INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2018-19 ARCL 0012 SITES & … · 2019-01-22 · introduction to ancient technologies and the problem of interpreting archaeological remains. The lectures

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2018-19

ARCL 0012 SITES & ARTEFACTS 2018

Year 1, Term 1: Core module, 15 credits

Hand Axe John Frere 1797

LECTURES

Tuesdays 2-4pm

Venue: Room 612 (Institute of Archaeology, sixth floor)

TUTORIAL GROUPS

Thursday 1 hour (9.00 am -1.00 pm Alternate weeks)

Venue: Room 412 (Institute of Archaeology, fourth floor)

Coordinators: Bill Sillar

[email protected] Room B16 Office hours: 4.15 – 5.15 pm Tuesdays, Room B16

and Jennifer French

[email protected] Room 411 Office hours: 10-11am Tuesdays, Room 411

Teaching Assistant: Ivana Jovanovic

Email: [email protected]

Turnitin, Class ID: 3883939 - Class Enrolment Password: IoA1819

Timetable: see final page

Assessment

a) Friday 5th October Experimental Archaeology Course assessment (20%)

(will be returned by 26th October)

b) 11th December Short answers assessment (30%) – held during class

(you will be given marks by 2nd January)

c) Tuesday 18th December maximum 2,625 word essay (roughly 2500 words) (50%)

(returned by 14th January – second week of 2nd term)

2

ARCL 0012 SITES and ARTEFACTS

27th- 30th September Experimental Archaeology Course, West Dean, West Sussex

Lectures – Tuesdays, 2-4 pm

1) 2nd October Introduction: Module Structure, Purpose and Assessment – Bill Sillar

2) ‘Piecing Together the Past’ – Bill Sillar

3) 9th October ‘Activity areas’, ‘contexts’ and ‘formation processes’ – Bill Sillar

4) Archaeological Features: from postholes to fieldsystems - Ulrike Sommer

5) 16th October Ethnoarchaeology and Experimental Archaeology – Jennifer French

6) Habitations: Houses and Communities – Ulrike Sommer

7) 23rd October Dating Artefacts: from seriation to absolute dating – Thomas Kador

8) Graves and Hoards – Ulrike Sommer

9) 30th October Artefact composition and provenance – Ian Freestone

10) Style and Culture - Jennifer French

Reading Week – No Teaching

11) 13th November Technology in Society: Making artefacts – Bill Sillar

12) Lithics – Ivana Jovanovic

13) 20th November Exchange and interpreting distribution in archaeology – Bill Sillar

14) Pottery – Patrick Quinn

15) 27th November Consumption: Artefact function and social identity – Bill Sillar

16) Metals –Miljana Radivojevic

17) 4th December Conservation for archaeologists an introduction – James Hales

18) Revision Session – Bill Sillar

19) 11th December Short Answer Assessment

20) Feedback and discussion – Bill Sillar

Practicals: with Ivana Jovanovic

Thursday small group tutorials run on alternative weeks

To introduce materials, handling of artefacts and laboratory analysis

1) Understanding features and artefact assemblages (IoA collections)

2) Finds distribution / graves

3) Stone

4) Pottery

5) Metals

Assessment

d) Friday 5th October Experimental Archaeology Course assessment (20%)


e) 11th December Short answers assessment (30%) – held during class


f) Tuesday 18th December maximum 2,625 word essay (roughly 2500 words) (50%)


3

4

Course Summary

This is a core module for 1st year undergraduates at the Institute of Archaeology, UCL. The

course starts with a 4 day field course in experimental archaeology which provides a practical

introduction to ancient technologies and the problem of interpreting archaeological remains.

The lectures and seminars explore how archaeologists have analyzed the material remains of

past societies focusing on different scales of spatial analysis, measuring time/chronology and

the analysis of materials remains.

The Experimental Archaeology Course, at West Dean, provides a practical experience of

technologies used in the past (such as flint knapping, pottery making, metal casting, building

structures, and preparing food) raising issues about the selection of raw materials, production

techniques, skill and artefact function. While at West Dean students will also be asked to

observe and think about the material evidence resulting from their activities. How could

surviving remains be used by future archaeologists to reconstruct these activities? The first

section of taught lectures will discuss how archaeologists think about and identify spatial and

temporal scales starting with the concept of ‘activity areas’ and different types of

archaeological sites, considering how these are located within a wider landscape and how

experimental and ethnographic approaches have been used to understand not just the

activities that took place at these sites, but also their social significance. We will consider

how the archaeological record is created by the overlaying and removal of material remains,

building a stratigraphic record within which artefacts are located and can be dated. In the

second part of the taught module we will review how archaeologists have analysed artefacts

to investigate how they were made and used as well as how objects can express people’s

identities. A selection of major technologies used in the past such as stone tools, pottery and

metal will be used to introduce broad concepts, methods and analytical techniques that can be

used in the study of many artefact types. Towards the end of the module we will come back

to consider how the breakage and disposal of artefacts contributes to the formation of

archaeological sites, and how conservation work can help in the preservation and analysis of

these remains. Throughout the module we will use case studies drawn from a wide range of

geographical areas and archaeological periods, exploring how the applications of scientific

techniques has been used to address archaeological problems. During the module each

student will attend five tutorials that will provide a more ‘hands on’ engagement with

materials discussed in lectures and introduce some of the laboratory facilities used in the

analysis of these materials. These tutorials will also give students an opportunity to discuss

topics covered during lectures. The ‘short-answers assessment’ is designed to assess student’s

knowledge of key points and broad concepts covered in the lectures and assigned readings,

with a longer essay designed to assess their ability to discuss a topic of their choosing in more

depth.

Relationship to other 1st year core modules at the Institute of Archeology:

This module, ‘Sites and Artefacts’ (ARCL 0012), focuses on archaeological approaches used

in the analysis and interpretation of material remains, it aims to help students become familiar

with major concepts and practical techniques used to study past societies (many of which have

been drawn from other disciplines such as chemistry, physics, biology, geography, ecology,

and anthropology). The second term module ‘People and Environments’ (ARCL 0013) will

continue this by focusing on aspect of archaeological analysis that are derived from life-science

approaches such as the analysis of human beings (osteology, paleopathology, diet, genetics,

demography) and past environments (geoarchaeology, zooarchaeology, and archaeobotany).

5

‘Introduction to Archaeology’ (ARCL 0010), will introduce students to the development of

the discipline and some of the larger theoretical concepts and debate within archaeology.

‘Field Methods’ (ARCL 0011), focuses on the practical techniques used in the survey and

excavation of archaeological sites. While ‘World Archaeology’ (ARCL 0014), gives a broad

introduction to cultural developments from early hominids to European colonization of the

Americas where the application of these analytical techniques and theoretical concepts has

been used to gain a better understanding of important issues such as early hominid diet, the

development of agriculture, craft specialization, urbanism and State Formation. Students on

specialist degrees will have some alternative modules that give them a foundation in further

skills and knowledge relevant to their specialisation.

Health and safety The Institute has a Health and Safety policy and code of practice which provides guidance on laboratory

work, etc. This is revised annually, and the new edition will be issued in due course. All work

undertaken in the Institute is governed by these guidelines and students have a duty to be aware of them

and to adhere to them at all times. This is particularly important in the context of the

laboratory/field/placement work which will be undertaken as part of this module.

6

AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT

Aims:

This module aims to introduce students to the problems of interpreting archaeological

remains and raise their awareness of the multiple spatial and temporal scales within which

archaeological analysis is undertaken. It will introduce distinct approaches to artefact studies

including a consideration of ancient technology, material culture and style in archaeology,

and introduce concepts and application of scientific methods used in the analysis and

interpretation of archaeological materials, spatial analysis and dating. Students will learn

basic archaeological concepts (such as assemblage formation, culture and style as well as

approaches to typology, ancient technology, temporality, and landscape). Students will be

introduced to the role of analogy and experiment in archaeological analysis, and gain an

understanding of how material remains are deposited in archaeological context and further

altered through cultural and natural transformation process.

Objectives

On successful completion of this module a student should:

1 Be familiar with some of the major concepts and analytical approaches used in

archaeology

2 Understand the processes that lead to the creation of archaeological deposits.

3 Critical about the rationale guiding choice of analytical techniques employed in

the sampling and investigation of archaeological data.

4 Recognise the potential and problems of applying scientific methods to the

analysis of archaeological problems

5 Be able to critically evaluate approaches taken in the analysis and interpretation of

archaeological material

Learning Outcomes:

On successful completion of this module students should have developed:

Generic Skills that should be developed during this module:

1 Observational skills (including recognising and describing material remains).

2 Research skills (including an awareness of how library based research can be

complimented by laboratory analysis and field recording)

3 Self-management skills.

4 Reasoned and critical assessment of multiple sources of evidence (identifying

problems and evaluate answers or solutions).

