1. No category

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY 2014-15
ARCL 1016
SITES and ARTEFACTS
Year 1, Term 1: Core Course, 0.5 unit
Diagram illustrating the general distribution of artefacts and deposits in English flint mines
English Heritage: The Neolithic Flint Mines of England (1999, 61)
LECTURES
Tuesdays 2-4pm
Venue: Anatomy – lecture room G04 – Gavin de Beer
TUTORIAL GROUPS
Day and time: Thursday, 9-1 am (Alternate weeks)
Venue: 412 (Institute of Archaeology, fourth floor)
Coordinator: Bill Sillar
Email: b.sillar@ucl.ac.uk
Room B16
Office hours: 4.30 – 5.30 pm Tuesdays, Room B16
Teaching Assistant: Matt Phelps
Email: matthew.phelps.09@ucl.ac.uk
Turnitin, Class ID: 783156 - Class Enrolment Password:
IoA1415
2
Course Summary
This is a core course 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 course 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 course 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 course 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 course 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 courses at the Institute of Archeology:
This course, ‘Sites and Artefacts’ (ARCL 1016), 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,
3
ecology, and anthropology). The second term course ‘People and Environments’ (ARCL
1017) 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). ‘Introduction to Archaeology’ (ARCL 1014), will
introduce students to the development of the discipline and some of the larger theoretical
concepts and debate within archaeology. ‘Field Methods’ (ARCL 1015), focuses on the
practical techniques used in the survey and excavation of archaeological sites. While ‘World
Archaeology’ (ARCL 1003/1018), 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 courses 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 course.
4
AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT
Aims:
This course 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 course 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 course students should have developed:
Generic Skills that should be developed during this course:
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
2
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
Analyse and reflect critically upon a range of archaeological data (including how
archaeological artefacts, contexts, sites, and landscapes are identified, described
and compared).
5
Timetable 2014
25th- 28th September - 4 day Experimental Archaeology Course at West Dean, West Sussex
Lectures – Tuesdays, 2-4 pm
1) 30th September Introduction: Course Structure, Purpose and assessment – Bill Sillar
2)
‘Piecing Together the Past’ – Bill Sillar
th
3) 7 October ‘Activity areas’, ‘contexts’ and ‘formation processes’ – Bill Sillar
4)
Archaeological sites: Houses, Communities, and Tombs – Andrew Gardner
th
5) 14 October Landscapes, ‘cultural areas’ and world systems – Andrew Bevan
6)
Phenomenology: experiencing scale in archaeology – Sue Hamilton
st
7) 21 October Ethnoarchaeology and Experimental Archaeology – Ulrike Sommer
8)
Making Monuments - Bill Sillar
th
9) 28 October Technology in Society: Making artefacts – Bill Sillar
10)
Dating Artefacts: from seriation to absolute dating – Dafydd Griffiths
READING WEEK
11) 11th November Artefact composition and provenance – Ian Freestone
12)
Lithics – Mark Roberts
th
13) 18 November Exchange and interpreting distribution in archaeology – Bill Sillar
14)
Pottery – Dafydd Grifiths
th
15) 25 November Consumption: Artefact function and social identity – Liz Graham
16)
Metals – Marcos Martinon-Torres
nd
17) 2 December Conservation for archaeologists an introduction – James Hales
18)
Revision Session – Bill Sillar
th
19) 9 December Short Answer Assessment
20)
Feedback and discussion – Bill Sillar
Practicals: Thursday small group tutorials run on alternative weeks
To introduce materials, handling of artefacts and laboratory analysis
1) IoA collections
2) Perceptions of space – GIS labs
3) Stone tools - XRF
4) Pottery – Petrography labs
5) Metals - SEM &/or Conservation
6
Methods of assessment
This course is assessed by means of:
a) Experimental Archaeology Course field notebook assessment (20%)
b) Short answers assessment – less than one hour exam (30%)
c) A 2500 word essay (50% )
Teaching methods
The course 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 course 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 course (about 4 hours for
each lecture) and around 50 hours to prepare work for course assessments.
ONLINE RESOURCES
The full UCL Institute of Archaeology coursework guidelines are given here:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook
The full text of this handbook is available here (includes clickable links to Moodle and online reading
lists) http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/studying/undergraduate/courses/ARCL1016
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
course and will fail the course if they do not achieve 70% attendance.
7
1: Introduction: Course Structure, Purpose and assessment Bill Sillar
The first part of this lecture will provide practical information on the course, including course
structure, method of assessment, tutorial groups, resources and its relationship to your other 1st year
courses. This will be followed by a brief introduction to the interdisciplinary nature of archaeology,
highlighting the breadth and diversity of archaeological activities.
