INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCLG281: Funerary Archaeology
2015-16 (term 1)
MA Option Course: 15 credits (0.5 unit)
Tuesdays 2.00-4.00 in Room 209
Turnitin Class ID: 2971219
Turnitin Password: IoA1516
Co-ordinator: Mike Parker Pearson
m.parker-pearson@ucl.ac.uk
Room 310
020 7679 4767
Please see the last page of this document for important information about submission
and marking procedures, or links to the relevant webpages.
1
1
OVERVIEW
Short description
How we dispose of and commemorate our dead is fundamental to human culture.
Human remains are some of the most significant archaeological finds and
archaeologists have to know something about the diversity of attitudes and practices
relating to the dead. This half-module begins with the study of methods and
techniques of analysis, followed by a survey of contemporary societies' funerary
practices and the variety of human responses to death. It then focuses on the
interpretive theories and models that have been used to reconstruct the social
significance of funerary treatment in past societies. Case studies will focus on the
interpretation of rank and status, ritual and symbolism, territory and legitimation, and
the ethical and legal aspects of exhumation and reburial. These studies will range
across a wide variety of periods and places, from the Lower Palaeolithic to the
present day.
Week-by-week summary
TERM 1
06.10.15 14:00 1.
Introduction to funerary archaeology: course organization
13.10.15 14:00 2.
Principles of analysis: ritual and remembrance
20.10.15 14:00 3.
Ethnoarchaeology of death
27.10.15 14:00 4.
Reading the body, treating the corpse
03.11.15 14:00 5.
Status, power and identity: the powerful dead
10.11.15
READING WEEK (NO TEACHING)
17.11.15 14:00 6. Death in the landscape
24.11.15 14:00 7.
Death and the origins of human consciousness
01.12.15 14:00 8.
The human experience of death
08.12.15 14:00 9.
The politics of the dead
15.12.15 14:00 10. Funerary powerpoint karaoke
Basic texts
Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton.
ISSUE DESK IoA PAR 8, INST ARCH AH PAR
Pettitt, P. 2010. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London: Routledge. ISSUE
DESK IoA PET 20, INST ARCH BC 120 PET
2
Huntington, R. and Metcalf, P. 1979. Celebrations of Death: the anthropology of
mortuary ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ANTHROPOLOGY
D 155 HUN
Knüsel, C. and Gowland, R. (eds) 2006. Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains.
Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH JF Qto GOW
Tarlow, S. and Nilsson Stutz, L. (eds) 2013. The Oxford Handbook of the
Archaeology of Death and Burial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Methods of assessment
This course is assessed by means of two pieces of coursework, each of 1,900-2,100
words, which each contribute 50% to the final grade for the course.
Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is
no penalty for using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is
simply for your guidance to indicate the sort of length that is expected.
Teaching methods
The course is taught through lectures/seminars. In addition, a gallery visit will be
arranged to give students greater familiarity with the materials covered in the course.
Workload
There will be 20 hours of seminars for this course. Students will be expected to
undertake around 90 hours of reading for the course, plus 40 hours preparing for and
producing the assessed work. This adds up to a total workload of some 150 hours
for the course.
2
AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT
Aims
This half-module’s aims are:
• to evaluate different types of archaeological and historical evidence
• to integrate this variety of evidence in a theoretically informed manner
• to explore a range of themes in funerary archaeology
• to discuss patterns of human behaviour in funerary archaeology
• to explore the relationship between material culture and funerary practices
Objectives
On successful completion of this course a student should:
• be familiar with the archaeological and historical sources for past and present
funerary practices
• have developed a critical awareness of the ritual, political, social and economic
factors influencing funerary practices
• appreciate the problems and potentials of the data available, and be able to apply
this knowledge to a range of archaeological periods
• have become familiar with the sources available for funerary archaeology
• understand the strengths and weaknesses of the archaeological and
documentary sources for funerary archaeology
• understand the need for a broad geographical and chronological approach to
3
•
funerary archaeology
Be able to make effective paper and discussion/lecture presentations on the
materials relevant to the course
Learning Outcomes
On successful completion of the course, students should be able to
demonstrate/have developed:
observation and critical reflection
application of acquired knowledge
oral presentation skills
Coursework
Assessment tasks
Essay 1 (1,900-2,100 words):
Submission date: Monday 23 November 2015
Essay 1a: What advances have been made in methods of excavation and
analysis of inhumation burials since publication of Don Brothwell’s third
edition of Digging up Bones in 1981? How have these advances changed our
understanding of past societies?
