UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ARCL2044 THEORY AND METHODS FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD 2015-­‐‑2016 Core course for second year BA Classical Archaeology and Classical Civilisation 0.5 unit; Thursday 9:00Ȯ11:00, Room B13 IoA Turnitin Class ID: 2970177 Turnitin Password: IoA1516 Coordinator: Kris Lockyear Office: IoA 204c Primary email: noviodunum@hotmail.com; Alternative email: tcfacll@ucl.ac.uk; phone: 7679 4568 Corinna Riva Office: IoA 406 Email: c.riva@ucl.ac.uk; phone 7679 7536 1. OVERVIEW Course contents: This course provides students with an introduction to archaeological theory and methodology relevant to the understanding and analysis of the societies and cultures of the ancient world. The course will include an introduction to key paradigms in the history of archaeological theory (antiquarianism, culture history, processual archaeology, interpretive archaeology, agency theory etc); and key issues and methods in data-­‐‑analysis (excavation strategies, assemblage analysis, artifact typologies, regional analysis etc). Summary weekly schedule: (Term 1) 1. 08/10/15: History and Theory of Classical Archaeology 2. 15/10/15: New Archaeology and Ancient Ecologies 3. 22/10/15: Interpreting Classical Archaeology, in the UK and Europe 4. 29/10/15: Individuals and Identities 5. 5/11/15: Gender and Politics in Classical Archaeology [12/11/15 Ȯ Reading Week] 6. 19/11/15: Research designs in archaeology 7. 26/11/15: Site formation processes 8. 3/12/15: Assemblages: classification, formation and analysis 9. 10/12/15: Patterning from household to city levels 10. 17/12/15: Patterning in the landscape and regional surveys Methods of Assessment: This course is assessed by means of: a) one 2,375-­‐‑2,625-­‐‑
word essay on archaeological theory (50%); b) designing a research project (2,375-­‐‑
2,625 words). There is no examination element to the course. Teaching methods: This course is taught through lectures introducing students to key issues in archaeological theory and methods, and in-­‐‑class discussions for more in-­‐‑depth exploration of specific topics. Workload: There will be 20 hours of lectures for this course. Students will be expected to undertake around 90 hours of reading for the course, plus 78 hours preparing for and producing the assessed work. This adds up to a total workload of some 188 hours for the course. Prerequisites: Students planning to take this course will normally be expected previously to have taken either ARCL1002 Introduction to Roman Archaeology, or ARCL1004 Introduction to Greek Archaeology in their first year, which provides the relevant background material, which will be built upon in this course. 1
2. AIMS, OBJECTIVES Aims: The course aims to provide students with an introduction to key issues in archaeological theory and data analysis in relation to materials from the ancient Mediterranean world and Classical antiquity, providing a theoretical and methodological underpinning for specialized regional and period options taken in the second and third years. Objectives: 1) Develop skills and knowledge required to assess the coherence, value and relevance of a variety of theoretical frameworks employed in archaeology; 2) Gain an understanding of the major developments in the history of archaeological thought and theory, with particular reference to the ancient world; 3) Critical understanding of underlying assumptions, analytical methods and quality of evidence in archaeology of the ancient world; 4) Develop basic practical skills in data analysis and interpretation. Outcomes: On successful completion of the course students should have developed the ability to: ŗǼȱ–Š›œ‘Š•ȱŠ—ȱŒ›’’ŒŠ••¢ȱŠ™™›Š’œŽȱ˜‘Ž›ȱ™Ž˜™•ŽȂœȱŠ›ž–Ž—œDz 2) produce logical and structured arguments supported by relevant evidence; 3) make critical and effective use of skills in organization and analysis of data. 3: ASSESSMENT The provisional deadlines for the following assessment are as follows: a) Essay on archaeological theory Wednesday 25th November 2015 b) Assessment on data analysis Monday 18th January 2016 Except for Affiliate Students present at the Institute for only Term I (see Course Co-­‐‑odinator) Assessment One (theory): Choose one of the following essay topics: 1. In what respects and why is the intellectual tradition of classical archaeology different from mainstream archaeology? What special problems and/or opportunities does this present? 2. ‘ŠȱŠ›Žȱ‘Žȱ”Ž¢ȱŒ‘Š›ŠŒŽ›’œ’Œœȱ˜ȱȃ‘Žȱ—Ž ȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ȄȱŠ—ȱ˜ȱ ‘ŠȱŽ¡Ž—ȱ
