
embarked upon a policy of increasing its intake of PhD
students from countries outside Holland and that the
implications of caring for students from varied education-
al backgrounds and with differing packages of financial
support are now actively being considered. For this reason
we gave special consideration to the doctoral programme
and during our visit made time available to discuss with
four separate groups of PhD students, representing the
four programmes, their experience and their problems.
These meetings were held without other members of the
staff being present.
The students we met were able and highly articulate. The
groups were clearly well integrated into the Faculty at all
levels and were entirely satisfied with the way in which
they were being trained and supervised. This integration
has been achieved primarily through two sets of compul-
sory graduate seminars, a Faculty seminar held bi-weekly
and a seminar held regularly by the candidates’ research
Sections. By means of these seminars the students were
made to feel part of a Faculty research cohort as well as
part of their specific research cluster.
Meetings with supervisors were frequent and fruitful.
Every encouragement was given to students to attend con-
ferences and to give papers and all were provided with an
opportunity to teach. The University provides adequate
training sessions in teaching skills for those who wish to
attend them. We were satisfied that all the necessary struc-
tures were in place to train and supervise PhDs to a high
level but felt that there were many uncertainties and
potential ambiguities in the system which need, in due
course, to be resolved. This is more a reflection of
University policy and might more appropriately be
addressed at University level. Meanwhile the Faculty is
fully aware of these issues and is beginning to introduce a
tighter management system of its own, for example the
development of a standardized PhD Registration Form
which includes a record of student progress. A discussion
paper on PhD admissions and supervision, raising many
of the important issues, is currently being considered.
We fully understand that, hitherto, most PhDs have been
appointed to work on specific funded research pro-
grammes and are therefore regarded as employees. The
influx of PhDs, many from other countries with their own
sources of funding, introduces an entirely new dimension.
We believe that it is necessary to treat all PhDs, irrespec-
tive of funding, as a single group with the same rights and
obligations.
We strongly support the idea that all PhDs (including
home-grown ones) should first be accepted by the Faculty
as probationers and that at the end of their first year their
progress, assessed on submitted written work, should be
examined by two members of the Faculty (not including
the supervisor or mentor) and that a written report
should be prepared stating whether the candidate was fit
to proceed to full PhD status.
Further, we are of the opinion that each candidate, in dis-
cussion with his/her supervisor, should draw up a Personal
Development Plan (PDP) providing an agenda of skills to
be achieved and a timetable for this to progress. The PDP
should be reviewed at half-yearly or yearly intervals. We
suggest that some form of accreditation be introduced (for
example for having attended a training course in teaching
skills) so that a candidate is able to add a certificate to
his/her portfolio of achievements. This may seem unnec-
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
17
essarily bureaucratic but it will facilitate movement of
young academics between countries where certification of
this kind is expected.
One issue that needs careful consideration is the expecta-
tion that all PhD students will teach within the Faculty.
This is mutually beneficial and should be encouraged, so
long as excessive demands are not made. It is entirely rea-
sonable that a PhD, employed on a funded project, should
teach as part of his/her duties but is it fair to expect a self-
funding student to do so without payment? This is clearly
a matter for the University to consider.
Many of these issues are currently under active discussion
within the Faculty. It may be that the Faculty could devel-
op some general protocols for wider discussion within the
University. When these issues have been resolved we
believe that a clearly-stated code-of-practice should be
drawn up to give precise structure to the relationship
between PhD students and their Faculty.
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
18
5.1 Research foci
“What does the committee think of the concentration of the
research of the Faculty in the given research foci, considering
the available expertise at the Faculty and current important
research themes within the field of archaeology?”
(Assignment for the Quality Assessment of Archaeology
Leiden University, item 6.3).
The committee felt that there was much value to be had in
defining research foci. They give a degree of coherence and
direction to the work while not being unduly restrictive.
Moreover, they give a clear signal to colleagues from other
universities of the thrust of the Faculty’s work.
In Section 1: Prehistoric archaeology, the two foci, ‘Human
Origins’ and ‘Prehistoric Farmers’ are quite explicit and are
well founded on excellent staff expertise. They enable the
Section to develop its specialisms on a European-wide
basis while continuing to engage more broadly in current
dialogues and attract high quality grants and graduate stu-
dents. The themes will serve well for the mid to long term.
In Section 2: Archaeology of the Classical World and the
Near East, the research focus ‘The Archaeology of Town
and Country in the Circum-Mediterranean Lands’ was
evidently designed to contain the disparate interests of the
staff when the Section was created three years ago. That
several sub-themes have now emerged reflects a welcome
clarification of the more significant research clusters.
Within the next two to three years one might expect fur-
ther redefinition perhaps embracing some theoretical or
methodological concepts.
In Section 3: Ancient America, the single research focus
‘Religion and Society’ may be thought to be too wide. A
narrower focus on, say, the development of chiefdoms and
city states might more closely reflect the research thrust of
the group.
In Section 4: Science-based Archaeology. The Section
explicitly eschews research foci. Its mission, to contribute
to methodological developments in its various fields of
expertise, and to collaborate with archaeological col-
leagues in investigations of mainstream archaeological
research questions, is well founded. We do, however, feel
that there is a pressing need to define an overarching strat-
egy for development in the mid to long term. These mat-
ters have been addressed above.
The variety of research themes listed by the Sections fairly
reflects the research strengths of the Faculty. Together they
present a broad range of specialisms which give Leiden
Archaeology its distinctive international character.
