MSC ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY (2019) PRACTICAL OPTION

Archaeobotanical Analysis in Practice ARCL0096 (0.5 units)

SHORT INTENSIVE COURSE ~40 hours over 5 DAYS on the practical hands-on aspects of sorting, identification, and quantification archaeobotanical macro-remains, with an emphasis on seeds. The course is focused on economically-important Old World plant categories (such as cereals, pulses, oil seeds) and on systematic groupings (key families and orders, such as those that recur as arable weeds in the Old World).

Co-ordinated by Professor Dorian Q Fuller d.fuller@ucl.ac.uk

with contributions by: Sue Colledge s.colledge@ucl.ac.uk, and Michèle Wollstonecroft m.wollstonecroft@ucl.ac.uk

[Feb 11-15, 2019] Archaeobotany/Palaeoecology Lab (IoA Room 313)

Turnitin code (Class IS) 3884589 Password IoA1819

See Appendix B (page 26) at the end of this document for important information about submission and marking procedures, and/or links to the relevant webpage

2

Table of Contents

SCHEDULE, LECTURE NUMBER and SESSION INSTRUCTOR 3 COURSE INTRODUCTION & AIMS 4 PREPARATION in ADVANCE of THE COURSE: BACKGROUND READING: 4

A. General archaeobotany & aims 4 B. Quantification in archaeobotany 5 C. Wild progenitors & crop origins 6 D. Reference texts on seeds/archaeobotanical 8

TEACHING STRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT 9 STANDARD OF LABORATORY PRACTICE 9 WORKLOAD 9 ATTENDANCE 9 ASSESSMENT (for enrolled MSc students) is in three parts: 9

A. Lab notebook/sketchbook (10% mark) 9 B. Practical exam (40% mark) 10 C. Written assignment: Practical Essay (50% mark): 11

RESOURCES 12 HEALTH AND SAFETY 13 LECTURES: CONTENT AND READINGS 13

Lecture 1: FRUITS, SEEDS & SEED-ALIKES: defining basic categories. 13 Lecture 2: CEREAL IDENTIFICATION PART 1: grasses & cereals (Poaceae): wheat & 13 barley grains, chaff. Lecture 3 OVERVIEW OF TAXONOMY, PLANT EVOLUTION & PLANT 15 STRUCTURE (determinate and indeterminate structure). Lecture 4: INTRODUCTION TO PULSE IDENTIFICATION(Fabaceae/Leguminoseae) 15

Lecture 5: Turning Flowers into Fruits: Examples of the Solanaceae & Rosaceae. [ 16

Lecture 6 & LABWORK exercise: sorting flotation samples for SEEDS 16

Lecture 7: An INTRODUCTION to NUTS 17

Lecture 8: MONOCOTYLEDONS 17

Lecture 9: NUTLETS: Polygonaceae, Cyperaceae & related groups (Fuller) 17

Lecture 10: An INTRODUCTION to OILSEED & FIBRE CROPS 18

Lecture 11: BASAL EUDICOT SEEDS & FRUITS 19

Lecture 12: SESAME, FLAX, GOURDS & MELONS: Pedaliaceae, Linaceae, Cucurbitaceae 19

Lecture 13: CEREAL Identification Part 2 20

Lecture 14 & LABWORK EXERCISE: Counting, Drawing & measuring cereals 20 Lecture 15. CEREAL IDENTIFICATION PART 3: Millets

Lecture 16. TUBERS, PARENCHYMA TISSUES & NUTRIENT BIOAVAILABILITY (Not

covered during the practical sessions in this course.) 23

Lecture 17: DISCUSSION ABOUT CROP-PROCESSING & REVIEW OF CEREALS 23

Lecture 18: SELECT GROUP OF COMMON WEEDS: Brassicaceae, small legumes, 24 Euphorbiaceae, Labiateae, Chenopodiaceae Polygonaceae

APPENDIX A: BEYOND SEEDS 25

APPENDIX B: UCL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FROM 2016 27

3

SCHEDULE

Day/Time Lecture/Quiz Number, Content & Instructor **

DAY 1 MORNING 1. LECTURE: Fruits, Seeds & Seed-Alikes: defining basic categories. [DF]

□ COFFEE BREAK 2. LECTURE: Cereal Identification Part 1: grasses & cereals (Poaceae): wheat & barley grains, chaff. [DF]

DAY 1 AFTERNOON

3. LECTURE: Overview of Taxonomy, Plant Evolution & Plant Structure (determinate and indeterminate structure). [DF]

□ COFFEE BREAK 4. LECTURE: Introduction to PULSE identification [DF]

DAY 2 MORNING 5. LECTURE: Turning Flowers into Fruits: Examples of the Solanaceae & Rosaceae. [DF]

□ COFFEE BREAK 6. LAB exercise: Sorting flotation samples for SEEDS [DF]

DAY 2 AFTERNOON

7. LECTURE: CEREAL Identification Part 2 [SC]

□ COFFEE BREAK 8. LABWORK EXERCISE: Counting, Drawing & measuring cereals [SC]

DAY 3 MORNING REVIEW QUIZ I [DF] □ COFFEE BREAK

9. LECTURE: Nutlets: Polygonaceae, Cyperaceae & related groups. [DF]

Trip to Drummond Street and lunch

DAY 3 AFTERNOON

10. LECTURE: An introduction to OILSEED & FIBRE CROPS. [DF]

□ COFFEE BREAK

11. LECTURE: Basal Eudicot Seeds & Fruits: especially Papaveraceae, Berberidaceae, Ranunculaceae, & Saxifragaceae and Basal Rosids: Vitales, Myrtales, Malvales, Brassicales, Sapindales [DF]

DAY 4 MORNING. REVIEW QUIZ II □ COFFEE BREAK

12. LAB EXERCISE & LECTURE: Sesame, Flax, Gourds & Melons [DF]

DAY 4 AFTERNOON

13. LECTURE: An introduction to NUTS [DF]

□ COFFEE BREAK

14: LECTURE: Cereal identification Part 3. Millets [DF]

DAY 5 MORNING 15. LECTURE: Monocotyledons [DF]

□ COFFEE BREAK

16. Discussion time on Crop-Processing and review of cereals [DF]

17. LECTURE: Tubers and parenchyma [MW]

DAY 5 AFTERNOON

18. LECTURE: Select Group of Common Weeds: Brassicaceae, small legumes, Euphorbiaceae, Labiateae, Chenopodiaceae, Polygonaceae. [DF]

□ COFFEE BREAK REVIEW QUIZ III [DF]

**DF = Dorian Fuller; SC = Sue Colledge; CS = Chris Stevens; MW= Michele Wollstonecroft

4

COURSE INTRODUCTION and AIMS The overall aim of this course is to prepare students on the practical hands-on aspects of sorting, identification, quantification and reporting of archaeobotanical macro-remains. It is designed to provide an introduction to archaeobotany methods for students who do not have archaeobotany experience as well as providing those who have previous archaeobotany experience with an opportunity to enhance their practical skills. Lectures are focused in most detail on major Old World seed crops (including Near Eastern/European as well as South/East Asian and African taxa) and systematic groupings (key families and orders, such as those that recur as arable weeds in the Old World). The course provides basic methodological tools for seed identification that can be applied to other taxa (and from other regions, e.g. New World species) as well as supervised sessions on sorting flotation samples, drawing, measuring and counting seeds and using the seed comparative collections.

PREPARATION in ADVANCE of the COURSE: BACKGROUND READING

This short course is focused on seed identification, and while there will be some discussion of topics such as archaeobotanical research questions, quantification and field sampling, these are not covered in detail. (MSc students get further coverage of these topics in the Environmental Archaeology in Practice core course or the Resources & Subsistence core course).

It is highly recommended that you do some preparatory background readings on three aspects of archaeobotany before coming the course. Some suggested readings, on the following subjects, are listed below:

a. the aims and practices of archaeobotany in general;

b. quantification in archaeobotany;

c. wild progenitors and crop origins; d. books on seed identification.

A). General Archaeobotany & Aims

Readings presented in this section provide introductions to archaeobotanical analysis and the overall aims of archaeobotany that are particularly helpful for those less familiar with this topic.

Fuller, D.Q. 2008. Archaeological Science in Field Training. in Ucko, P., Qin ,L., Hubert,J.

(ed.) From Concepts of the Past to Practical Strategies: The Teaching of Archaeological Field Techniques. London: Saffron Press, 183-205 Provides a short history of archaeobotany and sampling.

Fritz, G.J. 2005. Paleoethnobotanical Methods and Applications. In Handbook of Archaeological Methods, Manschner, D.G. and Chippindale, C. (Eds), pp.771-832. Walnut Creek California. Altimira Press. An excellent, up-to-date summary of archaobotany field recovery techniques, laboratory sorting, analysis and quantification methods.

Greig, J. 1989. Archaeobotany. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. 93pp. INST ARCH BB 5 GRE; Issue Desk IOA GRE 8

Miksicek, C. H. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeobotanical Record. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 10, pp. 211-247 Although somewhat dated, provides useful overviews of the types of environments within which plant remains best survive as well as the types of plant parts that best survive.

Wood charcoal, parenchyma tissue and phytoliths are not discussed in this course;

readings on these subjects are listed in APPENDIX A (page 23).

5

Minnis, P.E. 1981. Seeds in Archaeological Sites: Sources and Some Interpretive Problems American Antiquity 46, 143-152

Pearsall, D. 2000. Paleoethnobotany. A Handbook of Procedures, Second Edition. New

York: Academic Press. [also 1st edition, 1989] INST ARCH BB5 PEA; and Issue Desk IOA PEA 6. In particular, read the Chapter on Macro-remains

Wilkinson, K. and Stevens, C. 2003. Environmental Archaeology. Approaches, Techniques & Applications. Tempus, Stroud. In particular, read the Chapter on Subsistence

Further Useful Volumes of Archaeobotanical Case Studies.