has it proven a helpful perspective in classical archaeology? 3. Using two or more case-­‐‑studiesǰȱŒ›’’ŒŠ••¢ȱ’œŒžœœȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’œœȂȱŠ™™›˜ŠŒ‘Žœȱ
to the understanding of ancient landscapes and their value for Classical archaeology. 2
4. ‘Šȱ ™›˜‹•Ž–œȱ ˜ȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’œœȱ ŠŒŽȱ ’—ȱ ›¢’—ȱ ˜ȱ ›ŽŒ˜ŸŽ›ȱ ȃ–ŽŠ—’—œȄȱ ›˜–ȱ
‘Žȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’ŒŠ•ȱ ›ŽŒ˜›ȱ Š—ȱ ‘˜ ȱ Š›ȱ ŒŠ—ȱ ȃŒ˜—Ž¡Ȅȱ Š”Žȱ ‘Ž–ȱ ’—ȱ œžŒ‘ȱ Š—ȱ
endeavor? 5. What theoretical and philosophical debates have informed Classical archaeology outside the confines of Anglo-­‐‑phone scholarship? Answer by using two or more case-­‐‑studies. 6. How has the sociological concept of agency been used by archaeologists to interpret the past? Answer through the analysis of at least two case-­‐‑studies. 7. Either: a) What are the current debates around the notion of identity among Classical archaeologists? Or: b) How has the postcolonial concept of hybridity entered Classical archaeology? Is it a useful concept? Discuss using at least two case-­‐‑studies. 8. What is the place of Classical archaeology in current debates on the politics of archaeology? Can it contribute to such debates and if so how? Discuss using at least two case-­‐‑studies. 9. Using at least two case studies, discuss how gender issues may inform our understanding of the material record of the ancient world. Assessment Two (data): Vericomodium: a Roman town in Central Italy. Vericomodium is a small Roman town in central Italy. Situated in the Apennines, it lies in a valley between two ridges of the mountains on the flat fertile plain at the foot of a small mountain. The valley, some 40km long and up to 6km wide, is extensively used for modern arable agriculture and is largely ploughed land. The footslopes of the mountains are occupied with terraces for vines, and the upper slopes and mountain tops are rough grass and grazing mainly used for sheep and goats. At some point in the post-­‐‑Roman period the settlement shifted slightly onto the lower footslopes of the mountain leaving the site of the Roman town largely unoccupied although the remains were quarried for building stone, much of which can be seen in the medieval walls and palaces of the modern town. In recent years, the modern town has expanded beyond the confines of the medieval walls back onto the flat plain, and as a result the Roman archaeology is now under threat from development. Excavation at the town had been largely limited to some rather crude work in the 1920s. Since the turn of the millennium, however, an international team in close collaboration with the local University and the Soprintendenza have been excavating at the town with excellent results. The team consists of a number of œ–Š••ȱ ȃœž‹-­‐‑
3
™›˜“ŽŒœȄȱ ’‘ȱ œŒ‘˜•Š›œȱ Šȱ ‘Žȱ ŸŠ›’˜žœȱ ž—’ŸŽ›œ’’Žœȱ Š”’—ȱ ›Žœ™˜—œ’‹’•’¢ȱ ˜›ȱ ™Š›œȱ ˜ȱ
the research programme. You have just taken up a position with one of the collaborating Universities and it has been suggested that you might like to design Š—ȱ ’–™•Ž–Ž—ȱ ˜—Žȱ ˜ȱ ‘Žȱ ȃœž‹-­‐‑
™›˜“ŽŒœȄǯȱȱȱȱ—ž–‹Ž›ȱ˜ȱ™˜œœ’‹’•’’ŽœȱŽ¡’œǯ 1. Landscape analysis. Up until now, the project has focused on the site of the main town due to the threat from development. Obviously, it is essential that the town in situated within its wider landscape context. Non-­‐‑destructive survey in the hinterland would be a valuable addition to the project. 2. Finds assemblages. The excavations have turned up large numbers of different classes of finds and the excavators are always after willing scholars to investigate the material. In particular, the coinage, small finds and glass assemblages need analysis. (NB. Choose one of these types of find. You may choose a different class in consultation with the class tutor.) 3. Use of space. The excavations have uncovered a series of second century domestic structures with a rich finds assemblage. Questions have been raised as to ‘˜ ȱ ‘’œȱ œ™ŠŒŽȱ Šœȱ žœŽǯȱ ȱ Š—ȱ Žȱ ’Ž—’¢ȱ œ•ŠŸŽȂœȱ šžŠ›Ž›œǵȱ Œ’Ÿ’¢ȱ Š›ŽŠœǵȱ ˜Œ’Š•ȱ