5.2 Maintaining or Enlarging theChosen Fields
“Does the commission have any suggestions as to the choice
the Faculty faces: maintaining the chosen fields and investing
all resources for developing these foci, or enlarging them so as
to include e.g. the archaeology of Asia and/or the archaeology
of Medieval & Postmedieval Europe (concretely the archaeol-
ogy of Dutch city centres)?” (Assignment for the Quality
Assessment of Archaeology Leiden University, item 6.4).
The staff seems to agree that it would be better to main-
tain and strengthen existing fields than to expand into new
areas, and we agree with this general strategy. A possible
5 Additional advice on specific items
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
19
exception, discussed below, would be the transfer of exist-
ing Leiden archaeologists from the Faculty of Arts to the
Faculty of Archaeology. One suggested area of expan-
sion—Dutch medieval and postmedieval archaeology—
would require a considerable investment of personnel and
resources and would duplicate strong programs at other
Dutch universities. Some of the potential benefits of
expansion in this area—increased student training oppor-
tunities and better ties with cities and communities
throughout the country—are already being achieved
through the Archol program. This would seem to be a low
priority for the present.
The other suggested area of expansion—Asian archaeolo-
gy—may be possible with the transfer of existing faculty
within the University. Although we have no detailed infor-
mation about the archaeologists in the Faculty of Arts, we
understand that there is an Asian specialist and an Egyptian
Coptic specialist. Transfer of the former could provide a
cost neutral method for expanding into Asian archaeology,
which would presumably be further supported through ties
with CNWS and other Leiden programs in Asia. Both
archaeologists could be seen as expanding the Classical,
Mediterranean and Near Eastern Archaeology section.
The transfer of archaeologists from other faculties has
potential benefits as well as disbenefits. On the positive
side, this would expand the size of the Faculty, which
would be useful for its long-term welfare within the
University. It would add new skills and approaches to the
Faculty, with potential synergistic effects in at least one of
the Sections. The major concern about transferring staff is
the increased service and logistical strains on the Faculty
of Archaeology. To make this feasible, the University
would need to provide additional support resources.
5.3 Fieldwork activities
“Does the committee think that, given the choice for specific
research themes made by the Faculty, a concentration of
financial and human resources on a limited number of long-
term fieldwork activities would be advisable, and which sites /
areas seem to be the most promising at this stage?”
(Assignment for the Quality Assessment of Archaeology
Leiden University, item 6.5).
With the rapidly expanding student body, the possibilities
for fieldwork activities are likely to be mainly local and
Dutch. The present collaboration with Archol and the
planned collaboration with city archaeologists in the region
should be further developed in a more structured way. This
kind of field training deserves to be a priority and to be
stimulated as far as possible since it offers the best job-
opportunities for the future. The appointment to these
projects of specially-trained supervisors, to take charge of
teaching the students, is recommended.
The need to become familiar with all kinds of material evi-
dence of the chronologically and geographically diverse
cultures that have become the focus of research at Leiden
also requires to be approached with a degree of flexibility
since not all groups run an equally varied range of excava-
tion programmes, under their own direction. To provide
such a range of excavation experience, which has the
advantage of exposing students to a spectrum of material
culture and fieldwork methodologies, it would be useful to
explore the possibility of collaborating with other universi-
ties or teams working in the same regions or periods. In
cases where such collaboration already exists, as well as in
new ventures, it would be advisable to establish protocols
to guarantee the quality of the training sought.
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
20
As regards the choice of specific research themes made by
the Faculty we consider it to be inadvisable to concentrate
financial and human resources on a limited number of
long-term fieldwork activities in any one area, not even
the Netherlands.
The programme should continue to develop all the cur-
rent research topics of the Faculty since, at this stage, none
of the sites/regions under investigation can be considered
to be more promising than any other. Though varied they
are all of high quality.
5.4 Research foci in Science-basedArchaeology
“How does the commission evaluate the perspectives for the
development of one or more specific research line(s) or foci in
Sciences (section 4)?” (Assignment for the Quality
Assessment of Archaeology Leiden University, item 6.6).
The group has particular strengths in bioarchaeology
(including artefact residue analysis) and archaeological
computing. The Commission accepts the case made by the
group that it should maintain its diversity rather than cre-
ate one or two artificial unifying research areas, but is not
of the opinion that this stance removes the need for strate-
gic planning regarding prioritising areas for maintaining,
increasing, or decreasing investment in the future (see
3.4).
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
21
Since its creation in 1997 the Faculty of Archaeology has
sought to integrate its constituent parts into a seamless
whole. This it has achieved with notable success. While its
four research Sections maintain their individual pro-
grammes a benevolent management structure enables the
Faculty to function well as a single entity with its own dis-
tinct identity. It is clear that the students as well as the staff
feel allegiance both to the Faculty and to their particular
Section. We feel that the time is opportune for the
University to consider enlarging the Faculty by the addi-
tion of staff from the Faculty of Arts currently teaching
Egyptology and the archaeology of Asia. The establish-
ment of a chair in one of these subjects would do much to
give coherence and direction to this important area of
research.
The Faculty’s recent attempts to broaden its range by
developing partnerships with the Universities of
Groningen and Delft are much to be welcomed. Activities
of this kind, together with the further development of
Archol, will create a research network well rooted in the
practice of scientific and public archaeology. Siting the
Faculty in this way gives it added attraction as a research
centre while opening up new opportunities for research
funding.
