UCL Institute of Archaeology
2015-16
ARCL G188:
Environmental Archaeology in Practice
MSc Core Course, 15 credits
Turnitin Class ID: 2971059
Turnitin Password: IoA1516
Course Co-ordinator: Louise Martin
Room 303, Institute of Archaeology
Email: louise.martin@ucl.ac.uk
Tel: 020 7679 4769 (internal extension 24769)
G188: Environmental Archaeology in Practice
(Course value: 15 credits)
Course teachers
JA - Jamie Andrews (MOLA – Museum of London Archaeology)
MA-K – Manuel Arroyo-Kalin (IoA)
SB – Sandra Bond (IoA)
MB - Martin Bridge (IoA)
KD - Karen Deighton (MOLA – Museum of London Archaeology)
DF – Dorian Fuller (IoA)
MH – Matilda Holmes (IoA Teaching Fellow)
LM - Louise Martin (IoA)
SW – Sylvia Warman (Science Advisor, English Heritage)
Introduction
This handbook contains basic information about the content and administration of this
course. If you have further 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 on the web site, and in the general MA/MSc handbook. 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.
Aims
The principal aims of this core course are to develop a working knowledge of key
methods in data analysis for environmental archaeology, including dating and
the analysis of radiocarbon calibration, sampling strategies on-site and off-site,
quantification of biological datasets, and approaches to statistical analysis.
Problems in taphonomy of environmental datasets will also be introduced. This
course is intended to provide the theoretical and analytical grounding for practical
projects in zooarchaeology, archaeobotany and geoarchaeology.
Objectives
On successful completion of this course a student should:
• Have an overview of current on- and off-site environmental archaeology
practices, specifically in relation to archaeobotany, zooarchaeology and
geoarchaeology.
• Be familiar with assessing site formation processes, and assessing appropriate
sampling and retrieval methods.
3
•
•
•
•
Be aware of issues in the application and interpretation of dating techniques.
Be familiar with laboratory analytical approaches for assessing taphonomy,
and potential for assemblage analysis.
Be familiar with statistical approaches to quantification of environmental
archaeology assemblages.
Be familiar with assessing a range of material for their analysis potential, and
assessing datasets for their interpretation potential.
Learning Outcomes
1) Critical analysis of arguments; verbal discussion skills;
2) Understanding of assessment of site formation processes;
3) Understanding of practical archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological
sampling, assessment and analytical procedures;
4) Understanding the creation of archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological
data;
5)Written and oral skills in analysis and presentation;
6)Application of acquired knowledge to new situations.
Teaching
This core course is taught in the spring term (Term II), beginning on Wednesday 13th
January 2016. There will be no formal teaching in Reading Weeks.
The course consists of 10 x 2-hour sessions. The course is taught by a mixture of
lectures by the instructors, seminar discussions, with presentations by students, and
some practical classes, with a commercial unit visit also.
Lecture/seminar time:
Wednesdays: 9-11am room 412, Institute of Archaeology
**There will be one practical class taught at MoLA in London on 9th March,
c10.30am-4pm; exact finish time is to be arranged but it will take most of the day and
requires that we travel across London. Please keep this day free in advance.
Prerequisites
Resources & Subsistence (ARCL G187) serves as a prerequisite for this course, but
students from other degrees can on occasion take G188 as a stand-alone with the
coordinator’s permission.
4
G188: Term II Timetable 2016
Lectures/Seminars: Wednesdays 9-11am
ROOM 410 Institute of Archaeology
DATE
UCL WEEK TOPIC (LECTURER)
13th January Introduction and course overview; assessments, deadlines. Seminar:
sampling and formation processes (LM)
20th January Dating methods: radiocarbon, dendrochronology and
calibration (MB)
27th January The Soil Matrix I (MA-K) shared with G104 students.