The primary book for this course is
RENFREW, C. and BAHN, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice. London:
Thames and Hudson. (6th edition). See further resources and quizzes at:
http://college.thamesandhudsonusa.com/college/archaeology/archaeology6/welcome.aspx
(chapter numbers in the 5th edition are the same as the 6th with broadly similar content)
Other general texts that you will find useful:
CAPLE, C., 2006 Objects: Reluctant witnesses to the past London, Routledge
CARVER, M.O.H. 2009. Archaeological Investigation. London: Routledge. (Plus companion
website:http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/resourcesforarchaeology/resources_archa
eological_investigation.asp)
EDMONDS, M. 1995. Stone Tools and Society. London: Batsford. ORL; DAA 100 EDM
GREENE, K. and T. MORRE 2013 Archaeology: An Introduction (5th edition) London:
Routledge
HENDERSON, J. 2000 The Science and Archaeology of Materials: an investigation of
inorganic materials London, Routledge
ORTON, C., HUGHES M. 2013. Pottery in Archaeology (2nd edition) Cambridge: UP. ORL;
ISSUE DESK; KD 3 ORT
RENFREW, C. and P. BAHN 2005 Archaeology: The Key Concepts London: Routledge.
SCHIFFER, M. B. 1995 Bahavioral Archaeology: First Principles Salt Lake City, University
of Utah Press
SCHIFFER, M..B.1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press. ORL; ISSUE DESK
8
2: ‘Piecing Together the Past’ – Bill Sillar
This lecture explores how we can 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 INST ARCH 2767
CHILDE G. 1956 Piecing together the past London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
LAMOTTA, V and SCHIFFER, M 2005. Archaeological formation processes. In Archaeology:
The Key Concepts, ed. C. Renfrew and P. Bahn, pp. 121-127. London: Routledge.
INST ARCH (reference) AG REN
LUCAS G. 2000 Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical
Archaeological Practice London: Routledge Chapter 3 – ‘Splitting Objects’
MIKSICEK, C.H. 1987. Formation processes of the archaeobotanical record. M.B.Schiffer
(ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 10: 211-247. Academic Press,
New York. [Online journals]
SCHIFFER, M..B.1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press. ORL; ISSUE DESK
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 (pp. 37–51). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. ISSUE DESK
VAN DER LEEUW, S. E. 1984. Dust to Dust: A transformational view of the ceramic cycle.
In: S. E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard (eds.) The Many Dimensions of Pottery;
ceramics in archaeology and anthropology. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam,
709-773. ORL, KD 3 LEE, TEACHING COLLECTION INST ARCH 1755
9
3: ‘Activity areas’, the idea of ‘context’ and ‘formation processes’ – Bill
Sillar
In this lecture we will draw upon some of the activities that students undertook at ‘Prim
Tech’ (such as flint knapping, deer butchery, crop processing and eating round the fire) to
consider how these activities would be represented in the archaeological remains that were
left behind. Do we find ‘activity areas’ when excavating archaeological sites, and what
happens over time when many diverse activities may take place in the same place? How does
this relate to the concept of ‘context’ which is frequently used in archaeology both to describe
a layer or deposit on an archaeological site and to describe the social and physical setting
within which activities took place in the past.
Essential Reading:
RENFREW, C. and BAHN, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters
1 and 2). London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
Other Reading
BINFORD L. R. 1981 Behavioral archaeology and the 'Pompeii premise' Journal of
Anthropological Research 37: 195-208. INST ARCH 824
BRADLEY, R. 1982 The destruction of wealth in later prehistory. Man 17: 108-22. INST
ARCH 1047
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. INST ARCH
1387
HILL J. D. 1995 Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex BAR 242, Oxford. INST
ARCH DAA Qto Series BRI 242 (also INST ARCH 1722)
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. INST ARCH 1102
SCHIFFER, M..B.1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press. ORL; ISSUE DESK
10
4: Archaeological sites: Houses, Communities, and Tombs – Andrew
Gardner
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 sites, how this can be used to
reconstruct social behaviour, and the problems of identifying households and mortuary
practices or the relationship between individuals and communities.
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
CARVER, M. O. H. 1987 'The nature of urban deposits', in J. Schofield and R. Leech (eds),
Urban Archaeology in Britain, 9-26. London: Council for British Archaeology
Research Report 61. DAA Qto Series COU 61
CARVER, M. O. H. 1987 Underneath English Towns: Interpreting Urban Archaeology.
London: Batsford. DAA 100 CAR
DREWETT, P. 1982. Later Bronze-Age Downland Economy and Excavations at Black
Patch, East Sussex. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society/ 48: 321-400. ORL
GARDNER, A. (2012). Time and empire in the Roman world. Journal of Social Archaeology,
12.2, 145-166
GREIG, J. 1982 'The interpretation of pollen spectra from urban deposits', in A. R. Hall and
H. K. Kenward (eds), Environmental Archaeology in the Urban Context, 47-65.
London: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 43. DAA Qto Series COU
43
LUCAS, G. 2001. Critical approaches to fieldwork: contemporary and historical
archaeological practice. Routledge, London. Chapter 5. ISSUE DESK IOA LUC
PARKER-PEARSON, M.K. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton.