5 Understand the importance of health and safety in the work environment.

Subject knowledge, understanding and skills:

1 Demonstrate comprehension of the problematic and varied nature of

archaeological evidence in the field and/or in artefact-based, collections-based, or

records-based studies

2 Analyse and reflect critically upon a range of archaeological data (including how

archaeological artefacts, contexts, sites, and landscapes are identified, described

and compared).

7

Methods of assessment

This module is assessed by means of:

a) Experimental Archaeology Course field notebook assessment (20%)

b) Short answers assessment – 45 minute exam in final week of term (30%)

c) An Essay: maximum 2,625 words (roughly 2500 words long) (50%).

In order to complete and pass the module, students need to submit all three assessments.

Teaching methods

The module starts with a 4 day course in experimental archaeology where students camp and engage

in practical activities related to ancient technologies, subsistence and the interpretation of

archaeological remains. Themes introduced during the 4 day Experimental Archaeology course will

be developed by means of 20 hours of lectures, taught as two consecutive hours a week, using

powerpoint presentations and other learning materials made available via Moodle. There will also be

5 tutorial sessions that will introduce you to the application of analytical techniques within the

laboratories of the Institute of Archaeology.

Lectures will be held 2.00-4.00 pm on Tuesdays, in the Gavin de Beer Lecture room (G04 in the

Anatomy Building).

Practical Tutorial sessions will be held fortnightly within your designated small tutorial groups on

Thursdays, starting in room 412 (although you will go on to visit other lab rooms).

To keep tutorial groups small enough for effective discussion and to facilitate access to limited lab

space, it is essential that students attend in the group and time-slot to which they have been assigned.

If you need to attend at a different time, you should arrange to swap with another student from that

group, and confirm this arrangement with the Tutorial Coordinator so that the register can be altered.

Workload The module will require approximately 185 hours of your time consisting of 20 hours of taught

Lectures, in addition to around 40 hours during the Experimental Archaeology course you will also

have a further 5 hours of practicals.

We expect you to undertake around 70 hours of private reading during the module (about 4 hours for

each lecture) and around 50 hours to prepare work for module assessments.

Online Resources The full UCL Institute of Archaeology coursework guidelines are given here:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook

Attendance A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by

email. Departments are required to report each student’s attendance to UCL Registry at frequent

intervals throughout each term. Students are required to attend at least 70% of classes for each

module and will fail the module if they do not achieve 70% attendance.

Information for intercollegiate and interdepartmental students

8

Students enrolled in Departments outside the Institute should obtain the Institute’s coursework

guidelines from Judy Medrington ([email protected]), or review them on the IoA website.

Coursework submission procedures

All coursework must be submitted both as hard copy and electronically.

You should staple the appropriate colour-coded IoA coversheet (available in the IoA

library and outside room 411a) to the front of each piece of work and submit it room

411a

All coursework should be uploaded to Turnitin by midnight on the day of the

deadline. This will date-stamp your work. It is essential to upload all parts of

your work as this is sometimes the version that will be marked.

Instructions are given below.

Note that Turnitin uses the term ‘class’ for what we normally call a ‘course’ or

‘module’.

1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved as a Word doc.,

docx. or PDF document, and that you have the Class ID for the module

(available from the module handbook) and enrolment password (this is IoA1819

for all modules this session - note that this is capital letter I, lower case letter o,

upper case A, followed by the current academic year)

2. Click on http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login

3. Click on ‘Create account’

4. Select your category as ‘Student’

5. Create an account using your UCL email address. Note that you will be asked to

specify a new password for your account - do not use your UCL password or the

enrolment password, but invent one of your own (Turnitin will permanently

associate this with your account, so you will not have to change it every 6

months, unlike your UCL password). In addition, you will be asked for a “Class

ID” and a “Class enrolment password” (see point 1 above).

6. Once you have created an account you can just log in at

http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login and enrol for your other classes without

going through the new user process again. Simply click on ‘Enrol in a class’.

Make sure you have all the relevant “class IDs” at hand.

7. Click on the course to which you wish to submit your work.

8. Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1).

9. Double-check that you are in the correct module and assignment and then click

‘Submit’

10. Attach document as a “Single file upload”

11. Enter your name (the examiner will not be able to see this)

12. Fill in the “Submission title” field with the right details: It is essential that the

first word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g. YGBR8 In

what sense can culture be said to evolve?),

13. Click “Upload”. When the upload is finished, you will be able to see a text-only

version of your submission.

14 Click on “Submit”

.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login

9

If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on ioa-

[email protected], explaining the nature of the problem and the exact module

and assignment involved.

One of the Turnitin Advisers will normally respond within 24 hours, Monday-

Friday during term. Please be sure to email the Turnitin Advisers if technical

problems prevent you from uploading work in time to meet a submission deadline

- even if you do not obtain an immediate response from one of the Advisers they

will be able to notify the relevant Module Coordinator that you had attempted to

submit the work before the deadline

Word count for your final essay: 2,375-2,625 words

Your essay should be around 2,500 words long. With a maximum of 2,625 words

The following should not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages, lists of

figure and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, lists of references,

captions and contents of tables and figures, appendices.

Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed 2,625 words. (There is NO penalty for using

fewer words, the lower figure in the range (2,375 words) is simply for your guidance to

indicate the sort of length that is expected.)

You must indicate word length (minus exclusions) on the cover sheet. Exceeding the maximum

word-length expressed for the essay will be penalized in accordance with UCL penalties for

over-length work (above).

The penalties for overlength work will be as follows:

For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than 10% the mark will

be reduced by five percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced

below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.

For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more the mark will

be reduced by ten percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below

the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.



10

1: Introduction: Module Structure, Purpose and assessment Bill Sillar The first part of this lecture will provide practical information on the module, including module

structure, method of assessment, tutorial groups, resources and its relationship to your other 1st year

modules. This will be followed by a brief introduction to the interdisciplinary nature of archaeology,

and the concepts of sites and how they may be preserved in the archaeological record.

The primary book for this module is

Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice. London:

Thames and Hudson. (6th edition). (chapter numbers in the 5th edition are the same as the 6th

with very similar content)

General

Daniels, St., David, N. 1982. The archaeology workbook. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University

Press. INST ARCH AL DAN

David, N., Driver, J. 1989. The next archaeology workbook. Philadelphia, University of

Pennsylvania Press. INST ARCH AH Qto DAV

Greene, K., Morre, T. 2013. Archaeology, an introduction; the history, principles, and

methods of modern archaeology (5th edition) London, Routledge. INST ARCH AL

GRE

Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2005. Archaeology: The Key Concepts. London, Routledge. Plus

website:http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/resourcesforarchaeology/resources_archa

eological_investigation.asp

Sites, Site Formation and Archaeological excavation:

Bonsall, C., Tolan-Smith, Chr. (eds.) 1997. The human use of caves. Oxford, Archaeopress.

INST ARCH BC 100 Qto BON

Carver, M.O.H. 2009. Archaeological Investigation. London: Routledge. (Plus website:

http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/resourcesforarchaeology/resources_archaeological

_investigation.asp)

Evans, Chr. 2012. Archaeology and the repeatable experiment: a comparative agenda. In:

Jones, A. M., Pollard, J., Allen, M. J., Gardiner, J. (eds.), Image, memory and

monumentality: archaeological engagements with the material world: a celebration

of the academic achievements of Professor Richard Bradley. Prehistoric Society

Research Paper 5. Oxford, Oxbow, 295-306. INST ARCH BC 100 Qto MEI.

Menotti, F. 2012. Wetland archaeology and beyond: theory and practice. Oxford, Oxford

University Press. INST ARCH AH MEN

Rosen, A. 1986. Cities of clay: the geoarcheology of tells. Chicago, Chicago University

Press. INST ARCH DBE 100 ROS

Schiffer, M..B.1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque:

University of New Mexico Press. ORL; ISSUE DESK

Yates, D. 2007. Land, power and prestige: Bronze Age field systems in southern England.

Oxford, Oxbow.

http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/resourcesforarchaeology/resources_archaeological_investigation.asp

http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/resourcesforarchaeology/resources_archaeological_investigation.asp

11

Artefacts and their analysis:

Caple, C. 2006 Objects: Reluctant witnesses to the past London, Routledge

Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone Tools and Society. London: Batsford. ORL; DAA 100 EDM

Henderson, J. 2000 The Science and Archaeology of Materials: an investigation of inorganic

materials London, Routledge

Hurcombe, L. 2007 Archaeological artefacts as material culture. London, Routledge. INST

ARCH K HUR

Hurcombe, L. 2014 Perishable material culture in prehistory: investigating the missing

majority. London, Routledge. INST ARCH K HUR

Orton, C. and M. Hughes 2013. Pottery in Archaeology (2nd edition) Cambridge: UP. ORL;

ISSUE DESK; KD 3 ORT

Diagram illustrating the general distribution of artefacts and deposits in English flint mines

English Heritage: The Neolithic Flint Mines of England (1999, 61)

12

2: ‘Piecing Together the Past’ – Bill Sillar

This lecture takes its title from a book written by the 1st Director of the Institute of

Archaeology – Gordon Childe. We will explore how archaeologists use fragmentary material

remains to interpret past societies. The start of this process is defined by the broad questions

that we wish to ask about the structure, organization and beliefs of past societies and how

these changed through time and across the world. But, we also need to consider how

archaeological deposits are created through a range of human activities and natural processes

and how we can use the mute artefacts and silent sediments that are left behind to answer the

questions we want to ask about past societies. To the naïve observer, the archaeological

record might be expected to resemble ash-engulfed Pompeii – an undistorted snapshot of

human life at a particular place and time. But people have varying cultural attitudes to

clearing-up and removing unwanted material and material remains are also transformed by

further natural and cultural processes that shape what we recover as the ‘archaeological

record’. We will consider some of these archaeological ‘formation processes’ in this and

subsequent lectures.