hierarchy? The evidence available includes environmental evidence from rubbish ™’œȱ ˜žœ’Žȱ ‘Žȱ œ›žŒž›Žœȱ ’—ȱ ‘Šȱ Š™™ŽŠ›œȱ ˜ȱ ‹Žȱ Šȱ ȁ‹ŠŒ”ȱ ¢Š›Ȃȱ Š›ŽŠǰȱ Š•˜—ȱ ’‘ȱ
associated ceramics, pottery and other finds from the grander internal gardens, small finds from some of the smaller roo–œȱŠ—ȱœ˜ȱ˜—ǯȱȱ‘Žȱȃ›’Œ‘Ȅȱ›˜˜–œȱ ’‘ȱŽœœŽ••ŠŽȱ
floors, however, are remarkably free from finds. For your assignment you need to choose ONE of the three suggested research projects. (If you would like to investigate some other aspect of the settlement please consult with Kris Lockyear.) You need to write an informal research design for your project in order to sell the idea to the rest of the team. For all the projects, you need to consider the aims of your piece of research: what are the interesting questions about the ancient world that you are seeking to answer? This will draw heavily on the reading you have undertaken for the theory section of this course (sessions 1 to 5) as well as your wider knowledge of current research issues in classical archaeology. Then, you should draw on your reading for research designs discussed in the session six of the course. Be aware that this is a piece of research that you will undertake, possibly aided by student labour in the summer recess and should be of an appropriate scale. Formation processes are going to be important in your research, and you should mention how these would impact on your project and how you might approach investigating them. This will draw on your reading for session 7 of this course. For each topic you need to consider what analysis methods you might use drawing on your reading from sessions 8 to 10 of the course. You should show 4
awareness of comparative projects such as other field surveys, other finds analyses and so forth. This informal research proposal should be 2,375-­‐‑2,625 words. You should ensure it has a strong structure and use of headings to break the proposal down is recommended. Remember your colleagues are all over-­‐‑worked and stressed and you need to make the aims and methods you propose to use clear. You should demonstrate the context of your design by appropriate referencing of relevant materials. Remember to use the author-­‐‑date system, not footnote referencing. This assignment draws upon the readings for each week of the class. Each week we will also discuss in class how what we have been discussing might be used in the assignment. If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should discuss this with the Course Co-­‐‑ordinator. Students are not permitted to re-­‐‑write and re-­‐‑submit essays in order to try to improve their marks. However, the nature of the assignment and possible approaches to it will be discussed in class, in advance of the submission deadline, if students would like to receive further guidance. Word-­‐‑length The following should not be included in the word-­‐‑count: title page, contents pages, lists of figure and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, lists of references, captions and contents of tables and figures, appendices. The word length for each assignment is ŘǰřŝśȭŘǰŜŘś. 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. 3. SCHEDULE AND SYLLABUS Lectures will be held 9:00-­‐‑11:00 on Thursday mornings in Room B13 in IoA Lecturers: Corinna Riva (CR), Kris Lockyear (KL). FULL SYLLABUS AND READING LIST The following is an outline for the course as a whole, and identifies essential and supplementary readings relevant to each session. Information is provided as to where in the UCL library system individual readings are available; their location and Teaching Collection (TC) number, and status (whether out on loan) can also be accessed on the eUCLid computer catalogue system. Readings marked with an * are considered essential to keep up with the topics covered in the course, and often will form the basis of in-­‐‑class discussions. Copies of individual articles and chapters identified as essential reading are in the 5
