G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
UCL - INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
MG120: Approaches to Artefact Studies
Core-Course for the MA in Artefact Studies
40 credits
2015/16
Co-ordinator: Ulrike Sommer
u.sommer@ucl.ac.uk
room 409, tel: 0207 7679 1493
Washing Starcevo-Körös pottery from Beltiug
23/02/2016
1
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
1. COURSE OUTLINE ......................................................................................................................... 4
A) TECHNOLOGY WITHIN SOCIETY: THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARTEFACTS (TERM 1) ...................... 4
B) DEALING WITH ARTEFACTS ............................................................................................................ 4
C) SEMINAR SERIES: ARCHAEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION (TERM 2) ...................... 5
THIS HANDBOOK .................................................................................................................................. 5
COURSE SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................................. 6
METHODS OF ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................. 8
TEACHING METHODS AND READING MATERIAL .................................................................................. 8
WORKLOAD ......................................................................................................................................... 9
2. AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 10
AIMS .................................................................................................................................................. 10
OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 10
LEARNING OUTCOMES ....................................................................................................................... 11
COURSEWORK.................................................................................................................................... 12
METHODS OF ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................ 12
WORD-LENGTH .................................................................................................................................. 12
CITING OF SOURCES AND ILLUSTRATIONS ......................................................................................... 12
SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK .......................................................................................................... 13
UCL-WIDE PENALTIES FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK ..................................................... 15
KEEPING COPIES ................................................................................................................................ 15
COMMUNICATION .............................................................................................................................. 15
DYSLEXIA AND DISABILITIES ............................................................................................................ 15
PORTFOLIO (ASSESSMENT 2) ............................................................................................................. 16
DEADLINES ......................................................................................................................................... 19
SCHEDULE AND SYLLABUS.......................................................................................................... 22
COURSE OUTLINE .............................................................................................................................. 22
STRAND A: LECTURES AND SEMINARS: THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARTEFACTS
(TERM 1).............................................................................................................................................. 22
READINGS ON MATERIALS AND MATERIALITY IN GENERAL ........................................ 22
STRAND A: THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF ARTEFACTS ........................................................... 25
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 25
2. CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRES AND ARTEFACT LIFE-HISTORIES........................................... 28
3. THE NATURE AND IDENTIFICATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ............ 31
4. ASSESSING ASSEMBLAGES ...................................................................................................... 33
5. INNOVATION, MASS-PRODUCTION AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE...................... 34
ESSENTIAL READING ......................................................................................................................... 34
FURTHER READING ............................................................................................................................ 34
6. THE ORGANISATION OF PRODUCTION ............................................................................... 37
ESSENTIAL READING ......................................................................................................................... 37
FURTHER READING ............................................................................................................................ 37
7. USE AND MEANING OF ARTEFACTS ..................................................................................... 40
8. PROVENANCE, TRADE AND EXCHANGE ............................................................................. 43
ESSENTIAL READING ......................................................................................................................... 43
FURTHER READING ............................................................................................................................ 43
LITHICS .............................................................................................................................................. 46
9. DISCARD AND TAPHONOMY.................................................................................................... 49
2
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
10. THE SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF ARTEFACT DISTRIBUTIONS ........................................... 51
ESSENTIAL READING ......................................................................................................................... 51
FURTHER READING ............................................................................................................................ 51
11. INTRODUCTION TO STRAND C ............................................................................................. 52
12. USING EXCELL TO ASSESS AND PRESENT YOUR DATA............................................... 52
13. WRITING A PHD-PROPOSAL .................................................................................................. 52
14. ONLINE RESEARCH RESOURCES......................................................................................... 52
15. SCANNERS AND PHOTOSHOP................................................................................................ 52
16. CONFERENCE ............................................................................................................................. 52
17. POST-CONFERENCE PEER-REVIEW .................................................................................... 52
STRAND B: DEALING WITH ARTEFACTS................................................................................. 53
1. EXCAVATING ARTEFACTS AND FINDS PROCESSING ..................................................... 53
2. THE FIELD RECORDING OF ARTEFACTS ............................................................................ 55
3. CREATING AND USING COLLECTIONS ................................................................................ 57
4. THE PORTABLE ANTIQUITIES SCHEME (PAS) IN ENGLAND AND WALES ............... 59
5. CATALOGUING ARTEFACTS ................................................................................................... 60
6. TUTORIAL: DESCRIBING POTTERY ...................................................................................... 61
7. DATABASES ................................................................................................................................... 63
8. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ILLUSTRATION .................................................................................... 65
CRAIG WILLIAMS, BM ................................................................................................................... 65
9. DRAWING POTTERY (PRACTICAL) ....................................................................................... 65
10. FINDS CATALOGUING, CHIPPED STONE ARTEFACTS.................................................. 66
11. DRAWING CHIPPED STONE ARTEFACTS, PRACTICAL................................................. 66
12. REPRESENTING ARTEFACTS: PHOTOGRAPHY .............................................................. 68
13. OBJECT DESCRIPTION: COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION OF PUBLISHED
CATALOGUES ................................................................................................................................... 68
14. PUTTING ARTEFACTS INTO CONTEXT: WHEN AND WHERE?................................... 69
15. BASIC MAPPING ......................................................................................................................... 69
16. IDENTIFYING AND DESCRIBING METAL OBJECTS ....................................................... 70
17. RECORDING ARTEFACT ASSEMBLAGES: COINS ........................................................... 73
19. THE CONSERVATION OF ARTEFACTS ............................................................................... 75
18. THE FINDS REPORT .................................................................................................................. 76
WHAT’S IN STORE? ARCHIVES, ACCESS, ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES...................... 78
20. EXHIBITING ARTEFACTS ....................................................................................................... 80
STRAND C – RESEARCH PROJECT PROPOSALS .................................................................... 81
DEVELOPING RELEVANT METHODOLOGIES FOR ADDRESSING ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH
QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................................................... 81
PREPARATION .................................................................................................................................... 81
THE CONFERENCE .............................................................................................................................. 82
THE FORMAL REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 82
3
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
THE PROJECT PAPER .......................................................................................................................... 82
4. ONLINE RESSOURCES................................................................................................................ 83
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION................................................................................................... 83
LIBRARIES AND OTHER RESOURCES....................................................................................... 83
FEEDBACK ......................................................................................................................................... 84
SOME USEFUL WEB-SITES: .......................................................................................................... 84
1. Course outline
This Masters degree program critically discusses the changing role of 'finds specialists' and provides training in the study and interpretation of artefacts from archaeological sites and museum collections. The course will be largely taught using the
staff, equipment and collections at the UCL Institute of Archaeology, but good use
will also be made of the expertise and collections of a number of other museums and
professional archaeological units.
Students will be introduced to the skills of finds specialists, practical issues involved
in the professional study of artefacts and major theoretical debates about the collection, interpretation, reporting and curation of archaeological materials. A central concern will be the integration of finds analysis within wider archaeological research
questions.
In the third term students will undertake a placement within a museum, an archaeological unit or any other body concerned with artefacts, where they will gain experience in the practice of finds analysis. Normally, they will study a body of material that
will form the foundation of their dissertation. By the end of the course students should
have an appreciation of the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches
to artefact studies and will be able to undertake the analysis and reporting of an artefact assemblage.
There are three strands to this core course:
A) Technology within Society: The Social Context of Artefacts
(Term 1)
This strand will provide students with an overview of current issues in studying the
social significance of technology and materials. Students will be introduced to anthropological, archaeological and material science approaches to the study of technology and material culture from the analysis of raw materials through acquisition,
production, distribution, consumption and disposal.
In term 2, we will turn to some practical matters like bibliographic research, the use of
scanners and simple statistics.
B) Dealing with artefacts
This strand will focus on the practical’s of working with artefacts and will cover the
sequence from excavation to cleaning, labelling, documenting, cataloguing and finally
publishing and archiving artefacts. A lot of the lectures contain practicals. The students will also be required to do some practical exercises in the assessment of findsassemblages.
4
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
C) Seminar Series: Archaeological Analysis and Interpretation
(Term 2)
This seminar series will use case studies from current archaeological projects to consider how the study of archaeological assemblages can be used to address wider research questions. The seminar series will encourage a critical consideration of the
problems and the potentials of integrating the analysis of diverse materials, analytical
procedures, and traditions of artefact analysis within a single research design. The
precise choice of issues, sites and materials will be defined in consultation with students and staff.
This handbook
This handbook contains the basic information about the content and administration of
the course. Some lecturers may provide additional subject-specific reading lists and
individual session handouts during the course. Do also regularly check the course
Moodle.
This handbook contains basic information about the content and administration of
this course. If you have queries about the objectives, structure, content, assessment
or organisation of the course, please consult the Course Co-ordinator.
Further important information, relating to all courses at the Institute of Archaeology, is
to be found at in the general MA Handbook and on the Institute’s website. It is your
responsibility to read and act on it. It includes information about originality, submission and grading of coursework; disabilities; communication; attendance; and feedback.
5
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Course Schedule
Lectures and Seminars of Strand A will be held Tuesdays 11-13.00 in Room 410, the
seminars and practicals of Strand B on Thursdays 9-11.00 in 410. In Term 2, we will
meet Tuesdays 11-13.00 in Room 410 for the presentations and their discussion
(Strand C) and continue Strand B in 410 at 14-16.00.
Always check the course Moodle for an up-to date schedule!
Strand A: The social context of artefacts
Date
1
06/10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
13/10
20/10
27/10
03/11
09/11
17/11
24/11
01/12
08/12
15/12
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
11/01
18/01
25/01
20/02
09/02
15/02
23/02
Strand A and C,
Tuesdays 11-13.00, Room 410
Introduction Strand A
Arranging the Artefacts
Chaîne opératoires and artefact life-histories
Identifying Materials
Assessing Assemblages
Innovation and change
Reading week
The organisation of production
Use and meaning
Provenance and trade
Discard and taphonomy
The spatial distribution of artefacts
Term2
Introduction Strand C
Using Excel in research
Writing a PhD Proposal
Online research resources
Scanners & Photoshop
Reading Week, Conference
Post conference Peer review
US+MMT
Martínon-Torres
Freestone
PhD-students, tba
Martínon-Torres
Freestone
Sommer
IF/US
Sommer
Bevan
Martínon-Torres
Freestone
Martínon-Torres
Meheux
Laidlaw
MMT/US
This is also a core course for the "Technology and Analysis of Archaeological Materials" MSc.
6
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Strand B: Dealing with artefacts
Thursday, 09-11.00 (term 1), Room 410, Thursdays 14-16.00 (term 2), Room 410
Most of the lectures will include some practicals
Date
1
08/10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
15/10
22/10
29/10
05/11
09/11
19/11
26/11
03/12
10/12
17/12
11
12
13
14
14/01
21/01
28/01
04/02
15
11/02
16
17
18
19
19
25/02
03/03
10/03
17/03
24/03
Strand B,
Thursday 9-11.00, Room 410
Introduction to Strand B
Excavation & finds processing
Field recording bulk and small finds
Creating and using collections
The Portable Antiquities Scheme
Artefact description
Reading Week
Tutorial: describing pottery
Databases
Archaeological illustration
Drawing Pottery, practical
Finds cataloguing: lithics
Christmas
Thursday 9-11.00, Room 410
Drawing lithics: practical
Artefacts photography (in Photolab)
Analysing/writing catalogue entries
Putting artefacts into context: when and where? (comparative
finds)
Basic mapping (practical)
Reading Week
Cataloguing metal artefacts
Coins
The finds Report
Conserving artefacts
Exhibiting artefacts
US
US
Sparks
Smith
Sparks
US
Sparks
Williams
US
US
US
Walton
US
US
Kaleta
Smith
Moorehead
Keily
Hales
Schmidt
Strand C
Reading week term 2, Room 410
Communication
If any changes need to be made to the course arrangements, these will normally be
communicated by email. It is therefore essential that you consult your UCL e-mail account and the course Moodle regularly.
7
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Methods of assessment
This course is assessed by three pieces of coursework, an essay, a portfolio and a
project presentation, including the write-up. Each of these contributes 33.3 % to the
final grade for the course.
It is obligatory to give an oral presentation in the second term seminar series. It will
be recorded for purposes of self-assessment and marking. The Powerpoint/Keynotefile and your presentation itself will make up 10% of the mark for assessment 2
(Presentation). If you have any problems with public speaking, please contact the
course-coordinator well in advance.
A portfolio forms the third part of the assessment (s. p. 16).
The topics and deadlines for each assessment are specified below (p. 19). If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should contact the course
Co-ordinator. If you wish to discuss essay topics or prepare a brief (single-page
maximum) outline of how you intend to approach the essay/presentation prior to writing it, she will be happy to discuss this with you.
Teaching methods and reading material
Teaching for the course is through formal lectures, seminars, artefact handling sessions and practicals. These varied formats are combined in order to provide a broad
introduction to appropriate literature, the opportunity to engage actively in debating
these issues, the chance to handle artefacts and analyse arcaheological materials.
The lectures, seminars and practical sessions will largely be conducted by UCL staff,
with the addition of occasional guest speakers. Seminars for strand A have weekly
essential readings, which students are expected to have done, to be able to follow
and to actively contribute to discussion – most classes will include a period of formal
presentation by one or more lecturers and a period of class discussion, using the two
or three essential readings as a basis from which to discuss the topic and its relation
to artefact analysis in archaeology. We will also have a pre-class discussion on the
course Moodle (more on this below). For this, you will be separated into four groups,
and each group has in turn to lead the discussion on a specific topic each week. This
contribution must be posted by Monday 12.00 at latest (prior to the relevant lecture
on Tuesday). All other students should also take part in the online discussion. In
class, active participation of all students is expected. Please consider your own experiences and knowledge and use this to contribute examples of similarities and differences in relation to the description, theory and practice of artefact analysis and interpretation discussed in the course.
This handbook includes an outline of each session (which will usually combine some
formal lecture and extensive class discussion) in the course, and identifies essential
and supplementary readings relevant to each session. The essential readings should
be consulted in advance of each session (this is particularly important for strand A).
Although information is provided as to where in the UCL library system individual
readings are available, the best starting point for any bibliographic search is the Online Reading List, where most of the recommended readings are available as PDFs
(see below).
In addition to the Library of the Institute of Archaeology, UCL's Science Library has
holdings of particular relevance to this degree. The Library of Senate House also
holds a very useful collection (and is fun to visit).
IMPORTANT: You can find the relevant reading lists online, where all of the articles
noted as “essential reading” and most of the “further reading” items are available for
8
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
download in PDF format. If the PDF is not available due to copyright restrictions, you
will find a link to the relevant library shelfmark where you can find a hard copy of the
publication. While we make every effort to make teaching materials available online,
you are still expected to conduct bibliographic research in the library, and the fact
that a publication is not online will not be accepted as an excuse for not having consulted it. For essays, it is essential to identify additional relevant publications if you
are aiming for a high grade.
The Online Reading Lists are available via the Institute’s Intranet and Moodle page
(UCL ID and password required).
Intercollegiate students should contact Judy Medrington (Room 411A) to be registered for a college IS username and password as soon as possible.
The reading lists may look a bit intimidating. The material listed under "further reading" is supposed to cover a wide range of periods, areas and also different archaeological materials. The idea is to let you choose relevant readings from your area of
expertise. Nobody is expected to read all the articles under "further reading", but you
are expected to be able to contribute to the general discussion. If you locate relevant
material not included on the reading list, so much the better!
The Moodle
This core course is available via Moodle, an online teaching resource where you will
find access to the same reading lists but also to downloadable handouts and Presentations that will be added on a weekly basis, as well as other activities and resources.
You are expected to log on to Moodle at least once a week. You may find that, once
you have registered for a course via Portico, you will be automatically enrolled in
Moodle. If this is not the case, you can register for Moodle directly, following the
guidelines below.
Strand A: “ARCLG107/ARCLG120 Technology within society”, Enrolment key: g120
Strand B: "Dealing with artefacts", Enrolment key: g120a
Workload
The core course will be taught over ten weeks in the first term on Tuesdays (11.0013.00) and Tuesday (9.00 – 11.00). In term 2, Strand A will run till reading week with
a one-day student conference in Reading Week, while Strand B will run for the full
term (Thursday, 14-16.00). This adds up to a total of 80 hours. In addition to this you
are expected to undertake around 200 hours of private reading in preparing for
classes and approximately 100 hours to prepare for your essays and seminar presentation. There is a reading week in term 1 (9th-13th November) and another one in
term 2 (15th-19st February); this time should be used to catch-up with any reading associated with lectures and to research and prepare assessed work.
Prerequisites
This course does not have a prerequisite, but a knowledge of archaeological methods and theory is indispensable. For students without previous knowledge of archaeological theory, it may be advisable to sit in (but not be assessed for) the undergraduate course ARCL2058 on "Current Issues in Archaeological Theory" to ensure
that they have a proper background to get the most out of the Masters level seminars
in this course. Some "material based" undergraduate courses like ARCL3001, Archaeometallurgy, ARCL3004, Archaeological Ceramics, ARCL2041, Organic Materi-
9
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
als in Prehistory and ARCL3046, Lithic technology can also be useful, as well as
courses with a chronological or regional focus, depending on your interests.
2. Aims, objectives and assessment
This course is a general foundation and introduction for the MA in Artefacts Analysis
(for which this is an obligatory Core Course). It is intended to place the specific specialist training provided by the option courses within a broad archaeological context.
For this reason, the majority of the course is taught in the first term.
The course provides a broad introduction to the collection, classification, recording,
analysis, interpretation and publication of artefacts, with a strong focus on current
theories and practices in studying the social significance of technology and material
culture. A central concern is to encourage an interdisciplinary approach to artefact
studies and consider how to develop the relevance of finds analysis for wider archaeological research questions. Students are asked to consider the significance of
artefacts and material culture studies in relation to ethnographic and historical as well
as archaeological examples.
The core course is primarily an issues-based course designed to raise awareness of
methods and theories of analysis used across a wide range of materials and periods.
Some classes will include the opportunity to handle artefacts. The specific artefacts
used are intended as examples to discuss research questions and analytical methods that could also be applied to other materials from other times or places. The aim
is to integrate theoretical and practical aspects of artefact studies and consider how
to identify and record the information necessary for a finds report and link this to the
formulation of research questions.
Aims
This course will introduce students to a wide range of concepts and ideas used in
artefact studies, with a strong critical consideration of the academic and theoretical
significance of such research, and a concern for the care, preservation and reporting
of archaeological materials. More specifically the course aims:
1.
To provide a wide-ranging and challenging introduction to the role of artefact
studies in modern archaeology
2
To encourage students to think about technology from an anthropologicallyinformed perspective that focuses on how and why people make and use artefacts, while not loosing sight of the materiality of things
3.
To engage with current debates about the collection, interpretation, reporting
and curation of archaeological materials
4.
To encourage an interdisciplinary approach to artefact studies which considers
how to develop the relevance of artefact studies and the scientific analysis of
materials for wider archaeological research.
5.
To consider critically the changing role of ‘finds specialists’ in relation to commercially funded archaeology, current theoretical debates and research work
Objectives
On successful completion of this course a student should:
1.
Know how to catalogue and document finds on a professional level, given further practice.
10
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
2.
3.
4.
5.
Have some practice in identifying and dating previously unknown archaeological materials
Be familiar with a wide range of recent archaeological, anthropological, and
broad theoretical debates about the role of material culture and technology
within society.
Have an overview of practical approaches to the study of artefacts in relation to
wider archaeological research questions.
Be able to debate the role of artefact studies in archaeology including the potential advantages and constraints inherent within different approaches to artefact analysis
Learning outcomes
On successful completion of the course students should be able to demonstrate/to
have developed the following abilities
1.
independent problem-solving based on real data sets
2.
The observational skills needed to identify the material details of an artefact and
critically consider what this may mean in relation to the production process or
life history of the object.
3.
to observe, or read about, analytical procedures and critically reflect on how
these procedures will affect the recording and interpretation of data.
4.
to read and listen to a range of different approaches to a topic and to write a
reasoned argument as to why they favour one or more of these.
5.
to identify relevant data and analytical methods with which to address specific
research questions.
6.
to organise and deliver a clear oral presentation and to participate in group discussions.
11
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Coursework
Methods of assessment
This course is assessed by means of approximately 8000 words of coursework, divided into three pieces: a standard essay, a project paper and the portfolio. In addition, there will be a substantial amount of group work and an oral presentation. More
details on all of these are given at the end of this coursebook.
All written work submitted as coursework should include a wordcount. All work must
be fully referenced; your attention is drawn to methods of referencing and to the
statements on plagiarism and ‘self-plagiarism’ in the ‘information for MA and MSc
Students’ handbook. Refer also to the IoA referencing guidelines. It is an obligation of
the course to give an oral presentation during the second term seminar series. The
topics and deadlines for each assessment are specified below, and further details are
given in the last few pages of this handbook. If students are unclear about the nature
of an assignment, please contact the Course Co-ordinator. If you wish to discuss essay topics or prepare a brief (single-page maximum) outline of how you intend to approach your assignment, he will be happy to discuss this.
Word-length
Strict regulations with regard to word-length are in place across UCL. Your wordcount is expected to fall within a 10% window of the word limit (e.g., for a 4,000word limit, the actual wordcount should be between 3,800 and 4,200). If your work
is found to be up to 10% longer than the official limit, your mark will be reduced by
10%, subject to a minimum mark of a minimum pass, assuming that the work merited
a pass. If your work is more than 10% over-length, a mark of zero will be recorded.