Introductory reading:
McKinley, J.I. and Roberts, C.A. 1993 Excavation and post-excavation treatment of
cremated and inhumed human remains. Institute of Field Archaeologists Technical
Paper 13. ISSUE DESK IOA MAC 3 & IoA 2980 (Teaching Collection)
Brickley, M. and McKinley, J.I. 2004 Guidelines to the standards for recording
human remains. IFA Paper 7. Southampton & Reading: BABAO & IFA. pp. 18-45.
http://www.babao.org.uk/HumanremainsFINAL.pdf
Mays, S. 2005. Guidance for best practice for treatment of human remains excavated
from Christian burial grounds in England. London: English Heritage & Church of
England. http://www.babao.org.uk/humanremainsguidance.pdf
Mays, S. 2010. The Archaeology of Human Bones. 2nd edition. London: Routledge.
INST ARCH BB 2 MAY & ISSUE DESK IOA MAY 1
Essay 1b: How have recent understandings of the nature of ritual been used by
archaeologists to interpret funerary evidence?
Introductory reading:
Insoll, T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London: Routledge. 10-12, 65-100.
ANTHROPOLOGY D 100 INS
Insoll, T. (ed.) 2011. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. INST ARCH FA INS & Oxford Handbooks
Online
4
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/978
0199232444.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199232444
Kyriakidis, E. 2007. Finding ritual: calibrating the evidence. In E. Kyriakidis (ed.) The
Archaeology of Ritual. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. 9-22. INST
ARCH AH KYR
Essay 1c: What can be learned from public war memorials of the 20th century
about social class, social change and national identity?
Black, J. 2004. Thanks for the memory: war memorials, spectatorship and the trajectories of
commemoration, 1919-2001. In N.J. Saunders (ed.) Matters of Conflict: material culture,
memory and the First World War. London: Routledge. 134-48. HISTORY 44 C SAU &
ANTHROPOLOGY D 82 SAU
McDowell, S. and Braniff, M. 2014. Commemoration as conflict: space, memory
and identity in peace processes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Online access
Low, P., Oliver, G. and Rhodes, P.J. 2012. Cultures
of Commemoration: war memorials, ancient and modern. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Bartlett NA9325 .C85 2012
Shelby, K.D. 2014. Flemish nationalism and the Great War: the politics of memory,
visual culture and commemoration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Main Library
DUTCH H 32.515 SHE
Essay 2 (1,900-2,100 words):
Submission date: Monday 18 January 2016
Essay 2a: To what extent can the burials of infants and children give insights
into social and institutional inequalities?
Introductory reading:
Finlay, N. 2000. Outside of life: infant burials from cillin to cist. World Archaeology
31(3): 407-22. Online access
Heyd, V. 2006. Families, prestige goods, warriors and complex societies: Beaker
groups of the 3rd millennium cal BC along the upper and middle Danube.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 73: 327-79. INST ARCH Pers
Higham, C. and Bannanurag, R. 1990. The princess and the pots. New Scientist 126
(1718): 50-4. Online access
Lull, V., Mico Pérez, R., Rihuete Herrada, C. and Risch, R. 2005. Property relations
in the Bronze Age of South-western Europe: an archaeological analysis of infant
burials from El Argar (Almeria, Spain). Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 71:
247-68. INST ARCH Pers
5
Essay 2b: How can archaeologists establish the value for prehistoric societies
of artefacts and materials deposited as grave goods?