ORL; ISSUE DESK; AH PEA
ROSKAMS, S. 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISSUE DSK
AND AL 11 ROS (MULTIPLE COPIES)
11
5:Landscapes, ‘cultural areas’ and world systems – Andrew Bevan
This lecture shows how archaeologists have approached the recording and interpretation of
large scale spatial phenomena at the landscape and regional levels. This will include a
consideration of how social groups have been considered at the large scale through concepts
such as ‘cultural areas’ and large scale interaction through exchange and trade. Topics to be
covered include methods such as Central Place Theory, Site Catchment Analysis, and the
innovative role which computer visualisation and Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
bring to the analysis of spatially referenced data sets.
Essential Reading:
LOCK, G. and HARRIS, T. 1992. Visualising spatial data: the importance of Geographic
Information Systems. In: P. Reilly and S.P.Q. Rahtz (eds.) Archaeology and the
Information Age: A Global Perspective. One World Archaeology 21. London:
Routledge, 80-96. ORL; AK REI
VITA-FINZI, C. and HIGGS, E. 1970. Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of
Palestine: site catchment analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 36: 1-37.
ORL
Other Reading
BEVAN, A. 2012. Spatial methods for analysing large-scale artefact inventories, Antiquity
86(332): 492-506. http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1341767/
BINFORD, L. 1983/2002. In Pursuit of the Past. (Chapter 8). London: Thames and Hudson.
ORL; AH BIN
HODDER, I. 1972. Locational models and the study of Romano-British settlement. In: D.L.
Clarke (ed.) Models in Archaeology. London: Methuen, 887-909. ORL; ISSUE DESK
RENFREW, C. and BAHN, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters
5 and 6). London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
12
6: Phenomenology: experiencing scale in archaeology – Sue Hamilton
We understand the physical world through our bodies. Everything from a flint tool to a
landscape is felt, viewed and experienced through the sense of scale provided by our bodies.
In this lecture we will consider the role of phenomenology and sensory archaeology through
examples of archaeological projects carried out by UCL-IoA on Bodmin Moor, Cornwall and
more recent developments of this work in Southern Italy (the Tavoliere- Gargano Project)
and on Easter Island (The Rapa Nui Landscapes of Construction Project). The following
kinds of questions will be addressed: What relationship is there between a 'cognised' and a
'real' natural environment? Is this either dominant or determinant in relation to day-to-day
subsistence activities? What role does landscape perception and use of the environment play
in settlement and monument location, ritual and the articulation of power relations?
Essential Reading:
HAMILTON, S. and WHITEHOUSE, R. 2006. Phenomenology in practice: Towards a methodology for
a 'subjective' approach. European Journal of Archaeology 9(1):31- 71. ORL
TILLEY, C. 2008. Phenomenological approaches to landscape archaeology In B. David and J.
Thomas (Eds) Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press,
271-276. ISSUE DESK; AH DAV
Other Reading
BENDER, B. (ed) 1993. Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Berg. ORL; ISSUE DESK; BD
BEN
BENDER, B. 1993. Theorising landscapes and the prehistoric landscapes of Stonehenge. Man 27:
735-55. ORL
BENDER, B., HAMILTON, S., and TILLEY, C. 2007. Stone Worlds: Narrative and Reflexivity in
Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press (464 pages - look at Chapter 3)
ISSUE DESK; DAA 410 C.7 BEN
COSGROVE, D. 1989. Geography is everywhere: culture and symbolism in human landscapes. In: D.
Gregory and R. Walford (eds) Horizons in Human Geography. London: Macmillan. ORL;
SCIENCE GEOG H.5 GRE
HAMILTON S, SEAGER THOMAS M, and WHITEHOUSE R. 2011. Say it with stone: constructing
with stones on Easter Island. World Archaeology 43(2):167-190.
HAMILTON, S. HARRISON, S. and BENDER, B. 2008. Conflicting Imaginations, distinguishing
between cultural and natural sediments and landscapes. Geoforum. 39 (2), 602-615.
Available on-line.
HIRSCH, E. and O'HANLON (eds) 1995. The Anthropology of Landscape. Oxford: OUP. ORL; BD
HIR
MORPHY, H. 1995. Landscape and the reproduction of the ancestral past. In: E. Hirsch and M.