The following should not be included in the word-count: bibliography, appendices, and
tables, graphs and illustrations and their captions.
Citing of sources and illustrations
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 a 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 Coursework Guidelines document at:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook.
The Institute of Archaeology referencing guide can be found under
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/handbook/common/referencing.htm and should be
adhered to closely. Please note that the preferred referencing style differs from the
one adopted in the Online-reading list, which unfortunately comes with the software. I
will correct your referencing in the first piece of assessed work, in later pieces and
the dissertation you will be marked down for incorrect referencing (format).
Illustrations
It is good practice to illustrate essays, dissertations and presentations. The illustrations included should be relevant to your argument, not simply nice to look at or easy
to find on the net. Captions and tables are not included in the word-count. Tables and
12
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
schematic illustrations can strengthen and summarise your argument without inflating
the word-count. Maps, site maps, schematic drawings, diagrams and chronological
tables are excellent tools in making your explanations clearer.
Guidelines on illustrations are to be found at:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/intranet/students.htm.
Scanners are available in several locations. The primary location for Institute students is in the Institute's Photography Lab (Room 405), where tuition and advice on
their appropriate use is available. If you are involved in a project that requires large
amounts of scanning it may be worth getting access to the scanner in the AGIS Lab
(Room 322C, contact Mark Lake, Andy Bevan or Peter Schauer for details of access
and training on use of these scanners). There is another scanner (must be booked)
at the ISD Helpdesk in the basement of the Lewis-Building.
Some basic knowledge of Photoshop Elements or a similar graphic program is useful
here. Photos taken with a camera are normally not of a sufficient quality to be used
for essays. Ideally, you should aim for publication quality illustrations. Informations on
the use of photoshop to improve the quality of your scans will be provided during the
course. Make sure your pictures are properly cut, not skewed and of sufficient contrast. Each illustration should be labelled (fig. 1 to #) and referred to by this number in
the text. All illustrations need proper captions. Each illustration must be provided with
a source, either in the text or as a list of illustrations at the end of the essay/dissertation (preferred). An illustration without a proper source is plagiarism,
even if Turnitin does not highlight it!
Submission of coursework
The coursework must be stapled to a completed coversheet (available from the web,
from the Library or outside room 411A) and submitted to the course co-ordinator’s pigeon hole via the Red Essay Box at Reception by the appropriate deadline. Late
submission will be penalised unless permission has been granted and an Extension
Request Form (ERF) completed. Please see the Cousework Guidelines document at
the IoA Administration Website (or your MA-Handbook) for further details on the required procedure.
You have to submit your complete coursework electronically to the Turnitin system
(in one file, including references and figures). If the file is too big, the tii-team will
help you to split it. The system time-stamps the submissions. The Turnitin-code for
the course for 2015/16 is 783619, the password is IoA1516 (not ioa or IOA, but:
capital letter I, lower case letter o, upper case A, number
one, number two, number one etc.)
The blue coversheet is available from
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/intranet/forms/index.htm, or in a rack in the library),
which you can put in my pigeonhole or email to me. The text of the essay must contain your candidate number, the name of the course and a word-count.
Students who fail to submit their coursework to Turnitin will not receive the mark for
the work in question until they have done so. The maximum mark for work that has
not been submitted to Turnitin prior to the meeting of the Board of Examiners will be
a bare pass.
template:
G120, 2015/16, essay no. #
your candidate number
Title of the essay (original wording, as in this handbook)
13
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
date
wordcount
Dyslexic yes/no (delete as appropriate)
The text submitted to Turnitin should contain all your text, bibliography, the list of illustrations, appendices etc. and the illustrations. It will be used for marking. For some
reason, turnitin does not display illustrations correctly to students. It does to the lecturers, though. Do not submit several files, submit files preferable in Microsoft-Word
5.0, open office or pages-format. PDFs are awkward to mark and thus annoy me! If
you want to use any other format, please discuss this with me in advance!
If you do not provide a wordcount, I will use Word's wordcount function, and will not
bother to sort out bibliography, legends, labels etc., which, of course normally do not
count!
In advance of submitting your coursework for marking you may, if you wish, run your
work through the system in order to obtain a report on the originality of the wording
and then make any necessary adjustments prior to final submission. Most of the titles
in your bibliography will have already been cited by others, as well as certain common phrases, so a certain amount of "plagiarism" is no reason for concern. Indeed, if
you have less than 10% plagiarism, you probably do not have included enough references! Turnitin advisors will be available to help you at specified times if you need
help for generating or interpreting the reports.
The final decision about whether work contains plagiarism rests with academic staff.
Consequently, the presence or absence of matches in a Turnitin report does not, by
itself, provide a guarantee that the work in question either contains or is free from
plagiarism.
Detailed instructions on the use of the system will can be found under:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/handbook/common/cfp.htm
Any student who has queries about Turnitin should email ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk.
Date-stamping is via ‘Turnitin’ (see below), so students must submit their work to
Turnitin by the midnight on the day of the deadline.
Be aware that the system can be very busy at certain dates. If there are problems,
you can email the essay to the course-coordinator. UCL-email is not totally reliable,
so make sure that the submission was received (I normally send out a receipt, if
there is none, please enquire!). By emailing me the essay, you waive your anonymity, of course.
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
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 e-mail the Course Co-ordinator, and follow this up with a completed ERF. Again, this waives your anonymity.
Please see the Coursework Guidelines on the IoA website for further details of penalties.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook/submission
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook/turnitin
14
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
UCL-wide penalties for 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.
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. You may like to keep a copy of the
comments if you are likely to wish to refer to these later.
Communication
If any changes need to be made to the course arrangements, these will normally be
communicated by email. It is therefore essential that you consult your UCL email account regularly.
Dyslexia and disabilities
If you have dyslexia or any 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.
Essay (assessment 1)
2500 words, 33.3% of the final course mark
Deadline: Monday, 12/01/2015
The topics for the essay have been selected from Strand A. You will find appropriate
bibliographies above in relation to the specific class topic, but you should also take
time to consider the relevance of works you have read in relation to other parts of this
or other courses. Also look for examples and case-studies from your own area of expertise.
Additional topics can be addressed, but this needs to be cleared with the coursecoordinator in advance.
15
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Essay subjects (choose one):
 With reference to examples, discuss how systems of artefact recording and
classification influence which research questions are addressed.
 Select one artefact and prepare a Chaîne Opératoire or ‘Artefact Biography’
that illustrates its life history as a sequence of transformations. What are the
potential benefits and restrictions of this form of analysis?
 What can intra-site spatial distributions tell us about the production and use of
artefacts? What are the limiting factors? You may also want to consider the
case of "missing" artefact categories.
 Can we identify the symbolic meaning of prehistoric artefacts?
 Do the physical properties of materials and environmental settings constrain
technology, or are they largely shaped by cultural traditions and individual agency?
 Using examples, discuss how the source of raw materials used to make ancient artefacts may be located and what further information is needed to investigate how access to these materials was organised in antiquity.
 How and to what extent can we identify or measure the skill of ancient artisans?
 Can archaeological evidence be used to identify the degree to which craft production was ‘specialised’?
 Using examples from archaeological research, discuss how exchange practices can be deduced from material remains.
 Is it possible to use archaeological evidence to identify who instigated, who
benefited from, and who lost out from technological change?
 The techniques for provenancing artefacts and for identifying production techniques have seen constant progress and refinement in recent years. Has this
been matched by the development of methods to explore social context or
meaning? How does this affect the future of artefact studies?
Portfolio (assessment 2)
Deadline: 27/03/2015
33.3% of the final course mark, no word limit.
Early in term 1 you will receive a list of ten artefacts from one area, site or time period
that will form the basis of your portfolio. You will have to sign for the artefacts with
Rachael Sparks (basement, please fix a date with Rachael), who will also give you
an obligatory introduction to artefact handling. You can work on your portfolio in the
artefact lab in the Photolab on the 4th floor. The artefacts have to be kept under lock
and key when you are not actually working on them. The following items will have to
be included:
16
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
1. description on a finds sheet. You can adapt the MOLAS or ASE-sheets (see
moodle), to your purposes. Remember that this is a quick field report, do a sketchdrawing, not an inked illustration were appropriate. What type of drawing would
you need? Use short notes, not a description in elaborate full sentences. Imagine
that you have 5 minutes maximum for this task and 200 more artefacts are waiting
for your attention (as it is the first time you use it, it will probably take you longer)
2. entry in a database. Please submit the actual database electronically. Make sure
that the fields and their nature is fully documented. Make full use of the possibilities of the database or spreadsheet, do not simply reproduce a paper-description!
Reflect on who will use your database, and how.
3. a short report on the site or the area of origin, focusing on facts relevant for the interpretation and dating of your artefacts.
Again, this should be no longer than strictly necessary! Maps and chronological
tables help you save on words. You may have to construct your own tables, especially if dealing with older excavation or contentious sites. You do not have to resolve contested stratigraphies or chronologies, but should demonstrate awareness
of differing interpretations!
4. a catalogue of finds, including identification and dating
Take a good look at existing finds reports, and the prominence given to different
types of finds. You would not normally expect several pages of report on an undecorated body-sherd or an iron nail, while a statuette or a stamp-seal may merit a
longer comment. Try to comply with common practice in the field, unnecessarily
long entries will definitely not gain you a better mark!
Points to cover are type of object (shape), raw material, method of production,
date, cultural affiliation, function etc.
Different types of artefacts are subject to different conventions for descriptions,
there are not always universal rules on how to describe a specific type of artefact.
This is especially true for pottery shapes. Look at a number of publications from
the area/time period of your objects to get a feeling for this!
Dating and identification will often rest on identifying similar objects from dated
contexts. You need to make clear why you think objects are similar, and what their
date-range and distribution is. Again, maps and chronological tables are an important tool - and a dot on the map may represent three days in the library! Make
sure your discussion is properly referenced. If you arrive at an interpretation or a
date by comparison to other, better dated finds, you need to cite the sites and publications in question. Be aware of the fact that research progresses, the dating of
the excavator may not be accepted anymore today - try to locate the most recent
publications dealing with your site/area!
You can use abbreviations (check with published finds reports), but provide a key.
If you have information on provenance, this should be taken account of and also
be noted in the catalogue.
A catalogue is not an essay! Avoid subjective statements and wordy descriptions! Be as short and precise as possible, establish a template to follow for all object descriptions! Look closely at a number of published catalogues to see how this is done.
The catalogue should refer to illustrations or include them. Remember that linedrawings are the main means of illustrating artefacts, and that normally shape is
more important than texture/surface. If there are relevant details, this may call for
detail-photographs or drawings. You can either include your drawings and photo17
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
graphs in the text or add them separately as illustrations or plates and refer to
them in the text.
A published catalogue normally contains fairly definite statements: "Rim-sherd of a
Dragendorff 36 bowl, barbotine decoration in the form of wineleaves on the upper
body, late 2nd century AD." NOT: "A kind of orangey-like triangular shard with a
really smooth surface, it looks kind of Samian-like maybe but I am not really sure.
It is very smooth and cute and I really like it a lot."
Aim for a coherent layout. How can you help the reader to easily identify the most
relevant information? Which information has always to be included?
The length of the entries should correspond to the importance of the piece and
should be comparable to normal catalogues (check some recent excavation reports
from the area and time you study). The different parts should work as stand-alone
pieces. You can cross-reference them, but each section of the documentation must
contain all the facts you deem appropriate for the context and the particular object.
Include a table of contents, a list of illustrations and a bibliography. Preface the portfolio with a short introduction outlining your approach. Number the pages consecutively from page one. The Portfolio should include a table of contents (including appendices, CD-Roms and whatever), a bibliography and a list of illustrations.
The earlier you familiarize yourself with your site/area and your artefacts, the better!
You cannot put a portfolio together in a night or two. You need practice and time for
research, for leafing through books trying to find comparable pieces, and for training
in drawing.
Talk to each other, use your colleagues' knowledge! You all specialize in different
subjects, there is no reason not to share informations!
The portfolio has to be submitted on paper. Please submit the database on a CDRom, a printout is not very helpful normally. The CD and everything else included
should be listed in the table of contents. The Portfolio is NOT submitted to turnitin.
The following criteria are used for marking:
(*=extra points)
1. Overall cohesion and form
-justification of the approach chosen
-formatting and aesthetics of the portfolio
-ease of use: how easy is it to find relevant informations, is there a hierarchy of information levels, is it visually clear?
2. description on finds sheet
-was an appropriate sheet used?
-are the entries complete and appropriate?
-is the sketch-drawing appropriate and informative?
3. entry in database
-consistency of entries
-appropriate detail
-appropriate and unequivocal description/wording
-the type of fields used
-easy searchability
-the way fields/different databases are inter-connected
18
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
4. drawing of relevant artifacts
-appropriate selection of artifacts
-drawings technically correct
*quality of drawing
This means that you will not be marked down for "ugly" but technically correct drawings, but you will be marked up for beautiful drawings, provided they are technically
correct. Some people are alredy talented draughtspersons, but normally the quality of
drawing (especially inking) can only be improved with a lot of practice.
5. photographs of relevant artifacts
-appropriate selection of artifacts, useful views
-technically correct (scale, visibility, lighting, orientation etc.)
*quality of photograph
you can use "hybrid techniques" of documentation, for example, combining photographs and a section-drawing, but make sure all formal requirements are met!
6. finds report/catalogue
with a short report on the site or the area of origin
-core data included
-consistency of entries
-quality and completeness of entries
-conciseness, appropriate form and length
-use of up-to date information, breadth of research
*correct identification and dating
This means you will not be marked down for a wrong identification, if it is supported
by appropriate research, but you will be marked up for correct identifications
The length of the entries should be appropriate to the importance of the piece and
should be comparable to normal finds-reports (check relevant examples in library).
DO NOT USE plastic sleeves, DO NOT USE bulky or fiddly folders, DO NOT bind it.
Portfolios need to be commented on, marked, photocopied and sent off to externals.
If you add a CD etc., make sure there is a note of this in the text, that it is properly
fastened and that everything is properly labelled - things always fall out and get
mixed up. There should be a title page giving basic information, as for an essay.
Project paper (assessment 3)
Details see below (Strand C), 78
deadlines
Assessment 1: Essay (term 1): 12/01/2015, 3500 words – 33.3% of course work
Assessment 2: Portfolio (term 2): 22/03/2016, no word limit – 33.3% of course
work. NOT submitted to Turnitin.
Assessment 3: Project Paper (term 2): 07/03/2016. The Word-limit is 3000-4000
words plus the presentation (normally in Powerpoint, Open Office or Keynote format)
and the documentation of the presentation – 33.3% of coursework
The assessments have to be submitted to Turnitin. The Presentation itself (assessment 3) cannot be submitted via Turnitin and should be submitted as a paper-copy,
with the data-base on a CD-Rom. If in doubt, ask me.
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 it was submitted on time. If you do not receive your work
19
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
within this period, or a written explanation from the marker, you should notify the
IoA’s Academic Administrator, Judy Medrington.
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2015-16 (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY)
This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to courses. It is not a substitute for the
full documentation, with which all students should become familiar. For full information on Institute policies
and procedures, see the following website: http://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/display/archadmin
For UCL policies and procedures, see the Academic Regulations and the UCL Academic Manual:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulations ; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/
GENERAL MATTERS
ATTENDANCE: A minimum attendance of 70% is required. A register will be taken at each class. If you are
unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email.
DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers whether there is any
way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia should indicate it on each coursework cover sheet.
COURSEWORK
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 permission for
late submission has been granted. 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.
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.
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.
20
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
CITING OF SOURCES and AVOIDING PLAGIARISM: Coursework must be expressed in your own
words, citing the exact source (author, date and page number; website address if applicable) of any ideas, information, diagrams, etc., that are taken from the work of others. This applies to all media (books, articles, websites, images, figures, etc.). Any direct quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed between quotation marks. Plagiarism is a very serious irregularity, which can carry heavy penalties.
It is your responsibility to abide by requirements for presentation, referencing and avoidance of plagiarism.
Make sure you understand definitions of plagiarism and the procedures and penalties as detailed in UCL regulations: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current-students/guidelines/plagiarism
RESOURCES
MOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the course on Moodle. For help with Moodle, please contact
Nicola Cockerton, Room 411a (nicola.cockerton@ucl.ac.uk).
21
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Schedule and syllabus
Course Outline
There are three strands to this core course:
Strand A: Lectures and Seminars: The social context of artefacts (term 1)
This will be taught as a mixture of lectures and seminars and looks at the way archaeological artefacts have been used to derive information about the society that
produced them. This Strand is taught together with the students of G107, "The Technology and Analysis of Archaeological Materials" (MSc).
Strand B: Dealing with artefacts (term 1 and 2)
This strand will encourage students to consider how finds specialists select their recording methods in relation to specific research objectives and practical constraints.
The course emphasizes the practicalities of excavating, processing, identifying, archiving and publishing archaeological finds and the problems of defining databases
and sampling methods. We will also look at the problems of archiving, and at the exhibition and publication of artefacts.
There will be practicals on cataloguing, description, drawing and photography.
Strand C: Presentations: Archaeological Analysis and Interpretation
(term 2)
The presentations will use case studies from current archaeological projects to consider how the study of archaeological assemblages can be used to address wider research questions. It will encourage a critical consideration of the problems and the
potentials of integrating the analysis of diverse materials, analytical procedures, and
traditions of artefact analysis within a single research design. The precise choice of
issues, sites and materials will be defined in consultation with students and staff. This
Strand is taught together with the students of G107, "The Technology and Analysis of
Archaeological Materials" (MSc) and will involve a close cooperation between MA
and MSc-Students.
Field trips
There will be some trips to museums, archives and archaeological sites in the first
and second terms. None of these activities are an obligatory part of the course, but
they are organised for your benefit and if there is insufficient participation we will not
continue them. These will mainly take place on Wednesday afternoons, unless a
more suitable date can be identified. More information will be posted on the Moodle.
Normally, these trips are also open to interested students from G107.
Readings on materials and materiality in general
*Appadurai, A. (ed.) 1986. The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH BD APP
22
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
*Caple, C. 2006. Objects: reluctant witnesses to the past. Abingdon: Routledge. INST
ARCH LA CAP
USEFUL OVERVIEW AND REFERENCE
*Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: an archaeology of the relationships between humans
and things. Chichester, Wiley/Blackwell. INST ARCH BD HOD, DOI:
10.1002/9781118241912*Hurcombe, L. M. 2007. Archaeological artefacts as
material culture. Abingdon, Routledge. INST ARCH AH HUR
*Jones, A. 2004. Archaeometry and materiality: Materials-based analysis in theory
and practice. Archaeometry 46/3, 327–338.
Kingery, D. W. (ed.) 1996. Learning from things: method and theory of material culture studies Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. INST ARCH BD KIN
Latour, B. 1999. Pandora's hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. HISTORY OF SCIENCE W 5 LAT,
ANTHROPOLOGY D 6 LAT
THE TEXT STARTING THE DISCUSSION ABOUT SYMMETRICAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND OBJECT
AGENCY. HAVE A LOOK!
*Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material culture today: towards an anthropology of
technical systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 147-86. NET
Miller, H. M.-L. 2007. Archaeological approaches to technology. London and Amsterdam, Elsevier/Academic Press. INST ARCH K MIL
Nanoglou, St. 2008. Qualities of humanness; material aspects of Greek Neolithic anthropomorphic imagery. Journal of Material Culture 13/3, 311–334. INST
ARCH PERS and NET
*Olsen, Bj. 2010. In defense of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham, Altamira. INST ARCH AH OLS
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL TAKE ON MATERIAL CULTURE THEORY. A GOOD INTRODUCTION TO
THEORETICAL APPROACHES
Schiffer, M. B. 1999. The material life of human beings: artefacts, behavior, and
communication. London, Routledge. INST ARCH BD SCH
Sigaut, F. 1994. Technology. In: T. Ingold (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Routledge, London, 420-459. ISSUE DESK IOA ING 2
Tilley, Ch. et al. (eds) 2006. Handbook of material culture. London, Sage. INST
ARCH AH TIL
Thornton, Chr. P. 2009. Archaeometallurgy: Evidence of a paradigm shift? In: Kienlin,
T. L.; Roberts, B. W. (eds), Metals and societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway. Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie
169, Bonn Habelt, 25-33. Inst Arch KEA QTO KiE
A SHORT HISTORY OF RESEARCH IN ARCHAEOMETALLURGY, OUTLINING SOME TRENDS.
USEFUL TO CONSIDER FOR OTHER SCIENTIFIC FIELDS AS WELL.