Hardy, K. and Kubiak-Martens, L (Eds) 2016. Wild Harvest: Plants in the Hominin and Pre-Agrarian Human Worlds. Oxbow Books

Harris, D. R. and Hillman, G.C. (eds.) 1989. Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant

exploitation. London: Unwin Hyman.[INST ARCH HA HAR; issue desk IOA HA 6]

Hather, J. (ed.) 1994. Tropical Archaeobotany. Routeledge, London. [INST ARCH BB 5 HAT]

Van Zeist, W. and Casparie, W. A. (eds.) 1984. Plants and Ancient Man - Studies in Paleoethnobotany. Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. [INST ARCH BB 5 VAN; science library GEOGRAPHY H 75 VAN]

Van Zeist, W., Wasylikowsa, K. and Behre, K-E (eds.) 1991. Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany. Rotterdam: Balkema [INST ARCH BB 5 VAN; and issue desk]

B). Quantification in Archaeobotany

Colledge, S. 2002. Identifying pre-domestication cultivation in the archaeobotanical record using multivariate analysis presenting the case for quantification. In: Cappers, RTJ and Bottema, S, (eds.) The Dawn of Farming in the Near East. (pp. 141-152). ex orient: Berlin.

Hastorf, C. and Popper, V. (eds.) 1988. Current Paleoethnobotany Chicago: University of Chicago Press [INST ARCH BB 5 HAS, with 1 copy at issue desk] This includes several case studies in quantification

Van der Veen, M. 1992. Crop Husbandry Regimes. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs. See in particular discussion on crop-processing, producer-consumer models, and introduction of multivariate analysis approaches

□ For the history of flotation, see: //sites.google.com/site/archaeobotany/

The two papers below present systems for observing, recording and quantifying preservation condition of cereals and other seeds in order to establish more accurate seed counts and/or seed MNIs. Antolin, F. and Buxo R. 2011. Proposal for the systematic description and taphonomic study of carbonized cereal grain assemblages: a case study of an early Neolithic funerary context in the cave of Can Sadurnı´ (Begues, Barcelona province, Spain) Veget Hist Archaeobot 20:53–66

Hubbard, R. and al Azm, A. 1990. Quantifying Preservation and Distortion in Carbonized Seeds; and Investigating the History of Frike Production. J. Arch Science 17: 103-106

6

Van Der Werker, A. M. and Peres, T. M. (eds.) 2010. Integrating Zooarchaeology and Paleoethnobotany: A consideration of Issues, Methods and Cases. Springer, Heidelberg

C. Wild progenitors and crop origins

The following readings consider how an understanding of botany contributes to identifying where cultivation took place, and the mapping and ecology of wild progenitors and how these differ from their domesticated progeny. These sources also consider the domestication process and traits.

Fuller, D. Q. 2002. Fifty Years of Archaeobotanical Studies in India: Laying a Solid Foundation. In Settar, S., Korisettar, R. (Eds.). Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Volume III. Archaeology and Interactive Disciplines (pp.247-364). New Delhi: Manohar. This summarizes what the main cereals and pulses of India, including native wild progenitors, as well as a history of research in India. Some of this information has been updated/ superseded by subsequent Fuller publications.

Harlan, J. 1992. Crops and Man, second edition. Madison: American Society of Agronomy. This is more general and global than Zohary and Hopf (see below) and it has good overviews on maize origins, African crop origins, and an increasingly dated summary on East Asia.

Harlan, J. 1995. The Living Fields. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A more synoptic abstract of Harlan 1992.

Hillman, G.C. 1996. Late Pleistocene changes in wild plant-foods available to hunter- gatherers of the northern Fertile Crescent: possible preludes to cereal cultivation. In The Origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia, ed. D.R. Harris, 159-203. University College London Press: London.

Tanno K. Willcox G. 2012 Distinguishing wild and domestic wheat and barley spikelets

from early Holocene sites in the Near East . Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. Volume 21, 107-115.

Wil1cox, G. 2005. The distribution, natural habitats and availability of wild cereals in relation to their domestication in the Near East: multiple events, multiple centres. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 14, 534-541.

Zohary, D., Hopf, M. and Weiss, E. 2012. Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [earlier editions are found under INST ARCH HA ZOH; Issue Desk IOA ZOH] This focuses on crops domesticated in the Near East and which spread to Europe. It also provides useful illustrations for the identification of many of these taxa.

OPTIONAL READING ON CROP DIFFUSION: The spread of Near Eastern crops into Europe

Colledge, S., Conolly, J.W., Shennan, S.J. 2005. The Evolution of Early Neolithic Farming from SW Asian Origins to NW European Limits. European Journal of Archaeology, 8 (2), 137-156. doi:10.1177/1461957105066937

Colledge, S., Conolly, J.W., Shennan, S.J. 2004. Archaeobotanical evidence for the spread of farming in the East Mediterranean. Current Anthropology, 45 (4), 35-58. doi:10.1086/42208

Conolly, J., Manning, K., Colledge, S., Dobney, K., Shennan, S. 2012). Species distribution modelling of ancient cattle from early Neolithic site in SW Asia and Europe. The Holocene, 22 (9), 997-1010. doi:10.1177/0959683612437871

10

Conolly, J.W., Colledge, S., Shennan, S.J. (2008). Founder effect, drift, and adaptive change in domestic crop use in early neolithic Europe.. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35 (10), 2797-2804. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.05.006

Coward, F., Shennan, S.J., Colledge, S., Conolly, J.W., Collard, M. 2008. The Spread of Neolithic Plant Economies from the Near East to Northwest Europe: a phylogenetic Analysis.. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35 (1), 42-56. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2007.02.022

Jones, G., Charles, M.P., Jones, M.K., Colledge, S.M., Leigh, F.J., Lister, D.A., ...Jones, H. (2013). DNA evidence for multiple introductions of barley into Europe following dispersed domestications in Western Asia.. Antiquity: a quarterly review of archaeology, 87 701-713.

Jones, G., Jones, H., Charles, M.P., Jones, M.K., Colledge, S., Leigh, F.J., ...Brown, T.A. 2012. Phylogeographic analysis of barley DNA as evidence for the spread of Neolithic agriculture through Europe. JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 39 (10), 3230-3238. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.014

Willcox G., Savard M. 2011 Botanical evidence for the adoption of cultivation in southeast Turkey. in The Neolithic in Turkey, new excavations and new research. (eds) Mehmet Özdogan, Nezih Basgelen, Peter Kuniholm. Archaeology and Art Publications, Istanbul. 267-280.

Fuller, Dorian Q and Leilani Lucas (2017) Adapting crops, landscapes and food choices: Patterns in the dispersal of domesticated plants across Eurasia. In M. Petraglia, N Boivin and R. Crassard (eds) Human Dispersal and Species Movement: From Prehistory to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 304-331

Further useful background texts on food crops/ crop origins

The Oxford [or illustrated] Book of Food Plants. Oxford University Press. [Well- illustrated, many editions]

Heiser, C. B. 1978/ 1981. Seed to Civilization. Harvard University Press. [INST ARCH HA HEI and issue desk]

Kiple, K. F. and Ornelas, K.C. (eds.) 2000. The Cambridge World History of Food, 2 vols. Cambridge University Press. [INST ARCH HC KIP; Watson ANTHROPOLOGY E 72 KIP]

Rehm, S. and Espig, G. 1991. The Cultivated Plants of the Tropics and Subtropics. Stuttgart: Verlag Joseph Margraf.

Smartt, J. and Simmonds, N. W. (eds.) 1995. The Evolution of Crop Plants, 2nd edition. Essex: Longman.

D.) Reference texts on seed/ archaeobotanical identification

Bekker, R.M., Cappers, R. T.J and Neef, R. 2011. Digital Atlas of Economic Plants in Archaeology. The Digital Atlas series (including Cappers, R. T.J., Bekker, R. M. and Jans, J.E.A. 2009. Digital Atlas of Economic Plants) is well illustrated and provides detailed information. supported by online databases. This series is a joint project of the Groningen Institute of Archaeology (GIA), the Community and Conservation Ecology Group (COCON), both of the University of Groningen (the Netherlands), and the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI, Berlin, Germany).

Jensen, H Arne. 1998. Bibliography on seed morphology. Balkema, Rotterdam. INST

Note: For East Asia: there is no particularly up to date and compressive source. A good overview of geographical origins for crops in the region is:

Simoons, F. 1991. Food in China. CRC Press.

11

ARCH BB 5 JEN

Martin, A. C. and Barkley, W. D. 1946. Seed Identification Manual. [Republished Blakcburn Press, 2000]

Renfrew, J. 1973. Palaeoethnobotany. London: Metheun. [INST ARCH BB 5 REN; Issue Desk REN 12]

Further general reference texts on plant systematics/ taxonomy

Croquist, A. 1981. An Integrated System of Classification of Flowering Plants. New York: Columbia University Press

Croquist, A. 1988. The Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants, second edition. New York Botanic Garden.

Heywood, V. (ed.) 1993 [1978 1st ed.] Flowering Plants of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Hickey, M. and King, C.J. 1991. 100 Families of Flowering Plants. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Judd, W. S., Campbell, C. S., Kellogg, E. A and Stevens, P. F. 1999. Plant Systematics. A Phylogenetic Approach. New York: Sinauer

Mabberley, D. J. The Plant Book. Cambridge University Press. (3 editions, all useful, but more recent is best) [This book revised and replaces the still useful dictionary of Willis (A Dictionary of Flowering Plants and Ferns. Cambridge University Press., which went through many editions, often available second hand]

Taylor, D. W. and Hickey, L. J. (eds.). 1996. Flowering Plant Origin, Evolution, and Phylogeny. Plenum Press.