Teaching Collection in the Institute Library (where permitted by copyright) or available online. The essay topics are keyed to the lectures, each listing essential reading. While each essay focuses on a particular class, critical evaluation of any one perspective is much enriched by knowledge of others. The strengths and limitations of new archaeology, for example, are best seen in relation to traditional and post-­‐‑
processual archaeologies. In short, to write good essays, you will need to have read at the very least the essential readings from the whole range of topics. Session 1 (lectures 1Ȯ2): History and Theory of Classical Archaeology Lecture 1: Theory and theorising in Classical Archaeology Introduction: what is theory for Classical Archaeology? Has Classical Archaeology remained marginal to new theoretical developments in the discipline at large? What are the main theoretical debates in Classical Archaeology over the years and today? Essential Johnson, M. 1999/2010 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp. 1-­‐‑ŗŘǰȱŒ‘Š™Ž›ȱȱȃ˜––˜—œŽ—œŽȱ’œȱ—˜ȱŽ—˜ž‘Ȅȱǻ˜ȱœœžŽȱŽœ”Dzȱ˜DZȱ
ȱ
Ǽ *Morris, I. 1994 Archaeologies of Greece in I. Morris (ed.) Classical Greece. Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, 8-­‐‑47 (IoA: YATES A20 MOR; IoA: TC 569) *Whitley, J. 2001 The Archaeology of Ancient Greeceǰȱ ‘ǯȱ ŗǰȱ ȃ—›˜žŒ’˜—DZȱ •Šœœ’ŒŠ•ȱ
›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ȱ Š—ȱ ’œȱ ˜‹“ŽŒœȄǰȱ ř-­‐‑16. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (IoA Issue Desk; YATES A20 WHI) *Snodgrass, A. 1987 An Archaeology of Greece: the Present State and Future Scope of a Discipline. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Chapter 1 ȃ‘Žȱ‘ŽŠ•‘ȱ˜ȱŠȱ’œŒ’™•’—ŽȄǰȱ™™ǯȱŗ-­‐‑36 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: YATES A20 SNO) Further reading Biers, W. 1993. Art, Artefacts and Chronology in Classical Archaeology (IoA: AJ10 BIE) Hodder, I., 2001. Introduction: a review of contemporary theoretical debate in archaeology. In I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity, 1-­‐‑13 (IoA: AH HOD; IoA Issue Desk HOD 18) Hodder, I. and S. Hudson 2003. Reading the Past. Cambridge, CUP. Chapter 1, pp. 1
19 (IoA Issue Desk HOD 6 ; IoA: AH HOD) Hodder, I. 1999. The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Oxford. Blackwell. Chapter 1, pp. 1-­‐‑19 (IoA Issue Desk HOD 19; IoA: AH HOD) Morris I. 1997. Periodization and the heroes; inventing a Dark Age, in M. Golden and P. Toohey (eds) Inventing Ancient Culture. Historicism, periodization and the ancient world. Routledge. 96-­‐‑131 (Main: ANCIENT HISTORY M 72 GOL) Hawkes, C. 1954. Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropologist 56: 155-­‐‑68 (online) 6
Lecture 2: Antiquarianism, cultural history and pottery styles The origins of Classical Archaeology and the antiquarian tradition in the Classical world. Classical Archaeology vis-­‐‑à-­‐‑vis the concept of archaeological culture and diffusionism. DISCUSSION (for session 3): Osborne & Alcock vs. Terrenato: what is their agenda for Classical archaeology? Osborne R. & S. Alcock 2007 Introduction in R. Osborne and S. Alcock (eds) Classical Archaeology, Blackwell, pgs. 1-­‐‑8 (Issue Desk; YATES A 6 ALC) Terrenato N. 2002 The innocents and the sceptics: antiquity and Classical archaeology, Antiquity 76, 1104-­‐‑11 (online) Essential *Shanks M. 1995. Classical archaeology of Greece. Experiences of the discipline, chapter 2 ȃ’’Žœȱ Š—ȱ œŠ—ŒžŠ›’Žœǰȱ Š›ȱ Š—ȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢DZȱ ›˜˜œȱ ’—ȱ ‘Žȱ ™ŠœȄǰȱ ˜ž•ŽŽǯȱ
London, 21-­‐‑51 (IoA: AG SHA and Issue Desk; also available online at: http://documents.stanford.edu/michaelshanks/71) ¢œ˜—ǰȱǯȱŗşŞşǯȱȃ‘Žȱ›˜•Žȱ˜ȱ’Ž˜•˜¢ȱŠ—ȱ’—œ’ž’˜—œȱ’—ȱœ‘Š™’—ȱŒ•Šœœ’ŒŠ•ȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢Ȅǰȱ
127-­‐‑35 in A. L. Christenson (ed.) ›ŠŒ’—ȱ ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢Ȃœȱ ™ŠœDZȱ ‘Žȱ ’œ˜›’˜›Š™‘¢ȱ ˜ȱ