O'Hanlon (eds) The Anthropology of Landscape. Oxford. OUP. ORL; BD HIR; SCIENCE
ANTH D 6 HIR; GEOG H 10 HIR
TILLEY, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. (Chapter 1). Oxford: Berg. ORL; ISSUE DESK;
BD TIL
TILLEY, C. 1996. The power of rocks: landscape and topography on Bodmin Moor. World
Archaeology 28(2): 151-176. ORL
13
7: Ethnoarchaeology, Folklore and Experimental Archaeology: Ulrike
Sommer
What was an artefact used for, and how was it made? This is a fundamental question of
prehistoric archaeology. For an answer, people have used speculation, or the observation of
their own society - do we have any similar artefacts, and how do they work? Failing that,
observations of other peoples were used, often with the unfounded assumption that they were
more "primitive" and thus nearer to prehistoric mankind in general. Scholars also tried out
things for themselves, which was the beginning of experimental archaeology. The replication
of ancient techniques, for example of flintknapping can lead to a better understanding of
artefacts but also the society who produced them. Today, experimental archaeology is an
independent branch of archaeology, often using refined scientific techniques.
The use of analogies is now a part of ethnoarchaeology. Ethnoarchaeologists make their own
observation of traditional techniques, rather than relying on the accounts of Ethnographers,
who are normally interested in different questions than archaeologists. They also observe
natural processes, like the decay of buildings and other structures, which is an important
aspect of archaeological taphonomy. This overlaps partly with geoarchaeology.
The demonstration of ancient techniques is often an important part of outreach projects.
Often, the public can also try their hands at crafts like pottery and food-preparation, and use
replicas of ancient tools. As these activities have to be safe and yield rapid results for
unskilled participants, the range of techniques used is rather limited and there is a danger of
presenting a dumbed-down view of prehistory.
Essential Reading:
Reynolds, P. J. 1999. The nature of experiment in archaeology. In: A. E Harding (ed.),
Experiment and design; Archaeological studies in Honour of John Coles. Oxford,
Oxbow, 156–162. INST ARCH DA Qto HAR
1. Experimental archaeology
Dana, C. E., Millson, D. (eds.) 2011. Experimentation and interpretation: the use of
experimental archaeology in the study of the past. Oxford, Oxbow Books. ISSUE
DESK IOA MIL 9
Outram, A. 2008. Introduction to experimental archaeology. World Archaeology 40/1, 1-6.
INST ARCH PERS and NET
Saraydar, St. C. 2008. Replicating the Past. The art and science of the archaeological
experiment. Long Grove, Waveland. INST ARCH AH SAR
Tichy, R. 2004. Presentation of archaeology and archaeological experiment. euroREA
2/2005, 113-119. INST ARCH PERS
2. Ethnoarchaeology
Hodder, I. 1982. The Present Past: An Introduction to Anthropology for Archaeologists.
London, Batsford. INST ARCH BD HOD
14
David, N., Kramer, C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. INST ARCH AH DAV, Issue Desk
3. Fire
James, S. R. 1996. Early hominid use of fire: recent approaches and methods for evaluation
of the evidence. In Bar-Yosef, O. et al. (eds), Proceedings of the XIII. Int. Koll. UISPP
Forlí, Colloquium 5, 65-75.
Mc Donnell, J. G. 2001. Pyrotechnology. In: Brothwell, D. R., Pollard, A.M. (eds), Handbook
of archaeological sciences. Chichester, John Wiley, 493-312. ORL; AJ BRO
Rowlett, R. 2007. Detecting ancient fires and simple fireplaces in the Old World. In:
Gheorghiu, D., Nash, G. (eds), The archaeology of fire: understanding fire as material
culture. Budapest, Archaeolingua, 229-240. DA 100 GHE
Experimental archaeology
Journal EuroRea INST ARCH PERS and NET
Bulletin of Primitive Technology INST ARCH PERS
Series Experimentelle Archäologie in Deutschland INST ARCH DA 100 EXP
15
8: Making Monuments - Bill Sillar
Large monuments constructed from earth and stone are some of the most enigmatic of
archaeological sites because we lack obvious analogies within our own experience. There
have been a number of experimental projects that have explored the techniques that may have
been used in the construction of these monuments and their location in the landscape.
Archaeologists have also drawn from ethnographic situations to interpret both the
construction and the use of such monuments. The relevance of these analogies can, in part,
be assessed through a detailed comparison of the archaeological remains and those reported
in the experimental and ethnographic studies. But, it is also evident that the perceptions and
interests of individual archaeologists influence their interpretations.
Essential
PROTZEN J-P 1985 Inca Quarrying and Stonecutting The Journal of the Society of
Architectural Historians 44(2) 161-182
Other Reading
BELL. M., FOWLER, P., HILLSON, S. W. (eds) 1996. The Experimental Earthwork Project.
1960-1992. York, Council for British Archaeology.