TEACHING STRUCTURE and ENVIRONMENT The course is taught formally through an intensive, 1-week, 40-hour, 8-hour daily short course. It is held in the in the Institute of Archaeology Archaeobotany Laboratory. Classes are taught through lectures and observational studies (using low-powered binocular microscopes) of seed specimens from the IoA Archaeobotany comparative collections. Altogether there are 18 lectures/laboratory sessions, with three practice (i.e. unassessed) quizzes. The course is taught primarily by Professor Dorian Fuller, with significant contributions from other experienced archaeobotanists from the IoA.

The three papers below are valuable examples of archaeobotanical charring experiments that observe changes in seed size and shape that result from carbonization.

Boardman, S. and Jones, G. 1990. Experiments on the Effects of Charring on Cereal Plant Components. J. Archaeological Science 1990, 17, l-l 1

Gustafsson, S. 2000. Carbonized Cereal Grains and Weed Seeds in Prehistoric Houses—an Experimental Perspective. J. Archaeological Science 27, 65–70

Wright, P. 2003. Preservation or destruction of plant remains by carbonization? J. Archaeological Science 30, 577–583.

DURING THE COURSE, MANY OTHER USEFUL MANUALS WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE LABORATORY SHELVES.

Seeds for the Archaeologist, a draft handbook, extensively illustrated, incorporating all hand-outs from previous years and noted under the lectures below, will be provided in hard copy to all students.

12

STANDARD OF LABORATORY PRACTICE FOR Using the Institute of Archaeology Archaeobotany Laboratory: It is expected that all participants will practice good standard laboratory practice. All reference material MUST be returned to its correction location in the collections so that others may consult it. Bench areas must be left clean: i.e. microscopes should be covered when not in use, glassware and other supplies should be washed and/or put away, the bench area wiped of any debris.

WORKLOAD

MSc enrolled students are expected to invest additional time in the laboratory, subsequent to the short course, to study and draw specimens from the comparative collection in their individual laboratory notebooks as well as for assigned suggested readings. You should expect to spend at least a half day per week over the remainder of Term II and first part of Term III. The final assessments-- an essay, lab notebook and exam, will be scheduled for Term III (~ 1st week of June).

ACTIVITY No HOURS TYPICALLY INVESTED Lecture/Formal Lab time 40 Reading 40 Revision (studying & drawing specimens) 40 Assessed Coursework 30

TOTAL 150

ATTENDANCE As practical courses are taught as an intensive week it is strongly recommended that these are not missed.

If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email.

FOR REGISTERED UCL MASTERS STUDENTS: minimum attendance of 70% is required, except in case of illness or other adverse circumstances which are supported by medical certificates or other documentation. A register will be taken at each class.

ASSESSMENT (for enrolled IOA MSc students): (Note: criteria for assessment of marks is explained in Appendix B on pages 27-30):

Examination of this course is through 3 pieces of assessed coursework: 1. Practical lab notebook (10% of final mark),

2. Practical exam (40% of final mark). 3.-Written assignment: Practical Essay (50% of final mark),

1. PRACTIAL LAB NOTEBOOK/ SKETCHBOOK: 10%. Due on the day of the practical exam. Each student is required to assemble a lab notebook. The notebook is intended to serve as a useful resource both during and beyond the course. It is a place to keep course handouts (on seed identification criteria etc.) as well as any drawings and notes made in class or in open lab time on seeds (and other plant parts).

The notebook will be assessed primarily by what it demonstrates about the student’s observations and understanding of plant structures examined during lab sessions, comprehension of guidance given for each session, and extra information and material- gathering done outside class sessions. Specific criteria for marking is:

The next sections below are for assessed MSc/MA students.

Skip to page 11 for Resources, to page 13 for Health & Safety, & to page 13 for Lecture Content and Readings

13

i. Breadth of coverage (40% of mark): i.e. number of species included

ii. Depth of coverage (40% of mark): attention to detail, awareness of criteria for identification for individual species

iii. Additional information and material gathering (outside lab sessions) (10%) of mark (e.g. information or papers on seed morphology, seed quantification, taphonomic factors that influence changes to seed size/shape; etc).

iv. Overall notebook presentation including drawing quality of (10% of notebook mark)., i.e. orderliness in notebook format and attention to detail in illustrations. Sketches of plant parts are expected to be highly schematic: marking is not based on ‘artistic merit’ or drawing ability but rather on diagram readability, demonstration of technical knowledge and attention to detail (e.g., inclusion of a scale bar, visibility and labelling of parts, particularly diagnostic features). (Note: a session on drawing and measuring cereals will provide clarification, and handouts will be distributed with examples of sketches of plants/seeds.

2. PRACTICAL EXAM ON KEY ECONOMIC SPECIES 40% WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR LATE MAY/EARLY JUNE (date to be confirmed): Students are asked to identify (to Family/genus and/or species) specimens of key economic species and in some cases also required to give the type of plant fruit (e.g. achene, nut, caryopsis, drupe) and place of origin/domestication. The exam is in two parts: for Part 1, students may use their lab notebooks, handouts, etc. to help them with their identifications; and for Part 2 no hand-outs or notebook may be used. All items will be worth 2 or 3 points with partial credit awarded for incomplete identification (e.g. for higher taxonomic level identification, plant part identification). Practice quizzes (unassessed) will be given during the 1-week course to provide practice. Study specimens will be available for study in the lab in the weeks subsequent to the 1-week taught course, up to the day before the exam. The final exam will be scheduled for either the end of May or the beginning of June, the date will be posted on Moodle in advance.

The intended outcome is that, through the study of specific laboratory specimens, students will obtain skills in seed identification, which are transferable, i.e. can also be applied to the identification of taxa not examined here. Students will be able to recognise the salient morphological features of seeds of economically important Old World taxa that are commonly recovered from archaeological sites in the Europe and Asia.

3. WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT: 2,500 WORDS PLUS ILLUSTRATIONS. 50%. Due: 1 week after the exam. This assignment entails both laboratory and literature research. Students are expected to undertake a small comparative study of plants in a given taxonomic order (sensu Judd et al. 1999) of seeds, or groups of domesticates, and to prepare drawings, measurements and descriptions. Potential topics and taxa groupings are outlined below; it is expected that students in a particular academic session will do different topics from each other. (A topic sign-up sheet will be posted during the short course, Reading week Term II).

The aims of the assignment are to generate guidelines for the identification of specimens found

in archaeological contexts, and to observe how species morphological features relate to evolutionary relationships such as phylogeny or domestications. The study should include a bare minimum of 15 taxa, such as five species representing each of 3 related families. (Nevertheless, the study of more than 15 taxa does not guarantee a higher mark; rather, this assignment calls for a comprehensive analysis of a minimum of 15 taxa.) Students should focus on identifiable morphological features of the relevant seeds/plant parts under study, bearing in mind that these features might be altered by charring and other taphonomic factors; comparisons should also consider the human use implications of the recovery of each taxon in archaeological assemblages (uses as food, medicine, and/or raw materials for making tools,

NOTEBOOKS ARE TO BE HANDED IN ON THE DAY OF THE PRACTICAL EXAM (LATE MAY/FIRST WEEK OF JUNE (DATE TO BE CONFIRMED).

14

clothing, shelter, etc.), as well as botanical and environmental implications i.e. time of year flowering/fruiting and the biogeographic (or other environmental) zones it represents.

The written report should be approximately 2,500 words, including relevant background information, and suitably illustrated with drawings and/or photographs and charts and/or tables. All drawings, charts, tables and photographs should be properly captioned/titled. (Drawings, photographs and charts are captioned as "Figures" and placed below the image; "Table" captions are placed above the table.) Figure and Table numbers should follow sequentially and be indicated in the essay body. Drawings and photographs should include scale bars and appropriate labelling of plant/seed parts. When used properly, charts and tables are excellent tools for summarising data, particularly for comparisons, and because they included in the word count, can help keep within the word count.

The intended learning outcomes of this assignment are enhanced awareness and improved skills in the observation and documentation of information that is necessary for archaeobotanical identification and interpretation. Comparisons of related species help students to refine their identification skills and understand evolutionary relationships.

* Note: it is recommended that students begin working on the written assignment during Term II and over the Easter break, so that they can complete it before submission dateto have ample time to review for the practical exam in early June, and to work on their dissertation. You are responsible for your own time management.

PRATICAL ESSAY TOPICS A topic sign-up sheet will be posted during the short course, Reading week Term II.

1. Identification criteria, and comparative anatomy for seeds of the Caryophyllales, such as the families Caryophyllaceae, Portulaceae, Aizooaceae.

2. Identification criteria, and comparative anatomy for seeds of the Lamiales, such as the families Lamiaceae, Plantaginaceae, and Schrophulariaceae

3. Identification criteria, and comparative anatomy for seeds of the Apiaceae—looking at at least 5 tribes across this family, including some crop species

4. Identification criteria, and comparative anatomy for seeds of the Asteraceae—looking at at least 5 tribes across this family, including some crop species

5. Identification criteria, and comparative anatomy for seeds of the Euphorbiaceae looking at least 3 tribes across this family, including some crop species

6. Identification criteria, and comparative anatomy for seeds of the Liliales (and adjacent), including at least 3 families, such as Dioscoreaceae, Liliaceae, Melanthiaceae

7. Identification criteria, and comparative anatomy for seeds of the Sapindales, including at least the 4 following families, Rutaceae, Meliaceae, Sapindaceae, Anancardiaceae

8. Identification criteria, and comparative anatomy for nutlets of the Cyperaceae, including at least 5 tribes

9. Identification criteria, and comparative morphology and domestication traits in Chloridoid grasses, including Eragrostidae at least 4 other tribes.

10. Identification criteria, and comparative morphology and domestication traits in Panicoid grasses, including Paniceae and Andropogonae tribes, some crops and non-crops.