Archaeology (IoA: Issue Desk CHR 1) *Kurtz, D. C. 1985. Beazley and the connoisseurship of Greek vases in Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum. Vol 2. Malibu. J. Paul Getty Museum, 237-­‐‑50 (IoA: YATES QUARTOS P5 GET; TC 3693) Whitley J. 1997. Beazley as theorist, Antiquity 71, 40-­‐‑47 (online) Further reading Ceserani G. 2008 Wilamowitz and stratigraphy in 1873. A case study in the history ˜ȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢Ȃœȱ ȁ›ŽŠȱ ’Ÿ’ŽȂȱ ’—ȱ ǯȱ Œ‘•Š—Ž›ȱ Š—ȱ ǯȱ ˜›‹•Š‘ȱ ǻŽœǼȱ
Archives, Ancestors, Practices. Archaeology in the light of history. New York, Oxford, pgs. 75-­‐‑87 (IoA: AG SCH) Ceserani G. 2013 'ʹAntiquarian transformations in eighteenth century Europe'ʹ in A. Schnapp (ed.) World antiquarianism. Comparative perspectives. Getty Research Institute, pgs. 317-­‐‑342 [IoA: AG SCH] Childe, G. 1960. What happened in history. 3rd edition (IoA: BC 100 CHI) Clarke, D.L., 1973. Archaeology: The Loss of Innocence. Antiquity 47, 6-­‐‑18 (online) Dyson, S. L. 2006. In pursuit of ancient pasts. A history of classical archaeology in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. New Haven; London: Yale University Press
(IoA: YATES A 8 DYS) Momigliano A. 1950. Ancient history and the antiquarian, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 13, 3/4, 285-­‐‑315 (online) Sparkes, B. 1996. The Red and the Black: Studies in Greek Pottery (IoA: P5 SPA). 7
Schnapp, A. 1996. The Discovery of the Past. London, British Museum Press, especially chapters 2-­‐‑5 (IoA: AG SCH) Vickers, M. 1987. Values and simplicity: eighteenth century taste and the study of
Greek vases, Past and Present 116, 98-­‐‑137 (online) Session 2 (lectures 3Ȯ4): New Archaeology and Ancient Ecologies Lecture 3: The New Archaeology, Processual Archaeology and Classical Archaeology How did the New Archaeology develop in Anglo-­‐‑American archaeology? What were its premises and objectives? How did Processual Archaeology originate from the New Archaeology? In this session we will look at the impact of these developments upon Classical Archaeology and the relationship between these developmenœȱŠ—ȱ‘ŽȱŽ–Ž›Ž—ŒŽȱ˜ȱŠȱȁœ˜Œ’Š•ȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ȱ˜ȱ›ŽŽŒŽȂǯ Essential Ș¢œ˜—ǰȱǯȱǯȱŗşŞŗȱȃȱ•Šœœ’ŒŠ•ȱ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’œȇœȱŽœ™˜—œŽȱ˜ȱ‘ŽȱȈŽ ȱ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ȄȄǰȱ
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 242, pp. 7-­‐‑ 13 (online) *Johnson, M. 1999/2010 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Œ‘Š™Ž›ȱȱȃ‘Žȱ—Ž ȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢Ȅȱǻ˜ȱœœžŽȱŽœ”ȱ
ŜDzȱ˜DZȱ
ȱ
Ǽ Clarke, D.L., 1973. Archaeology: The Loss of Innocence. Antiquity 47, 6-­‐‑18 (online) *Shanks M. 1995 Classical archaeology of Greece. Experiences of the discipline, chapter 5 ȃž’–Ž—œȱ ˜ȱ Šȱ œ˜Œ’Š•ȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢Ȅǰȱ ˜ž•ŽŽǯȱ ˜—˜—ǰȱ ŗŗŞ-­‐‑153 (IoA: AG SHA and Issue Desk; also available online at http://documents.stanford.edu/michaelshanks/71) —˜›Šœœǰȱ ǯǯȱ ŗşŞśǯȱ ȃ‘Žȱ —Ž ȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ȱ Š—ȱ ‘Žȱ Œ•Šœœ’ŒŠ•ȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’œȄǰ
American Journal of Archaeology 89, 31-­‐‑7 (online) Further reading Binford, L., 1968. Archaeological perspectives. In S. R. Binford and L. R. Binford (eds) New Perspectives in Archaeology. Chicago: Aldine, 5-­‐‑32. (Reprinted in L. Binford 1972 An Archaeological Perspective; also J. Deetz Man'ʹs Imprint from the Past, 155-­‐‑86 [IoA Issue Desk; AH BIN]) (IoA Issue Desk; AH BIN) Hodder, I., 1982. Theoretical archaeology: a reactionary view. In I. Hodder (ed.) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-­‐‑16. Reprinted in I. Hodder, 1992. Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London: Routledge, 92-­‐‑121 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH HOD) Johnson, M. 1999. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp 64-­‐‑84 ȃž•ž›ŽȱŠœȱœ¢œŽ–Ȅȱǻ˜ȱœœžŽȱŽœ”Dzȱ˜DZȱ
ȱ
Ǽ Morgan, C. and T. Whitelaw 1991 Pots and politics: ceramic evidence for the rise of the Argive state, American Journal of Archaeology 95, 79-­‐‑108 (online) Morris I. 1987 Burial and ancient society: the rise of the Greek city-­‐‑state. Cambridge, CUP (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: YATES A22 MOR) 8