Essential Reading

Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters 1 and

2). London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).

Readings

Binford, L. R. 1964. A consideration of archaeological research design. American Antiquity

29/4, 425-441. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL Binford, L. R. 1964. Behavioral archaeology and the "Pompeii Premise". Journal of

Anthropological Research 37/3, 1981, 195-208. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Brain, C. K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An introduction to African cave taphonomy.

Chicago, University of Chicago Press. DCE BRA

Childe, G. V. 1956 Piecing together the past London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hayden B., Cannon, A. 1983. Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya

highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 117-163. ELECTRONIC

JOURNAL

Hill, J. D. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex. BAR British Series 242,

Oxford, BAR. INST ARCH DAA Qto Series BRI 242 (also INST ARCH 1722)

Kuna, M. 2015. Categories of settlement discard. In: Kristiansen, K., Šmejda, L., Turek, J.

(eds.), Paradigm found. archaeological theory present, past and future. Papers in

honour of Evzen Neustupný. Oxford, Oxbow, 278-292. Academia.edu

Lamotta, V., Schiffer, M. B. 1999. Formation Processes of Housefloor assemblages. In:

Allison, P. M. (ed.) The Archaeology of Household Activities London, Routledge, 19-

29.

Lamotta, V., Schiffer, M. B. 2005. Archaeological formation processes. In: C. Renfrew, P.

Bahn (eds.), Archaeology: The Key Concepts. London, Routledge, 121-127. INST

ARCH AG REN

Lucas, G. 2000. Critical approaches to fieldwork: Contemporary and historical

archaeological practice. London, Routledge. Chapter 5 – ‘Eventful Contexts’

Miksicek, C. H. 1987. Formation processes of the archaeobotanical record. In: M. B. Schiffer

(ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 10. Academic Press, New

York, 211-247 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Schiffer, M. B. 1972 Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity

37:156-65. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

13

Schiffer, M. B. 1975. Behavioural chain analysis: Activities, organization, and the use of

space. Fieldania 65, 103-174 (reprinted in M. B. Schiffer 1995, Behavioral

Archaeology: first principles. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 55-66.). INST

ARCH 2172

Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque:

University of New Mexico Press. IoA ISSUE DESK

Sommer, U. 1990. Dirt theory, or archaeological sites seen as rubbish heaps. Journal of

Theoretical Archaeology 1, 47-60. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Stein, J. K. 2001. A review of site formation processes and their relevance to geoarchaeology.

In: P. Goldberg, V. T. Holliday, C. R. Ferring (eds.), Earth sciences and archaeology.

New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 37–51. ISSUE DESK

14

3: ‘Activity areas’, the idea of ‘context’ and ‘formation processes’ – Bill

Sillar

We will continue to develop themes from the previous week by drawing upon some of the

activities that students undertook at ‘Prim Tech’ (such as flint knapping, deer butchery, crop

processing and eating round the fire) to consider how these activities would be represented in

the archaeological remains that were left behind. Do we find ‘activity areas’ when

excavating archaeological sites, and what happens over time when many diverse activities

may take place in the same place? How does this relate to the concept of ‘context’ which is

frequently used in archaeology both to describe a layer or deposit on an archaeological site

and to describe the social and physical setting within which activities took place in the past.

Essential Reading:



Interpreting Occupation Sites

Crown, P., & Wills, W. 2018 The complex history of Pueblo Bonito and its interpretation.

Antiquity, 92(364), 890-904. doi:10.15184/aqy.2018.138

Jakucs, J., Oross, K., Bánffy, E., Voicsek, V., Dunbar, E., Reimer, P., and Whittle, A. 2018

Rows with the neighbours: The short lives of longhouses at the Neolithic site of

Versend-Gilencsa. Antiquity, 92(361), 91-117. doi:10.15184/aqy.2017.218

Salazar, J., & Kuijt, I. (2016). Dynamic places, durable structures: Early Formative

agropastoral settlements of the southern Andes, Argentina. Antiquity, 90(354), 1576-

1593. doi:10.15184/aqy.2016.213

Other Reading

Binford L. R. 1981 Behavioral archaeology and the 'Pompeii premise' Journal of

Anthropological Research 37: 195-208. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Bradley, R. 1982 The destruction of wealth in later prehistory. Man 17: 108-22.

ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Brain, C.K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African Cave Taphonomy.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DCE BRA

Hayden B. & A. Cannon 1983 Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya

highlands Journal of Anthropological Archaeology vol.2. 117-163. ELECTRONIC

JOURNAL

Hodder, I. and Hutson, S. 2003 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in

Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [INST ARCH AH HOD;

ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 HOD

LaMotta V. M. And B. Schiffer 1999 Formation Processes of Housefloor assemblages in

Allison P.M. (ed.) The Archaeology of Household Activities London:Routledge 19-29

Lucas G. 2000 Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical

Archaeological Practice London: Routledge Chapter 5 – ‘Eventful Contexts’

Schiffer M. B. 1975 Behavioural Chain Analysis: Activities, Organization, and the Use of

Space Fieldania 65: 103-174. (reprinted in M.B. Schiffer 1995 Behavioral

Archaeology: first principles Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 55-66.) INST

ARCH 2172

Schiffer M. B. 1972 Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity

37:156-65. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Schiffer, M..B.1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque:

University of New Mexico Press. ORL; ISSUE DESK

15

4: Archaeological Features: from postholes to fieldsystems – Ulrike

Sommer

Most archaeological sites do not consist of standing buildings; they are often revealed by

survey and excavation and consist of buried ‘features’. Under "normal" conditions,

archaeological finds are found embedded in the sediments, often in a hole that was previously

dug by people and subsequently infilled with a selection of artefacts and natural materials

including soil and sediments. We are going to look at the various units of deposition that

make up the archaeological record, and how they are excavated and analysed. Various site-

types offer different types of information and are often excavated and documented differently

accordingly.

Essential Reading:

Chapman, J. 2000. Pit-digging and structured deposition in the Neolithic and Copper Age.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 66, 61-87. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Museum of London 1994. Archaeological site manual. London, Museum of London (3rd

edition). INST ARCH AL WES Spence, C. Recording deposits and cuts, chapter 3.1

Readings Barker, P. 1986. Understanding archaeological excavations. London, Batsford. INST ARCH

AL BAR

Carver, M. O. H. 2009. Archaeological Investigation. London, Routledge. ISSUE DESK

(TWO COPIES); AL 10 CAR (SIX COPIES) (Chapter 1 and 2)

Evans, Ch., Pollard, J. Knight, M. 1999. Life in the woods: tree-throws, 'settlement' and forest

cognition. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18, 241-254. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Disregard the interpretation. But this is one of the only articles I know that describes

a rather ubiquitous feature that is easily confused with a pit!

Harris, E. C. 1989. Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. London, Academic Press.

INST ARCH AL HAR. Chapter 5 and 6

Museum of London 1994. Archaeological site manual. London, Museum of London (3rd

edition). INST ARCH AL WES Spence, C. Recording deposits and cuts, chapter 3.1

Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters 1 and 2).

London, Thames and Hudson (6th edition).

Roskams, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. ISSUE DESK, AL

11 ROS (MULTIPLE COPIES)

Section through an LBK ditch, Usingen. Germany (Schallmayer 2002, fig. 121)

16

5: Ethnoarchaeology and Experimental Archaeology: Jennifer French

‘What was this artefact used for?’ or ‘How was this monument built?’ These are frequent

questions about ancient materials. For answers, archaeologists have made comparisons to

how other people have used similar materials or used experimental approaches to replicate

some aspect of past behavior. This lecture will introduce the fields of experimental

archaeology and ethnoarchaeology. Drawing on a range of examples, we will discuss what

these research strategies have in common, how they differ from each other, and their

strengths and limitations as a means of answering questions about both artefacts and the

formation of archaeological sites and structures.