11. Identification criteria, comparative morphology of grains and chaff in the Aveneae, Stipeae and a related tribe of grasses.

12. Identification criteria of the seeds and fruits of the Asian spice trade.

Other topics may be possible. If you have an idea for another topic, along these lines, please discuss it with Dorian.

15

RESOURCES

Libraries

In addition to the Library of the Institute of Archaeology, other libraries in UCL with holdings of particular relevance to this degree are: DMS Watson Science Library.

Archaeobotany & botany reference books housed in the IOA Archaeobotany lab:

There are also a certain number of useful reference books in the labs, both rooms 313 and 306. You are welcome to consult these. You may borrow them briefly for photocopying and scanning, but please return them to the shelf where you found them; these are references that are used by everyone using the lab, not just people on this course.

IOA Plant reference collections

For week to week teaching, learning and sample identification an open access seed reference collection is housed in Room 313. This includes an eclectic range of taxa. These are organized by taxonomic families arranged alphabetically. Far more extensive reference collections are available for European and Near Eastern seeds in the locked black cabinets along the wall in Room 313. These collections are ordered taxonomically, based on Flora European (for the European seeds) and Flora of Turkey (for Near Eastern seeds), apart from grasses, which are arranged alphabetically by genus, with cereals being separated. Additional collections on Old World legumes and millets supplement these.

Further collections for South Asia, East Asia and Africa are still highly patchy but are gradually being expanded. In addition we have extensive reference collections for other kinds of plant materials. You will be introduced to these in this course. These include wood anatomy slides of Northern European, Near Eastern and South Indian woody plants, housed in Room 313, together a parenchyma slide collection (of Pacific and European tubers) and a starch grain collection (of pacific tubers). There is also cleared leaf collection of British taxa. The Institute also has an extensive European pollen reference collection. A phytolith reference collection is also available for many Near Eastern and Asian grasses, and is also under development for additional taxa. Our starch grain reference collections are currently rudimentary, and mainly focused on Pacific tuber species. There are also large tubers and fruits of the Pacific and other regions.

REMINDER: It is expected that all participants will practice good standard laboratory practice. All reference material MUST be returned to its correction location in the collections so that others may consult it. Bench areas must be left clean: i.e. microscopes should be covered when not in use, glassware and other supplies should be washed and/or put away, the bench area wiped of any debris.

Hand-outs & web resources will be available for most topics, providing some background and useful guides to identification. As well as additional bibliography. Some of these are already available for download, others will be added in due course, the “Dorian Downloads pages”. This webpage also provides useful links to other web sources on archaeobotany, crops and plant taxonomy. http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/%7Etcrndfu/archaeobotany.htm

This website can be easily located by following link from http://archaeobotany.googlepages.com/

For some publications by the course instructor, download from: http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/%7Etcrndfu/downloads.htm

Seeds for the Archaeologist, a draft handbook, extensively illustrated, incorporating all hand-outs from previous years and noted under the lectures below, will be provided in hard copy to all students.

16

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

17

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 course.

LECTURES: CONTENT AND READINGS LECTURE 1. Fruits, Seeds and seed-alikes: defining basic categories

Readings:

Percival, John 1946 [or earlier editions!] Agricultural Botany, Eighth edition. Duckworth. Chapter 8. The Fruit [to be made available in class]

Focus on the introductory parts of these chapters:

Robbins, G. 1931. The Botany of Crop Plants, Third Edition. Blakiston and Son: Philadelphia. Chapters: 23 (Polygonaceae), 24 (Chenopodiaceae), 41 (Compositae). [to be made available as photocopies]

Alternatively, read on these three families in another source such as Percival Agricultural Botany; Langer and Hill

Or Heywood Flowering plants of the World [in teaching collection 1905; BOTANY QUARTOS 84 g HEY]

LECTURE 2. Cereal Identification Part 1: grasses & cereals (Poaceae): wheat &

barley grains, chaff. □ HAND-OUT: “A primer of cereals and grass inflorescence structure” (also downloadable).

Activities: For this session you will be expected to examine and draw/sketch the follow taxa so as to familiarise yourself with their structures and identifiable differences between: *Wheats (Triticum spp.), *Barley (Hordeum vulgare), *Rye (Secale cereale), *Rice (Oryza sativa), *Sorghum, ‘great milllet’ (Sorghum bicolour), selected Millets (Panicum, Setaria, Echinochloa, Eleusine). Some of these taxa will be looked at in further detail in subsequent sessions on wheats, barley, and millets (See sessions 13 and 15, below).

Lab manuals and principal readings

Jacomet, S. 2006. Identification of cereal remains from archaeological sites. (2nd edition, 2006) IPNA, Universität Basel / Published by the IPAS, Basel University. Download from http://pages.unibas.ch/arch/archbot/pdf/index.html

Nesbitt, M. 2006. Identification Guide for Near Eastern Grass Seeds. Institute of Archaeology, UCL, London

Fuller, D. Q. and Leilani Lucas (2014) Wheats: Origins and Development. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (Claire Smith, Ed.). Springer, New York. pp 7812-7817

Fuller, D. Q. and Alison Weisskopf (2014) Barley: Origins and Development. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (Claire Smith, Ed.). Springer, New York. pp 763-766

http://g.willcox.pagesperso-orange.fr/archaeobotanical%20images/index1.htm

18

General Background Reading On Grasses, Cereals & Cereal Domestication:

Classic paper: Harlan, J. R., De Wet, J. M. J. and Price, E. G. 1973. Comparative evolution of cereals. Evolution, 27: 311–25.

Heiser, C.B. 1978/ 1981. Seed to Civilization. Harvard University Press. Chapter 5 “Grasses: The Staff of Life”, pp. 61-110 [INST ARCH HA HEI and issue desk]

Kellogg, E.A. 2001. Evolutionary history of the grasses. Plant Physiology 125(3): 1198-1205. [Kellogg articles can be downloaded from: http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/MORPH/labs/pubs/kellogg_pubs.html]

Kellogg, E.A. 2000. The grasses: a case study in macroevolution. Annual Review of Ecology

and Systematics 31: 217-238 [Kellogg article can be downloaded from: http://www.colorado.edu/eeb/MORPH/labs/pubs/kellogg_pubs.html]

Zohary, D., Hopf, M. and Weiss, E. 2012. Domestication of Plants in the Old World, 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. See Chapter 2

Cereal domestication

Chapman, G. P. (ed.) 1992. Grass Evolution and Domestication. Cambridge University Press. Especially pay attention to Chaps 1-2, 5-7 [INST ARCH BB 5 CHA; BOTANY 84 g CHA ]. NB: This book includes a comprehensive list of C-4 Grass Genera.

Fuller, DQ. 2007. Contrasting patterns in crop domestication and domestication rates: recent archaeobotanical insights from the Old World. Annals of Botany 100(5), 903-924. [online, open access]

Harlan, J. 1992. Crops and Man. Madison: American Society of Agronomy. see Chapter 6: “Dynamics of Domestication”

Stevens, Chris J. and Dorian Q Fuller (2017) The Spread of Agriculture in Eastern Asia: archaeological bases for hypothetical farmer/language dispersals. Language Dynamics and Change 7: 152-186. DOI: 10.1163/22105832-00702001

Fuller, Dorian Q, Chris Stevens, Leilani Lucas, Charlene Murphy and Ling Qin (2016) Entanglements and entrapment on the pathway toward domestication. In Der, Lindsey & Fernadini, Francesca (eds) Archaeology of Entanglement. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Pp. 151-172

Allaby, Robin, Leilani Lucas, Chris Stevens, Osamu Maeda, and Dorian Q Fuller (2017). Geographic mosaics and changing rates of cereal domestication. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 372: 20160429. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0429

19

LECTURE 3. Overview of taxonomy, plant evolution & plant structure

□ HAND-OUT: ‘road-map’ phylogeny

Readings:

Judd, Campbell, Kellogg and Stevens 1999. Plant Systematics. A Phylogenetic Approach. Sinauer. Pp. 161-167 INST ARCH BB 5 JUD [also in DMS Watson science library!]

Fahn, A. 1990. Plant Anatomy. Chapter 21 ‘The Seed’ [BOTANY 81 a FAH ]

Martin, A. C. 1946. The comparative internal morphology of seeds, The American Midland Naturalist 36(3). [Especially introduction, pp. 513-527 [can download through network from www.jstor.org]

Baskin and Baskin 2001. Seeds. Ecology, Biogeography, and Evolution of Dormancy and Germination. Academic Press. Chapter 12 ‘Biogeographic and Evolutionary aspects of seed dormancy’ pp. 559-606 [BOTANY 81 d BAS]

Isely, D. 1947. Investigations in Seed Classification by Family Characteristics, Agricultural Research Service (Ames, Iowa) Research Bulletin 351.

Classic Texts:

Ames, O. 1939. Economic Annuals and Human Cultures. Botanical Museum of Harvard University. Especially Chapter 1, ‘The significance of the angiosperm seed’ [To be made available as photocopy]

Raven, P.H., Evert, R.F. and Eichhorn, S.E., 2005. Biology of plants. Macmillan

Further readings:

Stewart, W. and Rothwell, G. W. 1993. Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants, second edition. Chapters 30-31 (on angiosperms) [BOTANY 83 d STE]

Martin and Barkley 1961. Seed Identification Manual

Taylor, D. and Hickey, L. J. 1996. Flowering plant origins, evolution and phylogenby. Chapman and Hall. Chapters 6, 9, 10

Taylor, T. N. and Taylor, E. L. 1993. The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants. Prentice- Hall

LECTURE 4. Introduction to pulse identification (fabaceae/leguminoseae)

Activity: For this session you will be expected to examine and draw/sketch the follow taxa so as to familiarise yourself with their structures and identifiable differences between: Pisum, Lens, Cicer, Lathyrus, Vicia, Vigna, Cajanus, Lupinus

Readings:

Butler, A. 1991. The Vicieae: problems of identification. In J. Renfrew (ed.) New Light on Early Farming, Edinburgh University Oress, Edinburgh, Pp. 61-73 [INST ARCH BB 5 REN]

Fuller, D.Q. & Harvey, E. 2006. The Archaeobotany of Indian Pulses, Environmental Archaeology 11(2): 219-246

Smartt, J. 1990. Grain Legumes. Evolution and Genetic Resources. Cambridge University Press. Chapter 2, pp. 9-29. Other chapters recommended [INST ARCH BB 5 SMA; copy in Lab]

Zohary and Hopf, Chap. 3.