Renfrew, C. 1984. Approaches to Social Archaeology. ȃ‘Žȱ –ž•’™•’Ž›ȱ ŽŽŒȱ ’—ȱ ŠŒ’˜—Ȅǰȱ
283-­‐‑308 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH REN) Snodgrass, A. 1980 Archaic Greece: the age of experiment. London, Dent (IoA: DAE 100 SNO; YATES A 24 SNO) Schiffer, M., 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37, 156-­‐‑65 (online) Trigger, B.G., 1978. Current trends in American archaeology. In B. Trigger Time and Traditions. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2-­‐‑18 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH TRI) Whitley J. 1991 Style and society in Dark Age Greece: the changing face of a preliterate society. Cambridge, CUP (IoA: YATES A 22 WHI) Whitley, J. 1991 Social diversity in Dark Age Greece in Annuals of the British School at
Athens, 86: 341Ȯ365 (IOA PERS) Lecture 4: Environment and landscape In this session, we will trace the developments in the investigation of ancient landscapes and environments from scientific environmental studies of the 1950s and 1960s and the geographical and anthropological studies that followed to more recent studies that have paid attention towards the symbolic dimension and the social construction of landscape. How have these studies shaped Classical Archaeology? One particular aspect we shall be looking at is the recent interest of Classical studies towards the landscape and ecology of the Mediterranean. Essential *Cherry, J., 1987 Power in space: archaeological and geographical studies of the state. In J. M. Wagstaff (ed.) Landscape and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell, 146-­‐‑72 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH WAG; Science GEOGRAPHY H 58 WAG) *Thomas, J., 2001 Archaeologies of place and landscape. In I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity, 165-­‐‑86 (IoA Issue Desk; AH HOD) Horden, P. and Purcell, N. 2000 The Corrupting Sea. A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell, Introduction (IoA: DAG 200 HOR; Science: ANTHROPOLOGY LX 21 HOR; GEOGRAPHY LX 60 HOR; Main: ANCIENT HISTORY A 5 HOR; HISTORY 82 c HOR Ȯ multiple copies) Alcock, S.E., J.F. Cherry, and J.L. Davies 1994 Intensive survey, agricultural practices and the classical landscape of Greece. In I. Morris (ed.) Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, pp. 137-­‐‑170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: YATES A20 MOR) Further reading Alcock, S.E., and J.F. Cherry (eds) 2004 Side-­‐‑by-­‐‑Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxford: Oxbow (IoA: DAG 100 Qto ALC) 9
Bintliff, J.L., 1999 Settlement and territory. In, G. Barker (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology, Vol. 1. London: Routledge, 505-­‐‑45 (IoA: AH BAR and Reference) Cunliffe, B., 1976 Hill-­‐‑Forts and oppida in Britain. In G. Sieveking, I. H. Longworth and K. E. Wilson (eds) Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology. London: Duckworth, 343-­‐‑58 (Main geography quartos H 58 SIE; IoA Issue Desk; IoA: BC 100 CLA) Fitzjohn M. 2007 A cognitive approach to an upland landscape in M. Fitzjohn (ed.) Uplands of Ancient Sicily and Calabria. The archaeology of landscape revisited. London. Accordia Research Institute, 143-­‐‑155 (IoA: DAF Qto FIT) Higgs, E.S. and Vita-­‐‑Finzi, C., 1972 Prehistoric Economies: a territorial approach. In E. S.Higgs (ed.) Papers in Economic Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 27-­‐‑36 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: HA QTO HIG; Science geography Quartos H 20 HIG; Science anthropology Quartos E 65) Knapp, A.B. and Ashmore, W., 1999 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, Ideational. In W. Ashmore and A. B. Knapp (eds) Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell, 1-­‐‑30 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: BD ASH) Rackham, O. 1990 "ʺAncient landscapes"ʺ, in O. Murray and S. Price (eds) The Greek