3rd February Quantification: approaches to zooarchaeological and archaeobotanical
datasets (preparation for Assignment 1) (LM)
10th February IoA Lab Tours (SB) tbc
Backup class for Quantification Assignment 1 (LM)
15th – 19th February (READING WEEK – NO CLASSES)
24th February Analysing and interpreting crop processing (DF)
2nd March
Environmental Archaeology in Commercial Archaeological Projects
(SW)
9th March
A HANDS-ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESSING SESSION at
MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) and introduction to
LAARC (London Archaeological Archive) (MH, JA, KD)
16th March
Bioarchaeological & Geoarchaeological datasets: assessing case-studies
(student presentations for Assignment 2) (LM, MW, MH)
23rd March
Bioarchaeological & Geoarchaeological datasets: assessing casestudies (student presentations for Assignment 2) (LM, MW, MH)
5
Workload
The total workload for this course is 150 hours, broken down in the following way:
Lectures
Seminars/Practicals
Private reading/preparation
Written work
TOTAL workload
10 hours
10 hours
70 hours
60 hours
150 hours
Assessment
This course is assessed by the following: (total = 4,000 words)
Type of Assessment
1) Quantification Report (1,425-1,575 words)
Percentage of final course mark
35%
2) Essay (Case Study Assessment, 2,375-2,625 words)
65%
The essay is based around either a single case study, two contrasting casestudies, or an investigated archaeological landscape. Overall, there must be
geoarchaeological, archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological data to evaluate.
Essay question:
Evaluate the sampling strategy, quantification, presentation and interpretation of
zooarchaeological, archaeobotanical and geoarchaeological data, in relation to the
research aims of the project.
*Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no
penalty for using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply for
your guidance to indicate the sort of length that is expected.
The Quantification Report is due on Monday 29th February 2016 (tbc)
The Essay (Case Study Assessment) is due during at the end of term (actually during
the first week of the Easter break), Thursday 31th March 2016 (tbc)
Turnitin Codes
The Turnitin 'Class ID' is 2971059. This year’s password for all IoA courses is
IoA1516. Further information is given on the IoA website. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook/turnitin
Turnitin advisers will be available to help you via email: ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk
if needed.
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.
6
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 regularly.
FEEDBACK
In trying to make this course as effective as possible, we welcome feedback from students
during the course of the year. All students are asked to give their views on the course in an
anonymous questionnaire which will be circulated at one of the last sessions of the course.
These questionnaires are taken seriously and help the Course Co-ordinator to develop the course.
The summarised responses are considered by the Institute's Staff-Student Consultative
Committee, Teaching Committee, and by the Faculty Teaching Committee.
If students are concerned about any aspect of this course we hope they will feel able to talk to
the Course Co-ordinator, but if they feel this is not appropriate, they should consult their Degree
Tutor, the Academic Administrator (Judy Medrington), or the Chair of Teaching Committee (Dr.
Karen Wright).
___________________________
APPENDIX A: 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
pigeon-hole 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 7
should contact UCL Student Support and Wellbeing 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.
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.
8
G188: Environmental Archaeology in Practice
Preliminary Reading List
Week 1: Sampling and Formation Processes (LM)
All environmental archaeological enquiry needs consideration of site formation
processes before sampling strategies are designed and implemented. This session
discusses various considerations with off- and on-site formation processes; we then
consider survival potentials for different bioarchaeological/environmental
archaeological finds; sampling strategies are then discussed, and their applicability
in different environmental and research or constraining situations. Students are
asked to think through the most effective sampling strategies for different
archaeological sites and landscapes.
O'Connor, T & Evans, J. 2005. Environmental archaeology: principles and
methods. Stroud : Sutton. INST ARCH BB 6
Wilkinson, K. and Stevens, C. 2003. Environmental Archaeology. Approaches,
Techniques & Applications. Tempus, Stroud.
And see national guidelines on environmental archaeology:
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/archaeologicalscience/environmental-archaeology/
Sampling
Courty, M.-A. 1992. Soil micromorphology in archaeology. In: New Developments in
Archaeological Science (ed. A.M. Pollard), pages 39-59. Proceedings of the British
Academy 77. Oxford: Oxford University Press. INST ARCH AJ POL
Courty, M., Paul Goldberg, Richard Macphail.1989. Soils and micromorphology in archaeology
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1989.
[ISSUE DESK IOA COU 1]
9
Dobney, K., Hall, A., Kenward, H. and Milles, A. 1992. A working classification of sample
types for environmental archaeology. Circaea 9, 24-26. INST ARCH Periodicals
Jones, Martin K. 1991. Sampling in palaeoethnobotany, in Progress in Old World
Palaeoethnobotany (W. Van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa, and K.-H. Behre eds.), pp.