General perspectives on material culture, mainly in a modern context
Boivin, N. 2008. Material cultures, material minds: the impact of things on human
thought, society, and evolution. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. INST
ARCH AH BOI
Conneller, Ch. 2011. An archaeology of materials. Substantial transformations in
early prehistoric Europe. Abingdon, Routledge. INST ARCH DA 100 CON
MAINLY ON MESOLITHIC MATERIALS
Dant, T. 1999. Material culture in the social world: values, activities, lifestyles. Buckingham, Open University Press. ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 DAN
23
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Donald, M., Hurcombe, L. (eds) 2000. Gender and material culture in historical perspective. Basingstoke, Macmillan. ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 DON
Ewen, C. R. 2003. Artifacts. Archaeologist’s toolkit 4. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
INST ARCH AH EWE
Henare, A., Holbraad, M., Wastell, S. (eds) 2007. Thinking through things: theorising
artefacts ethnographically. Abingdon, Routledge. ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 HEN
Hallam, E., Ingold, T. (eds), 2014. Making and Growing: Anthropological studies of
organisms and Artefacts Farnham, Ashgate. https://www-dawsoneracom.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/terms/show?dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dawsonera.c
om%2Fabstract%2F9781409436430
Lubar, St., Kingery, W. D. 1993. History from things: essays on material culture.
Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. INST ARCH AH LUB and
ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 LUB
Meskell, L. (ed.) 2006. Archaeologies of materiality. Oxford, Blackwell. INST ARCH
AH MES and ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 MES
Miller, D. (ed.) 2005. Materiality. Durham, Duke University Press. ANTHROPOLOGY
C 9 MIL
Olsen, Bj. 2010. In defense of things: archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham/Plymouth, Rowman & Littlefield. INST ARCH AH OLS
Specific raw materials
Andrefsky, W. Jr. 2005. Lithics, Macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press (2nd ed.). INST ARCH KA AND
Bayley, J., Dungworth, D. G., Paynter, S. 2001. Archaeometallurgy. Swindon, English
Heritage Centre for Archaeology Guidelines. INST ARCH KEB Qto BAY
Brézillon, M. N. 1968. La dénomination des objets de pierre taillée: matériaux pour
un vocabulaire des préhistoriens de langue française. IVe supplément à Gallia
préhistoire. Paris, Éditions du Centre national de la Recherche. INST ARCH
KA BRE
Henderson, J. 2000. The science and archaeology of materials. An investigation of
inorganic materials. London, Routledge. INST ARCH JDA HEN, Issue desk
Hurcombe, L. 2014. Perishable material culture in prehistory: investigating the missing majority. London, Routledge. INST ARCH K HUR
Orton, C. 1978, Pottery archive users' handbook. London, Museum of London, Department of Urban Archaeology. INST ARCH KD 3 ORT
Fabric Types. We will visit the archive later next year
Orton, C., Tyers, P., Vince A. 2013. Pottery in archaeology (2nd edition). Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH KD 3 ORT
Quinn, P. S. 2013. Ceramic petrography: the interpretation of archaeological pottery
and related artefacts in thin section. Oxford, Archaeopress. INST ARCH KD 3
QUI
Rye, O. S. 1981. Pottery technology; Principles and reconstruction. Manuals on Archaeology 4. Washington, Taraxacum. INST ARCH KD 1 RYE
Roberts, B. W., Thornton, Chr. P. (eds) 2014, Archaeometallurgy in global perspective: methods and syntheses. New York, Springer. ONLINE
Rice, P. M. 1987. Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press. INST ARCH IOA RIC 2, Issue Desk
24
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Strand A: The social context of artefacts
1. Introduction
6. October 2015
Introduction to the course (organisation and objectives). You will receive the course
handbooks and we will discuss the structure of the course and the nature of the assessments.
What is an artefact?
Ulrike Sommer
Some basic definitions and questions that will guide us in the course of this lecture
series. We will also talk about object biographies.
Ingold, T. 2007. Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues 14/1, 1-16.
ONLINE
*Kopytoff, I. 1986. The cultural biology of things: Commoditization as process. In:
Appadurai, A. (ed.), The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 64-94. INST ARCH BD APP
Meskell, L. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material Biographies past and
present. Oxford, Berg. EGYPTOLOGY B 20 MES; ANTHROPOLOGY D 9
MES
Meskell, L. 2005. Introduction, object orientations. In: Meskell, L. (ed.), Archaeologies
of materiality. Oxford, Blackwell, 1-17. INST ARCH AH MES;
ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 MES; DOI: 10.1002/9780470774052.ch1
Olsen, B. 2010. In defense of things. Archaeology and the Ontology of objects. Lanham, Altamira, 21-39. IoA AH OLS
Arranging the artefacts
Ulrike Sommer and Marcos Martínon-Torres
We will use a group of mundane modern artefacts to consider distinctive traditions
within artefact analysis with an emphasis on how archaeological materials have been
categorised (typologies, stylistic analysis, seriation, technological studies, function,
materials analysis, etc.). We will discuss to what extent new classifications need to
be made to address specific research questions and to what extent earlier typologies
and nomenclatures provide a basis for clear communication between researchers.
Articles for Discussion
*Adams, W. Y. 1988. Archaeological classification: theory versus practice. Antiquity
62, 40-56. On-line
Hayden, B. 1984. Are emic types relevant to archaeology? Ethnohistory 31/2, 79-92.
On-line
Sørensen, M. L. 2015. 'Paradigm lost' - on the state of typology within archaeological
theory. In: Kristiansen, K., Šmejda, L., Turek, J. (eds.), Paradigm found. Archaeological theory, present, past and future. Essays in honour of Evzen
Neústupny. Oxford, Oxbox, 84-94. On Order. Online via Academia.edu
25
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Further Reading
Adams, W. Y., Adams, E. W. 1991. Archaeological typology and practical reality: a
dialectical approach to artifact classification and sorting. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH AH ADA
Barrett, J. C. 1991. Bronze Age pottery and the problem of classification. In: Barrett,
J., Bradley, R. Hall, M. (eds), Papers on the prehistoric archaeology of Cranborne Chase. Oxford, Oxbow, 201-230. INST ARCH ISSUE DESK BAR 16
Biers, W. R. 1992. Art, artefacts and chronology in Classical Archaeology. London,
Routledge. INST ARCH AJ 10 BIE
Binford, L. R. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28/2, 217-25
INST ARCH PERS and NET
Binford, L. R. 1968. Archaeological Perspectives. In: Binford, L. R., Binford, S. R.,
New perspectives in archaeology. Chicago, Aldine, 5-32. INST ARCH AH BIN
Bisson, M. S. 2000. Nineteenth century tools for twenty-first century archaeology?
Why the Middle Palaeolithic typology of François Bordes must be replaced.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7/1, 1-48. On-line
Buck, C. E., Millard, A. R. (eds) 2004. Tools for constructing chronologies: crossing
disciplinary boundaries. London, Springer. INST ARCH AK 10 BUC
Carver, M. O. H. 1985. Theory and practice in urban pottery seriation. Journal of Archaeological Science 12, 353-366. INST ARCH Pers and NET
Chapman, W. R. 1985. Arranging ethnology: A. H. L. F. Pitt Rivers and the typological tradition. In: G. W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Objects and Others, essays on museums and material culture. History of Anthropology 3. Madison, University of
Wisconsin Press, 15-48. INST ARCH MG 3 STO
Clarke, D. 1968. Analytical archaeology. London, Methuen.
Chapter 4 Material Culture Systems; Chapter 5 Artefact Types; Chapter 6 Assemblage and Culture. INST ARCH CLA 20
Cumberpatch, C. G. 1997. Towards a phenomenological approach to medieval pottery. In: C. G. Cumberpatch, P. W. Blinkhorn (eds), Not so much a pot, more a
way of life. Oxford, Oxbow, 125–152.INST ARCH KD Qto CUM
Dunnell, R. C. 1986. Methodological issues in American artifact classification. In M.
B. Schiffer (ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9. New York,
Academic Press, 149-207. INST ARCH Pers
Fish, P. R., 1978. Consistency in archaeological measurement and classification: a
pilot study. American Antiquity 43, 86–89.
Gräslund, B. 1987. The birth of prehistoric chronology: dating methods and dating
systems in nineteenth-century Scandinavian archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH DAN 100 GRUA
THIS GIVES YOU A FAIRLY GOOD IDEA OF MONTELIUS' TYPOLOGY, BUT DO READ UP THE
ORIGINAL, IT IS VERY CONCISE AND CLEAR!
Hodder, I. 1992. The narrative and rhetoric of material culture sequences. World Archaeology 25/2, 268-281. INST ARCH Pers and NET
Kempton, W. 1981. The folk classification of ceramics: A study of cognitive prototypes. New York, Academic Press. INST ARCH KD 3 KEM
Klejn, Leo S. 1982. Archaeological typology (trans. P. Dole). BAR International Series 153.Oxford, British Archaological Reports. INST ARCH AH Qto KLE
Margolis, E., Laurence, St. (eds.) 2007. Creations of the mind: theories of artifacts
and their representation. Oxford, Oxford University Press. MAIN PHILOSOPHY J 165 MAR
A PHILOSOPHER'S VIEW
26
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Miller, D. 1982. Artefacts as products of human categorisation processes. In: I. Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 17-25. INST ARCH HOD 12
Miller, D. 1985 Artefacts as categories: A study of ceramic variability in central India.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. ANTHROPOLOGY RA 82 MIL
Montelius, O. 1899. Die typologische Methode. Die älteren Kulturperioden im Orient
und in Europa I. Stockholm, Selbstverlag.
Plog, S. 1983. Analysis of style in artefacts. Annual Review of Anthropology 12, 125142. NET
Plog, S., Hantman, J. L. 1990. Chronology construction and the study of prehistoric
culture change. Journal of Field Archaeology 17, 439-456. INST ARCH Pers.
Read, D. W. 2007. Artifact classification: a conceptual and methodological approach.
Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press. INST ARCH AH REA
Rice, P. M. 1976. Rethinking the ware concept. American Antiquity 41, 538-543.
INST ARCH Pers and NET
Rowley-Conwy, P. 2007. From Genesis to prehistory: the Archaeological Three Age
System and its contested reception in Denmark, Britain, and Ireland. Oxford,
Oxford University Press. INST ARCH AG ROW
FOR CONTEXT ON THE TYPOLOGICAL METHOD
Sackett, J., 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1, 59–112.
See also replies by Binford.
Schnapp, A. 2002. Between antiquarians and archaeologists - continuities and ruptures. Antiquity 76, 134-140. INST ARCH Pers. and On-line
Taylor, T. 2015. The demons of comparison: Archaeological classification vs classificatory terminology. In: K. Kristiansen, L. Šmejda, J. Turek (eds.), Paradigm
Found. Archaeological Theory Present, Past and Future. Essays in Honour of
Evzen Neustupný. Oxford, Oxbow books, 95–105.
Wheat, J. B. 1991. Ceramic classification: Bradfield and Shepard, types and varieties. In: R. L. Bishop, F. W. Lange (eds.), The ceramic legacy of Anna O.
Shepard. Niwot, University Press of Colorado, 121-131. INST ARCH KD 3 BIS
White, J. P., Thomas, D. H. 1972. What mean these stones? Ethno-taxonomic models and archaeological interpretations in the New Guinea highlands. In: D. L.
Clarke (ed.), Models in archaeology. London, Methuen, 275-308. INST ARCH
AH CLA
Widemann, F. 1982. Why is archaeometry so boring for archaeologists? In: J. S.
Olin, Franklin, A. D. (eds.), Archaeological Ceramics. Washington D. C.,
Smithsonian Institute Press, 29-36. INST ARCH KD 3 OLI
Wylie, A. 2002. The typology debate. In: Wylie, A. Thinking from things: Essays in the
philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley, University of California Press, 42-56.
INST ARCH AH WYL
27
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
2. Chaîne opératoires and artefact life-histories
Marcos Martinón-Torres
13. October 2015
Artefact life-histories can be studied as a process, investigating the changing composition, morphology and meaning of artefacts from resource procurement through
manufacture and use to discard, or even beyond this stage. We will consider the
concepts of chaîne opératoire and artefact biography as analytical methods and interpretative theories.
Essential Reading
Benco, N. L., Ettahiri, A., Loyet, M. 2002. Worked bone tools: linking metal artisans
and animal processors in medieval Islamic Morocco. Antiquity 76, 447-57. Online
Dobres, M.-A. 1999. Technology’s links and chaînes: the processual unfolding of
technique and technician. In: Dobres, M.-A., Hoffman, C. R. (eds.), The social
dynamics of technology: Practice, politics, and world views. Washington:
Smithsonian Institute Press, 124-146. INST ARCH AH DOB
*Schlanger, N. 2005. The chaîne opératoire. In: C. Renfrew, P. Bahn (eds.), Archaeology, The key concepts. London, Routledge. INST ARCH AG REN
*Sillar, B., Tite, M. 2000. The challenge of ‘technological choices’ for material science
approaches in archaeology. Archaeometry 42/1, 2-20. On-line
Further Reading
Audouze, F. 2002. Leroi-Gourhan, a philosopher of technique and evolution. Journal
of Archaeological Research 10/4, 277-306. On-line
Bar-Yosef, O. Van De Meer, P. 2009. The Chaine Opératoire approach in Middle
Paleolithic archaeology. Current Anthropology 50/1, 103–131. ONLINE
AND DISCUSSION
Binford, L. 1983. In Pursuit of the past. London, Thames and Hudson. Chapter 6:
Hunters in a Landscape, 109-143. INST ARCH AH BIN
Boschung, D., Kreuz, P. A., Kienlin, T. (eds) 2015. Biography of Objects: Aspekte
eines kulturhistorischen Konzepts. Paderborn, Wilhelm Fink. On Order
SEVERAL ARTICLES, SOME IN ENGLISH
Chanteller, Ch. 2008. Lithic technology and the Chaîne Opératoire. In: Pollard, J.
(ed.), Prehistoric Britain. London, Blackwell, 160-176. INST ARCH DAA 100
POL
Collins, M. B. 1975. Lithic technology as a means of processual inference. In: Swanson E. (ed.) Lithic technology: Making and using stone tools. The Hague, Mouton, 15-34. INST ARCH KA 3 SWA
Crabtree, D. E. 1975. Comments on lithic technology and experimental archaeology
In: Swanson E. (ed.) Lithic technology: Making and using stone tools. The Hague: Mouton, 105-113. INST ARCH KA SWA
David, N., Kramer C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in action. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 6. INST ARCH AH DAV
28
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
de Marrais, E., Castillo, L. J., Earle, T. 1996. Ideology, materialization and power
strategies. Current Anthropology 37, 15-34. On-line
Gosden, Chr., Marshall, Y. 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology 31/2, 169-178. INST ARCH PERS, On-line
Holtorf, C. 2002. Notes on the life history of a pot sherd. Journal of Material Culture
7/1, 49-71.
Hoskins, J. 1998. Biographical objects: How things tell the stories of people’s lives.
London, Routledge. INST ARCH DBNB HOS MAIN.
Hurcombe, L. 2007. Plant processing for cordage and textiles using serrated flint
edges, New chaînes operatoires suggested by ethnographic, archaeological
and experimental evidence for bast fibre processing. In: Beugnier, V., Crombé,
Ph. (eds.), Plant processing form a prehistoric and ethnographic perspective/Préhistoire et ethnographie du travail des plantes: proceedings of a workshop at Ghent University (Belgium) November 28, 2006. BAR International
Series 1718. Oxford, John & Erica Hedges, 41-66. INST ARCH KJ Qto BEU
THE INDIRECT EVIDENCE
Ingold, T. 1999. Tools for the hand, language for the face: An appreciation of LeroiGourhan's Gesture and Speech. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 30, 411-453. NET (Science Direct)
Jennings, J., K. L., Antrobus, S. J., Atencio, E., Glavish, R. Johnson, G. Loffler, C.
Luu 2005. Drinking beer in a blissful mood: Alcohol production, operational
chains, and feasting in the Ancient World. Current Anthropology 46/2, 275303. On-line
Lemonnier, P. 1992. Elements for an anthropology of technology. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. INST ARCH BD LEM
Lucas, G. 2005. The archaeology of time. London, Routledge. INST ARCH AH LUC
Chapter 4: Case study: the life and times of a Roman jar, 95-113.
Meskell, L. 2004. Object worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material biographies past and
present. Berg, Oxford. EGYPTOLOGY B 20 MES, ANTHROPOLOGY D 9
MES
Shanks, M. 1998. The life of an artefact in an interpretive archaeology. Fennoscandia
Archaeologica 15, 15-30. INST ARCH PERS
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, 5566.). INST ARCH AH SCH
Schlanger, N. 1994. Mindful technology: unleashing the chaîne opératoire for an archaeology of mind. In: C. Renfrew, E. Zubrow (eds), The Ancient Mind: elements for cognitive archaeology Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
143-151. INST ARCH AH REN
Schlanger, N., Sinclair, A. (eds.) 1990. Technology in the humanities. Archaeological
Review from Cambridge 9/1, INST ARCH 2194, INST ARCH Pers, especially:
o Ingold, T. Society, nature and the concept of technology, 5-17,
o Cresswell, R., 'A New Technology' revisited, 39-54,
o Edmonds, M., Description, understanding and the chaîne opératoire,
55-70,
o Pigeot, N., Flintknapping specialists and apprentices at Magdalenian
Etiolles, 126-41.
Skibo, J. M., Schiffer, M. B. 2001. Understanding artifact variability and change: a
behavioral framework. In M. B. Schiffer (ed), Anthropological Perspectives on
29
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Technology. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press, 139-149. INST
ARCH K Qto SCH
Vidale, M. 1998. Operational sequences beyond linearity. In: S. Milliken, M. Vidale
(eds.), Craft Specialization: Operational Sequences and Beyond. BAR International Series 720. Oxford, Archaeopress, 179-184. INST ARCH DA Qto EUR
30
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
3. The nature and identification of archaeological materials
Ian Freestone
20 October 2015
All artefacts are influenced by the physical properties of the organic and inorganic
materials used as raw materials and tools. This in turn affects how they are valued,
their methods of acquisition, the management of the resource base, and the environmental impact of different procurement strategies. Before we can address any of
these interesting issues, we need to be able to identify these materials and to understand the properties that make them useful under particular circumstances.
Essential reading
Rapp, G. 2009. Archaeomineralogy. Berlin, Springer2 [2002]. INST ARCH KA RAP
Further reading
Ashurst, J. A., Dimes, F. G. 1990. Conservation of building and decorative stone.
Volume 1. London, Butterworth Heinemann. INST ARCH KP 1 ASH
CONTAINS VERY GOOD INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS TO THE MAIN STONE CLASSES.
Bachmann, H-G. 1982. The identification of slags from archaeological sites. London,
Institute of Archaeology. INST ARCH KEB 7 BAC
OLD, BLACK AND WHITE BUT THERE IS NOT MUCH ELSE OUT THERE
Bayley, J., Dungworth, D. G., Paynter, S. 2001. Archaeometallurgy. Swindon, English
Heritage Centre for Archaeology Guidelines. INST ARCH KEB Qto BAY
Biek, L., Bayley, J. 1979. Glass and other vitreous materials. World Archaeology 11,
2 - 25. Online
VALUABLE FOR ITS DISCUSSION OF ODDITIES SUCH AS VITRIFIED CLAY, FUEL ASH SLAG, LEAD
WINDOWS MELTED IN FIRES ETC. JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU HAVE SEEN EVERYTHING…..]
Freestone, I., Gaimster, D. 1997. Pottery in the making: World ceramic traditions.
London, British Museum. INST ARCH KD FRE
THE MATERIALS OF ALL OF THE MAIN CERAMIC GROUPS, INCLUDING GLAZED WARES, ARE
DISCUSSED.
Gleba, M. 2008. Textile production in pre-Roman Italy. Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST
ARCH KJ GLE
ONLY ONE SPECIFIC AREA, BUT THE BOOK GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE INDIRECT EVIDENCE
FOR ORGANIC MATERIALS NO LONGER PRESENT.
Hurcombe, L. M. 2007. Archaeological artefacts as material culture. Abingdon, Routledge. INST ARCH AH HUR
Orton, C., Tyers, P., Vince, A. 20132. Pottery in archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press. INST ARCH KD 3 OR
Paynter, S., Dungworth, D. G. 2011. Archaeological evidence for glassworking. English Heritage: Centre for Archaeology Guidelines.
Thomson, R., Mould, Q. 2011. Leather tanneries: the archaeological evidence. London, Archetype. INST ARCH KI THO
Tomber, R., Dore, J. 1998. The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: A
handbook. London, MoLAS. INST ARCH DAA 170 Qto TOM
31
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
SEE THE COLOUR PHOTOS AT THE BACK OF THE BOOK FOR A GOOD OVERVIEW OF POTTERY
FABRICS AND WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.
Also check the reading lists for other materials-based courses, for example:
• Archaeological ceramic analysis (ARCLG114)
• Archaeological glass and glazes (ARCLG111)
• Archaemetallurgy 2: Metallic Artefacts (ARCLG109)
• Archaeometallurgy I: mining and extractive metallurgy (ARCLG108)
* Interpreting Pottery (ARCLG112)
* Lithic Analysis (ARCLG113)
* the undergraduate course on Organic Materials (ARCL 2041)
Web resources on stones and pigments
BGS Rock Classification Scheme. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/bgsrcs/
for those who want to get their stone classification right. Geological knowledge is essential to find your way through these four downloadable volumes.
James Harrel’s Web pages on Egyptian stone:
http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Harrell/Egypt/AGRG_Home.html
Harrel, J. A. 2012. Utilitarian Stones. UCLA Encyclopaedia of Egyptology.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/77t294df#page-1
Harrel, J. A. 2012. Building stones. UCLA Encyclopaedia of Egyptology.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3fd124g0?query=building%20stones#page-1
WebExhibits online museum. Pigments through the ages.
http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/
Dave Bunk Minerals, Denver. www.mindat.org
lots of information about and photos of mineral species.