20

Additional readings

Sections on Leguminoseae in Heywood, Flowering Plants of the World and/or Hickey and King 100 Families of Flowering Plants

Butler, A. 1996. Trifolieae and related seeds from archaeological contexts: problems in identification, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, Special Volume: Early Farming in the Old World (ed. K-E. Behre and K. Oeggl), pp. 157-168. Why it is probably a waste of time to try to get these taxa down to species!

Fuller, D. Q., & Murphy, C. (2018). The origins and early dispersal of horsegram (Macrotyloma uniflorum), a major crop of ancient India. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 65(1), 285-305.

Murphy, C., & Fuller, D. Q. (2017). Seed coat thinning during horsegram (Macrotyloma uniflorum) domestication documented through synchrotron tomography of archaeological seeds. Scientific reports, 7(1), 5369.

Langer, R. H. M. and Hill, G. D. 1991. Agricultural Plants, second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 11. Fabaceae. Provides a useful introduction to important fodder crops (in the tribe Trifolieae) which also occur widely as weeds, especially of winter crop agriculture.

Tomooka, V. et al 2003. The Asiatic Vigna. Kluwer.

Zohary, D. and Hopf, M. 1973. Domestication of pulses in the Old World. Science 182, 887–94

LECTURE 5. Turning flowers into fruits: Examples of the Solanaceae, Rosaceae and

Apiaceae

Activities: Draw the fruits of 2 Solanaceae (e.g. tomato, pepper, aubergine) and at least 3 Rosaceae (including a Malus or Pyrus, Prunus, and Fragaria or Rubus), labelling the fruit parts and indicating the floral structures they derive from. Examine also the internal anatomy of a solancae seed and 2 spp. of Rosaceae. Also pull apart and sketch an Umbellifer schizocarp (e.g. Cumin, coriander)

Readings:

Percival, J. 1946 [or earlier editions!] Agricultural Botany, Eighth edition. Duckworth. Chapters 6-7 (The flower and the infloresence and The Fruit); Chapters 30 (Rosaceae) and 33 (Solanaceae) [to be made available as photocopies]

Renfrew, J. 1973. Palaeoethnobotany. Columbia University Press: Chap. 16, Cultivated and Wild Fruits [whole chapter recommended] but with a focus on the Rosaceae, i.e. pp. 136-150, also Almonds, pp. 156-157.

Rosaceae and Solanaceae sections in Heywood’s Flowering Plants of the World. [in teaching collection 1905; BOTANY QUARTOS 84 g HEY]

Alternatively read the family descriptions in Hickey and King’s 100 Families of Flowering Plants.

LECTURE 6 & labwork exercise: Sorting flotation samples for seeds.

Readings:

Fritz, G.J. 2005. Paleoethnobotanical Methods and Applications. In Handbook of Archaeological Methods, Manschner, D.G. and Chippindale, C. (Eds), pp.771-832. Walnut Creek California. Altimira Press. An excellent, up-to-date summary of archaobotany field recovery techniques, laboratory sorting, analysis and quantification methods.

Pearsall, D. 2000. Paleoethnobotany. A Handbook of Procedures, Second Edition. New

York: Academic Press. [also 1st edition, 1989] INST ARCH BB5 PEA; and Issue

21

Desk IOA PEA 6. In particular the Chapter on Macro-remains

LECTURE 7: an introduction to nuts:

□ Introduction for Archaeological Nutters, now incorporated in the SEEDS for the Archaeologist HANDBOOK to be provided that includes some bibliography.

Introductory readings

Harris, D. R. 1977. Alternative pathways towards agriculture. In Origins of Agriculture (C. Reed ed). pp. 179-243. The Hague: Mounton. [read section on tree nuts]

Hosoya, L.A. 2011. Staple or famine food?: ethnographic and archaeological approaches to nut processing in East Asian prehistory. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 3: 7. doi:10.1007/s12520-011-0059-y

López-Dóriga, I.L. 2015 An experimental approach to the taphonomic study of charred hazelnut remains in archaeological deposits. Archaeol Anthropol Sci 7: 39. doi:10.1007/s12520-013-0154-3

Menninger, E. A. 1977. Edible Nuts of the World. Horticultural Books, Stuart, Fl.

Reosengarten, F., Jr. 1984. The Book of Edible Nuts. Walker New York)

Takahashi R, Hosoya L.A.. 2002. Nut exploitation in Jomon Society. In: Mason SLR, Hather JG (eds) Hunter–gatherer archaeobotany: perspective from the northern temperate zone. University College London Press, London, pp 146–155

Further readings on Fruit/Nut domestication

Fuller, Dorian Q (2018) Long and attenuated: comparative trends in the domestication of tree fruits. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 27(1), 165-176 DOI: 10.1007/s00334-017-0659-2

On Citrus rind identification

Fuller, Dorian Q, Cristina Castillo, Eleanor Kingwell-Banham, Ling Qin and Alison Weisskopf (2018) Charred pomelo peel, historical linguistics and other tree crops: approaches to framing the historical context of early Citrus cultivation in East, South and Southeast Asia. In: Véronique Zech, Girolamo Fiorentino, Sylvie Coubray (eds) The History and Archaeology of the citrus fruit from the Far East to the Mediterranean: introductions, diversifications, uses. Naples: Centre Jean Bérard. Pp. 31-50. https://books.openedition.org/pcjb/2173

LECTURE 8. MONOCOTYLEDONS (Monocotyledonae)

Flowering plants (Angiosperm) are classified into Monocotyledonae and Dicotyledonae. Monocotyledons (“Monocots”) are of importance for humans because they include many economically useful species. In this lecture we examine features of the Monocotyledonae that distinguish them from Dicotyledons (“Dicots”).

□ Handouts with some bibliography to be provided in class.

LECTURE 9. NUTLETS: POLYGONACEAE, CYPERACEAE AND RELATED

GROUPS

□ HAND-OUTS: will include Dorian’s simplified primer but have a look at the Sections on Polygonaceae and Cyperceae in Martin & Barkley (1946). Keeping in mind that the big genera as they used to be used, such as Polygonum and Scirpus, have been broken up and subdivided.

22

Readings:

Ayodelle, A. E. and Zhou Z.-K. 2010. Scanning electron microscopy of fruits in the West Africa Polygonaceae. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 48(5): 336-343

Ronse Decraene LP, Akeroyd JD. 1988. Generic limits in Polygonum and related genera (Polygonaceae) on the basis of floral characters. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 98: 321–3

Yurtseva, O. V. 2001. Ultrastructure of achene surface in Polygonum section Polygonum (Polygonaceae) in Russia. Nordic Journal of Botany 21: 513-528

On sedge taxonomy/ phylogeny, see

Simpson, D. A. et al. 2007. Phylogeny of Cyperaceae based on DNA sequence data—a new rbcL analysis. Aliso 23: 72-83

Wollstonecroft, M. M., Hroudová, Z., Hillman, G. C., Fuller, D. Q. 2011. Bolboschoenus glaucus (Lam.) S.G. Smith, a new species in the flora of the ancient Near East. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 20(5), 459-470

LECTURE 10. AN INTRODUCTION TO OILSEED AND FIBRE CROPS

□ Relevant sections in Percival Agricultural Botany; Robbins Botany of Crop Plants [to be made available as photocopies]

Readings:

H. L. Edlin 1967. Plants and Man. The Story of Our Basic Food. American Museum of Natural History. Chaps. 12-13 (Olis, Resins, Rubber, Dyes and Tannins; Fibers, Roofing Materials and Cork), pp. 182-215 [Photocopy to be circulated]

Zohary and Hopf, Chapter 4

Langer and Hill 1991, Chapters 7 (Brassicaceae), 8 (Cannabinaceae) and 14 (Malvaceae)

See also the plant family sections in Heywood

Additional readings:

Fuller, DQ. 2008. The spread of textile production and textile crops in India beyond the Harappan zone: an aspect of the emergence of craft specialization and systematic trade. In, Osada, T., Uesugi, A. (ed.) Linguistics, Archaeology and the Human Past. Indus Project Occasional Paper 3 series. Kyoto: Indus Project, Research Institute for Humanity and Nature, 1-26. ISBN: 978-4-902325-16-4

Readings on Umbellifer flavourings, Compositeea oilseeds and related vegetables: Apiaceae and Asteraceae:

Dempewolf, H., Rieseberg, L. H. and Cronk, Quentin C. 2008. Crop domestication in the Compositae: a family-wide trait assessment. Genetic Resources & Crop Evolution [on-line first: DOI: 10.1007/s10722-008-9315-0]

Kochhar, S. L. 1998. Economic Botany in the Tropics. MacMillan India. “The Apaiceous or umbelliferous spices”, pp. 292-296 [copy available in class]

Nunez, D. R. and de Castro, C. O. 1996. Palaeoethnobotany of Compositae in Europe, North Africa and the Near East, in Caligeri, PDS and DJN Hind (eds.) Compositae: Biology and Utilization. Proceedings of the International Compositae Comference, Kew, 1999, Volume 2, pp. 517-545. Kew

Robbins, G. 1931. Botany of Crop Plants, Third edition. Blakiston, Philadelphia. Chapters 35 (Umbelliferae) and 41 (Compositae) [Photocopy to be circulated]

Further reading:

Chapman, M. A. and Burke, J. M. 1997. DNA sequence diversity and the origin of

23

cultivated safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.; Asteraceae). BMC Plant Biology 7:60 [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/7/60]

De Vries, I. 1997. Origin and domestication of Lactuca sativa L. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 44 (2): 165-174

Plunkett, G.M., and S.R. Downie. 1999. Major lineages within Apiaceae subfamily Apioideae: a comparison of chloroplast restriction site and DNA sequence data. American Journal of Botany 86: 10141026

Vaughan, J. G. 1970. The Structure and Utilization of Oil Seeds. London: Chapman and Hall

Additional readings

Vaughan, J. G. 1970 The Structure and Utilization of Oil Seeds. London: Chapman and Hall [INST ARCH BB 51 VAU]

LECTURE 13. Cereal identification Part 2: Wheat, rye, and barley and their chaff

□ Hand-out: Dorian’s simplified primer handouts to be provided.