53-63. Rotterdam: Balkema
O'Connell, J. F., K. Hawkes and N. G. Blurton-Jones 1991. Distribution of refuse-producing
activities at interpretation of archaeological spatial patterning (E. M. Kroll and T. D.
Price eds.), pp. 61-77. New York: Plenum Press.
Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macphail, R. I. 1994. The reworking of urban stratigraphy by human and natural processes.
In Urban-Rural Connexions: Perspectives from Environmental Archaeology. (eds A.
R. Hall and H. K. Kenward), pages 13-43. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 47. INST
ARCH BB6 HAL
Macphail, R.I. and Goldberg, P. 1995. Recent advances in micromorphological
interpretations of soils and sediments from archaeological sites. In:
Archaeological Sediments and Soils: analysis, interpretation and management (eds
A.J. Barham and R.I. Macphail), pages 1-24. London: Institute of Archaeology. INST
ARCH BA23 BAR; INST ARCH Issue Desk BAR1
Macphail, R.I. and Cruise, J. 2001. The soil micromorphologist as team player. In Earth
Sciences and Archaeology (eds P. Goldberg, V.T. Holliday and C.R. Ferring), pages 241267. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic.
*Orton, C. 2000. Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chapters 3 and 6. INST ARCH AK 10 ORT
Quine, T. A. 1995. Soil analysis and archaeological site formation studies, In:
Archaeological Sediments and Soils: analysis, interpretation and management (eds
A.J. Barham and R.I. Macphail), pages 77-98. London: Institute of Archaeology.
INST ARCH BA23 BAR; INST ARCH Issue Desk BAR1
Simpson, Ian, James H. Barrett and Karen B. Milek 2005. Interpreting the Viking Age to
Medieval Period Transition in Norse Orkney through cultural oil and sediment
analyses, Geoarchaeology 20(4): 355-377
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jissue/109933747]
Solomon, S., Davidson, I. and Watson, D. 1990. 'Problem Solving in Taphonomy'. Tempus
Vol 2. University of Queensland, Anthropology Museum.
Turner, A. (1984) Sub-sampling animal bone assemblages: reducing the work-load or
reducing the information? Circaea 2/2, 69-75.
Veen, M. van der, and Fieller, N. 1982. Sampling seeds. Journal of Archaeological Science
9 (3) 287-298. INST ARCH Periodicals
Sampling and taphonomy off-site
Butzer, K. 1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 67-122
Cannon, M. 2001 Archaeofaunal Relative Abundance, Sample Size and Statistical Methods,
Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 185-195.
French, C. 2003. Geoarchaeology in Action. Studies in Soil Micromophology and landscape
evolution. London: Routledge. Pp. 10-58
Lyman, R.L. and Ames, K. 2004 Sampling to Redundancy in Zooarchaeology: lessons from
the Portland Basin, Northwestern Oregon and Southwestern Washington, Journal of
Ethnobiology, 24/2.
Schuldenrein , J., Rita P. Wright , M. Rafique Mughal and M. Afzal Khan 2004. Landscapes,
soils, and mound histories of the Upper Indus Valley, Pakistan: new insights on the
Holocene environments near ancient Harappa, Journal of Archaeological Science,
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 777-797. [INST ARCH periodical.
Waters M.R. 1992. Principles of Geoarchaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona.
CHAPTER 7. Post Burial disturbance, pp. 291-3 16. INST ARCH BA 10
WAT.
Assemblage formation (animal remains)
Binford, L.R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press. (Dip into this -
10
it’s too dense to read much of!). INST ARCH DEC BIN (3copies) Lyman, R.L. 1984.
‘Bone density and differential survivorship of fossil classes’, Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 3, 2 59-299.
Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(Especially Chapter 7: Frequencies of skeletal parts). INST ARCH BB£ LYM (8
copies)
Klein, R.G. 1989. Why does Skeletal Part Representation Differ Between Smaller and Larger
Bovids at Klasies River Mouth and other Archaeological Sites?
Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 363-381.