The doctoral programmes are working well. We were par-
ticularly impressed by the range of highly able students
now on course and the opportunities open to them. We
do, however, recommend that the University gives full
consideration to the implications of attracting more over-
seas PhDs and moves towards formalizing their research
training. The steps which the Faculty is itself taking are
moving in the right direction.
The Faculty is currently carrying out research of high qual-
ity, widely recognized to be of international importance. Its
plans for consolidation and development will, undoubted-
ly, ensure the further enhancement of the Faculty’s reputa-
tion worldwide. In the quality of its research, the broad but
focused scope of its activities and the range of young
researchers which it is attracting the Faculty can fairly
claim to be one of the world leaders in archaeology.
6. Conclusions
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
22
Appendix I
Assignment for the Quality Assessment of ArchaeologyLeiden UniversityThe Board of the Universiteit Leiden duly observing the
Standard Evaluation Protocol 2003–2009 (SEP) for the qual-
ity assessment of research of public research organisations,
certifies that:
1. A Review Committee for the research programmes in
the Faculty of Archaeology of Leiden University has
been appointed.
2. Prof. B. Cunliffe (Oxford University); has been
appointed Chairman and member of the Review
Committee.
3. The following persons have been appointed Members
of the Committee:
Prof. M. Waelkens (Universiteit Leuven)
Prof. M. Smith (Albany, New York) Prof. G. Barker
(Cambridge University)
4. The Board of the Universiteit Leiden has appointed
Dr. S.A.M. Kuypers, MA Secretary of the Review
Committee.
5. In accordance with the SEP, the tasks of the Review
Committee are:
• Retrospective analysis
1. to assess from a national and international per-
spective the quality, productivity, academic and
social relevance, vitality and feasibility of the
research of the entire Institute and of each
research programme or group of the Institute
(the basis of the assessment shall be information
provided by the Institute itself (self-evaluation
document), authorised by the Board of the
University, and obtained through interviews with
the director (or board) of the Institute, the
research leaders, the advisory committee and any
other proper person(s) selected at the discretion
of the Review Committee);
2. to assess the leadership (management), strategy
and (funding) policy and the functioning of the
research organisation including its (human)
resources and facilities;
3. to assess the academic reputation of the Institute
and of each programme / group and the relevance
of both to the national and international academ-
ic community and to society;
• Prospective analysis:
4. to assess according to identical criteria the future
plans of the Institute (strengths and weaknesses)
and each programme / group;
5. to advise on specific changes in the organisation
and mission of the Institute and/or its intentions;
• Judgement
6. to assess these aspects on a five-point scale: excellent,
very good, good, satisfactory and unsatisfactory;
7. if applicable, to judge separately in the assessment
the quality of the research in a national and inter-
national context;
8. if applicable, to make distinctions in the judge-
ments to highlight the excellence of specific parts
of the research;
9. to take into account the standards of any given
academic discipline, the disciplinary and interdis-
ciplinary relations, the national or international
Appendix
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
23
context of the Institute and its academic fields,
and the mission of the Institute;
6. In addition, the Review Committee is asked to assess
the following aspects (not included in the SEP) con-
cerning the PhD training and supervision:
1. The training and supervision of the PhD stu-
dents, the effectiveness of the policy on this and
its results.
2. The (individual) supervision of PhD students.
And the following additional questions concerning the
research of the Faculty of Archaeology:
3. What does the committee think of the concentra-
tion of the research of the Faculty in the given
research foci, considering the available expertise
at the Faculty and current important research
themes within the field of archaeology?
4. Does the commission have any suggestions as to
the choice the Faculty faces: maintaining the cho-
sen fields and investing all resources for develop-
ing these foci, or enlarging them so as to include
e.g. the archaeology of Asia and/or the archaeolo-
gy of Medieval & Postmedieval Europe (concrete-
ly the archaeology of Dutch city centres)?
5. Does the committee think that, given the choice
for specific research themes made by the Faculty,
a concentration of financial and human resources
on a limited number of long-term fieldwork
activities would be advisable, and which sites /
areas seem to be the most promising at this stage?
6. How does the commission evaluate the perspec-
tives for the development of one or more specific
research line(s) or foci in Sciences (section 4)?
7. Each member of the Review Committee shall give his
or her professional opinion based on competence,
objectivity, independence, impartiality, care and con-
sistency. Members of the Review Committee shall not
experience personal, professional or financial conflicts
of interest from participating in the assessment proce-
dure. Any potential conflict of interest shall be report-
ed in advance to the Board of the Universiteit Leiden
and to the Chairman of the Review Committee.
8. The Review Committee shall decide on its own assess-
ment procedures, taking into account the SEP guidelines.
9. The Review Committee is asked to draw up a report of
the results of the assessment within 6 weeks, in accor-
dance with the SEP and reacting to the additional
questions at 6 above. It is requested to submit the
report simultaneously to the Board of the Faculty and
the Board of the University, after correcting the draft
evaluation report for factual errors or obvious mis-
takes on the basis of the comments of the Director of
the Institute.
10. The Review Committee is asked to draw up a confi-
dential letter to the management regarding personnel
matters, sensitive decisions about future plans, con-
tractual issues and such like, and to submit the letter
simultaneously to the Board of the University and the
Board of the Faculty.