There are lots of websites with basic classification schemes for rocks. Wikipedia
seems reasonable on this, but should never be taken as definitive without crossreference to peer-reviewed sources.
32
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
4. Assessing assemblages
PhD-Students
27th of October
Most of our work is based on the study of assemblages. The questions and answers
we may pose are partly dependant on our ability to recognise their potentials and
limitations. Different materials, theories and research problems lead to a variety of
sampling and methodological issues. Some of these are specific to individual material categories, whereas others are relevant to any archaeological assemblage.
This will be an eminently hands-on session, where you will have the opportunity to
handle and assess a range of archaeological assemblages related to stone, ceramic,
metal and glass covering a wide range of chronologies and world regions. The research students currently studying those assemblages will be at hand to explain and
discuss their own approaches to the materials, from the initial assessment through
research design and practice.
Some readings on the materials presented will be put on the Moodle.
33
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
5. Innovation, mass-production and technological change
Marcos Martinón-Torres
3. November 2015
Much archaeological work is devoted to documenting and explaining artefact variability. In this session we will discuss approaches to the study of changes in technology
and material culture, with special emphasis on topical issues such as experimentation, invention and innovation.
Essential reading
Eerkens, J. W., Lipo C. P. 2005. Cultural transmission, copying errors, and the generation of variation in material culture and the archaeological record. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 24, 316–334. Online
Hayden, B. 1998. Practical and prestige technologies: the evolution
of material systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
5/1, 1-55. INST ARCH PERS, OnlineFurther reading
Bailey, G. 1981. Concepts, time-scales and explanations in economic prehistory. In:
Sheridan, A., Bailey G. (eds), Economic archaeology. British Archaeological
Reports International Series 96. Oxford, British Archaeological Reports, 97117. INST ARCH AH SHE
Barnett, W. K., Hoopes, J. W.1995. The emergence of pottery: Technology and innovation in ancient societies. Washington, Smithsonian Institution Press. INST
ARCH BC 100 BAR
Basalla, G. 1988. The evolution of technology. Cambridge history of Science Series,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. HISTORY OF SCIENCE V 5.2 BAS
Bayley, J., 1996. Innovation in later medieval urban metalworking. Historical Metallurgy 30, 67-71. INST ARCH Pers
Blackman, M. J., Stein, G. J., Vandiver, P. B. 1993. The standardization hypothesis
and ceramic mass production: Technological, compositional, and metric indices of craft specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria. American Antiquity 58/1, 6080. Online
Charlton, M. F., Crew, P., Rehren, Th., Shennan, S. J. 2010. Explaining the evolution
of ironmaking recipes – An example from northwest Wales. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29, 352-367. INST ARCH Pers
Costin, C., Earle, T., Owen, B., Russell G. 1989. The impact of the Inca conquest on
local technology in the upper Mantaro Valley, Peru. In: S. E. Van der Leeuw,
R. Torrence (eds.), Whats new? London, Unwin Hyman, 107-139. INST ARCH
BC 100 LEE
Crossley, D. W., 1998. The English glassmaker and his search for materials in the
16th and 17th centuries. In: McCray, P. (ed.), The prehistory and history of
glassmaking technology. Westerville, American Ceramic Society, 167-179.
ISSUE DESK IOA MCC
Fitzhugh, B. 2001. Risk and invention in human technological evolution. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 20, 125-167. Online
34
Marcos Martinon-Torres [2] 9/9/15 20:55
Deleted:
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Hayden, B. 1998. Practical and prestige technologies: the evolution of material systems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5/1, 1-55. Online
Henderson, J., K., Challis, S., O’Hara, S., McLoughlin, A., Gardner, Priestnall, G.
2005. Experiment and innovation: early Islamic industry at al-Raqqa, Syria.
Antiquity 79, 130-145. INST ARCH Pers. Online
Humphris, J., Martinón-Torres M., Rehren Th., Reid A. 2009. Variability in single
smelting episodes - a pilot study using iron slag from Uganda. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 359-369. Online
Knecht, H. 1991. The role of innovation in changing Early Upper Paleolithic organic
projectile technologies. Techniques et Culture 17–18, 115–144.
Lechtman, H. 1984. Andean value systems and the development of prehistoric metallurgy. Technology and Culture 25, 1-36.INST ARCH PERS
Lesick, K. et al. (eds) 2002. Eureka: the archaeology of innovation and science. Calgary, Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. INST ARCH AH
LES
Loney, H. L. 2000. Society and technological control: a critical review of models of
technological change in ceramic studies. American Antiquity 65/4, 646-668
and responses American Antiquity 66/4, 726-741. NET
Martinón-Torres, M. 2012. Inside Solomon’s house: An archaeological study of the
Old Ashmolean Chymical Laboratory in Oxford. Ambix 59/1, 22-48. Online.
Martinón-Torres, M., Rehren, Th. 2009. Post-medieval crucible production and distribution: a study of materials and materialities. Archaeometry 51/1, 49-74. Online
Mellars, P. 1989. Technological changes across the Middle-upper Palaeolithic transition: economic, social and cognitive perspectives. In: P. Mellars, C. Stringer
(eds), The human revolution. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 338-365.
INST ARCH BB 1 MEL
Moorey, P. R. S. 2001. The mobility of artisans and opportunities for technology
transfer between Western Asia and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. In: A. J.
Shortland (ed.), The social context of technological change: Egypt and the
Near East, 1650-1550 B. C. Oxford, Oxbow, 1-14. INST ARCH DBA 100 SHO
Nelson, M. C. 1991. The study of technological organization. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 57-100. Online
O'Brien, M. J., Holland, T. D., Hoard, R. J., Fox, G. L. 1994. Evolutionary implications
of design and performance characteristics of prehistoric pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1, 259-304. IoA Pers.
Raymond, R. 1986. Out of the fiery furnace: the impact of metals on the history of
mankind. University Park/London, Pennsylvania State University Press. INST
ARCH KEA Qto RAY
Rehder, J. E. 1994. Blowpipes versus bellows in ancient metallurgy. Journal of Field
Archaeology 21, 345-350. INST ARCH Pers. Online
Rehren, Th., Martinón-Torres, M. 2008. Naturam ars imitata: European brassmaking
between craft and science. In: Martinón-Torres, M., Rehren, Th. (eds) Archaeology, History and Science: Integrating Approaches to Ancient Materials, (UCL
Institute of Archaeology Publications). Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, 167188. INST ARCH AJ MAR and ISSUE DESK IOA MAR 9
Rehren, Th., Pusch, E., Herold, A. 1998. Glass coloring works within a coppercentered industrial complex in Late Bronze Age Egypt. In: D. Kingery, P.
McCray (eds), The prehistory and history of glassmaking technology. Ceram-
35
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
ics and Civilization VIII, Westerville, American Ceramic Society, 227-250.
ISSUE DESK IOA MCC
Roux, V., 2003. Ceramic standardization and intensity of production: Quantifying degrees of specialization. American Antiquity 68, 768-782. Online
Schiffer, M. B. 2001. The explanation of long-term technological change. In: M. B.
Schiffer (ed.), Anthropological perspectives on technology. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press, 215-235. INST ARCH K Qto SCH
Schiffer, M. B. 2011. Studying technological change: a behavioral approach. Salt
Lake City, University of Utah Press. INST ARCH AH SCH
Shennan, S. J., J. R. Wilkinson 2001. Ceramic style change and neutral evolution: A
case study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66/4, 577-593. Online
Shennan, S. 2002. Genes, memes and human history: Darwinian archaeology and
cultural evolution. London, Thames & Hudson. INST ARCH BB 1 SHE
Shortland, A. J. 2004. Hopeful monsters? Invention and innovation in the archaeological record. In: Bourriau, J., Phillips, J. (eds), Invention and innovation: the
social context of technological change 2: Egypt, the Aegean and the Near
East 1650-1150 BC. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 1-11. INST ARCH DBA 1000
BOU
van der Leeuw S. E., Torrence, R. (eds.) 1989 What's new? London, Unwin Hyman.
INST ARCH BC 100 LEE, Introduction.
van der Leeuw, S. E., Papousek, D. A., Coudart, A. 1991. Technical traditions and
unquestioned assumptions: the case of pottery in Michoacan. Techniques et
Culture 17/18, 145-173. INST ARCH PERS
36
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
6. The organisation of production
Ian Freestone
17. November 2015
What can we learn about past societies from the nature and organization of production? We will consider examples of craft specialization and mass production in various technologies.
Essential reading
Costin, C. L. 1991. Craft Specialization: Issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of Production. In: M. B. Schiffer (ed.), Archaeological
Method and Theory 3. Tucson, University of Arizona Press, 1-56.
Peacock, D. P. S. 1982. Towards a model for Roman pottery studies. In: D. P. S.
Peacock, Pottery in the Roman World - an ethnoarchaeological approach.
London, Longman. Chapter 2, 6-11. INST ARCH DA 170 PEA
Spielmann, K. A. 2002. Feasting, craft specialisation and the ritual mode of production in small-scale societies. American Anthropologist 104, 195-207.
Further reading
Blackman, M. J., Stein, G. J., Vandiver, P. B. 1993. The standardization hypothesis
and ceramic mass production: technological, compositional, and metric indexes of craft specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria. American Antiquity 58/1, 6080. ONLINE
Burri, E. 2007. Production and use: temper as a marker of domestic production in the
case of two middle Neolithic villages in Concise (VD, CH). In: Waksman, S. Y.
(ed.), Archaeometric and Archaeological Approaches to Ceramics. Oxford,
BAR Internat Ser. 1691, 33-39.
Castano, R. A. 2009. Ceramics on the side: pottery making as an augmentation of
household economy in the Valley of Puebla during the Formative Period. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 19, 133-147.
Costin, C. L. 2000. The use of ethnoarchaeology for the archaeological study of ceramic production. Journal of archaeological Method and Theory 7/4, 377-403.
Freestone, I. 2006. Glass production in Late Antiquity and the Early Islamic period: a
geochemical perspective. In: Maggetti, M., Messiga, B. (eds), Geomaterials in
cultural heritage. London, The Geological Society, 201-216.
Freestone, I. 2008. Pliny on Roman glassmaking. In: Martinón-Torres, M., Rehren
Th. (eds.) Archaeology, history and science: integrating approaches to ancient
materials. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, 77-100.
Freestone I., Price, J. Cartwright, C. 2009. The batch: its recognition and significance. In: Janssens, K. H. A. (ed.), Annales du 17e Congrès de l'Association
Internationale pour l'Histoire du Verre, Anvers, 2006. Antwerp, University
Press Antwerp, 130-135. INST ARCH KL Qto ASS
Freestone, I., Gaimster, D. (eds) 1997. Pottery in the Making: World Ceramic Traditions. London, British Museum.
37
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Haines, H. R., Feinman, G. M., Nicholas, L. M. 2004. Household economic specialisation and social differentiation: The stone tool assemblage at El Palmillo,
Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica 15, 251-266.
Henderson, J., McLoughlin, S., McPhail, R. 2004. Radical changes in Islamic glass
technology: evidence for conservatism and experimentation with new glass
recipes from early and middle Islamic Raqqa, Syria. Archaeometry 46/3, 43968. ONLINE
Henderson, J. et al., 2005. Experiment and innovation: early Islamic industry at alRaqqa, Syria. Antiquity, 79, 130-145. ONLINE
Hodder, I. 2005. Changing entanglement and temporalities. In: Hodder, I., Changing
materialities at Çatalhöyük: reports from the 1995-99 seasons. Cambridge,
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 1-22.
Humphris, J., Martinón-Torres, M., Rehren Th., Reid A. 2009. Variability in single
smelting episodes - a pilot study using iron slag from Uganda. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 359-369.
Martinón-Torres, M., Li, X. J., Bevan, A., Zhao, Y. Rehren, Th. 2014. Forty-thousand
arrows for a single emperor: from chemical data to labour organisation in the
production of bronze arrows for the Terracotta Army. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 21/3, 534-562.
Peacock, D. P. S. 1992. Rome in the desert: a symbol of power. Southampton, University of Southampton Press.
Poblome, J., Degryse, P., Viaene, W., Ottenburges, R., Waelkens, M., Degeest, R.,
Naud, J., 2002. The concept of a pottery production centre. An archaeometrical contribution from ancient Sagalassos. Journal of Archaeological Science
29, 873-882.
Rehren, Th. et al., 1998. Glass coloring works within a copper-centered industrial
complex in Late Bronze Age Egypt. In: McCray, P. (ed.), The prehistory and
history of glassmaking technology. Westerville, American Ceramic Society,
227-250. ISSUE DESK IOA MCC
Rehren, Th., Pusch, E., Herold, A. 2001. Qantir-Piramesses and the organisation of
the Egyptian glass industry. In: A. Shortland (ed.), The social context of technological change. Oxford: Oxbow, 223-238. INST ARCH DBA 100 SHO,
ISSUE DESK IOA SHO
Rehren, Th., Martinón-Torres, M. 2008. Naturam ars imitata: European brassmaking
between craft and science. In: Martinón-Torres, M., Rehren, Th. (eds), Archaeology, History and Science: Integrating Approaches to Ancient Materials,
(UCL Institute of Archaeology Publications). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press,
167-188. INST ARCH AJ MAR and ISSUE DESK IOA MAR 9
Rice, P. M. 1981. Evolution of specialised pottery production: a trial model. Current
Anthropology 22, 219-240.
Rice, P. M. 1996. Recent ceramic analysis: composition, production and theory.
Journal of Archaeological Research 4, 165-202.
Rice, P. M. 2009. Late Maya pottery production: review and synthesis. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 16, 117-156.
Roux, V., 2003. Ceramic standardization and intensity of production: quantifying degrees of specialization. American Antiquity 68/4, 768-782.
Shennan, St. 1999. Cost, benefit and value in the organization of early European
copper production. Antiquity 73, 352-363.
Shortland, A. J. 2000. The number extent and distribution of the vitreous materials
workshops at Amarna. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19, 115-134.
38
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Shortland, A. J., Nicholson P., Jackson C. 2001. Glass and faience at Amarna: different methods of both supply for production and subsequent distribution. In:
A. J. Shortland (ed.), The social context of technological change: Egypt and
the Near East, 1650-1550 B.C. Proceedings of a conference held at St Edmund Hall, Oxford, 12-14 September 2000. Oxford, Oxbow.
39
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
7. Use and meaning of artefacts
Ulrike Sommer
24. November 2015
Most artefacts have a specific function. This is often determined by analogy to more
recent objects. The spatial context of objects can also provide information’s about
their use. Since the 1950s, use-wear has also been used to elucidate the purpose of
objects.
Artefacts can also carry meaning, as "symbols of power" or as mnemonic objects.
Styles of decoration or production can express identity. Often, different types of pottery have been interpreted as ethnic markers. Certain artefacts are routinely identified as "status symbols", others are assumed to have had a religious significance.
Recently, gender identity has become a fashionable topic. Can archaeologists determine the meaning of prehistoric artefacts, and if so, how?
Articles for discussion
Jones, S. 2007. Nations, cultures and types: dismantling archaeological discourses
of the Orcadian Neolithic and beyond. In: Rieckhoff, S., Sommer, U. (eds.),
Auf der Suche nach Identitäten: Volk - Stamm - Kultur - Ethnos. Internationale
Tagung der Universität Leipzig vom 8.-9. Dezember 2000. British Archaeological Reports 1705. Archaeopress, Oxford, 81-92. INST ARCH DA Qto RIE
Sørensen, M. L. 2014. The archaeological culture concept: Hot or cold understandings. In: Alexandersson, H., Andreeff, A. Bünz, A. (eds.), Med hjärta och
hjärna: En vänbok till professor Elisabeth Arwill-Nordbladh. GOTARC Series
A, Gothenburg Archaeological Studies 5. Göteborg, Göteborgs Universitet,
247-258. Online, Academia.edu
Use and use-wear
Dolfini, A. 2011. The function of Chalcolithic metalwork in Italy: an assessment based
on use-wear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 38/5, 1037-1049.
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.11.025
Gramsch, A. (ed.) 2000. Vergleichen als historische Methode. Analogien in den Archäologien. BAR International Series 825. Oxford, Archaeopress. On Order
Goodale, N., Heather, O., Andrefsky Jr., W., Kuijt, I., Finlayson, B., Bart, K. 2010.
Sickle blade life-history and the transition to agriculture: an early Neolithic
case study from Southwest Asia. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 11921201. ONLINE
SEE ALSO CRITICISM BY STEMP ET AL. 2011 AND REPLY BY AUTHORS
Ickerodt, U. F 2010. Einführung in das Grundproblem des archäologischkulturhistorischen Vergleichens und Deutens: Analogien-Bildung in der archäologischen Forschung. Frankfurt, Peter Lang. On Order
Jones, B. A. 1989. Use-wear analysis of White Mountain redwares at Grasshopper
Pueblo, Arizona. Kiva 54/4, 353-360
Lemorini, C., Cesaro St. N. (eds.) 2014. An integration of the use-wear and residue
analysis for the identification of the function of archaeological stone tools: pro-
40
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
ceedings of the international workshop, Rome, March 5th-7th, 2012. BAR
International Series 2649. Oxford, Archaeopress. INST ARCH KA Qto LEM
Longo, L., Skakun, N. N. (eds.) 2008. "Prehistoric Technology" 40 years later: Functional studies and the Russian legacy. Congress "Prehistoric technology 40
years later", Verona 2005. BAR international Series 1783. Oxford, Archaeopress. INST ARCH K Qto LON
López Varela, S. N. 2002, De-mystifying pottery production in the Maya Lowlands:
Detection of traces of use-wear on pottery sherds through microscopic analysis and experimental replication. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 11331147. doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0760
Manuel Marreiros, J., Gibaja Bao, J. F., Ferreira Bicho, N. 2014. Use-wear and residue analysis in archaeology. New York, Springer.
van Gijn, A. 2010. Flint in focus: lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age.
Leiden, Sidestone Press. INST ARCH KA GIJ
van Gijn, A., Whittaker, J., Anderson, P. A. (eds) 2014. Explaining and exploring diversity in agricultural technology. Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST ARCH HA Qto
GIJ
Skibo, J. M, 1992. Pottery function, a use-alteration perspective. New York, Plenum.
INST ARCH KD SKI
Artefact meaning and value
Carmen, J. 1990. Commodities, rubbish and treasure: valuing archaeological objects.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9, 195-207. INST ARCH PERS
Cochrane, E. E., Gardner, A. (eds.) 2011. Evolutionary and interpretive archaeologies: a dialogue. Walnut Creek, West Coast. INST ARCH AH COC
Fernández Götz, M. 2008. La construcción arqueológica de la etnicidad. Noia:
Toxosoutos. STORE 13-0110/31
Jones, A. 2007. Memory and material culture. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press. INST ARCH DAA 100 JON
Jones, S. 1997. The archaeology of ethnicity. Constructing identities in the past and
present. London, Routledge. INST ARCH BD JON
Larick, R. 1986. Age grading and ethnicity in the style of Loikop (Samburu) spears.
World Archaeology 18, 1986, 269–283. Online
Lillios, K. T., Vasileios, T. (eds.) 2010. Material Mnemonics. Every day memory in
prehistoric Europe. Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST ARCH DA 100 LIL
Lucy, S., Díaz-Andreu, M., Babić, St. (eds) 2005. Archaeology of identity, approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion. London, Routledge.
INST ARCH AH DIA
Mills, B. J., Walker, W. H. (eds.) 2008. Memory work: archaeologies of material practice. Santa Fe, School for Advanced Research. INST ARCH AH MIL
Olivier, L. 1999. The Hochdorf ‘princely’ grave and the question of the nature of archaeological funerary assemblages. In: T. Murray (ed.), Time and archaeology. London, Routledge, 109-138. INST ARCH BD MUR
Olivier, L. 2011. The dark abyss of time: archaeology and memory. Lanham, AltaMira
Press [Paris 2008]. INST ARCH AH OLI
Parkinson, W. A. 2006. Tribal boundaries: Stylistic variability and social boundary
maintenance during the transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian
Plain. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25/1, 33-58. Online
41
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Porr, M. 2010. Palaeolithic art as cultural memory: a case study of the Aurignacian
art of Southwest Germany. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20/1, 87–108.
Online
Sackett, J. R. 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1/1, 59-112. Online
Shennan, S. J., Wilkinson, J. R. 2001. Ceramic style change and neutral evolution: A
case study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66/4, 2001, 577-593.
ONLINE
Sørensen, M. L. 2013. The History of Gender Archaeology in Northern Europe. In:
Bolger, D. (ed.) Companion to Gender Prehistory. Oxford, Blackwells, 396412.
Tehrani, J., Collard, M. 2002. Investigating cultural evolution through biological
phylogenetic analyses of Turkmen textiles. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21, 2002, 443–463. Online
van Dyke, R. M., Alcock, S. E. (eds.) 2003. Archaeologies of memory. Malden,
Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470774304
Wobst, H. M. 1977. Stylistic behaviour and information exchange. In: C. Cleland
(ed.), Papers for the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin.
Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological
Papers 61, 317-342.