Essential Reading: Ferguson, J.E. 2010. Introduction. In: Ferguson, J. E. (ed.) Designing Experimental Research

in Archaeology: Examining Technology through Production and Use. Boulder,

University Press of Colorado, 1-12. INST ARCH AH FER (Also available online via

UCL Explore)

Reynolds, P. J. 1999. The nature of experiment in archaeology. In: Harding, A.E. (ed.),

Experiment and Design: Archaeological Studies in Honour of John Coles. Oxford,

Oxbow, 156–162. INST ARCH DA Qto HAR

1. Experimental archaeology Lipo, C.P., Hunt, T.L., & Haoa, S.R. 2013. The ‘walking’ Megalithic Statues (moai) of Easter

Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 2859–2866. ELECTRONIC

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Lin, S. C., Rezek, Z., & Dibble, H. L. 2018. Experimental design and experimental inference

in stone artifact archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 25(3):

663-688. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE

Outram, A. 2008. Introduction to experimental archaeology. World Archaeology 40/1:1-6.

ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Shimada, I. 2005. Experimental Archaeology. In: Maschner, H.G.D., & Chippindale, C.

(eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Methods. Lanham, Altamira Press, 603-642. IOA

AH MAS

Tilburg, J.A.V., 1995. Moving the Moai. Archaeology 48: 34–43. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

ARTICLE

2. Ethnoarchaeology and Ethnographic Analogy Jarvenpa, R., & Brumbach, H. 2009. Fun with Dick and Jane: Ethnoarchaeology,

Circumpolar Toolkits, and Gender “Inequality". Ethnoarchaeology 1(1): 57-78.

ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE

David, N., & Kramer, C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge. INST ARCH AH DAV, Issue Desk; can also be viewed on-line via UCL

Explore (Focus on Chapters 1 and 14 for an overview; the central chapters provide

case-studies on specific themes)

Hodder, I. 1982. The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists.

London, Batsford. INST ARCH BD 10 HOD

17

Kelly, R. L., Poyer, L., & Tucker, B. 2005. An ethnoarchaeological study of mobility,

architectural investment, and food sharing among Madagascar's Mikea. American

Anthropologist 107(3): 403-416. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE

Lyons, D., and Casey, J. 2016. It’s a material world: the critical and on-going value of

ethnoarchaeology in understanding variation, change and materiality. World

Archaeology 48(5): 609-627. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE

Mallol, C., Marlowe, F. W., Wood, B. M., & Porter, C. C. 2007. Earth, wind, and fire:

ethnoarchaeological signals of Hadza fires. Journal of Archaeological Science 34

(12): 2035-2052. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE

18

6: Habitations: Houses and Communities – Ulrike Sommer

People live in social groups that may be located in campsites, villages or towns where the

cumulative actions of many people create archaeological sites. Distinct locations may be used

for different kinds of activities and this has encouraged archaeologists to interpret distinct

kinds of ‘archaeological sites’ (e.g. settlements, cemeteries and monuments). But, while some

places may have a particular meaning/function (such as a burial ground) most locations have

multiple functions that develop and change over time with changes in population, cultural

values and economies. In this lecture we will explore the variety of ways in which

archaeologist have identified different kinds of habitation sites and how this can be used to

reconstruct social behaviour and the relationship between individuals and communities.

We will discuss the various types of habitations (lean-to's, brushwood shelters, caves, huts,

houses, etc.) and construction types and their archaeological correlates as well as the

problems of reconstructing houses.

Essential Reading:

Carver, M. O. H. 2009. Archaeological Investigation. London, Routledge. ISSUE DESK

(TWO COPIES); AL 10 CAR (SIX COPIES) (Chapter 1 and 2)

Renfrew, C. And Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters 2, 3

and 5). London, Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).

Other Reading

Binford, L. R. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. London,

Thames and Hudson. INST ARCH AH BIN Chapter 7, people in their lifespace: site

structure, a challenge to archaeological interpretation, 144-173.

Carver, M. O. H. 1987 Underneath English Towns: Interpreting Urban Archaeology.

London, Batsford. DAA 100 CAR

Carver, M. O. H. 1987. The nature of urban deposits. In: J. Schofield and R. Leech (eds),

Urban Archaeology in Britain. London, Council for British Archaeology Research

Report 61, 9-26. DAA Qto Series COU 61

Drewett, P. 1982. Later Bronze-Age Downland Economy and Excavations at Black Patch,

East Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 48, 321-400. ELECTRONIC

JOURNALS

Eickhoff, S. 1990. A spatial analysis of refitted flint artefacts from the Magdalenian site of

Gönnersdorf, Western Germany. In: Cziesla, E., Eickhoff, S. Arts, N., Winter, D.

(eds.), The big puzzle: International Symposium on Refitting Stone Artefacts,

Monrepos 1987. Studies in modern archaeology. Bonn, Holos, 307-337. INST ARCH

KA Qto BIG

Gardner, A. 2012. Time and empire in the Roman world. Journal of Social Archaeology,

12/2, 145-166. ELECTRONIC JOURNALS

Gerritsen, F. 2007. Domestic times: Houses and temporalities in late prehistric Europe. Jones,

A. (ed.), Prehistoric Europe, Theory and practice. Oxford, Wiley & Blackwell, 143-

161. INST ARCH DA 100 JON.

Lucas, G. 2001. Critical approaches to fieldwork: contemporary and historical

archaeological practice. Routledge, London. Chapter 5. ISSUE DESK IOA LUC

19

10: Dating Artefacts: from seriation to absolute dating – Thomas Kador A fundamental concern of archaeology is to understand how things changed in the past.

Many different concepts and techniques are used to date archaeological materials and sites.

Relative dating compares an excavated artefact with artefacts previously dated based on

seriation (an ordered sequence of changing artefact forms), stratigraphy or 'scientific' dating

techniques. Absolute dating is only possible if artefacts and other materials have a physical

or chemical composition that change in a consistent and predictable way, allowing us to read

this component of their composition as a 'clock'. The search for reliable absolute dates has

partly been the search for such clocks and how to securely calibrate them, but, it still relies on

a secure knowledge of the context within which the material to be dated was found.

Essential Reading:

Greene K., Morre, T. 2013. Archaeology: An introduction (5th edition) London, Routledge.

Chapter 4

Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapter 4).

London, Thames and Hudson (6th edition).

Other

Adams, W. Y. 1988 Archaeological Classification: theory versus practice. Antiquity 62, 40-

56. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Aitken, M. J. 1990. Science-based Dating in Archaeology. London, Longman. ORL; ISSUE

DESK; AJ AIT

Bailey, G. 1981. Concepts, time-scales and explanations in economic prehistory. In: A.

Sheridan, G. Bailey (eds.) Economic Archaeology British Archaeological Reports

international series 96. Oxford, BAR, 97-117. INST ARCH AH SHE (see INST

ARCH 612)

Biers, W. R. 1992. Art, Artefacts and Chronology in Classical Archaeology. London,

Routledge.

Darvill, T., Marshall, P., Parker-Pearson, M., Wainwright, G. 2012. Stonehenge remodeled

Antiquity 86, 1021–1040. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Dee M., D. Wengrow, A. Shorland, A. Stevenson, F. Brock, L. G. Flink, C. B. Ramsey 2013.

An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian

statistical modelling. Proceedings of the Royal Society A 469, #.

Lowe, J. J., Walker, M. J. C. 1997. Reconstructing Quaternary Environments. London,

Longman. (2nd edition), 274-297. ORL; BB6 LOW

Lucas, G. 2004 The Archaeology of Time. London, Routledge

Plog, S., Hantman J. L. 1990. Chronology construction and the study of prehistoric culture

change. Journal of Field Archaeology 17, 439-456. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Smart, P. L., Frances, P. D. (eds.) 1991. Quaternary Dating Methods – a User’s Guide.

Cambridge, Quaternary Research Association. ORL; AJ 10 SMA

Sørensen, M. L. Paradigm lost - on the state of typology in archaeological theory. In:

Kristiansen, K., Šmejda, L., Turek, J. (eds.), Paradigm found, archaeological theory

present, past and future. Papers in honour of Evzen Neustupný. Oxford, Oxbow, 84-

94.

Taylor, R. E., Aitken, M. J. (eds.) 1997. Chronometric Dating in Archaeology. New York,

Plenum Press. ORL; AJ 10 TAY

20

8: Graves and Hoards – Ulrike Sommer

While the finds in houses represent a negative selection, i.e. rubbish, graves and hoards

contain a positive selection of finds. We will discuss the different types of graves and how

this affects their archaeological visibility, and the relation between grave goods and the social

status of the deceased.

Hoards are an important archaeological source especially in the Bronze Age, but they are

difficult to link to other sites and finds. We will look at the different ways hoards and

deposits have been interpreted.

Graves

Cannon, A., 1989. The historical dimension in mortuary expressions of status and Sentiment.

Current Anthropology 30, 437–458.

Carr, Ch., 1995. Mortuary Practices: Their social, philosophical-religious, circumstantial, and

physical determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2 /2, 105–200.

Holst, M. K. 2013. Burials. In: Fokkens, H., Harding, A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the

European Bronze Age. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Parker-Pearson, M. K. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud, Sutton. ISSUE

DESK; AH PEA

Taylor, T. 2011. Death. In: T. Insoll (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual

and Religion. Oxford, Oxford Handbooks in Archaeology, 89–104.