Introductory reading:
Bradley, R. 1988. Status, wealth and the chronological ordering of cemeteries.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 54: 327-29. INST ARCH Pers
Gosden C. and Marshall, Y. 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World
Archaeology 31 (2): 169-78. Online access
Joy, J. 2009. Reinvigorating object biography: reproducing the drama of object
lives. World Archaeology 41 (4): 540-56. Online access
Renfrew, C. 1986. Varna and the emergence of wealth in prehistoric Europe. In A.
Appadurai (ed.) The Social Life of Things: commodities in cultural perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 141-68. INST ARCH BD APP, ISSUE
DESK IOA APP, ANTHROPOLOGY D 10 APP, Science Short Loan APP
Smith, M.E. 1987. Household possessions and wealth in agrarian states: implications
for archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology. 6: 297-335. Esp. pp.321-2.
Online access http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/1-CompleteSet/MES-87Wealth.pdf
Essay 2c: How does the earliest evidence for human mortuary behaviour help
us to understand the evolution of the mind?
Introductory reading:
Gamble, C., Dunbar, R. and Gowlett, J. 2011. The social brain and the shape of the
Palaeolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 21 (1): 115-36. Online access
Gowlett, J., Gamble, C. and Dunbar, R. 2012. Human evolution and the archaeology
of the social brain. Current Anthropology. 53: 699-722. Online access
Mithen, S. J. 2005. Ethnobiology and the evolution of the human mind. Journal of the
Royal Anthropological Institute 12: 45-61. Online access
Pettitt, P. 2010. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London: Routledge. 11-40,
261-70. ISSUE DESK IoA PET 20, INST ARCH BC 120 PET
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 assignment and possible approaches to it will be discussed in
class, in advance of the submission deadline.
6
Word-length
Strict new regulations with regard to word-length were introduced UCL-wide with
effect from 2013:
3.1.7 Penalties for Over-length Coursework
For submitted coursework, where a maximum length has been specified, the
following procedure will apply:
i) The length of coursework will normally be specified in terms of a word count
ii) Assessed work should not exceed the prescribed length.
iii) For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than 10% 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.
iv) For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more, a mark of
zero will be recorded.
vii) In the case of coursework that is submitted late and is also overlength, the
lateness penalty will have precedence.
The following should not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages,
lists of figure and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography,
captions and contents of tables and figures, appendices, and wording of citations.
Submission procedures (coversheets and Turnitin, including Class ID and password)
The new link to Turnitin is http://www.turnitinuk.com/
Students are required to submit hard copy of all coursework to the course coordinator’s pigeon hole via the Red Essay Box at Reception by the appropriate
deadline. The coursework must be stapled to a completed coversheet (available
from the web, from outside Room 411A or from the library)
Students should put their Candidate Number on all coursework. This is a 5 digit
alphanumeric code and can be found on Portico: it is different from the Student
Number/ ID. Please also put the Candidate Number and course code on each page
of the work.
It is also essential that students put their Candidate Number at the start of the title
line on Turnitin, followed by the short title of the coursework.. – eg YBPR6 Funerary
Archaeology
Please note the stringent UCL-wide penalties for late submission given below. Late
submission will be penalized in accordance with these regulations unless permission
has been granted and an Extension Request Form (ERF) completed.
Date-stamping will be via ‘Turnitin’ (see below), so in addition to submitting hard
copy, students must also submit their work to Turnitin by the midnight on the day of
the deadline.
Students who encounter technical problems submitting their work to Turnitin should
email the nature of the problem to ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk in advance of the deadline
7
in order that the Turnitin Advisers can notify the Course Co-ordinator that it may be
appropriate to waive the late submission penalty.