11. The results of the review will be made available in a
public report in accordance with the SEP guidelines,
including the reply of the management of the Institute
to the issues raised by the Review Committee in its
report.
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
24
Appendix II
Site Visit Programme & Attendance Archaeology Peer Review Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University October 30 – November 2, 2005
Assessment CommitteeProf. B.W. Cunliffe, Professor of European Archaeology
at the University of Oxford (UK), Chair.
Prof. G. Barker, Disney Professor of Archaeology at
the University of Cambridge (UK) and Director of
the McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research.
Prof. M.E. Smith, Professor of Anthropology, School of
Human Evolution & Social Change, Arizona State
University (USA).
Prof. M. Waelkens, Professor of Eastern Mediterranean
Archaeology, and Department chair of the
Department of Archaeology, Fine Arts and
Musicology, at the University of Leuven (Belgium).
S. Kuypers, MA Secretary to the Committee.
The full Committee and its Secretary attended all meet-
ings. Unless otherwise indicated, these meetings took place
in room 138 (KITLV Conference Room), Reuvensplaats 2,
Leiden.
Sunday October 30, 2005
• 17.30 Welcome reception & dinner (Prentenkabinet,
Kloksteeg 25)
Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen, Dean of the Faculty
Dr. Th. Van Kolfschoten, Chair of Education
Prof. W. Roebroeks, Chair of the Scientific
Committee
Dr. R. Manning, assessment coordinator Faculty of
Archaeology
Monday October 31, 2005
• 09.30–11.00 Closed meeting
• 11.00–12.00 Meeting with the Faculty Board
Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen, Dean
Dr Th. van Kolfschoten
Dr M. Janssen, Managing Director Faculty of
Archaeology
Ms M. Boonstra, Student Member
Ms C. Regoor, Executive Secretary to the Faculty
Board
• 12.15–14.15 Lunch (Faculty Club, Rapenburg 6) with
the Dean and members of the Scientific Committee
Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen
Prof. W. Roebroeks
Dr M. Hoogland
Dr M.J. Versluys
Dr D. Fontijn
• 14.30–16.30 Meeting with the Research Section
coordinators:
Prof. H. Fokkens (section Prehistory: Agrarian
Communities)
Prof. W. Roebroeks (section Prehistory: Human
Origins)
Prof. J. Bintliff (section Classical Archaeology and
Near East)
Dr C.L. Hofman (section Ancient America:
Caribbean)
Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen (section Ancient America:
Mesoamerica)
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
25
Prof. Harry Fokkens (professor of Prehistoric
Archaeology)
Dr David Fontijn (assistant professor Prehistoric
Farming Communities)
Prof. Leendert Louwe Kooijmans (emeritus profes-
sor Prehistoric Archaeology)
Dr Peter Jongste (postdoc Prehistoric Farming
Communities)
The development of the cultural landscape (2000-
800 BC) Bronze Age research and Heritage policy
Stijn Arnoldussen (PhD candidate Prehistoric
Farming Communities)
Luc Amkreutz (PhD candidate Prehistoric
Farming Communities)
Dr Alexander Verpoorte (lecturer in Palaeolithic
Archaeology)
Prof. Wil Roebroeks (professor of Palaeolithic
Archaeology)
Prof. Raymond Corbey (Epistomology/ Human
Origins)
Dr Kathy MacDonald (postdoc Human Origins)
Neandertal learning and subsistence skills Ecology
and evolution of hominin geographic ranges
Nasma Anwar (postdoc Human Origins)
Life histories of fossil hominins, in particular of
Neandertals
Gerrit Dusseldorp (PhD candidate Human
Origins)
• 10.45–11.00 Meeting with the PhDs of the Research
Section Classical Archaeology and Near East
Dave Hahs (self-funded, promotor Bintliff)
Medieval Malta: settlement patterns, lost villages,
and rural architecture
Dr Th. van Kolfschoten (section Science-based
Archaeology)
• 16.30–17.30 Office hour: possibility for individual
members to meet the committee
Prof. L.P. Louwe Kooijmans
• 18.15–19.00 Reception at the office of
Prof. D.D. Breimer, Rector Magnificus,
Leiden University, Rapenburg 70
Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen, Dean
• 19.30 Dinner (In den Doofpot, Turfmarkt 9)
Tuesday November 1, 2005
• 9.30–9.45 Meeting with PhDs of the Research Section
Prehistory
Stijn Arnoldussen (internal PhD, promotor
Fokkens)
A living Landscape: Bronze Age settlements in the
Dutch river area, 2000-800 BC
Luc Amkreutz (internal PhD, promotor Louwe
Kooijmans)
A behavioural and taphonomical approach of sites
and finds in the Lower Rhine Basin
Gerrit Dusseldorp (internal PhD, promotor
Roebroeks)
Thoughtful hunters? The archaeology of
Neanderthal subsistence
• 9.45–10.30 Meeting with the Research Section
Prehistory (tenured staff, postdocs and PhDs)
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
26
Marina Gkiasta (Saripolio Foundation University
of Athens, promotor Bintliff)
The Historiography of Landscape research in Crete
Tatiana Ivleva (self-funded, promotor Bintliff)
Roman Britain outside Britain: representation of the
island in the Roman literature, art, and coinage and
by Britons themselves
Erik van Rossenberg (self-funded, parttime; pro-
motor Bintliff)
Between households and communities. Layers of
social life in the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age
Kyriakos Savvopoulos (self-funded, promotor
Bintliff)
The Egyptian face of Alexandria and its contribu-
tion to the Greco-Egyptian interplay
Hannah Stöger (self-funded, promotor Bintliff)
Society and urban infrastructure at the city of Ostia
Noor Winckel (internal PhD, promotor Geertman)