Whittle. A. 2012. Being alive and being dead: house and grave in the LBK. In: Jones, A. M.,

Pollard, J., Allen, M. J., Gardiner, J. (eds.), Image, memory and monumentality:

archaeological engagements with the material world: a celebration of the academic

achievements of Professor Richard Bradley. Prehistoric Society Research paper 5.

Oxford, Oxbow, 194-206. INST ARCH BC 100 Qto MEI.

Hoards

Bland, R. 2013. Hoarding in Britain: an Overview. British Numismatic Journal 83, 214-38.

Bradley, R. 2013. Hoards and the deposition of metalwork. In: Fokkens, H., Harding, A.

(eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age. Oxford, Oxford University

Press. Online.

Dietrich, O. 2014. Learning from ‘scrap’ about Late Bronze Age hoarding practices: A

biographical approach to individual acts of dedication in large metal hoards of the

Carpathian Basin. European Journal of Archaeology 17/3, 468–486. Electronic

Journal

Fontijn, D. 2002. Sacrificial landscapes. Cultural biographies of persons, objects and 'natural'

places in the Bronze Age of the southern Netherlands, c. 2300-600 BC. Analecta

Praehistorica Leidensia 33/34. Leiden, University of Leiden Faculty of Archaeology.

Fontijn, D. 2008. Everything in its right place? On selective deposition, landscape and the

construction of identity in Later Prehistory. In: Jones, A. (ed.), Prehistoric Europe,

Theory and practice. Oxford, Wiley & Blackwell, 86-106. INST ARCH DA 100

JON, Academia.edu.

Kristiansen 1978: K. Kristiansen, The consumption of wealth in Bronze Age Denmark, a

study in the dynamics of economic processes in tribal societies. In: K. Kristiansen, C.

Paludan-Muller (Hrsg.), New directions in Scandinavian Archaeology. Kopenhagen,

National Museum of Denmark, 158–190. MAIN SCANDINAVIAN A 52 KRI

Nebelsiek, L. 2000. Rent asunder: ritual violence in Late Bronze Age Hoards. In: Pare, Ch. F.

E. (ed.), Metals make the world go round: the supply and circulation of metals in

21

Bronze Age Europe, proceedings of a conference held at the University of

Birmingham in June 1997. Oxford, Oxbow 2000, 160-175. INST ARCH DA Qto

PAR

Yates, D. Bradley, R. 2010. The siting of metalwork hoards in the bronze age of south-east

England. Antiquaries Journal 90, 41-72.

22

9: Artefact composition and provenance – Ian Freestone

The physical and chemical properties of different raw materials were understood and used by

ancient craftsmen and women to produce a very wide range of artefacts. These properties

were largely determined by the composition and structure of the raw materials and a better

understanding of these can help us to understand the manufacturing techniques and the

selection of distinct materials used for specific artefacts, tools and fuels etc. There are now a

wide range of analytical techniques used to investigate the composition of ancient materials.

Where this can either be compared to other objects from a known production site or raw

material source this may be used to locate the original provenance of artefacts that have been

transported or traded to more distant locations. However, it is important to consider how the

composition of the original raw materials may have been altered during the production, use

and burial of the artefact.

Essential Reading

Hughes, M. (1991) Tracing to source. In Bowman S (ed) Science and The Past. British Museum

Press.

Other Reading

Blomster, J. P., Neff, H., Glascock M. 2005. Olmec pottery production and export in ancient

Mexico through elemental analysis. Science 307, 1068-1072

Henderson, J. 2000. The Science and Archaeology of Materials: An Investigation of

Inorganic Materials, Routledge, London (see for flint, obsidian)

Peacock, D. P. S. 1969. Neolithic pottery production in Cornwall, Antiquity, 43, 145-149.

Renfrew, C., Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice. London, Thames

and Hudson. (6th edition). (Chapters 8 and 9)

Thomas, H. H. 1923. The source of the stones of Stonehenge. Antiquaries Journal 3, 239-

260.

Tykot, R. H. 2004. Archaeological provenance studies. In: Martini, A., M. Milazzo, M.

Piacentini (eds.), Physics Methods in Archaeometry. Amsterdam; Oxford: IOS Press,

407-432

Wilson, L., Pollard A. M. 2001. The provenance hypothesis. In: Brothwell D R., Pollard A.

M. (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Chichester, John Wiley, 507-517.

23

10: Style and Culture: Jennifer French

Material culture is the primary form of archaeological evidence. Traditionally, archaeologists assumed

that differences in material culture (for example, artefacts and structures used) indicated the existence

of different prehistoric tribes or peoples. Distribution maps of different objects were used to elucidate

the territories of different groups and their movements. Nowadays, this "ethnic" archaeology, is seen

with some suspicion, and other theories are used to explain changes in artefact style. In this lecture,

we will discuss what archaeologists mean when they talk about “cultures” and examine arguments

regarding the extent to which these are both objective entities and proxies for different groups of

people. Following this, we will explore the concept of style in archaeology more broadly, examining

how differences in artefacts are interpreted in view of both form and function.

Essential reading:

Lucy, S. 2005. Ethnic and cultural identities. In: Díaz-Andreu, M. et al. (eds.), The Archaeology of

Identity: Approaches to Gender, Age, Status, Ethnicity and Religion. London, Routledge, 86-

109. INST ARCH BD 20 DIA (also available on short loan)

Roberts, B. W., & Vander Linden, M. 2011. Investigating archaeological cultures: material culture,

variability, and transmission. In, Roberts, B.W. & Vander Linden, M (Eds.) Investigating

Archaeological Cultures. Springer: New York, NY, pg. 1-21 (Available online via UCL

Explore)

Other readings

Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity. Constructing Identities in the Past and Present.

London, Routledge. INST ARCH BD JON (Focus on Chapters 2 and 6)

Lycett, S. J. 2015. Cultural evolutionary approaches to artifact variation over time and space: basis,

progress, and prospects. Journal of Archaeological Science 56: 21-31. ELECTRONIC

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Vanhaeren, M., & d'Errico, F. 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by

personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33(8): 1105-1128. ELECTRONIC

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Shennan, S. 1989. Introduction: archaeological approaches to cultural identities. In Shennan,

S. (ed.) Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity. London, Routledge pg, 1-32

INST ARCH AH SHE (Also available online via UCL Explore) Wiessner, P. 1983. Style & social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity

48/2: 253-276 (read alongside: Sackett, J. 1985. Style & ethnicity in the Kalahari: a reply

American Antiquity 50: 154-59). ELECTRONIC JOURNAL ARTICLE

24

11: Technology in Society: Raw materials and the making of artefacts – Bill

Sillar

The study of artefacts has always been at the centre of archaeology, a discipline which partly

emerged out of the antiquarian tradition of collecting curious objects. Recently

anthropologists and sociologists amongst others have revived their interest in the role of

material culture as a medium for display and communication. In archaeology we have also

seen a shift away from the use of artefacts to identify the date and cultural affiliation of

excavated sites to a greater interest in how material culture shapes peoples' participation in

the world, particularly the role of artefacts in constructing, reproducing and changing social

relations. The lecture will explore approaches to the study of material culture, considering

issues of technology, production and consumption.

Essential Reading:

Sillar, B. and Tite, M. 2000. The challenge of ‘technological choices’ for material science

approaches in archaeology. Archaeometry, 42: 2-20. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapter 8).

London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).

Other Reading

Barnett, W. K. and J. W. Hoopes 1995 The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and

Innovation in Ancient Societies Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. INST

ARCH BC 100 BAR

Costin, C.L. 1991. Craft specialisation: issues in defining, documenting and explaining the

organisation of production. In: M.B. Schiffer (ed.) Archaeological Method and

Theory, Vol. 3. New York, Academic Press, 1-53 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Kingery, D.W. 1996 Learning from Things: method and theory of material culture studies

Washington, D.C. ; London : Smithsonian Institution Press

Lemonnier, P. (ed.) 1993. Technological choices: transformations in material cultures since

the Neolithic. London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD LEM

Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material culture today: Towards an anthropology of

technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 5: 147-186.

ELECTRONIC JOURNAL Lemonnier, P. 1992 Elements for an anthropology of Technology Ann Arbor, Mich: Museum of

Anthropology, University of Michigan INST ARCH BD LEM

Schlanger, N. 1994. Mindful technology: unleashing the chaîne opératoire for an

archaeology of mind. In: C. Renfrew and E. Zubrow (eds) The Ancient Mind:

elements for cognitive archaeology Cambridge University Press: 143-151

Sigaut, F. 1994 Technology in: T. Ingold (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology

Routledge, London. 420-459.

25

12: Lithics – Ivana Jovanovic

Knapped-stone artefacts provide the earliest evidence of a hominin 'material culture' and play

an important role in all non-industrial societies. This lecture presents the contribution lithic

research can make to the interpretation of human social structure and social change, through

the technological, stylistic, and functional analysis of stone tools. There will be a particular

focus on questions of raw material selection and the techniques of making stone tools.