If there is any other unexpected crisis on the submission day, students should
telephone or (preferably) e-mail the Course Co-ordinator, and follow this up with a
completed ERF
Please see the Coursework Guidelines on the IoA website (or your Degree
Handbook) for further details of penalties.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook/submission
Hard copy will no longer be date-stamped.
The Turnitin 'Class ID' is 2971219 and the 'Class Enrolment Password' is
IoA1516 Further information is given on the IoA website.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook/turnitin
Turnitin advisers will be available to help you via email: ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk if
needed.
UCL-WIDE PENALTIES FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK
UCL regulation 3.1.6 Late Submission of Coursework
Where coursework is not submitted by a published deadline, the following penalties
will apply:
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.
vii) Where there are extenuating circumstances that have been recognised by the
Board of Examiners or its representative, these penalties will not apply until the
agreed extension period has been exceeded.
viii) In the case of coursework that is submitted late and is also over length, only the
lateness penalty will apply.
Timescale for return of marked coursework to students.
You can expect to receive your marked work within four calendar weeks of the official
submission deadline. If you do not receive your work within this period, or a written
explanation from the marker, you should notify the IoA’s Academic Administrator,
Judy Medrington.
Keeping copies
Please note that it is an Institute requirement that you retain a copy (this can be
electronic) of all coursework submitted. When your marked essay is returned to you,
you should return it to the marker within two weeks.
8
Citing of sources
Coursework should be expressed in a student’s own words giving the exact source of
any ideas, information, diagrams etc. that are taken from the work of others. Any
direct quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed
between inverted commas. Plagiarism is regarded as a very serious irregularity
which can carry very heavy penalties. It is your responsibility to read and abide by
the requirements for presentation, referencing and avoidance of plagiarism to be
found in the IoA ‘Coursework Guidelines’ on the IoA website
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook
There are strict penalties for plagiarism. Further details are available on the IoA
website.
AVOIDING PLAGIARISM
The term “plagiarism” means presenting material (words, figures etc.) in a way
that allows the reader to believe that it is the work of the author he or she is reading,
when it is in fact the creation of another person.
In academic and other circles, plagiarism is regarded as theft of intellectual
property. UCL regulations, all detected plagiarism is to be penalized and noted on
the student’s record, irrespective of whether the plagiarism is committed knowingly or
unintentionally. The whole process of an allegation of plagiarism and its investigation
is likely to cause considerable personal embarrassment and to leave a very
unpleasant memory in addition to the practical consequences of the penalty. The
penalties can be surprizingly severe and may include failing a course or a whole
degree. It is thus important to take deliberate steps to avoid any inadvertent
plagiarism.
Avoiding plagiarism should start at the stage of taking notes. In your notes, it
should be wholly clear what is taken directly from a source, what is a paraphrase of
the content of a source and what is your own synthesis or original thought. Make
sure you include sources and relevant page numbers in your notes.
When writing an essay any words and special meanings, any special phrases,
any clauses or sentences taken directly from a source must be enclosed in inverted
commas and followed by a reference to the source in brackets. It is not generally
necessary to use direct quotations except when comparing particular terms or
phrases used by different authors. Similarly, all figures and tables taken from sources
must have their origin acknowledged in the caption. Captions do not contribute to any
maximum word lengths.
Paraphrased information taken from a source must be followed by a reference
to the source. If a paragraph contains information from several sources, it must be
made clear what information comes from where: a list of sources at the end of the
paragraph is not sufficient. Please cite sources of information fully, including page
numbers where appropriate, in order to avoid any risk of plagiarism: citations in the
text do not contribute to any maximum word count.
To guard further against inadvertent plagiarism, you may find it helpful to write
a plan of your coursework answer or essay and to write the coursework primarily on
the basis of your plan, only referring to sources or notes when you need to check
something specific such as a page number for a citation.
COLLUSION, except where required, is also an examination offence. While
discussing topics and questions with fellow students is one of the benefits of learning
9
in a university environment, you should always plan and write your coursework
answers entirely independently.