Design principles and construction history of atri-
um-peristyle houses in the social context of pre-
Roman Pompeii
Arne Wossink (internal PhD, promotor Bintliff)
Human settlement during the Early and Middle
Bronze Age in the marginal zone of Jezirah, Syria
Dianne van der Zande (self-funded/parttime, pro-
motor Bintliff)
Relations between Town and Country in the Near
East in Roman-Byzantine times: an analysis of
domestic space)
• 11.00–11.45 Meeting with the Research Section
Classical Archaeology and Near East (tenured
staff, postdoc’s and PhDs)
Prof. John Bintliff (professor of Classical and
Mediterranean Archaeology, Head of Classical,
Mediterranean and Near Eastern Section)
Dr Gerrit van der Kooij (assistant professor /
Ancient Near East)
Dr Diederik Meijer (associate professor / Ancient
Near East)
Dr Miguel-John Versluys (assistant professor /
Hellenistic and Roman World)
• 12.00–13.30 Lunch (Faculty Club, Rapenburg 6)
• 14.00–14.15 Meeting with the PhDs of the Research
Section Ancient AmericaAlistair Bright (Internal PhD, promotor Jansen)
Amerindian occupation and the intra- and inter-
insular relationships on the southern Lesser Antillean
islands
Daan Isendoorn (internal PhD, promotor Jansen)
The provenance of raw materials in the pre-
Columbian insular Caribbean
Alice Samson (Internal PhD, promotor Jansen)
Living and dying in a Taino community.
Organisation of settlement space and residence rules
among the Taino, the indigenous people of the
Caribbean encountered by Columbus
• 14.15–15.00 Meeting with the Research Section
Ancient America (tenured staff, postdoc’s and PhD’s)
Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen (Professor of Archaeology
and History of Mesoamerica / Head of Section
focus Mesoamerica)
Dr Corinne L. Hofman (associate professor/ Pre-
Columbian Caribbean / Head of section focus
Caribbean)
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
27
Dr Menno Hoogland (assistant Professor / pre-
Columbian Caribbean)
Dr Arie Boomert (postdoc / pre-Columbian
Caribbean)
The Exchange of Materials and Exotics among insu-
lar societies in the Pre- Columbian Caribbean
Dr Rafael Panhuysen (postdoc / pre-Columbian
Caribbean)
Human Skeletal Remains
Dr Adriana Churampi (postdoc / Ethnohistiry
Caribbean)
Ethnohiatorical sources on the Taino
Alistair Bright (PhD candidate Caribbean)
Daan Isendoorn (PhD candidate Caribbean)
Alice Samson (PhD candidate Caribbean)
• 15.15–15.30 Meeting with the PhDs of the Research
Section Science-based Archaeology
Yvonne Lammers-Keijsers (internal PhD, promo-
tor Louwe Kooijmans)
Use-wear analysis of shell, flint and stone artefacts
from Morel and Anse à la Gourde, Guadeloupe
Welmoed Oud (internal PhD, promotor Bakels)
The landscape, with an emphasis on vegetation and
its potential and constraints concerning subsistence,
of the wet parts of The Netherlands during the Late
Mesolithic and early Neolithic (6000-3500 cal BC)
• 15.30–16.15 Visit to the labs of the Research Section
Science-based Archaeology
• 16.15–17.00 Meeting with the Research Section
Science-based Archaeology (tenured staff, post-
doc’s and PhD’s)
Dr A. van As (lecturer in Ceramic Technology)
Dr A.L. van Gijn (Associate professor in Material
Culture Science)
Dr H. Kamermans (associate professor / Computer
Applications in Archaeology, Predictive Modelling,
GIS)
Dr Th. van Kolfschoten (Co-ordinator of the
Section; associate professor in Paleo-and
Archaeozoology)
Prof. ir. H. van der Plicht (Visiting professor /
Isotope research, scientific leader of C-14 labora-
tory Groningen)
Dr Joanne Mol (lecturer Quaternary Geology)
Dr Chiara Cavallo (Lecturer Archaeo-zoology)
Yvonne Lammers-Keijsers
Welmoet Out
• 17.15–18.30 Drinks in the Library of the
Archaeological building (Reuvensplaats 4)
All members of the Faculty of Archaeology invited
• 19.30 Dinner (Rice table at Indonesian Restaurant
Surakarta, Noordeinde 51-53) with the Faculty
Board and Faculty of Archaeology professors
Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen
Dr Th. van Kolfschoten
Dr M. Janssen
Ms Marije Boonstra
Prof. L.P. Louwe Kooijmans
Prof. W. Roebroeks
Prof. H. van der Plicht
Prof. R. Corbey
Prof. J. Bintliff
Prof. H. Fokkens
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
28
Wednesday November 2, 2005
• 9.30–10.00 Meeting with the Dean and the Chair of
the Scientific Committee,
Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen and Prof. W. Roebroeks
• 10.00–10.45 Possibility for PhDs and Postdocs to
meet with the Committee (no researchers made
use of this possibility)
• 10.45-16.30 Closed meeting of the Review
Committee/start of Report
• 12.30 Working lunch
• 16.30–17.00 Exposé of the Committee’s first
impressions (Archaeology Library)
Faculty Board and Research Section coordinators
Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen
Dr Th. van Kolfschoten
Ms M. Boonstra
(Dr M. Janssen)
(Ms C. Regoor)
(Dr R. Manning)
Prof. H. Fokkens
Prof. W. Roebroeks
Prof. J. Bintliff
Dr C.L. Hofman
• 17.00 Drinks in the Library of the Archaeological
building
Faculty Board and Research Section coordinators
Prof. M.E.R.G.N. Jansen
Dr Th. van Kolfschoten
Ms M. Boonstra
(Dr M. Janssen)
(Ms C. Regoor)
(Dr R. Manning)
Prof. H. Fokkens
Prof. W. Roebroeks
Prof. J. Bintliff
Dr C.L. Hofman
• 18.30 Individual dinner arrangements
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
29
Appendix III
Evaluation tablesThe tables are to be found in the “Standard Evaluation Protocol for Public Research Organisations”, p. 39 – 41.