Payne, S. and Munson, P.J. 1985. ‘Ruby and how many squirrels? the destruction of bones by
dogs’ in Palaeobiological Investigations - research design,
methods and data analysis (eds) N. Fieller, D. Gilbertson and N. Ralph. Oxford:
BAR International Series 266, 31-39.
Marshall, F. 1994. ‘Food sharing and body part representation in Okiek faunal assemblages’,
Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 65-77. INST ARCH
teaching collection.Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Kent, S. 1993 'Variability in Faunal Assemblages: the influence of hunting skill, sharing, dogs,
and mode of cooking on faunal remains at a sedentary Kalahari community' Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 12 pp323-385
(especially pp341-348).
Moore, H. (1981). Bone refuse: possibilities for the future. In A. Sheridan and G. Bailey
Economic Archaeology. Oxford: BAR Int. Series 96, 87-94.
Crabtree, P. (1990). 'Zooarchaeology and complex societies: some uses of faunal analysis for the
study of trade, social status, and ethnicity.' in (ed) M. Schiffer) Archaeological Method
and Theory 2 pp 155-205. INST ARCH teaching collection.
Week 2: Dating methods: radiocarbon, dendrochronology and
calibration (MB)
This session introduces the potentials and problems of the various dating techniques
commonly applied to environmental remains, and outlines best practice and guidelines
for the use of particularly radiocarbon and dendrochronology. Students undertake
class exercises with radiocarbon calibration approaches.
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/archaeological-science/scientific-dating/
Radiocarbon
R. J. Telford, E. Heegaard, and H. J.B. Birks (2004) The intercept is a poor estimate of a
calibrated radiocarbon age. The Holocene vol. 14: 296 - 298.
*Bayliss, A., and Bronk Ramsey, C., 2003, Pragmatic Bayesians: a decade of integrating
radiocarbon dates into chronological models, in Tools for constructing chronologies:
crossing disciplinary boundaries (eds. C. E. Buck and A. R. Millard), 25–41, SpringerVerlag.
James A. Zeidler; Caitlin E. Buck; Clifford D. Litton 1998. Integration of Archaeological
Phase Information and Radiocarbon Results from the Jama River Valley, Ecuador: A
Bayesian Approach Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 9: 160-179.
Millard, A 2006 Bayesian Analysis of Pleistocene Chronometric Methods.
Archaeometry 48 (2), 359–375. doi: 10.111 1/j. 1475-4754.2006.0026 1 .x
Dendrochronology
Eckstein, D., Baillie, M.G.L. & Egger, H. 1984. Dendrochronological Dating. Handbook
for Archaeologists No.2, European Science Foundation: Strasbourg. 55pp. INST ARCH AJ
10 ECK; INST ARCH Issue Desk AJ 10 ECK
OR
11
Hillam, J. (1998) Dendrochronology: Guidelines on producing and interpreting
dendrochronological dates. Ancient Monuments Laboratory. English Heritage, London.
35pp. INST ARCH AJ 10 DEN; INST ARCH Issue Desk AJ 10 DEN
Baillie, M.G.L. 1995. A Slice Through Time: dendrochronology and precision dating. B.T.
Batsford Ltd, London. 176pp.
Fritts, H. 1976. Tree Rings and Climate. Academic Press: London. 567pp.
Berger, R., Giertz, V., Horn, W. 1971. Can German tree-ring curves be applied in
England and France? Vernacular Architecture 2, 3-6.
Bridge, M.C. 1988. The dendrochronological dating of oak in southern England. Medieval
Archaeology 32, 166- 174.
Bridge, M. C. 1995. Tree rings, sequence matching and response function. In: Statistical
Modelling of Quaternary Science Data. [Eds. Maddy, D. & Brew, J.] Quaternary Research
Association Technical Guide No. 5, Pgs 107- 123. QRA, Cambridge.
Hillam, J., Groves, C.M., Brown, D.M., Baillie, M., Coles, J., Coles, B. 1990.
Dendrochronology of the English Neolithic. Antiquity 64, 208-220.
Kuniholm, P.I. 1995. Dendrochronology. In Science in Archaeology: A Review (ed P.E.
McGovern) American Journal of Archaeology 99, 99-102.
Kuniholm, P.I., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Newton, M., Latini, C.E., Bruce, M.J. 1996
Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220-718
BC. Nature 381, 780-783.