3
SCHEDULE AND SYLLABUS
Teaching schedule
Seminars will be held 14:00-16:00 on Tuesdays, in room 209. One visit will be
scheduled to the British Museum. It is anticipated that this will be held in the fourth
week of the autumn term, subject to finalization of the arrangements and discussion
with the class. Further details will be announced closer to the date.
Lecturer:
Mike Parker Pearson.
Syllabus
The following is an outline for the course as a whole, and identifies essential and
supplementary readings relevant to each session. Information is provided as to
where in the UCL library system individual readings are available; their location and
Teaching Collection (TC) number, and status (whether out on loan) can also be
accessed on the eUCLid computer catalogue system. Readings marked with an *
are considered essential to keep up with the topics covered in the course. Copies of
individual articles and chapters identified as essential reading are in the Teaching
Collection in the Institute Library (where permitted by copyright) or are available
online.
1. Introduction to funerary archaeology
This lecture introduces students to the main themes and directions of funerary
archaeology, from methods of excavation and analysis to concepts and principles for
investigating ritual and social dimensions of funerary practices in past societies. It is
an opportunity to discuss the theoretical and empirical influences on the development
of funerary archaeology.
Reading:
Bahn, P.G. (ed.) 1996 Tombs, Graves and Mummies. London: Weidenfeld &
Nicolson. 34-87, 92-133, 146-51, 180-99. INST ARCH AG BAH
Chapman, R. and Randsborg, K. 1981. Perspectives on the archaeology of death. In
R. Chapman, I.A. Kinnes and K. Randsborg (eds) The Archaeology of Death.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-24. ISSUE DESK IOA CHA 7,
INST ARCH BC 100 Qto CHA
*Duday, H. 2009. The Archaeology of the Dead: lectures in archaeothanatology.
Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH JF DUD
Mays, S. 2002. Guidelines for producing assessments and reports on human
remains from archaeological sites. English Heritage/BABAO: London.
http://www.babao.org.uk/index/cms-filesystemaction/eh_human_remains_mays2002.pdf
2. Principles of analysis: ritual and remembrance
How do archaeologists identify and characterize ritual, with regard to the treatment of
human remains? What are the concepts of ritual, liminality, remembrance, and
materiality? How do concepts of reversal, separation, transition, decay, fertility and
sex have relevance for understanding mortuary rites and rituals? These are
questions that will be addressed in this seminar.
10
Reading:
*Huntington, R. and Metcalf, P. 1979. Celebrations of Death: the anthropology of
mortuary ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 3. INST
ARCH FA INS, ANTHROPOLOGY D 155 HUN
Insoll, T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London: Routledge. 10-12, 65-100.
ANTHROPOLOGY D 100 INS
*Insoll, T. (ed.) 2011. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and
Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. INST ARCH FA INS
Kyriakidis, E. 2007. Finding ritual: calibrating the evidence. In E. Kyriakidis (ed.) The
Archaeology of Ritual. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. 9-22. INST
ARCH AH KYR
Vanzetti, A., Vidale, M., Gallinaro, M., Frayer, D.W. and Bondioli, L. 2010. The
iceman as a burial. Antiquity 84: 681-92. Electronic resource
3. Ethnoarchaeology of death
Archaeologists have drawn on ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies to
develop a wide range of analogies for understanding the archaeology of mortuary
practices. This seminar examines different types of analogy and their relative uses
and limitations for understanding the past.
Reading:
Ucko, P.J. 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains.
World Archaeology 1: 262-80. Electronic resource
Binford, L. 1971. Mortuary practices: their study and their potential. In J. Brown (ed.)
Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Washington DC:
Memoir of the Society for American Archaeology 25. 6-29. ISSUE DESK IoA
BRO5, INST ARCH BD BRO
Danforth, L.M. 1982. The Death Rituals of Rural Greece. Princeton: Princeton
University Press. Gr.IV DAN, ANTHROPOLOGY LT 43 DAN
Parker Pearson, M. 1982. Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an
ethnoarchaeological case study. In I. Hodder (ed.) Symbolic and Structural
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 99-113. ISSUE DESK
IOA HOD 12 , INST ARCH AH HOD, ANTHROPOLOGY C 7 HOD
*David, N. and Kramer, C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. Chapter 13 (378-408). ISSUE DESK IoA DAV8, INST ARCH
AH DAV
Mack, J. 1986. Madagascar: island of the ancestors. London: British Museum Press.
62-92. INST ARCH MG 3 MAC
Bloch, M. 1971. Placing the Dead: tombs, ancestral villages and kinship organization
in Madagascar. London: Seminar Press. INST ARCH DCD BLO
Kus, S. 1992 Toward an archaeology of body and soul. In J.-C. Gardin and C.S.
Peebles (eds.) Representations in Archaeology. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press. 168-77. INST ARCH AH GAR
Parker Pearson, M. 2000. Eating money: a study in the ethnoarchaeology of food.
Archaeological Dialogues 7: 217-32. Electronic resource
Parker Pearson, M. 2010. Pastoralists, Warriors and Colonists: the archaeology of
southern Madagascar. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International
Series) S2139. 472-510. INST ARCH DCD Qto PAR
11
4. Reading the body, treating the corpse
Human remains may be exposed to lengthy post-mortem treatments: mummification,
cannibalism, trophy-taking, cremation, excarnation and skull decoration amongst
other activities. This seminar examines the material residues of different methods of
post-mortem treatment to understand their social implications and significance.
Reading:
Armit, I. 2012. Headhunting and the Body in Iron Age Europe. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 45-68.
Rebay-Salisbury, K. 2010. Cremations: fragmented bodies in the Bronze and
Iron Ages. In K. Rebay-Salisbury, M.-L. Stig Sørensen and J. Hughes (eds)
2010. Body Parts and Bodies Whole: changing relations and meanings.
Oxford: Oxbow. 64-71. INST ARCH DA 100 REB
Turner, C.G. 1993. Cannibalism in Chaco Canyon: the charnel pit excavated in 1926
at Small House Ruin by Frank H.H. Roberts, Jr. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology 91: 412-39. Electronic resource
Boulestin, B., Zeeb-Lanz, A., Jeunesse, C., Haack, F., Arbogast, R.-M. and Denaire,
A. 2009. Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim
(Palatinate, Germany). Antiquity 83: 968-82. Electronic resource
Tarlow, S. 2002. The aesthetic corpse in nineteenth-century Britain. In Y. Hamilakis,
M. Pluciennik and S. Tarlow (eds) 2002. Thinking through the body:
archaeologies of corporeality. London: Kluwer. 85-97. ISSUE DESK IOA HAM
4, INST ARCH BD HAM
Degusta, D. 2000. Fijian cannibalism and mortuary ritual: bioarchaeological evidence
from Vunda. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10: 76-92. Electronic
resource
Chamberlain, A.T. and Parker Pearson, M. 2001 Earthly Remains: the history and
science of preserved human bodies. London: British Museum. 169-88. INST
ARCH JF CHA
5. Status, power and identity: the powerful dead
Archaeologists have long used burial rites to interpret social status of the deceased.
With the understanding that the dead do not bury themselves, more sophisticated
approaches to social ranking have emerged. This seminar examines the different
approaches to interpreting social status, including the political and ideological impact
on those holding funerals and those being commemorated.
Reading:
Peebles, C. and Kus, S. 1977. Some archaeological correlates of ranked societies.
American Antiquity 42: 421-48. Electronic resource.