Essential Reading:

Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone Tools and Society. (Chapter 1). London: Batsford. ORL; DAA 100

EDM

Binford, L. 1983. In Pursuit of the Past. (Chapter 4). London: Thames and Hudson. ORL;

ISSUE DESK; AH BIN

A number of books provide good introductions to lithic technology, terminology, and methods of

analysis. If you are interested in lithic analysis, the Holdaway and Stern, Andrefsky, Odell and Inizan

are good. If you wish to try your hand at flint knapping, then Whittaker is useful. Recent journal

articles give a perspective on the wide range of issues covered by lithic studies.

Adams. J. L. 2014. Ground stone analysis, a technological approach (2nd. edition). Salt Lake

City, University of Utah Press. INST ARCH KA ADA

Andrefsky, Jr., W. 1998. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press. IOA ISSUE DESK: KA AND

Andrefsky, W., 2009. The analysis of stone tool procurement, production and maintenance.

Journal of Archaeological Research 17, 65-103.

Butler, C., 2005. Prehistoric Flintwork. Stroud, Tempus. IOA ISSUE DESK. focus on

British lithics

Holdway, S., Stern, N. 2004. A record in Stone. Victoria, NSW: Aboriginal Studies Press.

IOA ISSUE DESK: DDA HOL (Chapters 1 and 2)

Inizan, M.-L., Roche, H., Tixier, J. 1992. Technology of knapped stone. Meudon, CREP. IOA

ISSUE DESK: DA INI (pages 11-73)

Odell, G. H., 2004. Lithic Analysis. New York/London, Kluwer Academic/Plenum. IOA

ISSUE DESK: IOA KA ODE (chapter 5)

Soulier, M.-C., Mallye, J.-B. 2012. Hominid subsistence strategies in the South-West of

France: A new look at the early Upper Palaeolithic faunal material from Roc-de-

Combe (Lot, France). Quaternary International 252, 99-108.

Wadley, L., Hodgkiss, T., Grant, M., 2009. Implications for complex cognition from the

hafting of tools with compound adhesives in the Middle Stone Age, South Africa.

Proceeding of the National Academy of Science 106 (24), 9590-9594.

White, M. J., Pettit, P. B., 2011. The British Late Middle Paleolithic: an interpretive synthesis

of Neanderthal occupation at the northwestern edge of the Pleistocene world. Jounal

of World Prehistory 24/1, 24-97. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Whittaker, J. C., 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools. Austin,

University of Texas Press. IOA ISSUE DESK: KA WHI.

Wright, K. A. 2008. Craft production and the organisation of ground stone technologies. In:

Rowan, Y. R., Ebeling, J. R. (eds.), New approaches to old stones: recent studies of

ground stone artifacts. London, Equinox, 130-143. INST ARCH KA ROW.

26

13: Exchange and interpreting distribution in archaeology – Bill Sillar

A fundamental feature of human society is our willingness to undertake different tasks, tied

to this is a need to exchange labour, raw materials, finished goods, or information with

others. Exchange takes place within communities, but of more interest to archaeologists is the

kind of exchange that can tell us about how communities (village, towns or cities) interact

with other communities. Archaeologists are interested in exchange for three reasons: 1) The

goods involved can tell us about what the people in a community are interested in acquiring,

and with the right techniques, where such goods originate; 2) If goods can be traced, and

networks can be reconstructed, archaeologists can learn about the social significance of

exchange--for example, do some goods turn up only in elite burials, or are they widely

distributed in households? 3) The actual means by which goods are distributed: Land or sea?

Markets or itinerant merchants? In the lecture, we will consider how archaeologists use inter-

disciplinary approaches to examine the mechanics of trade and exchange; how goods can be

traced; and how it is possible to learn something about the social significance of trade.

Essential Reading



Other Reading

Appadurai, A. 1986 Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In: A. Appadurai

(ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press 3-63. INST ARCH 425

Bradley, R. M. Edmonds 1993 Interpreting the Axe Trade. Cambridge, Cambridge University

Press. INST ARCH DAA 140 BRA

Graham, E. 1987. Resource Diversity in Belize and its Implications for Models of Lowland

Trade. American Antiquity 52/4, 753-767. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Gregory, C. A. 1994 Exchange and reciprocity. In: T. Ingold (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia

of Anthropology Routledge, London, 911-933.

Peacock D, P. S., Williams, D. F. 1986 Amphorae and the Roman economy; an introductory

guide. London Longman YATES P 70 PEA

Perles, C. 1992. Systems of Exchange and Organization of Production in Neolithic Greece

Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5/2, 115-164. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and

Communication. In Jeremy A. Sabloff & C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, (eds) Ancient

Civilization and Trade. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 3-59. BC 100

SAB

Sahlins, M. 1974. Stone Age economics. London, Tavistock Publications. INST ARCH BD

10 SAH Chapter 5, on the sociology of primitive exchange

Tyers, P. 1996. Roman Pottery in Britain. London, Batsford. ORL; DAA 170 TYE Wolf, G. 1990 World-systems analysis and the Roman empire. Journal of Roman

Archaeology 3, 44-58 ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

27

14: Pottery – Patrick Quinn

The plasticity of clay and its behaviour during firing allows it to be manipulated into a huge variety

of functional objects including pottery vessels, refractories and and building materials. The

widespread use of ceramics in past societies and their good preservation even after several

millennia means that they are one of the most abundant types of artefact recovered from

archaeological sites around the world. This lecture will outline the phenomenon of

archaeological ceramics and in particular pottery, covering the main wares and technological

innovations in its long history. Particular emphasis will be given to the valuable cultural

information that ceramics can reveal about the past societies that made and used it and the range

of archaeological and scientific techniques that can be employed to retrieve this from ancient

sherds. Following on from the previous lecture, it will consider the topic of pottery provenance

determination and its role in the study of distribution patterns related to trade, exchange and

migration.

Essential Reading

Rice, P. M. 2015. Pottery and Its History. In: Rice, P. M. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. (2nd

Edition) University of Chicago Press: 3-32. INST ARCH KD 3 RIC Quinn, P. S. and Burton, M. 2015. Ceramic Distribution, Migration and Cultural Interaction

Among Late Prehistoric (1300–200 B.P.) Hunter-Gatherers in the San Diego Region,

Southern California. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports, 5: 285-295.

Other Reading

Allepuz, E. T., Quinn, P. S., López Pérez, M. D. 2015. To the Vicinity and Beyond! Production,

Distribution and Trade of Cooking Greywares in Medieval Catalonia, Spain.

Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 6: 397-410. INST ARCH KD 2 PEA

Gaimster, D. and Freestone, I. 1997. Introduction. In: Freestone, I. and Gaimster, D. (eds.)

1997 Pottery in the Making: World Ceramic Traditions British Museum Press, London:

9-19. INST ARCH KD FRE

Orton, C. and Hughes, M. 2013 Fabric Analysis. + Classification of Form and Decoration. In:

Orton, C. and Hughes, M. Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press: 71-92.

INST ARCH KD 3 ORT

Orton, C. and Hughes, M. 2013. History of Pottery Studies. In: Orton, C. and Hughes, M.

Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press: 3-23. INST ARCH KD 3 ORT

Pritchard, A. C. and van der Leeuw, S. E. 1984. Introduction: The Many Dimensions of Pottery.

In: van der Leeuw, S. E. and Pritchard, A. C. (eds.) The Many Dimensions of Pottery; Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology. Amsterdam: Institute for Pre- and Proto-

History, University of Amsterdam: 3-15. INST ARCH KD 3 LEE

Quinn, P. S. 2013. Introduction to Ceramic Petrography. In: Quinn, P. S. Ceramic Petrography: The Interpretation of Archaeological Pottery & Related Artefacts in Thin Section.

Oxford: Archaeopress, 1-20. INST ARCH KD 3 QUI

Renfrew, C. 1977. Production and Exchange Early State Societies. the Evidence of Pottery. In:

Peacock, D. P. S. (ed.) Pottery and Early Commerce: Characterization and Trade in Roman and Later Ceramics. Academic Press, London: 1-19. INST ARCH KD 2 PEA

Rye, O. S. 1981. Introduction. In: Rye, O. S. Pottery Technology; Principles and Reconstructions. Manuals on Archaeology no. 4 Washington D.C: 1-5. INST ARCH

KD 1 RYE

28

15: Consumption: Artefact function and social identity – Bill Sillar

‘What was this artefact used for?’ Is frequently the first question asked when finding

something unusual. Artefact form names such as "axe", "jug" or "flint knife" imply a

knowledge about the use of an artefact which may not be justified. Often, these names are

based on analogy to modern implements known from our own experience or ethnographic

work, but these may not always be correct. In some cases the analytical methods can help to

ascertain artefact use, for example wear-traces, residue analysis or the study of starch

remains. However, artefacts can also have had a symbolic meaning or express some aspect of

the users identity which can be even harder to ascertain. Artefacts can inform us about past

social relations, such as an individual’s role in society or perhaps even how an individual

choose to express his or her place or position in society. We can sometimes use the place an

artefact was found in and associated artefacts to work out its meaning.