Woodward, A. 2002. Beads and beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British Early
Bronze Age. Antiquity 76, 2002, 1040-1047. ONLINE
42
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
8. Provenance, trade and exchange
Ian Freestone and Ulrike Sommer
1. December 2015
The mechanisms of pre-capitalist trade and exchange have been debated since the
18th century. Trade was seen as a motor for the spread of new ideas and techniques.
The distribution of artefacts from different sources can also indicate the movement of
people. How do archaeologists study distribution patterns and interpret past trade
and exchange systems in relation to social hierarchies and regional economies?
What is the value of raw material sourcing?
Essential Reading
Trade and exchange
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 BD APP
Earle, T. 2010. Exchange systems in prehistory. In C. D. Dillian and C. L. White
(eds.), Trade and Exchange: Archaeological Studies from History and Prehistory. New York: Springer, 195-204. I NST ARCH HE DIL
*Sahlins, M. 1974. Stone Age economics. London, Tavistock, chapter 5, On the sociology of primitive exchange. INST ARCH BD SAH
Determining source and provenance
Hughes, M. 1991. Tracing to source. In: Bowman, S. (ed.), Science and The Past.
London, British Museum Press, Pages. INST ARCH AJ BOW, ISSUE DESK
IOA BOW
Wilson, L., Pollard, A. M. 2001. The provenance hypothesis. In: D. R. Brothwell, Pollard, A. M. (eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Chichester, John
Wiley, 507-517. INST ARCH AJ BRO, ISSUE DESK IOA BRO 15
Tykot, R. H. 2004. Archaeological provenance studies. In: Martini, A., M., Milazzo,
Piacentini, M. (eds.), Physics Methods in Archaeometry. Amsterdam; Oxford,
IOS Press, 407-432.
Further Reading
Theory
*Bauer, A. A., Agbe-Davies, A. S. 2010. Rethinking trade as a social activity: An
introduction. In: Bauer, A. A., Agbe-Davies, A. S. (eds.), Social archaeologies
of trade and exchange: exploring relationships among people, places, and
things. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, 13-28. Academia.edu
Crump, T. 1981. The phenomenon of money. London, Boston and Henley, Routledge
and Kegan Paul. ANTHROPOLOGY D 220 CRU
Dalton, G. 1969. Theoretical issues in economic anthropology. Current Anthropology
10/1, 63-102. ONLINE
43
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Dowling, J. H. 1979. The Good Fellows vs. the Dalton Gang: The assumption of economic anthropology. Journal of Anthropological Research 35/3, 292-308. INST
ARCH PERS
Earle, T. 1999. Production and exchange in prehistory. In: G. Barker (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London, Routledge, 608-635. INST ARCH
AH BAR
Gregory, C. 1989. Gifts to men and gifts to god: gift exchange and capital accumulation in contemporary Papua. Man 15, 628-52. ANTHROPOLOGY Pers.
Gregory, C. 2002. Exchange and reciprocity. In: T. Ingold (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology. London, Routledge, 911-933. INST ARCH BD ING
Mauss, M. 1990. The gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies.
Routledge, London. [1950] INST ARCH BD MAU
Polanyi, K., Arensberg, K. M., Pearson, H. W. (eds.) 1957. Trade and Market in the
Early Empires. Glencoe, Free Press. ANCIENT HISTORY A 68 POL
Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as action at a distance. Questions of integration and communication. In: J. A. Sabloff, C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (eds.), Ancient civilisations and trade. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico, 3-59. INST ARCH
BC 100 SAB
Smith, M. L. 1999. The role of ordinary goods in premodern exchange. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6/2, 109-135. INST ARCH Pers
Weiner, A. 1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of keeping-while-giving.
Berkeley, University of California Press. INST ARCH DD WEI
Case studies
Adams, N. K. 2007. Political affinities and economic fluctuations: the evidence from
textiles. In: Gillis, C., M.-L. Nosch (eds), Ancient textiles: production, craft and
society. Proceedings of the first international Conference on ancient Textiles,
held at Lund, Sweden, and Copenhagen, Denmark, March 19-23, 2003. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 201-207. INST ARCH KJ GIL
Textiles from Qasr Ibrim, Egypt.
Bamforth, D. B., P. C. Woodman 2004. Tool hoards and Neolithic use of the landscape in North-Eastern Ireland. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23/1, 21-44.
INST ARCH PERS
Barrett, J. C., Needham, S. P. 1988. Production, circulation and exchange: problems
in the interpretation of Bronze Age bronzework. In: J. C. Barrett, I. A. Kinnes
(eds), The archaeology of context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Sheffield,
University of Sheffield Press, 127-140. INST ARCH AH Qto BAR
Bell, C. 2005. Wheels within wheels? A view of Mycenaen trade from the Levantine
emporia. In: R. Laffineur, E. Greco (eds), Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and
Eastern Mediterranean. Liège: Université de Liège, 363-370. Issue Desk INST
ARCH LAF 9
Bradley, R., M. Edmonds 1993. Interpreting the axe trade. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press. INST ARCH DAA 140 BRA
especially chapter 1, Neolithic Britain and the study of exchange systems, pp. 1-58.
Clough, T. and W. A. Cummins (eds), 1988. Stone axe studies, vol. 2. London, CBA.
INST ARCH DAA Qto Series COU 67
Cooney, G., Mandal, St. 1998. The Irish Stone Axe Project, Monograph 1. Bray:
Wordwell. INST ARCH KA COO
Cochrane, E. E., Neff. H. 2006. Investigating compositional diversity among Fijian ceramics with laser Ablation-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry
44
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
(LA-ICP-MS): Implications for interaction studies on geologically similar
islands. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 378-390. On-line
Crawford, M. H. 1985. Coinage and money under the Roman Republic. London,
Methuen. YATES QUARTOS R 30 CRA
Creighton, J. 2000. Coins and power in Late Iron Age Britain. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, especially Chapter 2. INST ARCH DAA 160 CRE
Dietler, M. 1999. Rituals of commensality and the politics of state formation in the
"Princely" societies of Early Iron Age Europe. In: P. Ruby (ed.), Les princes de
la Protohistoire et l'émergence de l'état. Naples: Cahiers du Centre Jean
Bérard, Institut Français de Naples 17 - Collection de l'École Française de
Rome 252, 135-152. INST ARCH DA Qto RUB
Dietler, M. 2010. Archaeologies of Colonialism: Consumption, Entanglement, and
Violence in Ancient Mediterranean France. Berkeley, University of California
Press. INST ARCH DAC 100 DIE
On the role of imported luxury items in the late Iron Age
Dillian, C. D., White, C. L. (eds). 2010. Trade and Exchange: Archaeological Studies
from History and Prehistory. New York, Springer.
Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone tools and society: working stone in Neolithic and Bronze
Age Britain. London, Batsford, Chapter 3. INST ARCH DAA 100 EDM
Frankenstein, S., Rowlands, M. 1978. The Internal Structure and regional Context of
Early Iron Age Society in South-Western Germany. Bulletin Institute of Archaeology 15, 1978, 73-113. Reprinted in: Kristiansen, K., Rowlands, M. (eds)
1998. Social Transformations in Archaeology - Global and local Perspectives.
London, Routledge. INST ARCH PERS, INST ARCH BD KRI
prestige goods economy
Grierson, Ph. 1967. Commerce in the Dark Ages: a critique of the evidence. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 9, 123-140. HISTORY Pers
Hirth, K. G. 1996. Political economy and archaeology: perspectives on exchange and
production. Journal of Archaeological Research 4/3, 203-239. NET
Hodder, I. 1974. Regression analysis of some trade and marketing patterns. World
Archaeology 6/2, 172-189. INST ARCH Pers.
Hodder, I., Orton, C. 1976. Spatial analysis in archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press. INST ARCH AK 20 HOD
Howgego, C. J. 1992. The supply and use of money in the Roman world. Journal of
Roman Studies 82, 1–31. INST ARCH Pers
Lo Cascio, E. 1996. How did the Romans view their coinage and its function? In: C.
E. King, D. G. Wigg (eds), Coin finds and coin use in the Roman World. Berlin:
Gebrüder Mann, 273-287. INST ARCH KM KIN.
Minc, L. D. 2006. Monitoring regional market systems in prehistory: Models, methods, and metrics. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25/1, 82-116. Online
Needham, S. 1993. Displacement and exchange in archaeological methodology. In:
C. Scarre, F. Healy (eds), Trade and exchange in prehistoric Europe. Oxbow
Monograph 33, Oxford, Oxbow, 161-9. INST ARCH HE SCA
Parkinson, W. A. 2006. Tribal boundaries: Stylistic variability and social boundary
maintenance during the transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian
Plain. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25/1, 33-58. On-line
Peacock, D. P. S., Williams, D. F. 1986. Amphorae and the Roman economy; an
introductory guide. London, Longman. YATES P 70 PEA
45
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Perlès, C. 1992. Systems of exchange and organization of production in Neolithic
Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5/2, 115-164. INST ARCH
PERS
Schwartz, M., Hollander, D., Stein, G. 1999. Reconstructing Mesopotamian exchange networks in the 4th millennium BC: Geochemical and archaeological
analyses of bitumen artifacts from Hacinebi, Turkey. Paléorient 25, 67–82. Online
Shennan, S. 1993. Commodities, transactions and growth in the Central European
Early Bronze Age. European Journal of Archaeology 1/2, 59-72. INST ARCH
Pers.
Sherratt, S. 1999. Epur si muove: Pots, markets, and values in the secondmillennium Mediterranean. In J. P. Crielaard, V. Stissi, G. J. van Wijngaarden
(eds), The complex past of pottery: Production, circulation, and consumption
of Mycenaean and Greek pottery. Amsterdam, Gieben, 163-211. YATES P 6
CRI
Sherratt, A. G., Sherratt, E. S. 1991. From luxuries to commodities: The nature of
Mediterranean Bronze Age trading systems. In Gale, N. (ed.), Bronze Age
trade in the Mediterranean. Jonsered, Paul Åström, 351-386. ISSUE DESK
IOA STU 90
Sillar, B. 1997. Reputable pots and disreputable potters: Individual and community
choice in present-day pottery production and exchange in the Andes. In C. G.
Cumberpatch, P. W. Blinkhorn (eds), Not so much a pot, more a way of life.
Current approaches to artefact analysis in archaeology. Monograph 83, Oxford, Oxbow, 1-20. INST ARCH KD Qto CUM
van der Leuw, S. 1999. Some notes from the potter's point of view. In J. P. Crielaard,
V. Stissi, G. J. van Wijngaarden (eds), The complex past of pottery: Production, circulation, and consumption of Mycenaean and Greek pottery. Amsterdam: Gieben, 115-132. YATES P 6 CRI
Wolf, G. 1999. World-systems analysis and the Roman empire. Journal of Roman
Archaeology 3, 44-58. INST ARCH Pers
Further Reading, Provenancing
Lithics
European flint sources http://www.flintsource.net/
Obsidian sources http://www.obsidianlab.com/sourcecatalog/s_home.html
Freund, K. P. 2013. An assessment of the current applications and future directions
of obsidian sourcing studies in archaeological research. Archaeometry 55/5,
779-793.
Gratuze, B. 1999. Obsidian Characterization by Laser Ablation ICP-MS and its Application to Prehistoric Trade in the Mediterranean and the Near East: Sources
and Distribution of Obsidian within the Aegean and Anatolia. Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 869-881.
Herz, N. 2001. Sourcing lithic artefacts by instrumental analysis. In: Goldberg, P.,
Holliday, V. T., Ferring, C. R. (eds.), Earth Sciences and Archaeology. New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum, 449-472.
Huckell, B., Kilby, J. D., Boulanger, M. T., Glascock, M. J. 2011. Sentinel Butte: neutron activation Analysis of White River Group Chert from a primary Source and
Artifacts from a Clovis Cache in North Dakota, USA. Journal of Archaeological
Science 38/5, 965-976.
46
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Maniatis, Y. 2004. Scientific techniques and methodologies for the provenance of
white marble. In: Martini A., Milazzo, M., Piacentini, M. (eds)., Physics methods in archaeometry. Amsterdam/Oxford, IOS Press, 179-202.
Renfrew, C., Dixon, J. E., Cann, J. R. 1966. Obsidian and early cultural contact in the
Near East. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32, 30-72.
(**see also: Pollard, A. M. and C. Heron (1996). Archaeological Chemistry. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry. 1st edition; also 2nd edition 2008.)
Smith, M. E, Burke, A. L, Hare, T. S., Glascock, M. D. 2007. Sources of imported obsidian at Postclassic sites in the Yautepec Valley. Latin American Antiquity 7,
21-39.
Thorpe, R. S., Williams-Thorpe, O., Jenkins, D. G., Watson, J. S. 1991. The geological
sources and transport of the bluestones of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, U.K. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57, 103-157.
http://www.flintsource.net/
European flint sources
http://www.obsidianlab.com/sourcecatalog/s_home.html
Obsidian sources
Ceramics
Blomster, J. P., Neff, H., Glascock, M. 2005. Olmec pottery production and export in
ancient Mexico through elemental analysis. Science 307, 1068-1072.
Day, P. M., Kiriatzi, E., Tsolakidou, A. Kilikoglou, V. 1999. Group therapy in Crete: A
comparison between analyses by NAA and thin section petrography of Early
Minoan pottery. Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 1025-1036.
Freestone, I. C. 1995. Ceramic Petrography. American Journal of Archaeology 99,
111-115.
Morris, E. L., Woodward, A. 2003. Ceramic petrology and prehistoric pottery in the
UK. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 279-304.
Peacock, D. P. S. 1969. Neolithic pottery production in Cornwall. Antiquity 43, 145149.
Metals
Gale, N. H. 2009. A response to the paper of A M Pollard. In: A. J. Shortland, I. C.
Freestone, Th. Rehren (eds.), Mine to Microscope. Oxford, Oxbow, 191-196.
Gale, N., Stos-Gale, Z. 2000. Lead isotope analyses applied to provenance studies.
In: Ciliberto, E., Spoto, E. (eds), Modern Analytical methods in Art and Archaeology. Chemical Analyses Series 155. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons,
Chapter 17, 503-584.
Guerra, M. F., T. Calligaro, A. Perea 2007. The treasure of Guarrazar: tracing the
gold supplies in the Visigothic Iberian peninsula. Archaeometry 49/1, 53–74.
Krause, R. 2003, Studien zur kupfer- und frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgie zwischen
Karpatenbecken und Ostsee. Rahden/Westfalen, Leidorf. INST ARCH DA Qto
KRA
With Database on European Copper-sources.
Pernicka, E. 2004. Archaeometallurgy: examples of the application of scientific methods to the provenance of archaeological metal objects. In: Martini A., Milazzo,
M., Piacentini, M. (eds), Physics Methods in Archaeometry. Amsterdam/Oxford, IOS Press, 309-329.
47
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Pollard, A. M. 2009. What a long, strange Trip it’s been: lead Isotopes and Archaeology. In: Shortland, A. J., Freestone, I. C., Rehren Th. (eds.), Mine to Microscope. Oxford, Oxbow, 181-189.
Stos-Gale, Z. A. 2009. Across the wine dark seas…. sailor tinkers and royal cargoes
in the late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. In: Shortland, A. J., Freestone,
I. C., Rehren Th. (eds.), Mine to Microscope. Oxford, Oxbow, 163-180.
Other materials
Calligaro, T., Dran, J.-C., Poirot, J.-P., Querre, G., Saloman, T. Zwaan, J. C. 2000.
PIXE/PIGE characterisation of emeralds using an external micro-beam. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 161-163, 769-774.
Calligaro, T., Colinart, S., Poirot, J.-P., Sudres, C. 2002. Combined external-beam
PIXE and l-Raman characterisation of garnets used in Merovingian jewellery.
Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 189, 320–327
Gratuze, B., Janssens, K. 2004. Provenance analysis of glass artefacts. In: Janssens
K., van Grieken, R. (eds), Non-destructive microanalysis of cultural heritage
materials. Place, Publisher 663-712.
Popelka-Filcoff, R. S., Miksa, E. J., Robertson, J., D., Glascock, M., D., Wallace, H.
2008. Elemental analysis and characterization of ochre sources from southern
Arizona. Journal of Archaeological Science 35/3, 752–762.
Robertshaw, P., Wood, M., Melchiorre, E., Popelka-Filcoff R. E., Glascock, M. D.
2010. Southern African glass beads: chemistry, glass sources and patterns of
trade. Journal of Archaeological Science 37/8, 1898–1912.
Schwartz, M., Hollander, D., Stein, G. 1999. Reconstructing Mesopotamian exchange networks in the 4th millennium BC: Geochemical and archaeological
analyses of bitumen artifacts from Hacinebi, Turkey. Paléorient 25, 67–82. Online
Weigand, P. C., Harbottle, G., Sayre, E. 1977. Turquoise sources and source analysis: Mesoamerica and the southwestern USA. In: Earle, T. K. Ericson, J. E.
(eds), Exchange systems in prehistory. Academic Press, New York, 15–34.
Classic paper first states the “Provenience Postulate”
48
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
9. Discard and taphonomy
Ulrike Sommer
8. December 2015
Artefacts can enter the archaeological record as the result of a conscious act like
burial, deposition(positive selection) or after being discarded as rubbish (negative selection). In the lecture, I will discuss which cultural and natural factors influence the
composition of archaeological assemblages over time. Is the ideal archaeological site
frozen in time? What is the relation between an archaeological site and a "living"
community?
Essential Reading
Beck, M. E. 2006. Midden ceramic assemblage formation: a case study from Kalinga,
Philippines. American Antiquity 71/1, 27-51. INST ARCH Pers and ONLINE
Hardy-Smith, T., Edwards, P. C. 2004. The garbage crisis in prehistory: artefact discard patterns at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origins of
household refuse disposal strategies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
23, 253-289. INST ARCH Pers. Online
*Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation processes of the archaeological record. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press, 1-23. INST ARCH SCH 6 and ISSUE
DESK
Discard
Binford, L. R. 1981. Behavioral archaeology and the 'Pompeii premise'. Journal of
Anthropological Research 37, 195-208. NET
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
Chapman, J. 2004. Spondylus bracelets: fragmentation and enchainment in the East
Balkan Neolithic and Copper Age. In: Slavchev, V. (ed.), Festschrift für Prof. Dr.
Habil. Henrieta Todorova. Dobrudzha 21, 63-87. ON ORDER
Chapman, J. C., Gaydarska, B. I. 2007. Parts and wholes. Fragmentation in prehistoric context. Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST ARCH DAR CHA
Deal, M. 1985. Household pottery disposal in the Maya highlands, an ethnoarchaeological interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4, 243-291.
INST ARCH Pers
Deal, M., Hagstrum, M. B. 1995. Ceramic reuse behavior among the Maya and
Wanka: Implications for Archaeology. In: J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, A. E.
Nielsen (eds.), Expanding archaeology. Salt Lake City, University of Utah
Press, 111-125. INST ARCH AH SKI
Dietrich, O. 2014. Learning from ‘scrap’ about Late Bronze Age hoarding practices: A
biographical approach to individual acts of dedication in large metal hoards of
the Carpathian Basin. European Journal of Archaeology 17/3, 468–486. Online
49
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Hayden, B., A. Cannon 1983. Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya
highlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 117-163. NET
Hill, J. D. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex BAR 242, Oxford.
INST ARCH DAA Qto Series BRI 242
Hutson, S. R., Stanton, T. W. 2007. Cultural logic and practical reason: the structure
of discard in ancient Maya households. Cambridge Archaeological Journal
17/2, 123-144. On-Line
LeeDecker, Ch. H. 1994. Discard behavior on domestic historic sites: evaluation of
contexts for the interpretation of household consumption patterns. Journal of
Archaeological Method and Theory 1/4, 345-375. ONLINE
*Martin, L., Russell, N. 2000. Trashing rubbish. In: Hodder, I. (ed.), Towards a reflexive method in archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge, McDonald
Institute, 57-71. INST ARCH DBC 10 HOD
McNiven, I. J. 2013. Ritualised middening practices. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 20, 552-587. ONLINE
Moore, H. L. 1986. Space, text and gender. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
Ch. 6. ANTHROPOLOGY QQ 215 MOO
Patrik, L. 1985. Is there an archaeological record? In M. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in
archaeological method and theory 8. New York, Academic Press, 27-62. NET
Pounds, N. J. G. 1989, Hearth and home: a history of material culture. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press. ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 POU
THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL ITEMS USED THROUGH THE MIDDLE AGES TO MODERN TIMES
Schiffer, M. B. 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37, 156-65. NET
Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation processes of the archaeological record. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press. INST ARCH AH SCH
Schofield, A. J. (ed.) 1991. Interpreting artefact scatters: contributions to ploughzone
archaeology. Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST ARCH AH SCH
Shott, M. 1998. Status and role of formation theory in contemporary archaeological
practice. Journal of Archaeological Research 6/4, 299-329. INST ARCH Pers
Sommer, U. 1990. Dirt theory, or archaeological sites seen as rubbish heaps. Journal
of Theoretical Archaeology 1, 47-60. INST ARCH Pers
Sommer, U. 2012.Wer hat Dornröschen aufgeweckt? Taphonomie und MainstreamArchäologie. In: Thomas Link und Dirk Schimmelpfennig (eds.), Taphonomie
(nicht nur) im Neolithikum. Fokus Jungsteinzeit, Berichte der AG Neolithikum
3. Kerpen-Loogh, Welt und Erde, 15–34.
Staski, E., Sutro, L. D. (eds.) 1991. The ethnoarchaeology of refuse disposal. Anthropological Research Papers 42. Tempe, Arizona State University. INST
ARCH BD STA
Thompson, M. 1979. Rubbish Theory: The creation and destruction of value. Oxford,
Oxford University Press. INST ARCH AH THO
Walker, W. 1995. Ceremonial trash. In J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, A. E. Nielsen
(eds.), Expanding archaeology. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 6779. INST ARCH AH SKI
Wilson, D. C. 1994. Identification and assessment of secondary refuse aggregates.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1/1, 41-68. INST ARCH Pers
50
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
10. The spatial analysis of artefact distributions
Andy Bevan
15. December 2015
The artefacts that we discover and study as archaeologists constitute a static, very
partial and imperfectly-recovered record of past human activity, but one that despite
these limitations often exhibits interesting spatial patterns, across an excavation,
throughout a landscape or over entire countries or continents. The challenge thus
becomes how we extract further understanding from this spatial context, for example,
about the past intentions, behaviours and wider processes that were originally behind
what we find deposited in the ground. In this regard, theoretical, computational and
statistical approaches to spatial analysis can be very helpful, offering us insights into
artefact production, distribution and consumption in the past as well artefact survival
up to the present day.