BRADLEY, R. 1988 The Significance of Monuments: on the shaping of human experience
in Neolithic and Bronze Age Europe London, Routledge
JEWELL, P. A., DIMBLEBY, G. W. 1966. The experimental earthwork on Overton Down,
Wiltshire, England: the first four years. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32,
313-342.
OGBURN D. 2004 Power in Stone: The Long-Distance Movement of Building Blocks in the
Inca Empire Ethnohistory 51(1): 101-135
PARKER-PEARSON, M. and RAMIlISONINA 1998 Stonehenge for the Ancestors : the
stones pass on the message Antiquity 72: 308-326
SILLAR B. (2013) The Building and Rebuilding of Walls: commitments and tensions within
an Andean community and the archaeological monument they inhabit. Journal of
Material Culture 18(1) 27–51
16
9: 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. ORL
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 ORL
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. ORL
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.
17
10: Dating Artefacts: from seriation to absolute dating – Dafydd Griffiths
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. and T. MORRE 2013 Archaeology: An Introduction (5th edition) London:
Routledge Chapter 4
RENFREW, C. and BAHN, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapter
4). London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
Case Studies
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
DARVILL, T., P. MARSHALL, M. PARKER-PEARSON, and G. WAINWRIGHT 2012
Stonehenge remodeled Antiquity 86 (2012): 1021–1040
Other
ADAMS W. Y. 1988 Archaeological Classification: theory versus practice Antiquity 62: 4056. INST ARCH 581
AITKEN, M.J. 1990. Science-based Dating in Archaeology. London: Longman. ORL; ISSUE
DESK; AJ AIT LOWE, J.J. and WALKER, M.J.C. 1997. Reconstructing Quaternary
Environments. London: Longman. (2nd edition), 274-297. ORL; BB6 LOW
BAILEY G. 1981 Concepts, time-scales and explanations in economic prehistory in A.
Sheridan and G. Bailey (eds.) Economic Archaeology British Archaeological
Reports (international series) 96 Oxford. 97-117. INST ARCH AH SHE (see INST
ARCH 612)
BIERS, W. R. 1992 Art, Artefacts and Chronology in Classical Archaeology London,
Routledge.
LUCAS G. 2004 The Archaeology of Time London: Routledge
PLOG S. and J. L. HANTMAN 1990 Chronology Construction and the Study of Prehistoric
Culture Change Journal of Field Archaeology 17: 439-456. INST ARCH Pers.
SMART, P. L. and FRANCES, P. D. (eds) 1991 Quaternary Dating Methods – a User’s
Guide. Cambridge: Quaternary Research Association. ORL; AJ 10 SMA
18
TAYLOR, R. E. and AITKEN, M. J. (eds) 1997 Chronometric Dating in Archaeology. New
York: Plenum Press. ORL; AJ 10 TAY
19
11: 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
RENFREW, C. and BAHN, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters
8 and 9). London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
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.
THOMAS, H.H. 1923. The source of the stones of Stonehenge. Antiquaries Journal 3, 239260.
TYKOT, R. H. (2004) Archaeological provenance studies. pp 407-432 in Martini A., M.
Milazzo and M. Piacentini. Physics Methods in Archaeometry. Amsterdam; Oxford:
IOS Press
WILSON, L. and POLLARD A. M. (2001) The provenance hypothesis. In Handbook of
Archaeological Sciences (eds D R Brothwell and A M Pollard). Chichester, John
Wiley, 507-517.
20
12: Lithics – Mark Roberts
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.
ANDREFSKY, Jr., W. 1998. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. 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 Publishing Ltd. (focus on British
lithics). IOA ISSUE DESK.
HOLDWAY, S. and 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. and 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. and MALLYE, J-B. 2012. Hominid subsistence strategies in the SouthWest of France: A new look at the early Upper Palaeolithic faunal material from Rocde-Combe (Lot, France). Quaternary International 252, 99-108.
WADLEY, L, HODGKISS, T. and GRANT, M., 2009. Implications for complex cognition
from the hafting of tools with compound adhesives in the Middle Stone Age, South
Africa. PNAS 106 (24), 9590-9594.
WHITTAKER, J.C., 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone tools. Austin:
University of Texas Press. IOA ISSUE DESK: KA WHI.
WHITE, M.J. and 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.
21
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 interdisciplinary approaches to examine the mechanics of trade and exchange; how goods can be
traced; and how it is possible to learn something about the social significance of trade.