Arnold, B. 2011. The illusion of power, the power of illusion: ideology and the
concretization of social difference in Early-Iron Age Europe. In Bernbeck, R. and
McGuire, R.H. (eds) Ideologies in Archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press. 151-72. INST ARCH AG BER
Morris, I. 1992. Death-ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. 31-69. ANCIENT HISTORY M 55 MOR
Wason, P. 1994. The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. INST ARCH BD WAS
12
Williams, H. 2004. Death warmed up: the agency of bodies and bones in early AngloSaxon cremation rites. Journal of Material Culture 9: 263-91. Electronic
resource
6. Death in the landscape
The dead are all around us, in monuments, mementos and memories as well as their
physical remains. This seminar explores spatial, topographical and
phenomenological approaches to placing the dead in the landscapes of past
societies in order to understand how relationships were constructed and maintained
between the living and the dead.
Reading:
Bradley, R. 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge. 82-111.
INST ARCH DA 100 BRA
Tilley, C. 2004. The Materiality of Stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology.
London: Berg. 1-31. ANTHROPOLOGY C 7 TIL, INST ARCH DA 100 TIL
Cummings, V., Henley, C. and Sharples, N. 2005. The chambered cairns of South
Uist. In V. Cummings and A. Pannett (eds) Set in Stone: new approaches to
Neolithic monuments in Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow. 37-54. INST ARCH DAA 500
Qto CUM
Fleming, A. 2006. Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 16: 267-80. Electronic resource
7. Death and the origins of human consciousness
In contrast with other primates, humans have an unusually developed sense of
mortality, treating the remains of their species with a dazzling variety of post-mortem
practices. How and why did this come about, and at what stages in our evolution?
How did it develop in relation to other indices of self-awareness, and what were its
long-term implications for human evolution and adaptation?
Reading:
*Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton.
142-56. ISSUE DESK IoA PAR 8, INST ARCH AH PAR
Insoll, T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London: Routledge. 23-32.
ANTHROPOLOGY D 100 INS
Pettitt, P. 2010. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London: Routledge. 11-40,
261-70. ISSUE DESK IoA PET 20, INST ARCH BC 120 PET
Taylor, T. 2002. The Buried Soul: how humans invented death. London: Fourth
Estate. 56-85.
9. The human experience of death
Archaeology can provide insights into the human awareness of death as it evolved
over thousands of years from the earliest civilizations to the world religions and
secular humanism of today. In that time, humans have sought to transcend their
tragic limitation by seeking paths to immortality on both sides of the grave. This
seminar examines the archaeological evidence for these attempts to transcend
mortality over the last 10,000 years of social evolution from small-scale huntergatherers to urban states.
13
Reading:
Chidester, D. 1990. Patterns of Transcendence: religion, death, and dying. Belmont
CA: Wadsworth. 169-216.
Kuijt, I. 1996. Negotiating equality through ritual: a consideration of Late Natufian and
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period mortuary practices. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 15: 313-36. Electronic resource
Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton.
156-70. ISSUE DESK IoA PAR 8, INST ARCH AH PAR
Taylor, J.H. 2001. Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum
Press. 10-45. EGYPTOLOGY R 5 TAY
10. The politics of the dead
The dead have always been political, but today archaeologists and museums face
challenges from ethnic and religious minorities for reburial and repatriation of human
remains and associated materials. In addition, archaeologists are often involved in
forensic investigations of genocide and other recent atrocities, bringing them into
potential conflict with state authorities as well as local communities.
Reading:
Zimmerman, L.J. 1989. Made radical by my own: an archaeologist learns to accept
reburial. In R. Layton (ed.) Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions.