Morgan, R.A. 1975. The selection and sampling of timber from archaeological sites for
identification and tree-ring analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 2, 221-230.
Trenard, Y. 1982. Making wood speak. Forestry Abstracts 43, 729-759.
1996. Tree Rings, Environment and Humanity. Proceedings of the International Conference,
Tucson, Arizona, 17- 21 May 1994. Edited by Dean, J.S., Meko, D.M. and Swetnam, T.W.
Radiocarbon, Arizona. 889pp.
Week 3: The Soil Matrix I (MA-K)
This lecture (shared with students of ARCLG104) sets out the contrast
between soils and sediments and reviews key types of sedimentary processes
and soil forming dynamics, providing a background to assess the integrity of
sequential environmental archives lodged in sediments and soils.
Required readings:
French, C. A. I. (2003). Geoarchaeology in Action: Studies in Soil Micromorphology
and Landscape Evolution. London: Routledge. Ch 4
Goldberg, P., & Macphail, R. (2006).Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology.
Oxford: Blackwell, Ch 3
Jenny, H. (1941). Factors of soil formation. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Johnson, D. L., Domier, J. E. J., & Johnson, D. N. (2005). Reflections on the nature
of soil and its biomantle. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(1),
11-31.
O'Connor, T., & Evans, J. G. (2005).Environmental Archaeology: Principles and
Methods (2nd ed.). Stroud: Sutton Publishing. Ch. 3 (pp. 31-46)
12
Week 4: Quantification: approaches to datasets (LM)
Quantification is an essential part of any assemblage analysis, for both
zooarchaeology and archaeobotant. In this session, we review the various measures
of abundance that have been used in data analysis, to understand their assumptions,
biases and appropriate uses. Students are taken through the most common
currently-used methods of quantification, critically, in preparation for Assignment 1
for this course.
Cannon, M. 2001 Archaeofaunal Relative Abundance, Sample Size and Statistical Methods,
Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 185-195.
*Grayson, D.K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the analysis of Archaeological
Faunas. Orlando: Academic.
Hubbard, R. N. L. B. and A. Clapham 1992. Quantifying macroscopic plant remains, Review
of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73: 117-132
Jones, G. E. M. 1991. Numerical analysis in archaeobotany, In Progress in Old World
Palaeoethnobotany (W. Van Zeist, K. Wasylikowsa, and K-E Behre eds.), pp.6380. Rotterdam: Balkema [INST ARCH BB VAN, with 1 copy at issue desk]
*Klein, R.G. and Cruz-Uribe, K. (1984) The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological
Sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (see pp24-38).
Lyman, R.L. (1994). 'Quantitative units and terminology in zooarchaeology' American
Antiquity 59(1) pp36-71.
Figueiral, I. 2005. Quantification in charcoal analysis? Yes, but not always possible.
Examples from problematic Portuguese sites. In Molera, J., Farjas, J., Roura, P. and
Pradell, T. (eds.) Avances en Arqueometría 2005: Actas del VI Congreso Ibérico de
Arqueometría (Universitat de Girona, 16-19 November 2005) pp. 223-228.
[download: http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~easouti/Biblio.htm ]
*Pearsall, D. 1989. Palaeoethnobotany: a handbook of procedures. Left Coast Press.
Redding, R. 1984. Theoretical determinants of a herder’s decisions: modelling variation in
the sheep/goat ratio. In J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson Animals in Archaeology 3:
Early herders and their flocks, 223-241. Oxford: BAR Int. Series 202.
Reitz, E. and Wing, E. 1999. Zooarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marean, C.W. and Spencer, L.M. 1991. ‘Impact of carnivore ravaging on zooarchaeological
measures of element abundance’, American Antiquity 56 (4), 645-658.
Marshall, F. and Pilgram, T. 1993 NISP vs MNI in Quantification of Body Part
Representation, American Antiquity 58.
Watson, J.P.N. 1979. 'The estimation of the relative frequencies of mammalian species:
Khirokitia 1972' Journal of Archaeological Science 6 pp127-137. [Introduces the concept
of diagnostic zones].
Week 6: Analysing and Interpreting Crop Processing (DF)
Hillman, G. C. 1981. Reconstructing Crop Husbandry Practices from Charred Remains of
Crops, in Farming Practice in British Prehistory (R. Mercer ed.), pp. 123-161.