Essential Reading (Renfrew plus any one of the other readings)
RENFREW, COLIN. 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
RENFREW, C. and BAHN, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapter
9). London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
Other Reading
APPADURAI, A. 1986 Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In, A. Appadurai
(ed.) The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press 3-63. INST ARCH 425
BRADLEY, R. and M. EDMONDS 1993 Interpreting the Axe Trade Cambridge University
Press. INST ARCH DAA 140 BRA
GRAHAM, E. 1987. Resource Diversity in Belize and Its Implications for Models of Lowland
Trade. In American Antiquity 52(4): 753-767. (ORL)
GREGORY, C. A. 1994 Exchange and reciprocity in: T. Ingold (ed.) Companion
Encyclopedia of Anthropology Routledge, London. 911-933. To be added to
teaching collection
PEACOCK D, P. S. & D. F. WILLIAMS 1986 Amphorae and the Roman economy; an
introductory guide. Longman, London. 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. INST ARCH 2180.
WOLF, G. 1990 World-systems analysis and the Roman empire Journal of Roman
Archaeology 3: 44-58 INST ARCH Pers. To be added to teaching collection
22
14: Pottery – Dafydd Grifiths
Pottery is the most abundant class of artefact recovered from many archaeological sites. In
addition to its excellent survival characteristics, the plasticity of clay has allowed it to be
manipulated into a wide variety of shapes and used for a wide range of purposes. This lecture
will consider the material properties of clays in relation to a wide range of techniques used to
make pottery, and analytical techniques used to study archaeological pottery. There will a
particular focus on the analysis and interpretation of pottery distribution patterns.
Essential Reading
TITE, M. S. 1999. Pottery Production, Distribution, and Consumption – the contribution of the
physical sciences Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(3): 181-233. ORL
VAN DER LEEUW, S. E. 1984. Dust to Dust: A transformational view of the ceramic cycle.
In: S. E. van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard (eds.) The Many Dimensions of Pottery;
ceramics in archaeology and anthropology. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam,
709-773. ORL, KD 3 LEE, TEACHING COLLECTION INST ARCH 1755
Other Reading
ARNOLD, D. E. 1985. Ceramic theory and cultural process. New studies in Archaeology. Cambridge:
CUP New Studies in Archaeology. ORL; KD ARN
BARNETT, W.K. and HOOPES, J.W. 1995. The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and
innovation in Ancient Societies, (Introduction). Washington: Smithsonian Institution
Press. ORL; ISSUE DESK.
FREESTONE, I. And GAIMSTER, D. (eds.) 1997. Pottery in the Making: World Ceramic
Traditions. London: British Museum Press, London. ORL; KD FRE
HENDERSON, J. 2000. The Science and Archaeology of Materials: an investigation of
inorganic materials (Chapter 4). London: Routledge. ORL; JDA HEN
ORTON, C., HUGHES M. 2013. Pottery in Archaeology (Chapter 2) Cambridge: UP. ORL;
ISSUE DESK; KD 3 ORT
RICE, P. M. 1987. Pottery Analysis; A sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
ORL; KD 3 RIC
RICE, P. M. 1996. Recent Ceramic Analysis: 2. Composition, Production and Theory,
Journal of archaeological Research (4)3: 165-202. ORL
RYE, O. S. 1981. Pottery Technology; principles and reconstructions. Manuals on
Archaeology no. 4. Washington D.C. ORL; KD 1 RYE
SKIBO, J.M. and FEINMAN, G.M. (eds). 1999. Pottery and People: a dynamic interaction.
Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. ORL; KD3 SKI
TYERS, P. 1996. Roman Pottery in Britain. London: Batsford. ORL; DAA 170 TYE
23
15: Consumption: Artefact function, ‘Art’ and social identity – Elizabeth
Graham
People use things and materials to perform particular functions. A hammer might be used to
drive a nail, or a brush to apply eye shadow. Things and materials, however, can also express
aspects of what archaeologists call ‘identity’. When we use the term ‘social identity’ in
particular, we are referring to what artefacts can tell us about social relations, such as an
individual’s place in society or perhaps even how an individual chooses to express his or her
place or position in society. We might ask whether the nature of the artefact or its context
suggests the existence of a hierarchy, with rulers and ruled? Or, we might consider the
spatial patterning of an artefact. If an artefact is found over a broad area, this suggests wide
access to goods, which could reflect at least a degree of egalitarianism. In this lecture we will
consider the ways in which artefacts can tell us about social relations and hence socioeconomic integration and complexity.
Essential
Come to class prepared to discuss these questions but also prepare short written responses
which will be collected at the start of class.
• The individual
1) Provide an example of an artefact the function of which tells us something
about the owner’s place in society.
2) Provide an example of an artefact the design or style or execution of which
tells us something about the owner’s place in society.
3) What is ‘art’? Why do you think I put ‘art’ in inverted commas?
• The bigger picture
1) Provide an example of an artefact and its context (site and/or regional level)
which would indicate the existence of a hierarchy (complexity).
2) Provide an example of an artefact and context (site and/or regional level)
which would indicate if not an egalitarian society then one with egalitarian
features.