Essential Reading

Woodward, A. 2002. Beads and beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British Early Bronze

Age. Antiquity 76, 2002, 1040-1047. ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Use and use-wear

Lemorini, C., Cesaro, St. N. (eds.) 2014. An integration of the use-wear and residue analysis

for the identification of the function of archaeological stone tools: proceedings of the

international workshop, Rome, March 5th-7th, 2012. BAR International Series 2649.

Oxford, Archaeopress. INST ARCH KA Qto LEM

Manuel Marreiros, J., Gibaja Bao, J. F., Ferreira Bicho, N. 2014. Use-wear and residue

analysis in archaeology. New York, Springer.

van Gijn, A. 2010. Flint in focus: lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden,

Sidestone Press. INST ARCH KA GIJ

van Gijn, A., Whittaker, J., Anderson, P. A. (eds) 2014. Explaining and exploring diversity in

agricultural technology. Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST ARCH HA Qto GIJ

Skibo, J. M, 1992. Pottery function, a use-alteration perspective. New York, Plenum. INST

ARCH KD SKI

Artefact meaning and value

Hodder, I. (ed). 1989. The Meaning of Things. (Chapters 2,15,16). London: Unwin Hyman

(or 1991 paperback Harper Collins). ORL; ISSUE DESK; AH HOD.

Hodder, I. 1991. The Decoration of Containers: An Ethnographic and Historical Study. In:

W. A. Longacre (ed.) Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Arizona: The University of

Arizona Press, 71-94. ORL; KD LON

Kopytoff, I. 1988. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. In: A.

Appadurai (ed.) The Social life of things; commodities in cultural perspective.

Cambridge: CUP, 64-94. ORL; BD AP

Larick, R. 1986. Age grading and ethnicity in the style of Loikop (Samburu) spears. World

Archaeology 18, 1986, 269–283. Electronic Journal

Lillios, K. T., Vasileios, T. (eds.) 2010. Material Mnemonics. Every day memory in

prehistoric Europe. Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST ARCH DA 100 LIL

Lucy, S., Díaz-Andreu, M., Babić, St. (eds) 2005. Archaeology of identity, approaches to

gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion. London, Routledge. INST ARCH AH DIA

Wobst, H. M. 1977. Stylistic behaviour and information exchange. In: C. Cleland (ed.),

Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin. Ann Arbor,

29

University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 61, 317-

342.

Sackett, J. 1985. Style and ethnicity in the Kalahari: a reply to Wiessner American Antiquity

50: 154-59. ORL

Shennan, S. 1989. Introduction: Archaeological approaches to cultural identity. In: S.

Shennan (ed.) Archaeological approaches to cultural identity.. London: Unwin

Hyman, 1-32.. ORL; ISSUE DESK

Consumption, Breakage and Disposal of Artefacts

DeBoer, W.R. and Lathrap, D.W. 1979. The making and breaking of Shipibo-Conibo

ceramics. In: Kramer C. (ed.) Ethnoarchaeology: implications of ethnography for

archaeology. New York: Columbia University Press, 102-138. ORL; ISSUE DESK;

AH KRA

Bradley, R. 1982 The destruction of wealth in later prehistory. Man 17: 108-22. INST

ARCH 1047 Chapman, J. 2000 Fragmentation in archaeology: people, places, and broken objects in the

prehistory of south-eastern Europe London: Routledge INST ARCH DAR CHA

Deal, M. 1985 Household pottery disposal in the Maya highlands; An ethnoarchaeological

interpretation, In; Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4: 243-291. INST

ARCH Pers.

Deal M. and M. B. Hagstrum 1995 Ceramic reuse behavior among the Maya and Wanka:

Implications for Archaeology in J.M. Skibo, W. H. Walker and A. E. Nielsen (eds.)

Expanding Archaeology Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press 111-125. INST

ARCH 2177

30

16: Metals – Miljana Radivojevic

Archaeometallurgical research can provide important evidence for our interpretation of the

nature and scale of mining, smelting, refining and metalworking activities. In this lecture, we

will review the identification and study of a variety of metallurgical remains related to

metallurgy, the techniques employed to analyse them, and the archaeological information we

may obtain in return. We will also consider how technical studies of metallic artefacts can be

used to study the function and use of metal artefacts, and to inform about consumption

patterns.

Essential Reading:

Bayley, J., Dungworth, D. and Paynter, S. 2001. Archaeometallurgy. Centre for Archaeology

Guidelines. Swindon: English Heritage. INST ARCH KEB Qto BAY and available

online: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/cfa_archaeometallurgy2.pdf



Other Reading

Bayley, J., Crossley, D. and Ponting, M. 2008. Metals and metalworking. A research

framework for archaeometallurgy. London: Historical Metallurgy Society. ISSUE

DESK AND KEA Qto BAY

Cleere, H. 1984. Ironmaking in the economy of the ancient world: the potential of

archaeometallurgy. In: B. Scott and H. Cleere (eds) The Crafts of the Blacksmith.

USIPP Comité pour la Siderurgie Ancienne: Belfast Northern Ireland Symposium, 1-

6. ORL; ISSUE DESK

Craddock, P. T. 1991. Mining and smelting in Antiquity, in Bowman, S. (ed.), Science and

the Past, 57-73. London: British Museum Press. INST ARCH AJ BOW, ISSUE

DESK IOA BOW

Craddock, P. T. 1995. Early metal mining and production. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press. INST ARCH KE CRA, ISSUE DESK IOA CRA 6

Dolfini, A. 2011. The function of Chalcolithic metalwork in Italy: an assessment based on

use-wear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 38/5, 1037-1049.

ELECTRONIC JOURNAL

Killick, D. and Fenn, T. 2012. Archaeometallurgy: the study of preindustrial mining and

metallurgy. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 559-575.

Rehren, T. and Pernick, E. (2008): Coins, artefacts and isotopes: archaeometallurgy and

Archaeometry. Archaeometry 50, 232-248. ELECTRONIC JOURNALS

Roberts, W. B. and Thornton, C. P. 2014 (eds). Archaeometallurgy in Global Perspective:

Methods and Syntheses. New York: Springer [available online]

Tylecote, R.F. 1987. The Early History of Metallurgy in Europe. London: Longman. ORL;

ISSUE DESK; TYLECOTE TYL

31

17: Conservation for archaeologists an introduction – James Hales

Conservators can provide a vital link between archaeological excavations and museum

displays. There are several different aspects to this that may focus on the careful recovery and

preservation of artefacts, but also allows the opportunity for a more detailed study and

analysis of the object and, in the case of some museum objects, archive work to understand

the ancient context and later history of the artefact. In this lecture we will consider the role of

the conservator in relation to wider archaeological research.

Essential Reading

Cronyn, J. M. 1990. The Elements of Archaeological Conservation. London, Routledge. INST

ARCH L CRO Chapter 1: ‘Introducing Archaeological Conservation’, pp.1-13; if

you have time then also Chapter 2: ‘Agents of Deterioration and Preservation,’ pp.14-

42.

Jones, S., Holden, J. 2008: It's a material world (pp. 27-29 Conservation and its Values)

London, Demos, 2008. INST ARCH AG JON and

http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/materialworld

Other Reading

Buttler, C., Davis, M. (eds.) 2006 Things fall apart... Museum conservation in practice. Cardiff:

National Museum Wales Books. INST ARCH LA 1 BUT

Pye, E. 2001. Caring for the Past: Issues in Conservation for Archaeology and Museums. London,

James and James. INST ARCH L PYE See especially Chapters 5 & 6

Sease C., 1987. A Conservation Manual for the Field Archaeologist Los Angeles: Institute of

Archaeology UCLA. (2nd edn 1992, 3rd edn 1994) INST ARCH LA SEA

Watkinson, D., Neal, V., 1998 First Aid for Finds. 3rd edition. London, Rescue - The British

Archaeological Trust, and Archaeology Section of the UK Institute for Conservation, with the

Museum of London. INST ARCH LA Qto WAT

Conservation of a bukranion, Çatal Höyük, Turkey

32

18: Revision Session. – Bill Sillar

Discussion of topics covered in the module and some of the themes that

recurred or linked between distinct lecture topics. We will also discuss some of

the essay questions and the following week’s assessment.

Prior to this session you should read over your notes from previous lectures,

tutorials and your personal reading as well as reviewing the lecture

presentations and other resources on moodle. Where you have questions it

would be useful to e-mail these to the module-coordinator in advance of the

revision session so that your questions can be addressed during the class.

19: Short Answer Assessment

The assessment for this module includes a short (less than one hour) unseen examination, which will

be held in the lecture room on the final day of the taught module. In the examination, students will

have to answer approximately 10 questions with short answers that will vary from a few words to a

short paragraph (e.g. 200 words). An example paper using the same format and examples of the style

of questions to be asked is given bellow, and another will be discussed in class during the revision

session.