Edinburgh: University Press.
or alternatively:
Hillman, G. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: The appilication of
ethnographic model from turkey, in Plants and ancient man: studies in palaeoethnobotany
(W. van Zeist and W. Casparie eds.), pp. 1-41. Rotterdam: Balkema [INST ARCH BB 5
VAN; with 1 copy at issue desk]
Harvey, E. and Fuller, D. Q. 2005. Investigating crop processing through phytolith analysis:
the case of rice and millets. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 739-752
[can download from: www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/%7Etcrndfu/downloads.htm,
Or sciencedirect.com].
13
Fuller, Dorian Q & Chris J. Stevens 2009. Agriculture and the development of complex
societies. In A. Fairbairn & Ehud Weiss (eds). From Foragers to Farmers. Papers in
Honour of Gordon C. Hillman. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Pp. 37-57.
Reddy, Seetha N. 1997. If the threshing floor could talk: integration of agriculture and
pastoralism during the Late Harappan in Gujarat, India, Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 16: 162-187 [INST ARCH PERS; also
available on-line]
Jones, G. E. M. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: Ethnographic models
from Greece, pp. 42-61 in W. Van Ziest and W. A. Casparie (eds.) Plants and Ancient
Man - Studies in Paleoethnobotany . Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema.
Jones, G. E. M. 1987. A statistical approach to the archaeological identification of crop
processing, Journal of Archaeological Science 14: 311-323
Jones, Martin K. 1985. Archaeobotany beyond subsistence reconstruction, in Beyond
Domestication in Prehistoric Europe (G. W. Barker and C. Gamble eds.), pp. 107-128.
New York: Academic Press [ISSUE DESK IOA BAR 2]
Stevens, C. J. 2003a An investigation of consumption and production models for prehistoric
and Roman Britain, Environmental Archaeology, 8, 2003, 61-76
Van der Veen, Marike 1992. Crop Husbandry Regimes. Sheffield Archaeological
Monographs. Chap 7. [INST ARCH DAA 100 VAN]
Van der Veen, Marike and G. E. M. Jones (2006) A re-analysis of agricultural production
and consumption: implications for understanding the British Iron Age, Vegetation
History and
Archaeobotany
15(3):
217-228
[download
through
www.springerlink.com]
Wilkinson, K. and Stevens, C. J. 2003. Environmental Archaeology. Approaches,
Techniques, Applications. Tempus. Pp. 136-167, 175-208
Dung vs. Crop-processing Waste
Miller, N. and T. L. Smart 1984. Intentional burning of dung as fuel: a mechanism for the
incorporation of charred seeds into the archaeological record, Journal of Ethnobiology
4: 15-28 [INST ARCH PERS]
Miller, Naomi F. Seed eaters of the ancient Near East: Human or Herbivore?, Current
Anthropology 37(3): 52 1-528
14
Hillman, G. C., A. J. Legge and P. A. Rowley-Conwy 1997. On the charred seeds from
Epipalaeolithic Abu Hureyra, Current Anthropology 3 8(4): 651-655
Miller, N. F. 1997. Reply to Hillman et al., Current Anthropology 38(4): 655-659
[ANTHROPOLOGY PERS; these may be downloaded through the UCL network from
http:/uk.jstor.org/]
Charles, Michael 1998. Fodder from Dung: the Recognition and Interpretation of DungDerived Plant Material from Archaeological Sites, Environmental Archaeology 1: 111-122
[INST ARCH PERS]
Taphonomy and Plant Assemblage Formation (excluding crop-processing)
Asouti, E., and P. Austin (2005) Reconstructing woodland vegetation and its relation to human
societies, based on the analysis and interpretation of archaeological wood charcoal macroremains. Environmental Archaeology 10: 1-18.