• Evaluation Table ad Chapter 2 : Faculty of Archaeology
(Institute) Faculty as a wholeEvaluation of the institute with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 5
1.2 Mission and goals 5
1.3 Strategy and policy 4,5
1.4 Adequacy of the resources 4
1.5 Funding policies 4,5
1.6 Facilities 4,5
1.7 Academic reputation 5
1.8 Societal Relevance of the institute 5
1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses of the institute 4,5
Overall assessment of the institute 4,5
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
30
• Evaluation Tables ad Chapter 3: Research Sections
3.1 Research Section Prehistoric Archaeology
1. Research Programme - Section Prehistoric ArchaeologyEvaluation of the programme with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 5
1.2 Mission and goals 5
1.3 Strategy and policy 5
1.4 Adequacy of the resources 5
1.5 Funding policies 5
1.6 Facilities 5
1.7 Academic reputation 5
1.8 Societal Relevance 5
1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses 5
Overall 5
2. Quality - Section Prehistoric ArchaeologyEvaluation of quality with respect to: 5 4 3 2 12.1 Originality of the approach and ideas 5
2.2 Significance of the contribution to the field 5
2.3 Coherence of the research programme 4,5
2.4 Publication Strategy 4,5
2.5 Prominence of the programme director 5
2.6 Prominence of the other members of the research group 4,5
2.7 Quality of scientific publications (scientific impact) 4,5
2.8 Quality of other results 5
Overall assessment of quality 5
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
3. Productivity - Section Prehistoric ArchaeologyConsidering the number of staff, how do you evaluate the productivity with respect to: 5 4 3 2 13.1 Number of Ph.D. theses 5
3.2* Number of scientific publications 5
3.3 Number of professional publications 5
3.4 Other results (if applicable) - - - - -
3.5 Distribution of published outcome within the group 5
Overall assessment of productivity 5
4. Relevance - Section Prehistoric ArchaeologyConsidering the stated mission of this programme, how do you evaluate
the relevance of the research with respect to: 5 4 3 2 14.1 The advancement of knowledge 5
4.2 The dissemination of knowledge 4,5
4.3 The implementation of knowledge 4,5
Overall assessment of relevance 4,5
5. Vitality and Feasibility - Section Prehistoric ArchaeologyConsidering the present status and future Developments (if known) of staff and
facilities, how do you evaluate the long-term viability of the programme: 5 4 3 2 15.1 In view of the past scientific performance 5
5.2 In view of future plans and ideas 5
5.3 In view of staff age and mobility 5
Overall assessment of vitality 5
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
31
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
32
Summary evaluation Section Prehistoric Archaeology / tables 1 - 5 5 4 3 2 1
1 Overall evaluation of the programme 5
2 Overall assessment of quality 5
3 Overall assessment of productivity 5
4 Overall assessment of relevance 4,5
5 Overall assessment of vitality 5
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
3.2 Research Section Classical Mediterranean and Near Eastern Archaeology
1. Research Programme - Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern ArchaeologyEvaluation of the programme with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 4,5
1.2 Mission and goals 4
1.3 Strategy and policy 4
1.4 Adequacy of the resources 3,5
1.5 Funding policies 4
1.6 Facilities 5
1.7 Academic reputation 4,5
1.8 Societal Relevance 3
1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses 3,5
Overall 4
2 Quality - Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern ArchaeologyEvaluation of quality with respect to: 5 4 3 2 12.1 Originality of the approach and ideas 3,5
2.2 Significance of the contribution to the field 4,5
2.3 Coherence of the research programme 4
2.4 Publication Strategy 3,5
2.5 Prominence of the programme director 5
2.6 Prominence of the other members of the research group 4,5
2.7 Quality of scientific publications (scientific impact) 4
2.8 Quality of other results - - - - -
Overall assessment of quality 4
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
33
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
3. Productivity - Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern ArchaeologyConsidering the number of staff, how do you evaluate the productivity with respect to: 5 4 3 2 13.1 Number of Ph.D. theses 3,5
3.2* Number of scientific publications 4
3.3 Number of professional publications 5
3.4 Other results (if applicable) - - - - -
3.5 Distribution of published outcome within the group 5
Overall assessment of productivity 4,5
4. Relevance - Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern ArchaeologyConsidering the stated mission of this programme, how do you evaluate
the relevance of the research with respect to: 5 4 3 2 14.1 The advancement of knowledge 4,5
4.2 The dissemination of knowledge 4
4.3 The implementation of knowledge 4
Overall assessment of relevance 4
5. Vitality and Feasibility - Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern ArchaeologyConsidering the present status and future Developments (if known) of staff and
facilities, how do you evaluate the long-term viability of the programme: 5 4 3 2 15.1 In view of the past scientific performance 4,5
5.2 In view of future plans and ideas 4
5.3 In view of staff age and mobility 5
Overall assessment of vitality 4,5
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
34
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
35
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
Summary evaluation Section Classical, Mediterranean and Near Eastern Archaeology / tables 1 - 5 5 4 3 2 1
1 Overall evaluation of the programme 4
2 Overall assessment of quality 4
3 Overall assessment of productivity 4,5
4 Overall assessment of relevance 4
5 Overall assessment of vitality 4,5
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
36
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
3.3 Research Section Ancient America
The ratings below are based on the Caribbean programme and on the Mesoamerican codex research programme.