Readings that can help with the assignment
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
CORBEY, R., LAYTON, R and TANNER, J. 2004. Archaeology and art, in J. Bintliff (ed.) A
Companion to Archaeology, pp. 367-79. Oxford: Blackwell. AG BIN
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
GRAHAM, E. 2012 Control without Controlling. In Motul de San José: Politics, History, and Economy
in a Classic Maya Polity, ed. by Antonia E. Foias and Kitty F. Emery, pp. 419-430. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
24
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
PARKER PEARSON M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial, 72-94. Stroud: Sutton Publishing
Limited. ORL; ISSUE DESK; AH PEA
RENFREW, C. and P. BAHN. 2008. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice, (Chapter 5).
Thames and Hudson, London. (5th edition). ORL; AH REN
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
TAYLOR, T., VICKERS, M., MORPHY, H., SMITH, R., and RENFREW, C. 1994 Viewpoint: is there a
place for aesthetics in archaeology? Cambridge Archaeological Journal 4:249-69. ORL.
WIESSNER, P. 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American
Antiquity 48(2): 253-276. ORL
WOBST, H.M. 1977. Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In: C.E. Cleland (ed.) For the
Director: essays in honor of James B. Griffin, Anthropological Papers of the Museum of
Anthropology No.61. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 317-342. ORL
25
16: Metals – Marcos Martinon-Torres
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.englishheritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/cfa_archaeometallurgy2.pdf
RENFREW, C. and BAHN, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapter
8). London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
Other Reading
BAYLEY, J., CROSSLEY, D. and PONTING, M. 2008. Metals and metalworking. A research
framework for archaeometallurgy. London: Historical Metallurgy Society. ISSUE
DESK AND KEA Qto BAY
CLEERE, H. 1984. Ironmaking in the economy of the ancient world: the potential of
archaeometallurgy. In: B. Scott and H. Cleere (eds) The Crafts of the Blacksmith.
USIPP Comité pour la Siderurgie Ancienne: Belfast Northern Ireland Symposium, 16. 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
KILLICK, D. and FENN, T. 2012. Archaeometallurgy: the study of preindustrial mining and
metallurgy. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 559-575.
REHREN, Th. and PERNICKA, 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
26
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.
(Chapter 1: ‘Introducing Archaeological Conservation’, pp.1-13; if you have time then
also Chapter 2: ‘Agents of Deterioration and Preservation,’ pp.14-42 ). INST ARCH L
CRO
JONES, S & HOLDEN, J 2008: It's a material world (pp. 27-29 Conservation and its Values)
London: Demos, 2008. INST ARCH AG JON - but the whole document is free to
download from here. http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/materialworld
Other Reading
BUTTLER, C. and 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. (See especially Chapters 5 & 6.) INST ARCH L PYE
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., and 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
27
18: Revision Session. – Bill Sillar
Discussion of topics covered in the course 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 course-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 course includes a short (less than one hour) unseen examination,
which will be held in the lecture room on the final day of the taught course. 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: Gordon Libby Colin Renfrew Ian Hodder 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 28
5000 years ago 1 CE 5) Discuss what is being shown in the picture below – if you wish you may annotate the picture. 6)
7)
8)
9)
Describe 5 significant steps or techniques you might use to make a Pottery vessel 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 Identify an artefact and discuss how the selection of raw materials would have affected its production, function and value. What techniques would you use to investigate where a piece of pottery came from 29
20: Feedback and Discussion
We will go through the answers to the assessment you have just completed.
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 course ‘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.
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. INST ARCH 1593.
DAVIS, S. 1987/1995. The Archaeology of Animals, (Chapters 1, 3 and 4, 5 if time). London:
Batsford. ISSUE DESK; BB3 DAV
DIJKMAN, 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.
ANTHROPOLOGY Pers
RENFREW, C. and BAHN, P. 2012. Archaeology: theories, methods and practice (Chapters
6 and 8). London: Thames and Hudson. (6th edition).
SILLAR, B. 2000 Dung by Preference: The choice of fuel as an example of how Andean
pottery production is embedded within wider technical, social and economic
practices. Archaeometry 42(1), 43-60
WILD, J. P. 1988 Textiles in archaeology. Shire. INST ARCH KJ WIL
30
APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2014-15 (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/academicregulations ; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/
GENERAL MATTERS
ATTENDANCE: A 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. 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
SUBMISSION PROCEDURES: You must submit a hardcopy of coursework to the Co-ordinator's pigeonhole via the Red Essay Box at Reception (or, in the case of first year undergraduate work, to room 411a) by
stated deadlines. Coursework must be stapled to a completed coversheet (available from IoA website; the rack
outside Room 411A; or the Library). You should put your Candidate Number (a 5 digit alphanumeric code,
found on Portico. Please note that this number changes each year) and Course Code on all coursework. It is
also essential that you put your Candidate Number at the start of the title line on Turnitin, followed by
the short title of the coursework (example: YBPR6 Funerary practices).