London : Unwin Hyman. 60-7. ISSUE DESK IoA LAY 5 , INST ARCH BD
LAY, ANTHROPOLOGY C 6 LAY
Cox M., Flavel A., Hanson I., Laver J. and Wessling R. (eds) 2008. The Scientific
Investigation of Mass Graves: towards protocols and standard operating
procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IoA ISSUE DESK CD
COX, INST ARCH JF COX
*Sayer, D. 2010. Ethics and Burial Archaeology. London: Duckworth. INST ARCH
AG 20 SAY
Parker Pearson, M., Moshenska, G. and Schadla-Hall, T. 2012. Resolving the human
remains crisis in British archaeology. PIA: Papers from the Institute of
Archaeology 21: 6-34. Electronic resource
BABAO n.d. Code of Ethics. BABAO: London. http://www.babao.org.uk/index/cmsfilesystem-action/code of ethics.pdf
11. Funerary powerpoint karaoke
This is your opportunity to show what you have learned. Each person in the class
must give a 2-minute, stand-up presentation of a randomly chosen series of
powerpoint slides selected by the course co-ordinator. The audience can join in to
help explain the content of the slides if the presenter is struggling. This is meant to be
a light-hearted finale for the half-module.
4
ONLINE RESOURCES
The full UCL Institute of Archaeology coursework guidelines are given here:
14
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 if applicable)
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/staff/handbook
Online reading list
http://readinglists.ucl.ac.uk/lists/C7E22994-3847-1714-E079-80EFD041BFA0.html
Moodle
Access code ARCLG281
5
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Libraries and other resources
In addition to the Library of the Institute of Archaeology, other libraries in UCL with
holdings of particular relevance to this degree are: History, Science
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 expected to attend at least 70% of classes.
Information for intercollegiate and interdepartmental students
Students enrolled in Departments outside the Institute should collect hard copy of the
Institute’s coursework guidelines from Judy Medrington’s office (411A).
Dyslexia
If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please make your lecturers aware of this.
Please discuss with your lecturers whether there is any way in which they can help
you. Students with dyslexia are reminded to indicate this on each piece of
coursework.
Feedback
In trying to make this course as effective as possible, we welcome feedback from
students during the course of the year. All students are asked to give their views on
the course in an anonymous questionnaire which will be circulated at one of the last
sessions of the course. These questionnaires are taken seriously and help the
Course Co-ordinator to develop the course. The summarised responses are
considered by the Institute's Staff-Student Consultative Committee, Teaching
Committee, and by the Faculty Teaching Committee.
If students are concerned about any aspect of this course we hope they will feel able
to talk to the Course Co-ordinator, but if they feel this is not appropriate, they should
consult their Personal Tutor, the Academic Administrator (Judy Medrington), or the
Chair of Teaching Committee (Dr. Karen Wright).
Institute of Archaeology coursework procedures
15
General policies and procedures concerning courses and coursework, including
submission procedures, assessment criteria, and general resources, are available in
your Degree Handbook and on the following website:
http://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/display/archadmin. It is essential that you read and comply with
these. Note that some of the policies and procedures will be different depending on
your status (e.g. undergraduate, postgraduate taught, affiliate, graduate diploma,
intercollegiate, interdepartmental). If in doubt, please consult your Course Coordinator.
Granting of extensions
New UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of extensions for coursework
have been introduced with effect from the 2015-16 session. Full details will be
circulated to all students and will be made available on the IoA intranet. Note
that Course Coordinators are no longer permitted to grant extensions. All
requests for extensions must be submitted on a new 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 now acceptable are
limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Student Disability
Services to make special arrangements.
16
HOW TO UPLOAD YOUR WORK TO TURNITIN
Note that Turnitin uses the term ‘class’ for what we normally call a ‘course’.
1.
Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved properly,
and that you have the Class ID for the course (available from the course
handbook) and enrolment password (this is IoA1314 for all courses 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/ (NB not www.turnitin.com, which is the US
site) or copy this URL into your favourite web browser
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 3
months, unlike your UCL password). In addition, you will be asked for a “Class
ID” and a “Class enrollment password” (see point 1 above).
6.
Once you have created an account you can just log in at
http://www.turnitinuk.com/ and enroll for your other classes without going
through the new user process again. Simply click on ‘Enroll 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 course 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?), and not your name.
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”
If you have problems, please email the Turnitin Advisers on ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk,
explaining the nature of the problem and the exact course and assignment involved.
17
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 Course Co-ordinator that you attempted to submit the work before
the deadline.
18