City from Homer to Alexander, 85-­‐‑111 (IoA: AH P61 MUR) Renfrew, A.C., 1978. Space, time and polity. In J. Friedman and M. J. Rowlands (eds) The Evolution of Social Systems. London: Duckworth, 89-­‐‑112 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: BD FRI; ANTHROPOLOGY D 6 FRI) Tilley, C., 1994 Space, place, landscape and perception: phenomenological perspectives. In C. Tilley A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: Berg, 7-­‐‑34 (IoA: BD TIL; Science ANTHROPOLOGY C 10 TIL) Session 3 (lectures 5Ȯ6): Interpreting Classical Archaeology, in the UK and Europe Lecture 5: Interpretative archaeologies: from contextual meanings to the new cultural history The 1980s and 1990s have seen some major shifts in theoretical debates that have moved the pendulum from a positivist view of archaeology towards so-­‐‑called interpretative archaeologies, a focus on the archaeological context and the meanings, be they cultural, symbolic, ideological, and other, of material culture. We shall be looking at the many trends of what some call post-­‐‑processual archaeology, the influence from Marxis–ǰȱ ›žŒž›Š•’œ–ȱ Š—ȱ ˜Œ’Š•ȱ ‘Ž˜›¢ǰȱ Š—ȱ ‘Žȱ ȁ‹Ž—Ž’œȂȱ ‘Šȱ
these changes have brought to the study of the Classical world. Essential 10
*Dyson, S.L. ŗşşřȱ ȃ›˜–ȱ —Ž ȱ ŠŽȱ ˜ȱ —Ž ȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢DZȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’ŒŠ•ȱ ‘Ž˜›¢ȱ Š—ȱ
classical archaeology Ȯ Šȱ ŗşşŖȂœȱ ™Ž›œ™ŽŒ’ŸŽȄǰȱ American Journal of Archaeology 97: 195-­‐‑206 (online) Johnson, M. 1999/2010 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. ‘Š™Ž›ȱ ŝȱ ȃ˜œ-­‐‑™›˜ŒŽœœžŠ•ȱ Š—ȱ ’—Ž›™›ŽŠ’ŸŽȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’ŽœȄȱ Š—ȱ ‘Š™Ž›ȱ Ŝȱ
ȃ‘˜ž‘œȱŠ—ȱ’Ž˜•˜’ŽœȄȱǻŘŖŗŖȱŽ’’˜—ȱ˜nly) (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH JOH) *Morris I. 2000 Archaeology as Cultural History: Words and Things in Iron Age Greece. ‘Š™Ž›ȱ ŗǰȱ ȃ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ȱ Šœȱ Œž•ž›Š•ȱ ‘’œ˜›¢Ȅǰȱ ř-­‐‑36 & ȘȘ‘Š™Ž›ȱ Ŝȱ ȃ‘Žȱ Šœǰȱ
‘ŽȱŽŠœȱŠ—ȱ‘Žȱ‘Ž›˜ȱ˜ȱŽ”Š—’Ȅǰȱŗşś-­‐‑256 (IoA Issue Desk; YATES A20 MOR) Shanks, M., and I. Hodder 1995 Processual, postprocessual and interpretive archaeologies. In I. Hodder, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last and G. Lucas, Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past, pp. 3-­‐‑
28. London and New York: Routledge (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH HOD) Further reading Hodder, I. 1991. Reading the Past. ‘Š™Ž›ȱ ŝȱ ȃ˜—Ž¡žŠ•ȱ ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢Ȅǰȱ ŗŘŗ-­‐‑155
(IoA Issue Desk6; IoA: AH HOD) Shanks M. 1996 Style and the design of a perfume jar from an Archaic Greek city state in, I. Hodder and R. W. Preucel (eds) Contemporary archaeology in theory. Oxford, Blackwell: 364-­‐‑393 (IoA: AG PRE) Shanks, M., and C. Tilley. 1982 Ideology, Symbolic Power and Ritual Communication: A Reinterpretation of Neolithic Mortuary Practices, in I. Hodder (ed.) Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Pp. 129-­‐‑161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH HOD; also available in Science) Shanks, M. and C. Tilley. 1987 Re-­‐‑Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH SHA; also available in Science) Snodgrass, A. 1987 An Archaeology of Greece. ‘Š™Ž›ȱ śǰȱ ȃ‘Žȱ ’›œȱ ’ž›Žȱ œŒŽ—Žœȱ ’—ȱ
›ŽŽ”ȱŠ›ȄǰȱŗřŘ-­‐‑69 (IoA Issue Desk; YATES A20 SNO) Tilley, C. (ed.) 1993 Interpretative Archaeology. Oxford: Berg (IoA: AH TIL; Science: ANTHROPOLOGY C 6 TIL) Thomas, J. 1995. Where are we now? Archaeological theory in the 1990s. In P. J. In Ucko (ed.) Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective. London: Routledge, 343-­‐‑
362 (IoA: AH UCK; IoA Issue Desk) Watson P. J. and M. Fotiadis 1990 The Razor'ʹs Edge: Symbolic-­‐‑Structuralist Archeology and the Expansion of Archeological Inference. American Anthropologist, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 613-­‐‑629 (online) Lecture 6: Theory and Classical Archaeology elsewhere It is often argued that archaeological theory is characteristic to English-­‐‑speaking archaeology. This is far from the truth, and in this session we will see why. We will explore the rich panorama of theoretical and philosophical debates on history and 11