1. Research Programme - Section Ancient AmericaEvaluation of the programme with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 5
1.2 Mission and goals 5
1.3 Strategy and policy 4,5
1.4 Adequacy of the resources 5
1.5 Funding policies 5
1.6 Facilities 5
1.7 Academic reputation 5
1.8 Societal Relevance 5
1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses 4
Overall 5
2. Quality - Section Ancient AmericaEvaluation of quality with respect to: 5 4 3 2 12.1 Originality of the approach and ideas 5
2.2 Significance of the contribution to the field 4,5
2.3 Coherence of the research programme 5
2.4 Publication Strategy 4,5
2.5 Prominence of the programme director 5
2.6 Prominence of the other members of the research group 4,5
2.7 Quality of scientific publications (scientific impact) 4,5
2.8 Quality of other results* ? ? ? ? ?
Overall assessment of quality 4,5* in the framework of this research assessment, no ‘other results’ were shown to the Committee.
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
37
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
3. Productivity - Section Ancient AmericaConsidering the number of staff, how do you evaluate the productivity with respect to: 5 4 3 2 13.1 Number of Ph.D. theses 5
3.2* Number of scientific publications 4,5
3.3 Number of professional publications 5
3.4 Other results (if applicable) - - - - -
3.5 Distribution of published outcome within the group 4,5
Overall assessment of productivity 5
4. Relevance - Section Ancient AmericaConsidering the stated mission of this programme, how do you evaluate
the relevance of the research with respect to: 5 4 3 2 14.1 The advancement of knowledge 5
4.2 The dissemination of knowledge 4,5
4.3 The implementation of knowledge 4,5
Overall assessment of relevance 4,5
5. Vitality and Feasibility - Section Ancient AmericaConsidering the present status and future Developments (if known) of staff and
facilities, how do you evaluate the long-term viability of the programme: 5 4 3 2 15.1 In view of the past scientific performance 5
5.2 In view of future plans and ideas 5
5.3 In view of staff age and mobility 5
Overall assessment of vitality 5
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
38
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
Summary evaluation Section Ancient America / tables 1 – 5 5 4 3 2 1
1 Overall evaluation of the programme 5
2 Overall assessment of quality 4,5
3 Overall assessment of productivity 5
4 Overall assessment of relevance 4,5
5 Overall assessment of vitality 5
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
39
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
3.4 Research Section Science-based Archaeology
1. Research Programme - Section Science-based ArchaeologyEvaluation of the programme with respect to: 5 4 3 2 11.1 Leadership 3
1.2 Mission and goals 5
1.3 Strategy and policy 3
1.4 Adequacy of the resources 5
1.5 Funding policies 5
1.6 Facilities 4,5
1.7 Academic reputation 4,5
1.8 Societal Relevance 4,5
1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses 3,5
Overall 4
2. Quality - Section Science-based ArchaeologyEvaluation of quality with respect to: 5 4 3 2 12.1 Originality of the approach and ideas 4,5
2.2 Significance of the contribution to the field 5
2.3 Coherence of the research programme 3
2.4 Publication Strategy 4,5
2.5 Prominence of the programme director* - - - - -
2.6 Prominence of the other members of the research group 4
2.7 Quality of scientific publications (scientific impact) 4
2.8 Quality of other results* - - - - -
Overall assessment of quality 4* not applicable
3. Productivity - Section Science-based ArchaeologyConsidering the number of staff, how do you evaluate the productivity with respect to: 5 4 3 2 13.1 Number of Ph.D. theses 4
3.2* Number of scientific publications 4,5
3.3 Number of professional publications 5
3.4 Other results (if applicable) - - - - -
3.5 Distribution of published outcome within the group 4,5
Overall assessment of productivity 4,5
4. Relevance - Section Science-based ArchaeologyConsidering the stated mission of this programme, how do you evaluate
the relevance of the research with respect to: 5 4 3 2 14.1 The advancement of knowledge 5
4.2 The dissemination of knowledge 4,5
4.3 The implementation of knowledge 4,5
Overall assessment of relevance 4,5
5. Vitality and Feasibility - Section Science-based ArchaeologyConsidering the present status and future Developments (if known) of staff and
facilities, how do you evaluate the long-term viability of the programme: 5 4 3 2 15.1 In view of the past scientific performance 4,5
5.2 In view of future plans and ideas 3
5.3 In view of staff age and mobility 4
Overall assessment of vitality 4
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
40
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
41
5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory
Summary evaluation Section Science-based Archaeology / tables 1 - 5 5 4 3 2 1
1 Overall evaluation of the programme 4
2 Overall assessment of quality 4
3 Overall assessment of productivity 4,5
4 Overall assessment of relevance 4,5
5 Overall assessment of vitality 4
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
42
Appendix IV
List of abbreviations
Archol Archeologisch Onderzoek Leiden BV (Archaeological Research Leiden BV), a company founded
(and housed) by the Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University.