Essential reading
Benito-Calvo, A., de la Torre, I. 2011. Analysis of orientation patterns in Olduvai Bed
I assemblages using GIS techniques: Implications for site formation processes, Journal of Human Evolution 61, 50-60. Online.
*Bevan, A. 2012. Spatial methods for analysing large-scale artefact inventories. Antiquity 86 (332), 492-506. Online.
Martinón-Torres, M. Li, X., Bevan, A., Xia, Y., Kun, Z., Rehren, Th. 2011. Making
weapons for the Terracotta Army. Archaeology International 13/14, 65-67. Online.
Tilley, C., Hamilton, S., Harrison, S., Anderson, E. 2000. Nature, culture, clitter: distinguishing between cultural and geomorphological landscapes: the case of
hilltop tors in south-west England. Journal of Material Culture 5, 197-224. Online.
Further reading
Bevan, A., Conolly, J. 2013. Mediterranean islands, fragile communities and persistent landscapes: Antikythera in long-term perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press. INST ARCH DAG 10 BEV
Blankholm, H. P. 1991. Intrasite spatial analysis in theory and practice. Aarhus,
Aarhus University Press. INST ARCH AK 10 BLA.
Brughmans T. 2010. Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis.
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 29/3, 277-303. Online.
Hietala, H. 1984. Intrasite spatial analysis in archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press. INST ARCH BC 100 Qto HIE
Hodder, I., Orton, C. 1976. Spatial analysis in archaeology, Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press. INST ARCH AK 20 HOD.
Katsianis, M., Tsipidis, S., Kotsakis, K., Kousoulakou, A. 2008. A 3D digital workflow
for archaeological intra-site research using GIS. Journal of Archaeological
Science 35, 655-667. Online.
Kroll, E., Price, T. D. (eds.) 1991. The Interpretation of archaeological spatial patterning. New York, Plenum. INST ARCH AH KRO.
51
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Livingood, P. C., Cordell, A. S. 2009. Point/counter point: the accuracy and feasibility
of digital image techniques of ceramic thin sections. Journal of Archaeological
Science 36, 867-872. Online
Vanzetti, A., Vidale, M., Gallinaro, M., Frayer, D. W., Bondioli, L. 2010. The iceman
as a burial. Antiquity 84, 681-692. Online
11. Introduction to strand C
Marcos Martinón Torres
11. January 2016
We will present the sites available for the group presentations and put the groups together. There will be some further guidelines on presentation and the written coursework.
12. Using Excell to assess and present your data
Ian Freestone
18. January 2016
Practical
13. Writing a PhD-proposal
Marcos Martinón Torres
25. January 2016
14. Online Research Resources
Katie Meheux
20. February, Computer-Pool
A List of resources is available on the Moodle.
15. Scanners and Photoshop
Stuart Laidlaw
9. February, Photo-Lab
16. Conference
Spring Reading Week, date tba
Presentations for Strand B
17. Post-conference Peer-Review
23. February 2016
We will discuss last week's presentations.
52
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Strand B: dealing with artefacts
Introduction to the structure, aims and methods of this part of the course.
1. Excavating artefacts and finds processing
Ulrike Sommer
8. October
The first session will include and introduction to the structure, aims and methods of
this part of the course. We will then address: How do we deal with artefacts from excavation? How should they be recorded, and why? How can fail-safes be established
and finds processed as fast and efficiently as possible? In which categories should
finds be divided? How can you prepare for the unexpected?
Essential Reading
Barker, Ph. 1993 [1977], Techniques of archaeological excavation. London, Batsford.
Chapter 9, The recording of pottery and small finds, 193-206. INST ARCH
AL BAR
Carver, M. O. H. 2009. Archaeological Investigation. London, Routledge. Chapter 9,
Assemblage, 217-244. ISSUE DESK, AL 10 CAR
Chadwick, A. 1997. Archaeology at the edge of chaos: further towards reflexive excavation methodologies. Assemblage 3.
http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/3/3chad.htm
Lucas, G. 2000. Splitting Objects. In: Lucas, G. Critical approaches to fieldwork: contemporary and historical archaeological practice. London, Routledge, Chapter
3. INST ARCH AH LUC
have a look at:
Drewett, P. L. 1999. Field archaeology: an introduction London, UCL Press, 145-161.
Chapter 8, Post-fieldwork planning, processing and finds analysis. INST
ARCH AL 10 DRE
Museum of London (ed.) 1994. Archaeological site manual. London, Museum of
London (3rd Edition). Chapters 4.1-4.2. INST ARCH AL WES
Guidelines
Institute of Field Archaeologists 2000. Draft standard and guidance for archaeological
artefact and environmental collection, documentation, conservation and research. online:
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/index.php?page=15
Darvill, T. C., B. Russel 2002. Archaeology after PPG16: archaeological investigations in England 1990-1999. Research Report 10, Bournemouth University.
English Heritage http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/aip/ppg16/
English Heritage 1991. Management of archaeological projects (=MAP2 authored for
English Heritage by Gill Andrews) London, English Heritage. INST ARCH DAA
100 ENG
also http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/knowledge/archaeology/map2/index.htm
Ewen, C. R. 2003. Artifacts. Archaeologist’s toolkit 4. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Part II – preparing for analysis. INST ARCH AH EWE
53
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Greene, K. 1984. The Roman fortress at Usk, Wales, and the processing of Roman
pottery for publication. Journal of Field Archaeology 11, 405-412. INST ARCH
Pers.
Harris, E. C. 1989. Principles of archaeological stratigraphy (2nd ed.), New York,
Academic Press. INST ARCH AL HAR and http://www.harrismatrix.com/
especially chapter 10 and Appendix 1.
Haselgrove, C., I. Armit, T. Champion, J. Creighton, A. Gwilt, J. D. Hill, F. Hunter, A.
Woodward 2001. Understanding the British Iron Age: an agenda for action: a
report for the Iron Age research seminar and the Council of the Prehistoric
Society. Salisbury, Trust for Wessex Archaeology. INST ARCH DAA 160 Qto
HAS
Museum of London 2002. A research framework for London archaeology. London,
Museum of London. INST ARCH DAA 416 Qto MUS
Society of Museum Archaeologists 1993. Selection, retention and dispersal of archaeological collections: Guidelines for use in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland. London, Society of Museum Archaeologists. INST ARCH MG 2 SEL
Westman, A. (ed.) 1990. Archaeological site manual (3rd edition) London, Museum
of London. INST ARCH AL WES (Online at:
http://www.molas.org.uk/pages/serviceEx.asp).
54
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
2. The field recording of artefacts
Practical
Ulrike Sommer
15. October 2015
We will practice identifying and recording the artefacts collected by you on the
Southbank this week (7/10) and look at raw materials and the different categories
used to classify artefacts in the field.
Essential Reading
Orton, C., P. Tyers, A. Vince 1993. Pottery in archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, Chapter 4. INST ARCH KD 3 ORT
Whittingham, L. 2001. Minimum standards for the processing, recording, analysis
and publication of post-Roman ceramics. Occasional paper of the Medieval
Pottery Research Group 2.London, Medieval Pottery Research Group. INST
ARCH KD 3 Qto SLO
http://www.thamesdiscovery.org/ on the archaeology of the Thames in London
HAVE A QUICK BROWSE
see also
Arcelin, P., Tuffreau-Libre, M. 1999. La quantification des céramiques, conditions et
protocole. Collection Bibracte 2. Glux-en-Glenne, Centre archéologique
Europeen. INST ARCH DAC 20 Qto ARC
FOR AN EXAMPLE OF VERY FORMALISED RECORDING SYSTEMS
David, N. 1982. The design of archaeological processing systems with special reference to that employed at Lake Vouliagméni, Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology 9, 237-241. INST ARCH Pers
Joukowsky, M. S. 1982. Ceramic processing: an appraisal of the Lake Vouliagméni
recording system and the issues addressed by Nicholas David. Journal of
Field Archaeology 9, 248-251. INST ARCH Pers
Shopland, N. 2006. A finds manual: excavating, processing and storing. Stroud,
Tempus INST ARCH K SHO
AMBITIOUS BUT NOT WITHOUT PROBLEMS AS HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS REVIEW:
MEPHAM, L. 2006, REVIEW OF " SHOPLAND, N. 2006. A FINDS MANUAL: EXCAVATING,
PROCESSING AND STORING", PROCEEDINGS OF THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY 72.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prehistoric/reviews/06_11_shopland.htm
http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/files/reviews/06_11_shopland.htm
identification of medieval/postmedieval pottery
Blackmore, L., Pearce, J. 2010. A dated type series of London medieval pottery. Part
5, Shelly-sandy ware and the greyware industries. MOLA monograph 49. London, Museum of London Archaeology. INST ARCH DAA 416 Qto BLA
AND THE OTHER VOLUMES IN THIS SERIES
Brown, D. H. 2002. Pottery in medieval Southampton, c. 1066-1510. Southampton
archaeology monographs 8, CBA Research Report 133. York, Council for British Archaeology. INST ARCH DAA Qto Series COU 133
55
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Draper, J. 1984. Post-medieval pottery, 1650-1800. Princes Risborough, Shire Publications. INST ARCH KD 1 DRA
Gaimster, D. 1997. German Stoneware 1200-1900, Archaeology and cultural history.
London, British Museum. INST ARCH KD 1 GAI
Haslam, J. 1984. Medieval pottery. Princes Risborough, Shire. INST ARCH DAA 190
HAS
Hurst, J. G., Neal, D. S., van Beuningen, H. J. E. 1986. Pottery produced and traded
in North-West Europe 1350-1650. Rotterdam Papers. Rotterdam, Museum
Boymans-van Beuningen. INST ARCH KD 3 HUR
Medieval Pottery Research Group 1998. A guide to the classification of medieval ceramic forms. Occasional paper of the Medieval Pottery Research Group 1.
London, Medieval Pottery Research Group. INST ARCH KD 3 MED
Oswald, A. 1985. Clay pipes for the archaeologist. BAR 14, Oxford, BAR.
SEE ALSO THE NUMEROUS VOLUMES ON “THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE CLAY TOBACCO PIPE”
BY BAR
Schreg, Rainer 1999. Keramik aus Südwestdeutschland. Eine Hilfe zur
Beschreibung, Bestimmung und Datierung archäologischer Funde vom Neolithikum bis zur Neuzeit. Tübingen, Verlag des Vereins für Archäologie des
Mittelalters.
56
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
3. Creating and using Collections
Rachael Sparks
22. October 2015
The Institute of archaeology was founded in 1937 as a place for training the next
generation of excavators, conservators, photographers and researchers in the principles and methods of archaeology. The use of artefact collections was central to this
concept and formed a cornerstone to much of the teaching that followed. This session will explore the biography of the first group of material donated to the Institute,
the Petrie Palestinian Collection, from its discovery in the field, through the selection
process that brought objects to England and UCL, and its subsequent use.
This will lead into discussions of the need for museums to have high ethical standards when developing, managing, and using their collections.
Essential Reading:
Gill, D., Chippindale, Chr. 2007. The illicit antiquities scandal: what it has done to
Classical Archaeology collections. American Journal of Archaeology 111/3,
571-574.
(http://www.ajaonline.org/review-article/200). DOI: 10.3764/aja.111.3.571.
Sparks, R. T. 2013. Flinders Petrie through Word and Deed: Re-evaluating Petrie’s
field techniques and their impact on object recovery in British Mandate Palestine. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 145/2, 1-17.
(http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/peq/2013/00000145/00000002/art00
007).
See the Museum Associations ethical code:
(http://www.museumsassociation.org/ethics/code-of-ethics)
Further Reading
al-Houdalieh, S. H. 2012. Palestinian antiquities looters, their skill development,
methodology and specialised terminology: an ethnographic study. Palestine
Exploration Quarterly 144/2, 115-127. INST ARCH PERS
Barringer, T., Flynn, T. 1998. Colonialism and the object: Empire, material culture
and the museum. London, Routledge. IoA MB 3 BAR
Drower, M. S. 1985. Flinders Petrie: A life in archaeology. London, Gollancz.
EGYPTOLOGY A 8 PET
Drower, M. S. 2004. Letters from the desert. Warminster, Aris and Phillips.
EGYPTOLOGY A 8 PET.
Eberhardt, G., 2008. Methodological reflections on the history of excavation techniques. In: N. Schlanger, J. Nordbladh (eds), Archives, Ancestors, Practices.
Archaeology in the light of its history. New York, Berghahn Books, 89-96. AG
SCH.
Evans, J. D. 1987. The first half-century - and after. Institute of Archaeology Bulletin
24, 1-25. INST ARCH Pers
ICOM. 2013. ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums. (http://icom.museum/thevision/code-of-ethics).
McIntosh, S. K., C. Renfrew, S. Vincent 2000. "The good collector": Fabulous beast
or endangered species? Public Archaeology 1, 73-81. INST ARCH Pers
57
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Rollston, C. A., Vaughn, A. G. 2005. Forum: Fakes, forgeries, and biblical scholarship. Near Eastern Archaeology 68.1-2, 61-77. INST ARCH Pers and online.
Sparks, R. T., Ucko, P. J. 2007. A history of the Petrie Palestinian Collection. In:
Sparks, R. T. (ed.), A future for the past: Petrie’s Palestinian collection. London, Institute of Archaeology, 13-24. INST ARCH DBE 100 SPA
Sparks, R. T. 2007. Flinders Petrie and the archaeology of Palestine. In: Sparks, R.
T. (ed.), A future for the past: Petrie’s Palestinian collection. London, Institute
of Archaeology, 1-12. INST ARCH DBE 100 SPA
Stone, P. G., Molyneaux B. L. (eds.) 1994. The presented past: Heritage, museums
and education. London, Routledge. INST ARCH M 6 STO
Thompson, M., C. Renfrew 1999. The catalogues of the Pitt-Rivers Museum, Farnham, Dorset. Antiquity 73, 377-93. INST ARCH Pers and ONLINE
Tite, M. S. 2002. Archaeological collections: Invasive sampling versus object integrity
(with responses from N. Merriman, Th. Rehren, T. Schadla-Hall and K. Tubb).
Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 13, 1-20. INST ARCH 2983
Ucko, P. J. 2000. The biography of a collection: the Sir Flinders Petrie Palestinian
collection and the role of university museums. Museum Management and Curatorship 17/4, 351-399. INST ARCH Pers
Vitelli, K. D., Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Ch. (eds.) 1984. Archaeological Ethics. Walnut
Creek/London, Altamira. INST ARCH AF VIT
58
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
4. The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) in England and
Wales
Finds are not only made in the context of excavations, but also by accident and by
members of the public looking for artefacts. Stephanie Smith will look at the legal
situation in England, its implication for archaeology and the steps taken to ensure
that non-excavation finds are recorded and preserved. We will also look at the way
post-depositional factors influence finds-distributions on a regional or national scale.
The second half of the class will be devoted to exploring ways in which the Portable
Antiquities Scheme database may be used for academic research, providing time to
answer questions regarding specific research interests and negotiating collection biases.
Required Reading
Look over: the Portable Antiquities website: www.finds.org.uk and conduct searches
in your area of interest. Be prepared to discuss your searches.
Read:
Robbins, K. 2014. A Guide for Researchers
(http://finds.org.uk/documents/guideforresearchers.pdf), p. 9, 37-74.
Further Reading
PAS Annual Reports: http://www.finds.org.uk/news/annual.asp
Bland, R. 1996. The treasure act and the proposals for the voluntary recording of all
archaeological finds. In: Denford, G. T. (ed.), Museums in the landscape:
bridging the gap. Museum Archaeologist 23, 3-19. INST ARCH Pers
Bland, R. 2005. A pragmatic approach to the problem of portable antiquities: the experience of England and Wales. Antiquity 79, 440-447. INST ARCH Pers
Gaimster, D. 2004. Measures against the illicit trade in cultural objects: the emerging
strategy in Britain. Antiquity 78, 699-707. INST ARCH Pers
Dobinson, C., Denison, S. 1995. Metal detecting and archaeology in England. London, English Heritage. http://www.britarch.ac.uk/detecting/cont.html
Gregory, T., Rogerson, A. J. G. 1985. Metal-detecting in archaeological excavation.
Antiquity 58, 179−184. INST ARCH Pers and NET
Hobbs, R. 1999. Finding our past; the Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and
Wales. Museum Archaeologist 26, 25-31 INST ARCH Pers
Sussams, K. 1998. Half a million hours: a 20 year archaeological survey of Norfolk.
Museum Archaeologist 25. INST ARCH Pers
Worrell, S. et al. (eds). 2010. A Decade of discovery. Proceedings of the Portable
Antiquities Scheme Conference 2007. BAR British Series 520. Oxford, Archaeopress. INST ARCH DAA Qto Series BRI 520
59
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
5. Cataloguing artefacts
Rachael Sparks
5. November 2015
In this session will discuss object catalogues: what are they, why do we need them,
and where do they fit into the broader scheme of field and museum work? We will
then use a series of practical exercises using material from the Institute of Archaeology Collections to introduce a range of cataloguing skills including observation, description and deduction.
Essential reading
Collections Trust, 2010. Cataloguing Objects
http://www.collectionstrust.org.uk
Museums Australia (Victoria). 2009. The Small Museums Cataloguing Manual:
http://www.mavic.asn.au/services/small-museums-cataloguing-manual (accessed on
07/08/2013).
Recommended reading
Holm, S. A. 2002. Cataloguing made easy: how to catalogue your collections. 2nd
ed. Cambridge, MDA. ME 2 Qto HOL
Lejeune, B. 2007. The effects of online catalogues in London and other museums: A
study of an alternative way of access. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology S1, 79-97.
http://pia-journal.co.uk/index.php/pia/article/viewArticle/54
Thornes, R. et al. 1999. Introduction to Object ID: Guidelines for Making Records that
Describe Art, Antiques, and Antiquities
http://icom.museum/objectid/guide/guide_index.html
Will, L. 2010. Time taken to create catalogue records for museum objects and archives http://www.willpowerinfo.co.uk/catrates.htm
60
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
6. Tutorial: Describing pottery
Ulrike Sommer
19. November 2015
Practical: you will further opportunity to exercise your skills in the description of pottery shapes, as introduced in the last session, and we will also look at the description
of fabric, temper and surface treatment of pottery. We will also discuss problems of
terminology.
Recommended Reading:
Balfet, H., Fauvet-Berthelot, M.-F., Monzon, S. 1983. Pour la normalization de la description des poteries. Paris, CNRS.
Kunow, J. et al. 1986. Suggestion for the systematic recording of pottery. Führer des
Rheinischen Landesmuseums 124. Bonn, Rheinisches Landesmuseum. INST
ARCH KD 3 VOR
*Orton, C. et al. 1993. Pottery in archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, INST ARCH KD 3 ORT, Issue Desk
Tomber, R., Dore, J. 1998. The National Roman Fabrics reference collection. Museum of London Archaeology Service Monograph 2. London, Museum of London. INST ARCH DAA 170 Qto TOM
USEFUL TABLES FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF INCLUSIONS ETC.
Further Reading
de la Bédoyère, G. 1988. Samian ware. Princes Risborough, Shire. INST ARCH KD
BED, YATES P 40 DEL
SHORT POPULAR OVERVIEW
Fulford, M. G., Huddleston K. 1991. The current state of Romano-British pottery studies. Occasional paper 1. London, English Heritage. INST ARCH DAA 170 Qto
FUL
Gibson, A., Woods, A. 1990. Prehistoric pottery for the archaeologist. Leicester:
Leicester University Press. INST ARCH KD 3 GIB
OVERVIEW
Millet, M. (ed.) 1979. Pottery and the Archaeologist. Occasional Publication 4. London, Institute of Archaeology.
Orton, C. 1989. An introduction into the quantification of assemblages of pottery.
Journal of Roman Pottery Studies 2, 94-97.