Activities: Look at how the rachis remains of wheat and especially barley are tabulated by morphotypes—indicating state of preservation and probably domestication status. An exemplary publication of such data.

Readings

See Zohary and Hopf 2000 or 2012, on Wheats and barley

More Readings:

Charles, M. P. 1984. Introductory remarks on the cereals, Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1: 17-31

Colledge, S. 2001. Plant exploitation on Epipalaeolithic and early Neolithic sites in the Levant. British Archaeological Reports, Archaeopress, Oxford.

Hillman, G. 2001. Archaeology, Percival, and the problems of identifying wheat remains, The Linnean Special Issue No. 3. Wheat Taxonomy: the Legacy of John Percival pp. 27-36 INST ARCH BB 5 CAG

Jones, G. E. M. 1998. Wheat grain identification—why bother? Environmental Archaeology 2: 29-35

Kohler-Schneider M. 2003. Contents of a storage pit from late Bronze Age Stillfried, Austria: another record of the ‘new’ glume wheat. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 12:105–111

Kreuz A, Boenke, N. 2002. The presence of two-grained einkorn at the time of the Bandkeramik culture. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11:233–240

[Note the interpretations of genetics in this paper are dodgy, but from the point of view of identification and archaeological distribution it is useful]

Nesbitt, M. 2001 Wheat evolution: integrating archaeological evidence, The Linnean Special Issue No. 3. Wheat Taxonomy: the Legacy of John Percival pp. 37-60 INST ARCH BB 5 CAG

Tanno, K. and Willcox, G. 2011. Distinguishing wild and domestic wheat and barley spikelets from early Holocene sites in the Near East. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany. DOI: 10.1007/s00334-011-0316-0

The ‘bible’ of wheat identification is the manual of Stefanie Jacomet, available for PDF download in German or English: There is a link available on Dorian’s archaeobotanical resources page, or directly here: pages.unibas.ch/arch/archbot/pdf/index.html

24

LECTURE 14 and labwork exercise: counting, drawing and measuring seeds

□ Handout on measuring cereals will be provided.

Readings:

Antolin, F. and Buxo R. 2011. Proposal for the systematic description and taphonomic study of carbonized cereal grain assemblages: a case study of an early Neolithic funerary context in the cave of Can Sadurnı´ (Begues, Barcelona province, Spain) Veget Hist Archaeobot 20:53–66

Charles, M., Forster, E., Wallace, M., Jones, G., 2015, «Nor ever lightning char they grain”: establishing archaeologically relevant charring conditions and their effect on glume wheat grain morphology», STAR Science and Technology in Archaeological Research 1, 1-6.

25

Gros-Balthazard M,. Newton C., Ivorra S., Pierre M.H., Pintaud J.C., Terral J.F. 2016. The Domestication Syndrome in Phoenix dactylifera Seeds: Toward the Identification of Wild Date Palm Populations. PloS one 11(3): e0152394.

Hubbard, R. and al Azm, A. 1990 Quantifying Preservation and Distortion in Carbonized Seeds; and Investigating the History of Frike Production. J. Archaeological Science 17. 103-106

Liphschitz N, Bonani, G. 2001. Wild and Cultivated Date Palm (Phoenix Dactylifera) from

Qumran Cave 24. Tel Aviv, 28(2), pp.305-309.

Liphschitz N, Gophna R, Bonani G, Feldstein A. 2013. Wild olive (Olea europaea) stones from a chalcolithic cave at shoham, Israel and their implications. Tel Aviv 23(2):135- 142

Mangafa, M. and Kostas Kotsakis, K. 1996. A New Method for the Identification of Wild and Cultivated Charred Grape Seeds. J. Arch Sci 23, 409-418.

Nesbitt, M., and J. Goddard. 1997. Why draw seeds? Illustrating archaeobotany. Graphic Archaeology 1997:13-21

Pagnoux C, Bouby L, Ivorra S, Petit C, Valamoti SM, Pastor T, Picq S, Terral JF (2015) Inferring the agrobiodiversity of Vitis vinifera L.(grapevine) in ancient Greece by comparative shape analysis of archaeological and modern seeds. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 24(1), pp.75-84.

Ros, J., Even, A., Bouby, L., Ruas, M.-P., 2014. Geometric morphometric analysis of grain shape and the identification of two-rowed barley (Hordeum vulgare subsp. distichum L.) in southern France. Journal of Archaeological Science 41, 568-575.

LECTURE 15. Cereal identification part 3. Focus is on millets and selected wild

grasses.

□ HAND-OUT: Dorian’s Millet Atlas (available for download).

Readings:

The follwoing readings are additional to those Lectures 2 and 13 above.

Deng Z., Qin L., Gao Y., Weisskopf A.R., Zhang C., Fuller D.Q. 2015. From Early Domesticated Rice of the Middle Yangtze Basin to Millet, Rice and Wheat Agriculture: Archaeobotanical Macro-Remains from Baligang, Nanyang Basin, Central China (6700–500 BC). PLoS ONE 10(10): e0139885. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139885

De Wet 2000 ‘Millets’ in Kiple, K. F. and K. C. Ornelas (eds.) 2000. The Cambridge World History of Food, 2 vols. Cambridge University Press. [INST ARCH HC KIP; Watson ANTHROPOLOGY E 72 KIP]

Fuller, D. Q. 2014 Millets: Origins and Development. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (Claire Smith, Ed.). Springer, New York. pp 4945-4948

Fuller, D. 2002 "Fifty Years of Archaeobotanical Studies in India: Laying a Solid Foundation" in S. Settar and R. Korisettar (eds.) Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Volume III. Archaeology and Interactive Disciplines, Publications of the Indian Council for Historical Research. New Dehli: Manohar: Pp. 247-364. Section on millets: PP. 277-281. INST ARCH DBMA 100 SET

Fuller, D. 2003 " African crops in prehistoric South Asia: a critical review" in K. Neumann, A. Butler and S. Kahlheber (eds.) Food, Fuel and Fields. Progress in Africa Archaeobotany, Africa Praehistorica 15. Colonge: Heinrich-Barth-Institut: Pp. 239- 271INST ARCH DC 100 Qto NEU

26

Nesbitt, M. and Summers, G. D. 1988. Some recent discoveries of millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) and Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv.) at excavations in Turkey and Iran, Anatolian Studies 38: 85-97

Song, J., Zhijun, Z. and Fuller, D.Q. 2013. The archaeobotanical significance of immature millet grains: an experimental case study of Chinese millet crop processing. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 22: 141-152

Weber, S. A. & Fuller, D. Q. 2008. Millets and their role in early agriculture. Pragdhara (Journal of the Uttar Pradesh State Archaeology Department) 18: 69-90

Further readings:

Brunken, J., De Wet, J.M.J., Harlan, J.R., 1977. The morphology and domestication of pearl millet. Economic Botany 31, 163e174.

D’Andrea, A.C., 2008. T’ef (Eragrostis tef) in ancient agricultural systems of highland Ethiopia. Economic Botany 62, 547e566.

Fuller, D. Q. 2014. Finger Millet: Origins and Development. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (Claire Smith, Ed.). Springer, New York. pp 2783-2785

Fuller, D. Q. 2014. Agricultural Innovation and State Collapse in Meroitic Nubia: The Impact of the Savannah Package, In: Stevens, Chris J., Sam Nixon, Mary Anne Murray, and Dorian Q Fuller (Eds.) The Archaeology of African Plant Use. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, Ca. Pp. 165-178 [includes info on Sorghum]

Fuller D.Q., Stevens C.J. (2018) Sorghum Domestication and Diversification: A Current Archaeobotanical Perspective. In: Mercuri A., D'Andrea A., Fornaciari R., Höhn A. (eds) Plants and People in the African Past. Springer, Cham, pp.427-452

Harlan, JR, De Wet, J.M.J. 1972. A simplified classification of cultivated sorghum. Crop Science 12: 172-176

Harlan J.R., Stemler R. 1976. The races of sorghum in Africa. In: Harlan JR, De Wet JMJ, Stemler ABL (eds) Origins of African plant domestication. Mouton Publishers, Illinois, pp 465-478

Hilu K.W., De Wet J.M.J. 1976a. Domestication of Eleusine coracana. Econ. Bot. 30:199- 208

Hilu K.W., De Wet J.M.J. 1976b. Racial evolution in Eleusine coracana ssp. coracana (finger millet). Am. J. of Bot. 63:1311-1318

Hilu K.W., De Wet J.M.J., Harlan J.R. 1979. Archaeobotanical studies of Eleusine coracana ssp. coracana (finger millet). Am. J. of Bot. 66:330-333

Kingwell-Banham, E. and Fuller, D.Q. 2014. Brown Top Millet: Origins and Development. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology (Claire Smith, Ed.). Springer, New York. pp 1021-1024

Manning, K., Pelling, R. Higham, T., Schwenniger, J-L, and Fuller, D.Q. 2011. 4500-year old domesticated pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) from the Tilemsi Valley, Mali: new insights into an alternative cereal domestication pathway. Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2): 312-322

Stemler A.B. 1990. A scanning electron microscope analysis of plant impressions in pottery from sites of Kadero, El Zakiab, Um Direiwa and El Kadada. Archéologie du Nil Moyen 4:87-106

Winchell, F., Stevens, C. J., Murphy, C., Champion, L., & Fuller, D. Q. (2017). Evidence for sorghum domestication in fourth millennium BC eastern Sudan: spikelet morphology from ceramic impressions of the Butana group. Current Anthropology, 58(5), 673-683.