Example Short Answer Questions:

1) Explain what is meant by TWO of the following terms:

Craft Specialisation

Artefact

Site Formation Processes

2) Describe a significant contributions to archaeology made by one of the following:

Willard Libby

Oscar Montelius

3) Discuss two factors which limit the applications of the following approaches to

archaeological research:

Experimental Archaeology

Trade and Exchange

4) Convert the following into numerical dates expressed as BC or AD

3rd Millennium BC

500 BP

5000 years ago

1 CE

33

5) Discuss what is being shown in the picture below – if you wish you may annotate the picture.

6) Describe 5 significant steps or techniques you might use to make a Pottery vessel

7) Discuss what kind of data can be recorded, analysed and/or interpreted using one of the

following techniques:

XRF (X-ray fluorescence)

Geographical Information Systems

8) Identify an artefact and discuss how the selection of raw materials would have affected its

production, function and value.

9) What techniques would you use to investigate where a piece of pottery came from

34

20: Feedback and Discussion

Comment on plants & animals as raw material sources for craft production Plants and animals have multiple roles in human society and play an active role in the

creation and transformation of archaeological sites. This should be considered during your

second term module ‘People and Environments’ as animals and plants provide vital raw

materials for a number of important technologies such as leatherwork, textiles, bone and

antler tools, woodworking, basketry and fuels which have implications for resource

management and environmental change as well as the form and function of archaeological

sites.

Readings

Barber, E. J. W. 1991 Prehistoric Textiles. The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and

Bronze Ages. Princeton, Princeton University Press. INST ARCH KJ BAR

Brumfiel, E. 1996 The quality of tribute cloth: the place of evidence in archaeological

argument. American Antiquity 61:453-62. ELECTRONIC JOURNALS

Davis, S. 1987/1995. The Archaeology of Animals, (Chapters 1, 3 and 4, 5 if time). London:

Batsford. ISSUE DESK; BB3 DAV

Dijkamn, W., and A. Ervynck 1998 Antler, bone, horn, ivory and teeth : the use of animal

skeletal materials in Roman and early medieval Maastricht Maastricht: Dep. of Urban

Development INST ARCH DAHA Qto DIJ

Mc Donnell, J. G. 2001. Pyrotechnology. In D. R. Brothwell, Pollard, A.M. (eds), Handbook

of archaeological sciences, Chichester, John Wiley, 493-312. ORL; AJ BRO

McCorriston, J. 1997 The fiber revolution Current Anthropology 38(4): 517-549.

ELECTRONIC JOURNALS



Sillar, B. 2000 Dung by Preference: The choice of fuel as an example of how Andean pottery

production is embedded within wider technical, social and economic practices.

Archaeometry 42(1), 43-60 ELECTRONIC JOURNALS

Wild, J. P. 1988 Textiles in archaeology. Shire. INST ARCH KJ WIL

35

APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2018-19 (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY)

This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to modules. It is not

a substitute for the full documentation, with which all students should become familiar. For

full information on Institute policies and procedures, see the IoA Student Administration

section of Moodle: https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/module/view.php?id=40867

For UCL policies and procedures, see the Academic Regulations and the UCL Academic Manual: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulations ; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/

GENERAL MATTERS ATTENDANCE: A minimum attendance of 70% is required. A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email. DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers whether there is any way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia should indicate it on each coursework cover sheet. COURSEWORK LATE SUBMISSION: Late submission will be penalized in accordance with current UCL regulations, unless formal permission for late submission has been granted. The UCL penalties are as follows:

The marks for coursework received up to two working days after the published date and time will incur a 10 percentage point deduction in marks (but no lower than the pass mark).

The marks for coursework received more than two working days and up to five working days after the published date and time will receive no more than the pass mark (40% for UG modules, 50% for PGT modules).

Work submitted more than five working days after the published date and time, but before the second week of the third term will receive a mark of zero but will be considered complete.

GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: Please note that there are strict UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of extensions for coursework. You are reminded that Module Coordinators are not permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a the appropriate UCL form, together with supporting documentation, via Judy Medrington’s office and will then be referred on for consideration. Please be aware that the grounds that are acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Student Disability Services to make special arrangements. Please see the IoA website for further information. Additional information is given here http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/

RETURN OF COURSEWORK AND RESUBMISSION: You should receive your marked

coursework within one month of the submission deadline. If you do not receive your work

within this period, or a written explanation, notify the Academic Administrator. When your

marked essay is returned to you, return it to the Module Co-ordinator within two weeks. You

must retain a copy of all coursework submitted.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulations

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/

36

CITING OF SOURCES and AVOIDING PLAGIARISM: Coursework must be expressed in

your own words, citing the exact source (author, date and page number; website address if

applicable) of any ideas, information, diagrams, etc., that are taken from the work of others.

This applies to all media (books, articles, websites, images, figures, etc.). Any direct

quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed

between quotation marks. Plagiarism is a very serious irregularity, which can carry heavy

penalties. It is your responsibility to abide by requirements for presentation, referencing and

avoidance of plagiarism. Make sure you understand definitions of plagiarism and the

procedures and penalties as detailed in UCL regulations: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current-

students/guidelines/plagiarism

RESOURCES MOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the module on Moodle. For help with Moodle, please contact Charlotte Frearson ([email protected])

Assessment This module is assessed by means of:

a) Experimental Archaeology Course field notebook assessment 1000 words (20%)

b) Short answers assessment – 1 hour test taken on final day of taught module (30%)

c) 2500 word essay (50% ) – submitted as hard-copy and Turnitin (see below)

If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should discuss this with the Module

Coordinator.

Students are not permitted to re-write and re-submit essays in order to try to improve their marks. The

nature of the assignments and possible approaches to the will be discussed in class, in advance of the

submission deadline. The Module Co-ordinator is willing to discuss a brief outline of the student's

approach to the assignment, provided this is planned suitably in advance of the submission date.

EXPERIMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY COURSE – see previous information

SHORT ANSWER ASSESSMENT – done in class (see above)

ESSAY QUESTIONS

Although these questions relate most strongly to a few specific lectures and the

accompanying readings, students are encouraged to read widely and to draw on alternative

examples to illustrate their argument.

Choose one of the following:

1. With reference to at least two occupation sites, discuss what evidence archaeologists have used to

identify human occupation (e.g. hearths, post holes, wall foundations or artefact scatters) and whether

their interpretation of this evidence (e.g. as a seasonal camp, house or village) is justified.

2. Using two examples of archaeological sites from anywhere in the world, discuss how the

preservation of materials at the site has influenced their interpretation.

3. Using examples of how ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological data has been used to interpret

archaeological remains, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of using ethnographic analogies.

37

4. Choose two different artefact production technologies (e.g. lithics, pottery, metal, textiles or

woodworking) and compare how differences in the raw materials, processes of production and

preservation affects how archaeologists analyse and interpret the remains of these activities?

5. For this essay you should visit the British Museum and study the artefacts

Found with the cremation burial at Welwyn Garden City on display in Room 50. Then answer the

following question: ‘What influenced the selection of artefacts placed in this burial?’

38

ARCL 0012 SITES and ARTEFACTS

27th- 30th September Experimental Archaeology Course, West Dean, West Sussex

Lectures – Tuesdays, 2-4 pm

21) 2nd October Introduction: Module Structure, Purpose and Assessment – Bill Sillar

22) ‘Piecing Together the Past’ – Bill Sillar

23) 9th October ‘Activity areas’, ‘contexts’ and ‘formation processes’ – Bill Sillar

24) Archaeological Features: from postholes to fieldsystems - Ulrike Sommer

25) 16th October Ethnoarchaeology and Experimental Archaeology – Jennifer French

26) Habitations: Houses and Communities – Ulrike Sommer

27) 23rd October Dating Artefacts: from seriation to absolute dating – Thomas Kador

28) Graves and Hoards – Ulrike Sommer

29) 30th October Artefact composition and provenance – Ian Freestone

30) Style and Culture - Jennifer French

Reading Week – No Teaching

31) 13th November Technology in Society: Making artefacts – Bill Sillar

32) Lithics – Ivana Jovanovic

33) 20th November Exchange and interpreting distribution in archaeology – Bill Sillar

34) Pottery – Patrick Quinn

35) 27th November Consumption: Artefact function and social identity – Bill Sillar

36) Metals –Miljana Radivojevic

37) 4th December Conservation for archaeologists an introduction – James Hales

38) Revision Session – Bill Sillar

39) 11th December Short Answer Assessment

40) Feedback and discussion – Bill Sillar

Practicals: with Ivana Jovanovic

Thursday small group tutorials run on alternative weeks

To introduce materials, handling of artefacts and laboratory analysis

1) Understanding features and artefact assemblages (IoA collections)

2) Finds distribution / graves

3) Stone

4) Pottery

5) Metals

Assessment

g) Friday 5th October Experimental Archaeology Course assessment (20%)


h) 11th December Short answers assessment (30%) – held during class


i) Tuesday 18th December maximum 2,625 word essay (roughly 2500 words) (50%)


Documents

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2018-19 ARCL 0012 SITES & … · 2019-01-22 · introduction to ancient technologies and the problem of interpreting archaeological remains. The lectures