Cappers, R. 1995. A palaeoecological model for the interpretation of wild plant species, Vegetation
History and Archaeobotany 4: 249-257
Grieg, J. 1981. The investigation of a medieval barrel-latrine from Worcester, Journal of
Archaeological Science 8: 256-282 [Teaching Collectionn 1759; INST ARCH PERS]
Hastorf, C. 1991. Gender, space and food in prehistory. In: Engendering Archaeology (eds
J. Gero & M. Conkey), pp. 132-159. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hillman, G. C. 1989. Late Palaeolithic plant foods from Wadi Kubbaniya in Upper Egypt: dietary
diversity, infant weaning, and seasonality in a riverine environment, in Foraging and Farming
(D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman eds.), pp. 207-233. London: Unwin and Hyman [INST
ARCH HA HAR, or Issue Desk IOA HAR 6]
[alternative reading: G. Hillman, E. Madeyska and J. Hather. (1989) Wild plant foods and diet at late
Palaeolithic Wadi Kubbaniya : the evidence from charred remains, in The prehistory of Wadi
Kubbaniya Vol. 2. (Fred Wendorf, Romuald Schild and Angela E. Close eds.). Dallas, Tex. :
Southern Methodist University Press: Pp. 162-242. Teaching Collection 918;
EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS E 7 WEN]
Martinoli, Daniele. 2009. Reconstruction of local woodland vegetation and use of firewood at two
Epipalaeolithic cave sites in southwest Anatolia (Turkey). In A. Fairbairn & Ehud Weiss (eds).
From Foragers to Farmers. Papers in Honour of Gordon C. Hillman. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Pp. 161-170
Mithen, S. (ed.) 2000. Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology : the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic
project, 1988-1998. Cambridge : McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. [Read
section on plant remains and their interpretation]
Wollstonecroft M (2002) "The Fruit of their labour: plants and plant processing at EeRb 140 (860 ± 60
uncal to 160± 50 uncal B.P.) a late prehistoric hunter-gatherer-fisher site on the southern
Interior Plateau, British Columbia, Canada". Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11: 6170
Marston, J.M. (2009) Modeling wood acquisition strategies from archaeological charcoal remains.
Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 2192-200
Shackleton, C.M. and F. Prins (1992) Charcoal analysis and the "Principle of Least Effort" - A
conceptual model. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 631-637.
Zutter, C. 1999. Congruence and Concordance in Archaeobotany: Assessing Micro- and Macrobotanical Data sets from Icelandic Middens, Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 833-844.
Week 7: Environmental Archaeology in Commercial Archaeological
Projects (SW)
In any archaeological situation, the need to understand the policy for
archaeological remains on land, and how archaeology/heritage should be recorded
or preserved, is paramount. In the UK, guidance is provided through Policy
Documents (from the Secretary of State ultimately). In an increasingly commercial
world, the place of environmental archaeology (what should be recorded,
preserved, stored) needs consideration. In this session, Dr Sylia Warman (English
Heritage Science Advisor) will lead a discussion on the role of environmental
archaeology in archaeological ‘unit’ work, commercial archaeology, or CRM.
Try to skim through these links before the session:
https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/archaeological-science/ http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/policy/ Weeks 9 &10: Bioarchaeological and Geoarchaeological Datasets:
assessing case-studies. (Student presentations).
Students should each present a 10 minute illustrated talk (Powerpoint or other) on
their case-study for Assignment 2, with a brief introduction to their project of
choice, and a summary of their evalution (of sampling strategy, quantification,
presentation and interpretation of zooarchaeological, archaeobotanical and
geoarchaeological data, in relation to the research aims of the project). Please keep to
time, so there will be 5 minutes for questions and discussion. *These presentations
are NOT assessed.
SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CASE-STUDY ASSESSMENT:
You may want to use one of these case-studies for the casestudy assignment, or you are also free to select a case-study
yourself, but please discuss your selection in advance with the
course leader, and ensure there is enough data (for at least two
environmental archaeology ‘specialisms’) for in-depth
discussion.
Kebara Cave
Ofer Bar-Yosef, Liliane Meignen (eds). 2007. Kebara Cave, Mt. Carmel, Israel:
the Middle and Upper Paleolithic archaeology. Part I.
Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,
Harvard University. DBE BAR
Nabta Playa, Egypt
Wendorf, Fred.: Holocene settlement of the Egyptian Sahara..
New York : Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, c2001-
c2002. DCA 100 WEN
Çatalhöyük, Neolithic Turkey
Most recent publication series:
Çatalhöyük excavations : the 2000-2008 seasons / edited by Ian Hodder (2014).