See also The Lost Crops of Africa I. Cereals. 1996. National Academy of Sciences (USA). [Can be read free on-line at books.nap.edu]

27

LECTURE 16. TUBERS, PARENCHYMA TISSUES AND NUTRIENT BIOAVAILABILITY

STUDIES (Not covered during the practical sessions in this course.)

EVERYONE SHOULD READ THE FOLLOWING IN PREPARATION FOR THE LECTURE:

Hather, J.G. 1994. A morphological classification of roots and tubers and its bearing on the origins of agriculture in southwest Asia and Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 719-724.

Kubiak-Martens, L. 1996. Evidence for possible use of plant foods in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic diet from the site of Całowanie in the central part of the Polish Plain. Veget. Hist. Archaeobot 5, 33-38.

Ugent. D., Pozorski, S. and Pozorski, T. 1982. Archaeological Potato Tuber Remains from the Casma Valley of Peru. Economic Botany 36, 182-192.

SOME USEFUL ADDITONAL READINGS:

Fahn, A. 1995. Plant Antomy, 4th Edition. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

Foster, A.S. 1949. Practical Plant Anatomy, 2nd Edition. D. Van Nostrand Publisher, London. CAN BE DOWNLOADED FROM: https://archive.org/details/practicalplantan00fost

Hather, J. 2000. Archaeoological Parenchyma. Archetype Press, London. Especially Chaps. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7. This chapters are all quite short and heavily illustrated. [INST ARCH BB 51 Qto HAT]

Hather, J.G. 1994. A morphological classification of roots and tubers and its bearing on the origins of agriculture in southwest Asia and Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 719-724.

Heiser, C. B. 1990 [or earlier ed.] Seed to Civilization. Chapter 8 (Starchy Staples)

Kubiak-Martens, L. Brinkkemper, O. Oudemans, T.F.M. 2015. What’s for dinner? Processed food in the coastal area of the nornern Netherlands in the Late Neolithic. Veget. Hist. Archaeobot 24, 47-62.

Langer and Hill 1991. Agricultural Plants, 2nd edition. Chap 2 (Plant Structure). Teaching Collection 1904; Science Library BOTANY 82 e LAN]

Matthews, P.J. 2004. Genetic diversity in taro, and the preservation of culinary knowledge. Ethnobotany Research & Applications 2, 55-71

H. H. Norton , E. S. Hunn , C. S. Martinsen & P. B. Keely (1984) Vegetable food products of the foraging economies of the pacific northwest, Ecology of Food and Nutrition 14:3, 219-228, DOI: 10.1080/03670244.1984.9990789 SEE TABLE II

Wollstonecroft, M., Ellis, P. R., Hillman, G. C. and Fuller, D.Q. 2008. Advances in plant food processing in the Near Eastern Epipalaeolithic and implications for improved edibility and nutrient bioaccessibility: an experimental assessment of Bolboschoenus maritimus (L.) Palla (sea club-rush). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany DOI 10.1007/s00334-008-0162-x

Yen, D. E. 1993 The origins of subsistence agriculture in Oceania and the potentials for future tropical food crops. Economic Botany 47(1):3-14. 1993.

LECTURE 17. Discussion about crop-processing and review of cereals

Capparelli, A., Valamoti, S. M., & Wollstonecroft, M. M. 2011. After the harvest: investigating the role of food processing in past human societies. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 3(1), 1-5.

Fuller, Dorian Q, Chris Stevens and Meriel McClatchie 2014. Routine activities, tertiary

28

refuse, and Labor organization. Social inferences from everyday archaeobotany. In Ancient Plants and People. Contemporary Trends in Archaeobotany, edited by Marco Madella, Carla Lancelotti and Manon Savard. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Pp. 174-217

Harvey, E. L., & Fuller, D. Q. 2005. Investigating crop processing using phytolith analysis: the example of rice and millets. Journal of Archaeological Science, 32(5), 739-752.

Hillman, G.C. 1981. Reconstructing crop husbandry practices from charred remains of

crops. In Farming Practice in British Prehistory, ed. R. Mercer, 123-162. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh.

Jones, G. 1987. A Statistical Approach to the Archaeological Identification of Crop Processing. J. Arch Sci 14, 311-322.

Reddy, S. N. 1997. If the threshing floor could talk: integration of agriculture and pastoralism during the Late Harappan in Gujarat, India. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 16(2), 162-187.

Reddy, S. N. 1998. Fueling the hearths in India: the role of dung in paleoethnobotanical interpretation. Paléorient, 61-70.

Stevens, C.J. 2003. An Investigation of Agricultural Consumption and Production Models for Prehistoric and Roman Britain. Environmental Archaeology 8, 61-76.

Young, R. 1999. Finger millet processing in East Africa. Vegetation history and archaeobotany, 8(1-2), 31-34.

EMERGING RESEARCH AREA: FOOD REMAINS, “AMORPHOUS FRAGMENTS” Kubiak-Martens, L., Brinkkemper, O. and Oudemans, T.F. (2015). What’s for dinner? Processed food in the

coastal area of the northern Netherlands in the Late Neolithic. Vegetation history and archaeobotany, 24(1), 47-62.

González Carretero, L., Wollstonecroft, M., Fuller, D. Q. (2017). A methodological approach to the study of archaeological cereal meals: a case study at Çatalhöyük East (Turkey). Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 26(4), 415-432.

Fuller, D. Q. and L. Gonzalez Carretero (2018). The archaeology of Neolithic cooking traditions: archaeobotanical approaches to baking, boiling and fermenting. Archaeology International 21: 109-121

Valamoti, S. M., Samuel, D., Bayram, M., Marinova, E. (2008). Prehistoric cereal foods from Greece and Bulgaria: investigation of starch microstructure in experimental and archaeological charred remains. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17(1), 265-276.

Heiss, A.G., Antolín, F., Bleicher, N., Harb, C., Jacomet, S., Kühn, M., Marinova, E., Stika, H.P. and Valamoti, S.M. (2017). State of the (t) art. Analytical approaches in the investigation of components and production traits of archaeological bread-like objects, applied to two finds from the Neolithic lakeshore settlement Parkhaus Opéra (Zürich, Switzerland). PloS one, 12(8), p.e0182401.

Heiss A. G., Pouget N., Wiethold J., Delor-Ahu A., Le Goff I. (2015). Tissue-based analysis of a charred flat bread (galette) from a Roman cemetery at Saint-Memmie (Dep. Marne, Champagne-Ardenne, north-eastern France). Journal of Archaeological Sciences 55, 71-82

LECTURE 18: Select group of common weeds: Brassicaceae, Small Legumes, Euphorbiaceae, Labiateae, Chenopodiaceae, Polygonaceae.

□ Brassicaceae Handout

Charles, M. Jones, G. and Hodgson, J.G. 1997. FIBS in Archaeobotany: Functional

29

Interpretation of Weed Floras in Relation to Husbandry Practices. J. Arch. Scie 24: 1151-1161.

Rösch, M. 1998. The history of crops and crop weeds in south-western Germany from the Neolithic period to modern times, as shown by archaeobotanical evidence. Veget Hist Archaebot 7: 109. doi:10.1007/BF01373928

Willcox, G. 2012. Searching for the origins of arable weeds in the Near East. Veget Hist Archaeobot 21: 163. doi:10.1007/s00334-011-0307-1

APPENDIX A: BEYOND SEEDS

Further subjects: (not covered in the practical sessions): Below are some starting places for topics not directly addressed during the seed practical course here, but relating to the wider study of archaeobotany through other forms of plant remains.

Hillman, G., Wales, S., McLaren, F. , Evans, E. & Butler, A. 1993. .Identifying problematic remains of ancient plant foods: A comparison of the role of chemical, histological and morphological criteria, World Archaeology, 25:94- 121DOI:10.1080/00438243.1993.9980230

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1993.9980230

PHYTOLITHS IN ARCHAEOLOGY (Not covered during the practical sessions in this

course.)