CNWS Research School of Asian, African and Amerindian Studies, Faculty of Arts)
KNAW Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences
NWO Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
(Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research )
OIO Onderzoeker in opleiding. (PhD researcher -NWO funded)
PDP Personal Development Plan
SEP Standard Evaluation Protocol (for Public Research Organisations)
VSNU Vereniging van Universiteiten (Association of the Universities in the Netherlands)
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
43
The report on the research assessment of the Faculty of Archaeology, carried out by an international peer committee, has
been discussed by the faculty board and by the different programme leaders. The conclusions of that discussion were the fol-
lowing:
The preparation of the self-evaluation document implied a comprehensive documentation and evaluation of the perform-
ance of the last years and to a detailed discussion and reflection on the future directions of the research. This was a much
needed and very fruitful exercise, which has made the faculty’s research community more aware of its strengths and weak-
nesses. In that sense, the evaluation was already a success before the committee arrived.
The review itself has been conducted in a very professional way. The committee was well prepared, had excellent knowledge
of the documentation, including the contents of the publications, and had given these matters a lot of thought already before
coming to Leiden. During the site visit it made an in-depth analysis of the goals, organisation and production of the research
programmes, examining also their infrastructure and to some extent their relationship with the teaching programme. The
interviews with all layers of the research community were efficient, intense, clear and to the point. It was obvious that all
members of the committee had an impressive experience with this type of work, which enabled them to make comparisons
with different international practices and standards, both in Europe and in the USA.
The community of PhD candidates appreciated the special attention it received from the committee. The comments of the
committee, already expressed during the site visit, contain valuable suggestions for the further developing a structured PhD
programme, as already in existence in other countries.
The conclusions of the review give an objective image of the faculty’s functioning and potential, and show the road to go. The
committee is positive about the main direction of the research community, which has been defined in line with overall
University policy (as stated in “Kiezen voor Talent”). It approves of the overall direction, confirming the main ideas of the
board and of the research community in this respect, but it makes also important observations and valuable recommenda-
tions on concrete issues. The faculty board will take into account these recommendations and will try to implement them in
the coming years. Given the limited means at our disposal, the board will make a list of priorities. As an example we may sig-
nal a few specific points.
The board will of course continue its policy to safeguard and improve the real time available for research, to stimulate pub-
lishing in international peer reviewed journals and to intensify efforts in obtaining funds from NWO and other institutions.
The faculty board will discuss with the Faculty of Arts and with the Board of the University (College van Bestuur) the sug-
gestion to incorporate several archaeologists who are still part of the Faculty of Arts.
Response of the Faculty of Archaeology on the peer review report
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
44
In the area of Prehistory the possibilities to maintain research expertise in the Neolithic will be explored.
As for the archaeology of the Classical World and Near East, efforts will be made to enhance coherence and to improve the
funding policy. Fortunately at the end of last year NWO granted already a major subvention to a project of Profs. Akkermans
and Van der Plicht in Syria. The innovative collaboration with the geophysical team from Ljubljana will be expanded.
The faculty board will search for means to reinforce the Ancient American section with an experienced Mesoamerican field
archaeologist and with adequate arrangements to create further support with ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological expertise.
Impulses will be given to the development of the science-based archaeology, both in the area of strategic thinking and in
securing concrete projects. The link with the University of Delft (through CAAS) will be further strengthened. Within the
faculty building measures will be taken to improve the laboratory space.
A formal PhD teaching programme, with a personal development plan, is already in the process of being developed.
In order to maintain good fieldwork within the Netherlands and to provide adequate training for students, the cooperation
with ARCHOL will be continued and intensified. The recommendation to appoint a specially-trained supervisor to take
charge of teaching the students, has already been put in practice.
So far, the faculty has focused on research-intensive programmes and less on the practical area of cultural heritage management.
Although the review committee supports this choice, the board intends to explore the possibilities to develop certain teaching
and research activities in this area, especially the cultural heritage management with an international dimension (“world her-
itage”), in order to enhance the profile, relevance and practical application of our work in the modern social context.
Prof.dr. Maarten E.R.G.N. Jansen
Dean, Faculty of Archaeology
RESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGYRESEARCH ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGY
In this series, the following reports have been published:
• Computer Science Delft University of Technology / Leiden University 1996-2002
• Applied Physics Delft University of Technology / Physics Leiden University 1998-2002
• Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Vrije Universiteit / Leiden University 2003
• Pallas Research Institute for Historical, Art-Historical and Literary Studies, Leiden University 1998 – 2003
• Biology Leiden University 1998-2004
• Psychology Leiden University 1998-2004
• Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions, Leiden University 1999-2004
• Archaeology Leiden University 2000-2005
Colophon
• Bestuursbureau / Academische Zaken
• GrafiMedia
Universiteit Leiden. The university to discover.
Leiden UniversityResearch AssessmentArchaeology2000 - 2005