British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara & Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at
UCLA. See Project Research Volumes 7-10 for excavations and finds analyses. All at
INST ARCH DBC 10 HOD.
Older publications:
Ian Hodder (ed) 2005. Inhabiting Çatalhöyük : reports from the 1995-99 seasons
/ by members of the Çatalhöyük teams. Cambridge : McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research ; London : British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
INST ARCH DBC 10 HOD
Ian Hodder (ed) 2007 Excavating Çatalhöyük: South, North and KOPAL area reports
from the 1995-99 Seasons. . Cambridge : McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research ; London : British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. INST ARCH DBC 10
HOD
Franchthi Cave
Excavations at Franchthi Cave, Greece 2, Landscape and people of the Franchthi
region/ Tjeerd H. Van Andel and Susan B. Sutton/ with contributions by Julie M.
Hanson and Charles J. Vitaliano. Bloomington : Indiana University Press , 1987.
See other Fasciles, e.g. 4. Marine Mollusca, J. Shackleton; 7 Palaeoethnobotany, J.
Hansen; 12 Depositional History of Franchthi Cave, W. Farrand.
All at INST ARCH DAE 10 FRA
Also (for the faunal remains):
Stiner, M. and Munro, N. 2011. On the evolution of diet and landscape during the
Upper Paleolithic through Mesolithic at Franchti Cave (Peloponnese, Greece).
Journal of Human Evolution 60, 618-636.
Mons Claudianus
Maxfield, Valerie A.: 2001. Mons Claudianus : survey and excavation, 1987-1993 /
V. A. Maxfield and D.P.S. Peacock ; with contributions by Jean Bingen ... [et al.] ;
EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS E 22 MON
Mons Claudianus : survey and excavation, 1987-1993 Vol.1, Topography & quarries/
D.P.S. Peacock and V.A. Maxfield ; with contributions by Olwen Williams-Thorpe ...
[et al.] ; illustrations by Seán Goddard, Kathryn Knowles and Nick Bradford..
Le Caire : Institut français d'archéologie orientale , 1997..
EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS E 22 MON
van der Veen, M, 1996. The plant remains from Mons Claudianus, a Roman quarry settlement
in the Eastern Desert of Egypt - an interim report. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany,
5(1-2), 137-41.
Abingdon
Archaeology at Barton Court Farm, Abingdon, Oxon : an investigation of late
Neolithic, Iron Age, Romano-British, and Saxon settlements / edited by David Miles /
with contributions by Philip Armitage ... [et al.].
INST ARCH DAA Qto Series COU 50
Windmill Hill
Whittle, A., Pollard, J. and Grigson, C. 1999. The Harmony of Symbols: The Windmill
Hill causewayed enclosure. Oxbow Books. INST ARCH ISSUE DESK 10 A WHI 17
Ohalo II
Kislev, M., Nadel, D., Carmi, I. 1992. Epipalaeolithic (19000 BP) cereal and fruit
diet at Ohalo II, Sea of Galilee, Israel. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73,
1-4, 161-166.
Nadel, D. 2002 Ohalo II, a 23,000 year old fisher hunter gatherer’s camp on the
shores of the sea of Galilee. University of Haifa.
Nadel, D., Carmi, I., and Segal, D. 1995. Radiocarbon dating of Ohalo II:
archaeological and methodological implications. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 22/6, 811-822.
Piperno, D., Weiss, E., Holst, I. and Nadel, D. 2004. Processing of wild cereal
grains in the Upper Palaeolithic revealed by starch grain analysis, Nature 430, 67073.
Simmons, T. and Nadel, D. 1998. The avifauna of the early Epipalaeolithic site of
Ohalo II (19 400 years BP), Israel: species diversity, habitat and seasonality,
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 8/2, 79-96.
Tsatskin, A. and Nadel, D. 2003. Formation processes at the Ohalo II submerged
prehistoric campsite, Israel, inferred from soil micromorphology and magnetic
susceptibility studies. Geoarchaeology 18/4, 409-432.
Weiss, E., Kislev, M., Simchoni, O. and Nadel, D. 2004. Small grained wild
grasses as staple food at the 23,000 year old site of Ohalo II, Israel. Economic
botany 58, S125-134.