Quinn, P. et al., 2009. Interpreting silent artefacts: petrographic approaches to archaeological ceramics. Oxford, Archaeopress. INST ARCH KD 3 QUI
Rye, O. S. 1981. Pottery technology; principles and reconstructions. Manuals on Archaeology 4 Chicago, University of Chicago Press. INST ARCH KD 1 RYE
Tyers, P. 1996. Roman pottery in Britain. London, Batsford. INST ARCH DAA 170
TYE
Webster, P. 1996. Roman samian pottery in Britain. CBA Practical handbooks in Archaeology 13. York, CBA. INST ARCH DAA 170 WEB
Electronic resources:
Provenance Studies on Pottery in the Southern Central Mediterranean from the 6th
to the 2nd c. B.C. http://facem.at/
Good fabric descriptions with links to petrographic studies
61
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
62
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
7. Databases
Rachael Sparks
26. November 2015
In this session, we will examine the relationship between database design and use,
the importance of thesauri and terminology control, and consider examples of both
good and bad practice in the professional sector. As part of the session, students will
get the opportunity to design their own system and then discuss the results.
Before the session, please have a look at some of the following databases and consider:
• Who seems to be the audience for the database?
• Is the design suited to that audience?
• How user-friendly is it?
• Is the database fit for purpose (e.g: is there too little information provided, or more
than is needed)?
Databases:
Bridgeman Art Library
http://www.bridgeman.co.uk/
British Museum
http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/search.aspx and its introductorypgehttp://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/about_the_database.asp
x
Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Database
http://maa.cam.ac.uk/maa/category/collections-2/catalogue/
Grant Museum of Zoology
http://gmzcat.museums.ucl.ac.uk/
Pitt Rivers Southern Sudan project database
http://southernsudan.prm.ox.ac.uk/index.php
The Griffith Institute:
http://www.griffith.ox.ac.uk/tutankhamundiscovery.html
Essential Reading
Collections Trust 2006. Terminology Control:
http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/index.cfm?ct=assets.assetDisplay/title/Terminology
%20Control/assetId/190
De Vorsey, K. L., Elson, C., Gregorev, N. P., Hansen, J. 2006. The development of a
local Thesaurus to improve access to the Anthropological Collections of the
American Museum of Natural History. D-Lib Magazine 12/4.
http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april06/devorsey/04devorsey.html
Szrajber, T. 2008. Public Access to Collection Databases: The British Museum Collection Online (COL): A Case Study. 2008 Annual Conference of CIDOC.
http://www.cidoc2008.gr/cidoc/Documents/papers/drfile.2008-06-18.8280039548
63
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Further Reading
Cowgill, G. L. 1990. Artifact classification and archaeological purposes. In: Voorrips,
A. (ed.), Mathematics and information science in archaeology. Studies in
modern archaeology 3. Bonn, Holos, 61-78. INST ARCH AH VOO
Museum Documentation Association. INST ARCH ME 2 Qto SPE, also online at the
Collections Trust website: http://www.collectionstrust.org.uk
YOU WILL NEED TO PROVIDE SOME PERSONAL DETAILS AND AGREE TO THEIR TERMS IN
ORDER TO DOWNLOAD THE FILE FOR READING.
Hey, G., M. Lacey 2001. Evaluation of archaeological decision-making processes
and sampling strategies. Oxford, Kent County Council. INST ARCH AL 10 Qto
HEY,
http://www.planarch.org/downloads/library/eval_of_arch_decisionmaking.pdf
Holm, S. A. 1993. Cataloguing made easy. Cambridge, Museum Documentation Association. ME 2 Qto HOL
Museum Documentation Association 2007. SPECTRUM: the UK Museum Documentation Standard (3:1 ed.). Cambridge, Cambridge, Museum.
Medieval Pottery Research Group 2001. Minimum standards for the processing, recording, analysis and publication of post-Roman ceramics (compiled by A.
Slowikowski, B. Nenk, J. Pearce). London, Medieval Pottery Research Group.
INST ARCH KD 3 Qto SLO
Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group 1995. The study of later prehistoric pottery:
general policies and guidelines for analysis and publication. PCRG Occasional
Papers 1 and 2. Oxford, Prehistoric Ceramics Research Group. INST ARCH
KD PRE
Szrajber, T. 1997. The British Museum Materials Thesaurus. Cambridge, MDA/British
Museum. ME 2 Qto BRI
Weblinks Thesauri:
http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/discover
http://www.collectionslink.org.uk/assets/thesaurus_bmm/matintro.htm
British Museum Thesaurus
64
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
8. Archaeological Illustration
Craig Williams, BM
3. December 2015
Drawings are the basic method of recording for nearly all classes of finds. Craig will
give you an introduction to techniques and conventions, and present the range of
professional archaeological illustration. We will have a practical training session in
term 2.
If you are interested in lithic illustration, it may be useful to take a course in lithic
technology, as it is impossible to draw knapped implements without a basic understanding of the processes involved in producing them.
Look over:
Adkins, L., Adkins, R. A 1989. Archaeological illustration. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press. INST ARCH AL 30 ADK
Dorrell, P. G. 1994. Photography in archaeology and conservation (2nd ed.) Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH AL 20 DOR
Griffiths, N., Jenner, A. 1990. Drawing archaeological finds: a handbook. London, Archetype. INST ARCH AL 30 GRI
EXCELLENT INTRODUCTION
Steiner, M. 2005. Approaches to archaeological illustration: a handbook. Practical
Handbooks in Archaeology 18. York, Council for British Archaeology. INST
ARCH AL 30 Qto STE
CASE STUDIES, WIDE RANGE OF MATERIALS AND OBJECT TYPES
see also
Goddard, S., Hamilton, S., Knight, D., Rouillard, S. 1997. Aspects of Illustration: Prehistoric Pottery. Association of Archaeological Illustrators and Surveyors
Monograph 13. Exeter, Association of Archaeological Illustrators and Surveyors. INST ARCH KD 3 HUR
Martingell, H., A. Saville 1988. The illustration of lithic artefacts. Association of Archaeological Illustrators & Surveyors. INST ARCH KA MAR
Wendowski-Schünemann, A. 2013. Archäologisches Zeichnen. Keramik-Metall-Glas.
Oldenburg, Isensee. INST ARCH AL 30 WEN
9. Drawing Pottery (Practical)
Ulrike Sommer
10. December 2015
We will practice finds drawing with our Thames artefacts, concentrating mainly on
pottery.
65
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
10. Finds cataloguing, chipped stone artefacts
Ulrike Sommer
17. December 2015
In contrast to pottery, the terminology developed for the description of chipped stone
objects is applicable universally (but there are national differences). In this session,
we are going to cover the basic terms used to describe flint objects and practice their
use.
General
Crabtree, D. 1972. An introduction to flintworking. Pocatello, Idaho State Museum.
INST ARCH DE Series IDA 26-29
Perlès, C. 1992. In search of lithic strategies: a cognitive approach to prehistoric
chipped stone assemblages. In: J.-C. Gardin, C. Peebles (eds.), Representations in Archaeology. Bloomington/Indianapolis, Indiana University Press, 223247. INST ARCH AH GAR
Whittaker, J. C. 1994. Flintknapping. Making and understanding stone tools. Austin,
University of Texas Press. IOA ISSUE DESK; KA WHI
Waldorf, D. C. 1984. The art of flintknapping. Mound Builder Books. INST ARCH KA
WAL
Terminology
Brézillon, M. 1983. La dénomination des objets de pierre taillée. IVe supplement de
Gallia Préhistoire. Paris, Centre National de la recherche scientifique. DAC
Qto Series GAL PRE 4
THE guide to terminology
Inizan, M.-L., H. Roche, J. Tixier 1992. The technology of knapped stone: followed by
a multilingual vocabulary Arabic, English, French, German, Greek, Italian,
Russian, Spanish. Préhistoire de la pierre taillée 3. Meudon, CREP. IOA
ISSUE DESK; KA INI
extremely useful!
Piel-Desruisseaux, J.-L. 1998/1986. Outils préhistoriques: forme, fabrication, utilisation. Paris, Masson. IOA ISSUE DESK; KA PIE
see also
Piel-Desruisseaux, J.-L. 1998. Outils préhistoriques. Du galet taillé au bistouri d'obsidienne. Paris, Dunnod.
11. Drawing chipped Stone artefacts, practical
Ulrike Sommer
14. January
Chipped stone artefacts cannot be well illustrated by photography, as many technical
details do not show up properly, especially with raw materials like obsidian or rock
crystal. Drawing lithics relies on a number of conventions and a basic knowledge of
lithic technology (Session 10). We will cover the essentials in this session, and have
a short practical: the rest is up to you - lots of practice helps!
66
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Basic reading:
Addington, L. R. 1986. Lithic illustration: drawing flaked stone artifacts for publication.
Chicago, University of Chicago Press. INST ARCH AL 30 Qto ADD
Martingell, H., Saville, A. 1988. The illustration of lithic artefacts. Association of Archaeological Illustrators and Surveyors. INST ARCH KA MAR
67
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
12. Representing Artefacts: Photography
Stuart Laidlaw
21. January 2016, Photo-Lab
Graphic representation, through illustration and photography, is an essential means
of recording and communicating information about artefacts. We will discuss these
techniques, and their proper role in artefact studies, followed by practical exercises in
the photographic Lab.
Reading: see session 10
13. Object description: Comparison and discussion of published catalogues
Ulrike Sommer
28. January 2016
We will have a look at published catalogues of artefacts and analyse their structure
and the traits included. Each of you will have to pick a recent catalogue of his or her
area (portfolio) and analyse it in advance of the session.
For further details and examples, see the Course Moodle.
68
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
14. Putting artefacts into context: when and where?
Ulrike Sommer
4. February 2016
Faced with an unknown object, the archaeologist will normally first look at the raw
material and will then try a classification by shape - a pot or a quern, for example.
In order to date it, you will have to locate similar finds from dated contexts. This may
also help to get some ideas on how the artefact was used and will help you to use
the correct terminology when describing it.
The distribution of specific artefact types delimits a sphere of interaction. These could
potentially indicate the customers of a specific workshop, the members of a political
community (village, tribe, ethnic group, state) or the extent of a trade network.
With a few exceptions, like mould-formed pottery and tools cast in re-usable moulds,
artefacts are rarely identical. So, which criteria have to be met in order to classify artefacts as similar?
Reading:
See Lecture 1, Strand A (arranging the artefacts).
see also:
Ramsey, G. 1995. Middle Bronze Age metalwork: are artefact studies dead and buried? In: J. Waddell, Twohig, E. S. (eds.), Ireland in the Bronze Age: Proceedings of the Dublin Conference, April 1995. Dublin, Stationery Office, 49-62.
INST ARCH DAA 700 WAD
SOME REFLECTION ON THE USEFULNESS OF CLASSIFICATION AND TYPOLOGY, APPLICABLE TO
OTHER PERIODS AS WELL.
Lucas G. 2000 Splitting. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork: Contemporary and Historical Archaeological Practice, Objects, Chapter 3. London, Routledge INST
ARCH 3090
15. Basic Mapping
Robert Kaleta
11. February 2016, Cluster Room
Distribution maps are one of the basic tools for archaeologists to make sense of artefacts and assemblages (cf. lecture 14). In this session, Rob Kaleta will show you how
to use free software to produce basic distribution maps.
69
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
16. Identifying and describing metal objects
Stephanie Smith
25. February 2016
Describing and identifying metal objects: PAS metal finds, how to use the PAS database and published catalogues. How do published finds catalogues and reports assist in our usage of the PAS database and visa versa?
Essential Reading
1. Explore the PAS Database and conduct a few searches for types of finds you are
interested in, or do larger searches for items from particular periods: http://
finds.org.uk . It may be helpful to look at the category and key words lists available
on the database page.
2. Read the Portable Antiquities Scheme Self-Recording Guide, available in pdf format at: http://finds.org.uk/guide
3. Crummy, N. 1983. The Roman small finds from excavations in Colchester, 1971-9.
Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Trust. INST ARCH DAA 410 E.7 CRU
[Please read Crummyʼs introduction and explanation of her classification categories.
Then skim her categories and the arrangement of metal finds in relationship to other
finds within those categories, paying attention to the manner in which metal objects
are described and illustrated.]
Suggested Reading [sources are to be skimmed for content]
Please select one or two of the following finds reports and specialist catalogues and
observe how the authors have chosen to arrange and describe the finds. Focus your
attention on the metal finds and how they are treated within the report. Are the descriptions of finds meant to be autonomous to illustration and photographs or are
they dependent upon each other? What are the intended ways in which a researcher
could use this report in comparison/conjunction with the PAS database?
Please bring your selections to class for your classmates to use during the practical
Section. I will have other resources available as well.
Bayley, J., Butcher, S. 2004. Roman Brooches in Britain: a technological and typological study based on the Richborough Collection. London, Society of Antiquities of London. INST ARCH DAA 170 BAY (also available at Institute of Classical Studies Library in Senate House)
Egan, G., Pritchard, F. (eds). 2002. Dress accessories, c.1150-c.1450. Woodbridge,
Boydell Press in association with Museum of London (new ed.). INST ARCH
HD EGA
Egan, G. 2005. Material culture in London in the age of transition: Tudor and Stuart
period finds c. 1450 – c. 1700 from excavations at riverside sites in Southwark. Museum of London Monograph Series 19. London, Museum of London
Archaeology Service. INST ARCH DAA 416 Qto EGA
Egan, G. (ed). 2010. The Medieval Household: Daily Living c. 1150- c. 1450. Woodbridge, Boydell Press; in association with Museum of London (new ed.) INST
ARCH DAA 416 EGA
70
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
MacGregor, A., Bolick, E. 1993. A Summary Catalogue of the Anglo-Saxon Collections (Non-Ferrous Metals). British Archaeological Reports, British Series 230.
Oxford, BAR. INST ARCH DAA Qto Series BRI 230
Ottoway, P., Rogers, N. 2002. Craft, Industry and Everyday Life: Finds from Medieval
York. The Archaeology of York 17/15, The Small Finds. York, Council for British Archaeology. INST ARCH DAA 410 Y.6 Series YOR 17/15
Wilson, P. R. 2002. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations
and research 1958-1997, Pt 2. Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 129. York, Council for British Archaeology. INST ARCH DAA Qto Series
COU 129
Zienkiewicz, J. D. 1986. The legionary fortress baths at Caerleon. Volume II: the
finds. Cardiff, National Museum of Wales/Cadw Institute of Classical Studies
Library, Senate House 116e.1 CAE Copy 1 Vol. 2
Further Reading:
Finds Specialist Datasheets: Lucerna (late Iron Age and Roman Finds);
Finds Research Group 700-1700 (post-Roman finds).
Allason-Jones, L. 2011. Artefacts in Roman Britain, their purpose and use. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
** Comprehensive and up-to-date bibliography of small finds references for RomanoBritish objects.
Appels, A., Stuart, L. 2007. Roman buckles and military fittings. Witham, Greenlight.
ON Order
Cool, H. E. M. et al. (eds). 1995. Finds from the Fortress. York, Council for British Archaeology for York Archaeological Trust. Institute of Classical Studies Library,
Senate House.
Hattatt, R. 2007. A visual Catalogue of Richard Hattattʼs ancient Brooches (reprint).
Oxford, Oxbow Books.
Manning, W. H. 1985. Catalogue of the Romano-British iron tools, fittings and
weapons in the British Museum. London, British Museum. INST ARCH DAA
170 BRI
Read, B. 2001. Metal artefacts of antiquity: A catalogue of Small Finds from specific
areas of the United Kingdom, Vol 1. Langport, Portcullis.
Read, B. 2008. Hooked-Clasps & Eyes. A classification catalogue of sharp- or blunthooked clasps and miscellaneous hooks, eyes, loops, rings or toggles. Langport, Portcullis Publishing.
Saunders, P. (ed). 2001. Salisbury & South Wiltshire Museum Medieval Catalogue.
Part 3: Bone objects, enamels, glass vessels, pottery, jettons, cloth seals,
bullae and other base metal objects. Salisbury, Salisbury and Wiltshire Museum.
Savory, H. N. 1980. Guide catalogue of the Bronze Age collections. Cardiff, National
Museum of Wales. STORE 13-0904
Whitehead, R. 2003. Buckles 1250-1800. Witham, Greenlight Publishing.
see also
Heynowski, R. 2012. Fibeln: erkennen - bestimmen - beschreiben. Landesstelle für
die nichtstaatlichen Museen in Bayern, LVR Landes-Museum Bonn, Archäologisches Museum Hamburg, Landesamt für Archäologie Sachsen. Berlin,
Deutscher Kunstverlag. INST ARCH DA 300 HEY
71
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Heynowski, R. 2014. Nadeln: erkennen - bestimmen - beschreiben. Berlin, Deutscher
Kunstverlag. INST ARCH DA 300 HEY
PBF. Corpus Prähistorischer Bronzefunde, München, Beck. INST ARCH DA Qto Series PRA
Monographs for most categories of Bronze finds in central Europe with detailed typology and chronology
Weller, U. 2014. Äxte und Beile: erkennen - bestimmen - beschreiben. Berlin, Deutscher Kunstverlag. INST ARCH HJ WEL
Weblinks
Portable Antiquities web-site: www.finds.org.uk
72
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
17. Recording Artefact Assemblages: Coins
Roger Moorhead, British Museum
3. March 2016
Methods for identifying interpreting coins (including a consideration of illustration
methods, tables, graphs and other ways of summarising and presenting data).
Prior to the class please look at www.finds.org.uk (particularly the finds from Suffolk).
Basic literature
Reece, R. 1987. Coinage in Roman Britain. London, Seaby. INST ARCH DAA 170
REE
Reece, R. 2002. The Coinage of Roman Britain. Stroud: Tempus. INST ARCH KM
REE
Basic for identification
Moorhead, S. 2013. A History of Roman coinage in Britain. Witham, Greenlight. INST
ARCH KM Qto MOO.
Reece, R. 2000. Identifying Roman coins: a practical guide to the identification of site
finds in Britain. London, Spink (2nd ed.). INST ARCH KM REE
Sear, D. L. 1981. Roman coins and their values. London, Seaby. INST ARCH KM
SEA
look through at least one of the following
Butterworth, P., Cool, H. E. M., Philo, C.,1998. Roman Castleford Excavations 19741985. Volume 1: The small finds. Wakefield, West Yorkshire Archaeological
Service. INST ARCH DAA 410 Qto COO
Crummy, N. 1983. The Roman small finds from excavations in Colchester, 1971-9.
Colchester: Colchester Archaeological Trust. INST ARCH DAA 410 E.7 CRU
Wilson, P. R. 2002. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland: excavations
and research, 1958-1997. INST ARCH DAA Qto Series COU 129
Further Reading
Abdy, R. 2002. Romano-British coin hoards. Princes Risborough, Shire. INST ARCH
KM ABD
Casey, P. J. 1980. Roman coinage in Britain. Princes Risborough, Shire. INST ARCH
DAA 170 CAS
Casey, P. J., Reece, R. 1988. Coins and the archaeologist (2nd edition). London,
Seaby. INST ARCH KM CAS
McKay, B. 1992. The Coins. In: Evans, D. R., Metcalf, V. M. (eds), Roman gates
Caerleon. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 87–96. INST DAA 610 EVA
Reece, R. 1998. The Roman coins. In: Timby, J. R. (ed.), Excavations at Kingscote
and Wycombe, Gloucestershire. Cirencester, Cotswold Archaeological Trust,
400–421. INST ARCH DAA 410 G.4 TIM
Walker, D. R. 1988. Roman coins from the Sacred Spring at Bath. In Cunliffe, B.
(ed.), The temple of Sulis Minerva II: Finds from the Sacred Spring, Part 6.
Oxford,Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. INST ARCH DAA 410
Qto CUN
73
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Wildwinds: http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/
http://www.michael-culture.org/ for databases of finds
74
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
19. The Conservation of artefacts
James Hale
17. March 2016
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 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 London, Demos, 227-229, Conservation and its values. INST ARCH AG JON
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/materialworld
Recommended Reading
Buttler, C., Davis, M. (eds.) 2006. Things fall apart... Museum conservation in practice. Cardiff, National Museum Wales Books. INST ARCH LA 1 BUT
Pye, E. 2001. Caring for the Past: Issues in Conservation for Archaeology and Museums. London, James and James. See especially Chapters 5 and 6. INST
ARCH LPY
Sease C., 1987. A Conservation Manual for the Field Archaeologist. Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology UCLA (2nd ed 1992, 3rd ed 1994). INST ARCH LA SEA
Watkinson, D., Neal, V., 1998. First Aid for Finds (3rd edition). London, Rescue - The
British Archaeological Trust, and Archaeology Section of the UK Institute for
Conservation, with the Museum of London. INST ARCH LA Qto WAT
75
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
18. The Finds Report
Jackie Keily, MoL
10. March 2016
In this lecture we will discuss the presentation and interpretation of artefact assemblages within finds reports in relation to the research objectives of the excavation and
the potential of using this information for comparative studies.
Essential Reading
Hamilton, S. 1999. Lost in translation? A comment on the excavation report. Papers
from the Institute of Archaeology 10, 1-8. INST ARCH Pers
Look through
Crummy, N. 1983. The Roman small finds from excavations in Colchester, 1971-79.