LATE SUBMISSION: Late submission is penalized in accordance with UCL regulations, unless prior
permission for late submission has been granted and an Extension Request Form (ERF) completed. The
penalties are as follows: i) A penalty of 5 percentage marks should be applied to coursework submitted the
calendar day after the deadline (calendar day 1); ii) A penalty of 15 percentage marks should be applied to
coursework submitted on calendar day 2 after the deadline through to calendar day 7; iii) A mark of zero should
be recorded for coursework submitted on calendar day 8 after the deadline through to the end of the second
week of third term. Nevertheless, the assessment will be considered to be complete provided the coursework
contains material than can be assessed; iv) Coursework submitted after the end of the second week of third term
will not be marked and the assessment will be incomplete.
TURNITIN: Date-stamping is via Turnitin, so in addition to submitting hard copy, you must also submit your
work to Turnitin by midnight on the deadline day. If you have questions or problems with Turnitin, contact
ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk.
RETURN OF COURSEWORK AND RESUBMISSION: You should receive your marked coursework
within four calendar weeks 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.
WORD LENGTH: Essay word-lengths are normally expressed in terms of a recommended range. Not included
in the word count are the bibliography, appendices, tables, graphs, captions to figures, tables, graphs. 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.
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
31
MOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the course on Moodle. For help with Moodle, please
contact Nicola Cockerton, Room 411a (nicola.cockerton@ucl.ac.uk).
Assessment
This course 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 course (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
Course Co-ordinator.
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 Course 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:
th
deadline – Wednesday 17 December 2014
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. Using two examples of archaeological sites from anywhere in the world, discuss the
factors that affect what is preserved in the archaeological record.
[see especially Reading Lists for Lecture 2, 3, 7 and 17]
2. Discuss, using examples, how artefact analysis can be used to study trade and
exchange in the past. [see especially Reading Lists for Lecture 5 and 11, 13]
3. Discuss, using examples, the advantages and disadvantages of using Experimental and
Ethnoarchaeological data to interpret archaeological remains. [see especially Reading Lists
for Lecture 3,6,7 and 8]
4. Discuss similarities and differences in the analytical methods used to study TWO
of the following: stone tools, ceramics, metals, textiles. [see especially Reading Lists for
Lecture 12, 14, 16, and 20]
5. For this essay you are asked to 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?’ [see especially Reading Lists for Lecture 4, 13, 15]
32
ARCL 1016
SITES and ARTEFACTS
Timetable 2014
25th- 28th September - 4 day Experimental Archaeology Course at West Dean, West Sussex
Lectures – Tuesdays, 2-4 pm
1) 30th September Introduction: Course Structure, Purpose and assessment – Bill Sillar
2)
‘Piecing Together the Past’ – Bill Sillar
3) 7th October ‘Activity areas’, ‘contexts’ and ‘formation processes’ – Bill Sillar
4)
Archaeological sites: Houses, Communities, and Tombs – Andrew Gardner
5) 14th October Landscapes, ‘cultural areas’ and world systems – Andrew Bevan
6)
Phenomenology: experiencing scale in archaeology – Sue Hamilton
7) 21st October Ethnoarchaeology and Experimental Archaeology – Ulrike Sommer
8)
Making Monuments - Bill Sillar
9) 28th October Technology in Society: Making artefacts – Bill Sillar
10)
Dating Artefacts: from seriation to absolute dating – Dafydd Griffiths
READING WEEK
11) 11th November Artefact composition and provenance – Ian Freestone
12)
Lithics – Mark Roberts
13) 18th November Exchange and interpreting distribution in archaeology – Bill Sillar
14)
Pottery – Dafydd Grifiths
15) 25th November Consumption: Artefact function and social identity – Liz Graham
16)
Metals – Marcos Martinon-Torres
17) 2nd December Conservation for archaeologists an introduction – James Hales
18)
Revision Session – Bill Sillar
19) 9th December Short Answer Assessment
20)
Feedback and discussion – Bill Sillar
Practicals: Thursday small group tutorials run on alternate weeks
To introduce materials, handling of artefacts and laboratory analysis
1) IoA collections
2) Perceptions of space – GIS labs
3) Stone tools - XRF
4) Pottery – Petrography labs
5) Metals - SEM &/or Conservation
Assessment
a) Friday 3rd October Experimental Archaeology Course assessment (20%)
b) 9th December Short answers assessment (30%),
c) Wednesday 17th December 2500 word essay (50% ).
33
Turnitin, Class ID: 783156 - Class Enrolment Password:
34
IoA1415