Fahn, A. 1990. Plant Anatomy. Chap. 10. Epidermis, Pp. 152-180

Fredlund, G. G. and Tieszen, L. T. 1994. Modern phytololith assemblages from the North American Great Plains, Journal of Biogeography 21: 321-335 [can be downloaded through college network from www.jstor.org]

Madella, M. and Zurro, D. (eds.) 2007. Plants, People and Places. Recent Studies in Phytolith Analysis. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Madella, M., Alexandre, A. Ball, T. 2005. International code for phytolith nomenclature 1.0, Annals of Botany 151: 172-180 [can be downloaded through college network from www.aob.oupjournals.org]

Powers, A. H. 1992. Great expectations: a short historical review of European phytolith systematics, in Phytoliths Systematics (Rapp, G. Jr. and S. C. Mulholland eds.), pp. 15-35. New York: Plenum Press [and other chapters in this book: INST ARCH BB 5 RAP]

Pearsall, D. M. and Trimble, M. K. 1984. Identifying Past Agricultural Activity through Soil Phytolith Analysis: a Case Study from the Hawaiian Islands, Journal of Archaeological Science 11: 119-133 [INST ARCH PERS; teaching collection]

30

Pearsall, D. 2000. Paleoethnobotany, Second Edition. Chapter 5, especially pp. 355-411 & pp 491-496

Pearsall, D. M. and Piperno, D.R. (eds.) 1993. Current research in phytolith analysis: applications in archaeology and paleoecology. Philadelphia: MASCA, The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania

Piperno, D. R.1988. Phytolith analysis: an archaeological and geological perspective. New York: Academic Press [INST ARCH BB 5 PIP]

Piperno, D. R. 2006. Phytoliths : a comprehensive guide for archaeologists and paleoecologists. Lanham, Md. : AltaMira Press. Rosen, A. M. 2000. Phytolith analysis in Near Eastern archaeology, in The Practical Impact of Science on Near Eastern and Aegean Archaeology (S. Pike and S. Gitin eds.), Weiner Laboratory Monograph 3. London: Archaetype Publications. [Teaching collection; INST ARCH, in cataloguing, ask at issue desk]

WOOD IDENTIFICATION/ WOOD CHARCOAL IN ARCHAEOLOGY (Not covered during the practical sessions in this course.)

Readings that provide starting points. Asouti, E. and Fuller, D. 2008. Trees and Woodlands in South India: An Archaeological

Perspective. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek

Fahn, A., Werker, E. and Baas, P. 1986. Wood anatomy and identification of trees and shrubs from Israel and adjacent regions / by. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1986 INST ARCH BB 5 FAH

Gale and Cutler 2000. Plants in Archaeology, Chap. 1. Materials and Methods. [INST ARCH BB 51 Qto GAL]

Hather, J. 2000. The Identification of Northern European Woods. Archetype. Part One: Introduction INST ARCH KC HAT

IAWA Commitee (H.G. Richter, D. Grosser, I. Heinz & P.E. Gasson, Eds). (2004). 'IAWA list of microscopic features for softwood identification.' Repr. IAWA Journal 25: 1- 70.

IAWA Commitee (E.A. Wheeler, P. Baas & P. Gasson, Eds). (1989). 'IAWA list of microscopic features for hardwood identification.' Repr. IAWA Journal 10: 219-332.

Schweingruber, F. H. 1990. Anatomie europäischer Hölzer: ein Atlas zur Bestimmung europäischer Baum-, Strauch-, und Zwergstrauchhölzer (Anatomy of European woods: an altas for the identification of European trees, shrubs, and dwarf shrubs). [INST ARCH BB 51 SVH (copy held in Rm 306)]

Schweingruber, F. H. (1990). Microscopic Wood Anatomy: Structural Variability of Stems and Twigs in Recent and Subfossil Woods from Central Europe. Teufen: F. Flück- Wirth

See also the following websites: International Association of Wood Anatomists (IAWA) - website of the principal organisation for wood anatomists from around the world : URL: http://www.iawa- website.org . Current and past issues of the IAWA Journal are available from this site.

See the anatomical descriptions and illustrations of the following taxa: Phoenix (Gale and Cutler only 343-347, Pinus, Quercus, Betula, Rhamnus. An activity to try: Examine and sketch and note differences between 3 taxa from wood charcoal. These taxa may be chosen from the above list or others.

31

InsideWood. (2004-onwards). Published on the Internet. http://insidewood.lib.ncsu.edu/search [date of accession] An extensive searchable database with descriptions and images of numerous woods from around the world.

APPENDIX B: UCL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FROM 2016 (please read carefully)

This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to courses. 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 following website: http://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/display/archadmin 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/

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAELOGY COURSEWORK PROCEDURES General policies and procedures concerning courses and coursework, including submission procedures, assessment criteria, and general resources, are available on the IoA website. It is essential that you read and comply with these. Note that some of the policies and procedures will be different depending on your status (e.g. undergraduate, postgraduate taught, affiliate, graduate diploma, intercollegiate, interdepartmental). If in doubt, please consult your course co-ordinator.

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. Please note that these regulations have changed for the 2016-17 session. 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 Course 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/

32

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 Course Co-ordinator within two weeks. You must retain a copy of all coursework submitted.

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 course on Moodle. For help with Moodle, please contact Tina Paphitis, Room 411a (t.paphitis).

CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT OF MARKS

Criteria for awarding a mark within the distinction range (Mark range 70 - 100%)Some indication of independent critical ability or originality (in the novel interpretation and presentation of existing information, the approach to the problem, the structure of the argument, or in the presentation of new information or ideas) is a requirement for the award of any first class mark.

To gain a mark in the distinction range, the answer will show excellent understanding of the question; no mistakes or misunderstandings; excellent structure building to a relevant conclusion; no irrelevancies; excellent analysis; clear and unflawed logic; coherent and cogent argument; excellent evidence of knowledge and reading of a wide range of sources; clear evidence of discrimination between relative value of different sources; considerable originality in selection of sources; considerable reading beyond the reading list; excellent awareness of evidence bearing on the question; excellent use and selection of appropriate case studies or examples; good judgment in weighing and assessing different lines of evidence; excellent writing, displaying clarity and few or no errors of spelling, grammar, punctuation; few or no inaccuracies in bibliography and citation of references; excellent critical reflection; a critical approach to assumptions of other writers; success in recognizing and evaluating own assumptions; independent thinking in evaluation of evidence / interpretation; considerable original insight; clear indication of awareness of unresolved issues in the discipline as a whole; success in relating argument to core concepts in general archaeological method and / or theory; excellent reasoning from problem to methods to data; clear statement / understanding of a research problem or question; selection of appropriate methods for the problem and appropriate data; good defence of methods chosen.

Higher levels of excellence in the above qualities form a basis for awarding higher marks within the distinction range. Answers gaining a higher mark within the distinction range will normally show one or more of the following attributes:

1. exceptional thoroughness and clarity in the presentation of the answer,

2. exceptional enterprise in reading,

3. exceptional insight or originality in the use of primary sources and relevant evidence, 4. unusually clear perception in suggesting future research

5. exceptional clarity in relating the argument to core concepts in archaeological method or theory or outstandingly clear reasoning relating the problem to methods or data

33

-70-72% An answer which meets but does not exceed the basic requirements for a mark at distinction level and does not show evidence of any of the five outstanding attributes 1-5 listed above.

-73-76% A solid distinction level answer which clearly meets the requirements for a distinction mark and may also show evidence of one or two of the attributes 1-5 listed above.

-77-79% An exceptionally good piece of work which meets the requirements for a distinction level mark to an excellent degree and also shows evidence of several of the attributes 1-5 listed above.

-80% and above These marks will be used for outstanding work of exceptional originality and insight.

Marks above 85% will be uncommon. A mark of around 90-94% might be given to the best answer in a particular area over, say, a five to ten-year period, and a mark of around 95-98% for the best piece of work ever submitted on a topic, a piece of work that could hardly be bettered.

Criteria for awarding a mark within the merit range (60-69%)To gain a mark of 60-69%, the answer will show a good understanding of the question; very few mistakes or misunderstandings; good structure and an argument that builds to a relevant conclusion; few if any irrelevancies; good analysis; clear logic; coherent argument; clear evidence of knowledge and reading of an appropriate range of sources; evidence of discrimination between relative value of different sources; some originality in selection of sources; some reading beyond the reading list; good awareness of evidence bearing on the question; good use and selection of appropriate case studies or examples; some judgment in weighing and assessing different lines of evidence; good writing displaying clarity and few errors of spelling, grammar, punctuation; few inaccuracies in bibliography and citation of references; good critical reflection; a critical approach to assumptions of other writers; some attempt to recognize and evaluate own assumptions; some evidence of independent thinking in evaluation of evidence / interpretation; some original insight; some indication of awareness of unresolved issues in the discipline as a whole; partially successful attempts to relate argument to core concepts in general archaeological method and / or theory; good reasoning from problem to methods to data; some indication of a statement / understanding of a research problem; some indication of selection of appropriate methods for the problem or selection of appropriate data; some defence of methods chosen.

Criteria for awarding a mark within the pass range (50-59%)To gain a mark of 50-59%, the answer will show evidence of relevant knowledge and a general understanding of the question. There will be indications that the student has grasped at least some of the fundamental concepts relevant to the field of the degree. There should normally be at least a little evidence of some form of originality, for example in the application of knowledge or in the way the question is addressed. There may be some failings in demonstrated understanding but overall the work will be at least reasonably competent and sound.

If, however, the answer shows the following failings it will not normally achieve a mark

higher than 59%: some mistakes or misunderstandings; some failings in structure (e.g. some irrelevancies, limited analysis, imperfect logic, lapses in coherence); little development of ideas and methods, inadequate evidence of knowledge or reading of an appropriate range of sources; limited evidence of discrimination between relative value of different sources; little or no originality in selection of sources; little or no reading beyond the reading list; limited awareness of evidence bearing on the question; little or no reference to appropriate case studies or examples; limited judgment (if any) in weighing and assessing different lines of evidence; mediocre writing (lapses in clarity, some errors of spelling, grammar, punctuation); some inaccuracies in bibliography and citation of references; limited critical reflection; limited evidence of a critical approach to assumptions of other writers; little or no indication of an ability to recognize and evaluate own assumptions; little evidence of independent thinking in evaluation of evidence / interpretation; little original insight; little or

34

no indication of awareness of unresolved issues in the discipline as a whole; limited attempts to relate argument to core concepts in general archaeological method and / or theory; limited reasoning from problem to methods to data; little or no clear statement / understanding of a research problem or question; little or no indication of selection of appropriate methods for the problem or selection of appropriate data; little or no defence of methods chosen.

Criteria for awarding a mark within the fail range can be found at: https://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43650568

30