Colchester, Colchester Archaeological Trust. INST ARCH DAA 410 E.7 CRU
The Çatalhöyük web site and 1999 Archive Report at: Visit the Çatalhöyük web page
http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/
http://catal.arch.cam.ac.uk/catal/Archive_rep99/content99.html
Further Reading
Allison, P. M. 1997. Why do excavation reports have finds catalogues? In: Blinkhorn,
P. W., Cumberpatch, C. G. (eds), Not so much a pot; more a way of life. Oxbow Monograph 83, Oxford, Oxbow, 77-84. INST ARCH KD Qto CUM
Barrett, J. C. 1991. Bronze Age pottery and problems of classification. In: Barrett, J.,
Bradley, R., Hall, M. (eds.), Papers on the prehistoric archaeology of Cranborne Chase. Oxbow Monographs 11, Oxford, Oxbow, 201-231. INST ARCH
DAA 410 W.7 BAR
Barrett, J. C., Freeman, P. W. M., Woodward, A. 2000. Cadbury Castle, Somerset:
the later prehistoric and early historical archaeology. London, English Heritage. INST ARCH DAA 410 Qto BAR
Bishop, M. 1996. Finds from Roman Aldborough. Oxbow Monograph 65. Oxford, Oxbow. INST ARCH DAA 410 Y.6 BIS
Butterworth, P., Cool, H. E. M., Philo, C. 1998. Roman Castleford excavations 19741985. Volume 1: The small finds. Wakefield, West Yorkshire Archaeological
Service. INST ARCH DAA 410 Qto COO
Cassey, P. J., Hoffman B. 1999. Excavations at the Roman temple in Lydney Park,
Gloucestershire in 1980 and 1981. The Antiquaries Journal 79, 81–143. INST
ARCH Pers
Cool, H. E. M., Price, J. 1995. Roman vessel glass from excavations at Colchester
1971-85. Colchester Archaeological Reports 8. Colchester, Colchester Archaeological Trust. INST ARCH DAA 410 E.7 COL
Davies, B. J., Richardson, B., Tomber, R. S. 1994. A dated corpus of early Roman
pottery from the City of London. CBA research report 98. London, Museum of
London and the Council for British Archaeology. INST ARCH DAA Qto Series
COU 98
Wilson, P. R. 2002. Cataractonium: Roman Catterick and its hinterland. Excavations
and research, 1958-1997 Pt 2. Council for British Archaeology Research Re-
76
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
ports 129. York, Council for British Archaeology. INST ARCH DAA Qto Series
COU 129
Woodward, A., Leach. P. 1993. The Uley shrines: excavation of a ritual complex on
West Hill, Uley Gloucestershire 1977-9. London, English Heritage with British
Museum Press. INST ARCH DAA 410 G.4 WOO
See also
Hodder, I. (ed.) 1996. On the surface: Çatalhöyük 1993-95. Cambridge, McDonald
Institute and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. INST ARCH DBC 10
HOD
Hodder, I. 1989. Writing archaeological site reports in context. Antiquity 63, 268-74.
NET
Hodder, I. 1999. The Archaeological process: an introduction. London, Blackwell.
INST ARCH AH HOD
Hodder, I. 1997. Always momentary, fluid and flexible: towards a reflexive excavation
methodology. Antiquity 71, 691-700. INST ARCH 1607
Lockyear, K. 2000. Site finds from Roman Britain - a comparison of techniques. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19, 397–423. NET
Price, J., Cottam, S. 1998. Romano-British glass vessels: a handbook. CBA Practical
handbooks in Archaeology 14. York, CBA. INST ARCH KL PRI
Reece, R. 1995. Site-finds in Roman Britain. Britannia 26, 179–206. INST ARCH
Pers
77
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
What’s in store? Archives, access, issues and opportunities
No lecture, but a subject we definitely need to reflect on, hence I left the reading list
in the handbook.
The recording, archiving, management and conservation of collections have become
major responsibilities within a wide range of institutions, particularly museums. Buried
within archives are contractual obligations, legal responsibility, intellectual property
rights, asset management difficulties, ethical questions, access issues and a world of
opportunity.
Are archives working as hard – and as well – as they could? What is the future for
reference collections? Who accesses archives? With whom do our responsibilities
lie? Are archives in perpetual crisis?
Essential Reading
Brown, D. H. 2007. Archaeological Archives: A guide to best practice in creation,
compilation, transfer and curation. Archaeological Archives Forum.
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/pubs/Archives_
Best_Practice.pdf
Edwards, R. 2012 Archaeological Archives and Museums 2012. Society for Museum
Archaeologists.
http://www.socmusarch.org.uk/docs/Archaeological-archives-and-museums2012.pdf
Edwards, R. 2013. Notes from the AAF Meeting held in Birmingham, 7th March 2013.
http://www.socmusarch.org.uk/docs/AAF-meeting-notes-v3.pdf
Museums Association ethical guidelines:
http://www.museumsassociation.org/home.html
Recommended Reading
Merriman, N. 2004, Museum Collections and Sustainability.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&ved=
0CD0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.museumsassociation.org%2Fdownload%3F
id%3D16720&ei=cWEoUoX6OOyS7Qal1IDoBg&usg=AFQjCNFscO0NAXRwo5NLd1
2kLn_xIcAR0A&sig2=_IPtY7S5nTqRsNsstVhaIQ
Museum of London 2011. Museum of London acquisition and disposal policy
http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F0F8E5B1-0F59-421C-AE272CC68A62976A/0/AcquisitionandDisposalPolicy.pdf
Museum of London 2011. Museum of London policy on human remains.
http://archive.museumoflondon.org.uk/museumoflondon/Templates/microsites/generi
c/article.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7bA9BC32ED-7D17-4330BFDD-232650A2CB41%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fCentre-for-HumanBioarchaeology%2fPolicies%2fMuseumPolicyonHumanRemains%2ehtm&NRCACHEHINT=NoM
odifyGuest#
Museum of London 2013. London Archaeological Archive and Resource Centre
(LAARC) Standards for deposition.
http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/Collections-Research/LAARC/DeposResource/
78
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
A general exploration of the Collections Trust webpage
http://www.collectionstrust.org.uk/
Archaeological Archives Forum (AAF): www.britarch.ac.uk/archives
Archaeological Data Service/Digital Antiquity Guides to Good Practice
http://guides.archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/g2gp/Deposition_1-1
Dept. Communities and Local Government: National Planning Policy Framework
Section 12
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2
116950.pdf
Hinton, P. 1993. Archives and publication in the real world. In: Southworth, E. (ed.),
"Picking up the pieces” - adapting to change in museums and archaeology,
Conference proceedings, Sheffield 1991. Museum Archaeologist 18, 6-9.
INST ARCH Pers
Holm, S. A. 1998. Facts & artefacts: how to document a museum collection (2nd ed.).
Cambridge, McDonald Institute. INST ARCH ME 2 HOL
Owen, J. (ed.) 1995. Towards an accessible archaeological archive: The transfer of
archaeological archives to museums; guidelines for use in England, Northern
Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Society of Museum Archaeologists. INST ARCH
ME2 OWE
http://www.socmusarch.org.uk/docs/towardsaccessiblearchive.pdf
Mepham, L. 2000. Archive deposition: a united perspective. In: P. J. Wise (ed.), Significant others: Museums and units, museums and community. Society of Museum Archaeologists 25, 7-10. INST ARCH PERS
Pearce, S. (ed.) 2000. Researching material culture. Leicester, University of Leicester. INST ARCH AH Qto PEA
Shanks, M., C. Tilley 1992. Re-constructing archaeology: theory and practice (2nd
edition). London, Routledge. INST ARCH AH SHA
Swain, H. 1998. A Survey of archaeological archives in England. London, Museums
and Galleries Commission/English Heritage. INST ARCH M4 Qto SWAI
Ucko, P. J. 2000. The biography of a collection: the Sir Flinders Petrie Palestinian
collection and the role of university museums. Museum Management and Curatorship 17/4, 351-399. Inst Arch Pers
79
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
20. Exhibiting artefacts
Martin Schmidt, Niedersächsisches Landesmuseum Hannover
24. March 2016
Exhibiting artefacts is more than simply putting them in a showcase and producing a
label. This lecture will deal with aspects such as text, light, climate, supports, design
and decoration. However, this is only one side of exhibiting. One must also be aware
of the ethics, politics, message(s), poetics, context and storytelling surrounding artefacts.
In this section, we will browse through the most important issues to be considered
when exhibiting artefacts. We will start with a presentation, followed by a discussion
and a practical component.
To prepare for this lecture, visit different museum displays and also look at brand or
flagship stores, warehouses etc. Compare the exhibition techniques and their openly
expressed and underlying messages. For example, an expansive brand store in
Bond Street is exhibiting its “artefacts” quite differently from a “one-pound-shop” in
your neighbourhood.
Recommended Reading
Parman, A., Flowers, J. J. 2008. Exhibit Makeovers. A Do-IT-Yourself Workbook For Small
Museums. Lanham, Altamira Press. INST ARCH ME 3 PAR
Monti, F., Keene, S. 2013. Museums and silent objects: designing effective exhibitions.
Farnham, Ashgate. INST ARCH ME 3 MON
Cameron, D. 1968. A viewpoint: the museum as a communication system and implications
for museum education. Curator 11/1, 33-40. On-line
Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed) 1999. The Educational Role of the Museum (second edition). London, Routledge, 3-27. (chapters 1-4), INST ARCH MF 4 HOO, ISSUE DESK IOA HOO
9
Knez, E. I., Wright, G. 1970. The museum as a communication system: an assessment of
Cameron’s viewpoint. Curator 13/3, 204-212. On-line
Belcher, M. 1991. Exhibitions in Museums. Leicester University Press. INST ARCH ME 3
BEL
Serrell, B. 1996. Exhibit labels: An interpretive approach. Altamira Press. INST ARCH ME 3
SER
Websites
Browse this site: Museum Ideas, www.museum-id.com
Anon 2002 The Exhibition Handbook; A Student Guide for Creating & Presenting Exhibitions,
The New School of Northern Virginia, Fairfax, VA, online:
http://www.newschoolva.com/files/Exhibition_Handbook.pdf
Helpsheet; Exhibition and Display Basics,
http://mavic.asn.au/assets/Info_Sheet_11_Display_Basics.pdf
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, 2005, Low-cost exhibition display techniques,
He Rauemi Resource Guides, October, issue 7, online:
http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/NationalServices/Resources/LowCostEx
hibitionTechniques.pdf
Boylan, P. J (ed), 2004, Running a museum; a practical handbook. ICOM – International
Council of Museums, Maison de l’UNESCO. Online
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001410/141067e.pdf
Also browse also through course handbooks of IoA Museum Studies for a wider look on exhibition and display issues.
80
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
STRAND C – RESEARCH PROJECT PROPOSALS
Developing relevant methodologies for addressing archaeological
research questions
Term II, Room 410, Reading Week
In this part of the course you will use specific case studies to consider how the analysis of artefact assemblages can be used to address wider research questions. The
intention is to encourage a critical discussion of the problems and potentials of integrating the analyses of distinctive artefact types. The class will be subdivided in
groups and assigned specific projects. For each project, a particular site, period,
landscape, or museum collection will be chosen and a specific research question
highlighted. Each team will be given one hour to present the overall project and how
the individual members will contribute to it. The presentation will include overarching
introduction and conclusions, as well as presentations by each specialist outlining the
material of his or her choice (metals, lithics, pottery, wood etc.) discussing how these
artefacts could be recorded and what analytical techniques could be adopted to
tackle the research question that the group has chosen to address.
For example, for a project presentation on medieval Novgorod, you could explore
how to study the development of craft specialisation. One student could take on the
role of pottery ‘specialist’ and discuss what methods of collection, and sampling they
would choose, which analytical techniques are most capable of providing data relevant to the research question, and how the interpretation of ‘their’ pottery could be
used to assess the presence of specialist potters, or full-time cooks, at the site. Other
students might look at the potential of wood, metal, or leather, to address similar issues of craft-specialisation and economic organisation.
It is hoped that the projects will provide the opportunity for a wider discussion of how
diverse data sets; analytical techniques and sampling methods can be co-ordinated
most effectively. In other words, we are expecting you to draw on what you have
learned in strands A and B.
The precise choice of issues, sites and materials will therefore be defined in consultation with the students and with reference to the available literature and in-house
expertise of Institute staff.
The following paragraphs provide an outline of how this part of the course will be organised. The first session of Term II will be devoted to further clarify this and solve
any questions you may have, in addition to giving you a mock-up project presentation
to provide an example.
Preparation
After choosing a site and research topic each Work Group (usually consisting of 3-4
students, and including students from both the MA and the MSc) will be appointed a
member of staff who will provide initial advice and orientation with regard to the research topic and available literature. After this you are encouraged to work together
as a group in preparing a one-page outline of your research topic as well as another
page prepared by each student summarising their specialist contribution. This short
document should be discussed with your appointed staff member at least one week
prior to the Reading Week presentation.
81
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
One week before the presentation, you should upload a handout containing some
basic information (maps, chronology, the main research questions and the methods
to be used) on the Moodle with a selected bibliography, to give your fellow students
the chance to prepare for your presentation. For MSc-students: remember that not
everyone is up to date in analytical methods and the latest acronyms. A short idiot's
guide/list of acronyms may be useful here!
The conference
During Reading Week (11.-15. February, specific date to be confirmed) we will hold a
MA/MSc Conference where every group will present their project proposals as if they
were applying for funding to undertake these projects. You should also provide each
of the class members with a your one-page handout. Staff members present as well
as the other groups will act as the review panel to assess the merits of each project
proposal presented, ask questions and provide feedback. Each team will be appointed as the main designated review panel for another team, but everyone is expected to contribute to the discussion of all proposals.
Each team will be given one hour for their joint presentation, to be followed by discussion. Remember that the primary aim of any visual aid should be to clarify your
ideas or to assist in presenting a clear summary of materials and techniques to the
audience.
We will have strict time keeping. Make sure you do a mock-up presentation to make
sure everything works and the time frame was assessed correctly. Powerpoint can
be difficult to start, USB-sticks tend to misbehave, etc!
The formal review
In the week following the conference, every student will have to submit a formal review of the proposal they have been assigned to review, using the peer-review form
from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) as a template. This will allow everyone to obtain further feedback on their project design and presentation
skills. Together, we will try to agree on which one of the projects presented deserves
the funding to go through.
The project paper
By the end of week 8 (i.e. three weeks after your presentation), you are required to
write a 3000-3500 word Project Paper based on the topic of your seminar presentation, hopefully adjusting your project in the light of the feedback obtained during previous weeks.
This Project Paper will usually consist of a 2000-2500 word research-proposal discussing how you would analyse your chosen material. This should normally include
the following topics:
• introduction to the material you are studying
•
a brief outline previous work relating to the study of this material;
•
a proposal for appropriate methods for collecting, sampling and analysing your
chosen material discussing how this will contribute to the specified research
questions
82
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
•
if you wish, you may briefly consider how the expense and duration of the research work would affect the prioritisation, or timetabling, of the proposal.
In addition to your own research proposal, you should also work with the rest of your
group to collaboratively write a c. 500-1000 word introduction to the project, its theoretical framework and the research question you want to address, thus making each
essay a total of 3000-3500 words (if you wish you may also use part of this joint 5001000 word allocation to write a co-operative conclusion, but this is not essential).
Please print the common parts in italics. Illustrate your text with images that help explain the material and your choice of research methods. Remember that illustrations
have to be properly referenced as well! The cohesion of your independent paper towards a unified research design for the chosen site will be assessed as well.
Avoid empty wordage, try to be as concise as possible. Remember that in real life,
reviewers have to read quite a lot of grant proposals. They will not be impressed by
your immortal prose (though correct grammar, spelling, and short, concise sentences
do help), they want to know what you plan to find out and how, and why this is important for somebody who has never even heard the name of your site, let alone
knows in which country it is located in.
The mark for this Project Paper contributes 3/10 to your overall coursework mark for
this course, with the mark for the powerpoint/keynote presentation being 10% of this.
It is hoped that preparing your seminar presentation and the Project Paper will help
to prepare you to integrate your data analysis in relation to a suitable research question within your final dissertation.
Your submission should also include a printout of your slide presentation (at 6 slides
per page), including introductory and concluding slides used for the joint parts of the
presentation (which should be clearly marked as such), as well as the handout.
4. Online Ressources
The Moodle
http://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2448
To enrol with the help of an enrolment key, you need to:
-open up a web browser
-type http://www.ucl.ac.uk/moodle in the address field
-enter UCL ID and password
-click on the [Login] button
-click the "All courses" hyperlink in the left column
-search for the course in the relevant category. (Note it is possible to search using
words from the course title, but not its code unless the code is part of the title)
-click on the hyperlinked name of the course
-enter the enrolment key on the screen that appears, it's g120 (no capitals!)
-click [OK] to confirm that you want to self-enrol
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: The Science Library, especially
the Anthropology section on the on the second floor of the DMS Watson Building.
83
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
The Library of Senate House (http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/search/) also hold a
very useful collection (and is fun to visit). If you can't locate a book, there is also the
British Library (http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/?func=file&file_name=login-bl-list) at King's
Cross and the Library of the Society of Antiquaries (very impressive!)
http://sal.ads.ahds.ac.uk/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?DB=local&PAGE=First).
You may also want to consult the Library of the Institute of Classical studies
(http://catalogue.ulrls.lon.ac.uk/search~S7) or of the School of African and Oriental
Studies (http://lib.soas.ac.uk/).
Almost all relevant journals can now be accessed on-line, check the OPAC and the
online reading-lists.
Collections
The Institute of Archaeology houses a large collection of artifacts from all over the
world.
You can find further information about these collections at:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums/archaeology/, with a searchable database of some of
our holdings available at:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/ioacollections/site.php
Anyone interested in viewing specific material should contact the Keeper
of Collections to book space in our collections research room (Rachael Sparks at
r.sparks@ucl.ac.uk)
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 Coordinator, but if they feel this is not appropriate, they should
consult their Degree Tutor, the Academic Administrator (Judy Medrington), or the
Chair of Teaching Committee (Dr. Mark Lake).
Some useful Web-sites:
Societies etc.
Council for British Archaeology - http://www.britarch.ac.uk/
Institute of Field Archaeologists: http://www.archaeologists.net/
English Heritage: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/
European Association of Archaeologists: http://www.e-a-a.org/
The Prehistoric Society: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/prehistoric/
Society of Museum archaeologists - http://www.socmusarch.org.uk/index.htm
American Anthropological Association: http://www.aaanet.org/
SAA - Society for American Archaeology: http://saa.org/
Grant giving bodies
A.H.R.C: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/
84
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
ESRC: http://www.esrc.ac.uk/home.html
Leverhulme Trust: http://www.leverhulme.org.uk/
The British Academy: http://www.britac.ac.uk/
Libraries and Journals
Assemblage: http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/
Internet Archaeology: http://intarch.ac.uk/
Journal of Field Archaeology: http://jfa-www.bu.edu/
Library of Congress Home Page: http://www.loc.gov/
The Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries: http://www.mla.gov.uk/
The British Library: http://www.bl.uk/
List of Archaeology journals On-line:
http://www.library.soton.ac.uk/info/subjects/2002ej/
Archaeology Units and Museums etc.
British Museum: http://www.british-museum.ac.uk/index.html
Jorvik Viking Centre: http://www.jorvik-viking-centre.co.uk/
Museum of London, http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/
National Museums of Scotland: http://www.nms.ac.uk/
AOC Archaeology Group: http://www.aocarchaeology.com/
Cambridge Archaeological Unit: http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/CAU/
Museum of London Archaeology Service: http://www.molas.org.uk/
Oxford Archaeology Unit: http://WWW.oau-oxford.com/
Pre-Construct Archaeology: http://www.pre-construct.com/
Specialists Finds groups
(useful list at http://www.archaeology.co.uk)
Ancient Metallurgy:
http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/archsci/depart/resgrp/amrg/amrginfo.htm
Ceramic Petrology Group: http://www.ceramicpetrology.uklinux.net/index.html
Finds Research Group AD700-1700: http://www.frg700-1700.org.uk/
Lithic Studies Society: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/lithics/
Prehistoric Ceramic Research Group: http://www.pcrg.org.uk/
Roman Pottery: http://www.potsherd.uklinux.net/
Archaeological Leather Group: http://www.archleathgrp.org.uk/
Quern Study Group: http://www.quernstudygroup.org.uk
Jobs etc.
British Archaeology Jobs: http://www.bajr.org/
CBA guide to UK archaeology On-line: http://www.britarch.ac.uk/info/uklinks.html
Museum Jobs: http://www.museumjobs.com/
http://www.collectionstrust.org.uk/
On-line Collections etc.
Archaeology Data Service: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/
Çatalhöyük Excavations: http://www.catalhoyuk.com/
Museum of London’s ceramics and glass:
http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/ceramics
85
G120, Artefact Studies, Course Handbook 2015/16
Petrie Museum: http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/
Portable Antiquities Scheme: http://www.finds.org.uk/
Site records
Archaeology Data Service: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/
Historic environment Records (heritagegateway.org.uk)
Database of Irish excavation records (www.excavations.ie)
national road authority archaeological database:
http://www.gov.ie/services/archaeology-database/
Canmore: canmore.org.uk (Scotland)
Discovery and excavation in Scotland:
http://www.archaeologyscotland.org.uk/our-projects/discovery-and-excavationscotland
Archwilio (Wales): http://www.cofiadurcahcymru.org.uk/arch/
Research Frameworks
http://www.scottishheritagehub.com/
86