the past that have concerned ancient historians and classical archaeologists by selecting a few studies from Europe and the Mediterranean. Essential Ȃ˜œ’—˜ǰȱǯȱŗşşŗǰȱ‘ŽȱŠ•’Š—ȱ™Ž›œ™ŽŒ’ŸŽȱ˜—ȱ‘Ž˜›Ž’ŒŠ•ȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ǰȱ’—ȱǯȱ
˜Ž›ȱ
(ed.) Archaeological Theory in Europe. The Last Three Decades, 52-­‐‑64. London, Routledge (IoA: AG HOD; IoA Issue Desk) ˜œŠ”’œǰȱǯȱŗşşŗȱȃ‘Žȱ™˜ Ž›ž•ȱ™ŠœDZȱ‘Ž˜›Ž’ŒŠ•ȱ›Ž—œȱ’—ȱ›ŽŽ”ȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢Ȅȱ’—ȱǯȱ
Hodder (ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe. The Last Three Decades, 65-­‐‑90. London, Routledge (IoA: AG HOD; IoA Issue Desk) *Bérard, C et al 1989. A City of Images -­‐‑ pp. 11-­‐‑22 Bron and Lissarrague "ʺLooking at the Vase"ʺ, 23-­‐‑38 Bérard and Durand "ʺEntering the imagery"ʺ, 39-­‐‑52 Lissarrague "ʺThe world of the warrior"ʺ, 71-­‐‑88 Schnapp "ʺEros the hunter"ʺ (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: YATES A70 CIT) *Bintliff, J. L. (ed.) 1991 The Annales School and Archaeology. London, Leicester Ȯ pp. 1-­‐‑
řřȱ’—•’ȱȃThe contribution of an Annaliste/structural history approach to archaeology, 57-­‐‑72 S—˜›Šœœȱȃœ›žŒž›Š•ȱ‘’œ˜›¢ȱŠ—ȱŒ•Šœœ’ŒŠ•ȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢Ȅȱ
(IoA: AH BIN; online at https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/7980) Further reading Bietti-­‐‑Sestieri, A. M. 1992 ‘Žȱ›˜—ȱŽȱŒ˜––ž—’¢ȱ˜ȱ œŽ›’ŠȱŽ••ȂœŠDZȱŠȱœž¢ȱ ˜ȱ œ˜Œ’˜ȱ
political development in Central Tyrrhenian Italy Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (IoA: DAF 10 BIE) Cuozzo, M. A. 1994. Patterns of organisation and funerary customs in the cemetery of Pontecagnano (Salerno) during the Orientalising period in Journal of European archaeology vol. 2.2: 264-­‐‑297 (IoA Pers) Cuozzo, M.A. 2007 Ancient Campania. Cultural interaction, political borders and geographical boundaries in G. Bradley, E. Isayev and C. Riva (eds) Ancient Italy. Regions without Boundaries Exeter University Press, Exeter, 225-­‐‑267 (IoA: DAF 100 BRA; IoA Issue Desk) Ȃ˜œ’—˜ȱǯȱŗşşŖȱ’•’Š›¢ȱ›Š—’œŠ’˜—ȱŠ—ȱœ˜Œ’Š•ȱœ›žŒž›Žȱ’—ȱ›Œ‘Š’Œȱ›ž›’Šǰȱ’—
O. Murray and S. Price (eds) The Greek City from Homer to Alexander Oxford,
Clarendon Press: 59-­‐‑82 (Main: ANCIENT HISTORY P 61 MUR) Izzet, V. 2007 Etruria and the Etruscans. Recent approaches in G. Bradley, E. Isayev
and C. Riva (eds) Ancient Italy. Regions without Boundaries Exeter University
Press, Exeter, 114-­‐‑130 (IoA: DAF 100 BRA; IoA Issue Desk) Lissarrague, F. 1994. "ʺEpiktetos egraphsen: the Writing on the Cup"ʺ, in S. Goldhill, S.
and R. Osborne (eds) Art and Text in Greek Culture. pp. 12-­‐‑27 (IoA: YATES A20
GOL) Marchand, S. L. 1996 Down from Olympus: archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany 1750-­‐‑1970 (Main: GERMAN A 60 MAR) 12
Œ‘—Š™™ǰȱ ȱ Žȱ Š•ǯȱ ȃ‘Žȱ žœŽȱ ˜ȱ ‘Ž˜›¢ȱ ’—ȱ ›Ž—Œ‘ȱ ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢Ȅȱ ’—ȱ ǯȱ ˜Ž›ȱ (ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe. The Last Three Decades, 91-­‐‑128. London, Routledge (IoA: AG HOD; IoA Issue Desk) Ž››Ž—Š˜ǰȱ ǯȱ ŘŖŖśȱ ȁŠ›ȱ ‘Žȱ ›ŽŸ˜•ž’˜—ȱ ’‘˜žȱ –ŽȂDZȱ ›ŽŒŽ—ȱ Žbates in Italian Classical Archaeology in P. Attema, A. Nijboer, and A. Zifferero (eds) Conference of Italian Archaeology. Papers in Italian archaeology VI. Communities and settlements from the Neolithic to the early Medieval period. Proceedings of the 6th Conference of Italian Archaeology held at the University of Groningen, Groningen Institute of Archaeology, the Netherlands, April 15-­‐‑17, 2003, 39-­‐‑43 (IoA: DAF Qto ATT) Session 4 (lectures 7Ȯ8): Individuals and Identities Lecture 7: Agency: individuals and social structures One aspect that interpretative archaeologies have increasingly emphasised since the 1980s is the role of the individual within ancient societies and how easily we can identify him/her and interpret his/her actions in material culture. Sociological studies from the late 1970s and 1980s have provided the conceptual basis upon which archaeologists today have developed theories and interpretative frameworks for placing the social agent and the constraints or structures of society upon him/her at the centre of our enquiry. Essential Dobres, M.-­‐‑A. and Robb, J.E., 2000. Agency in archaeology: paradigm or platitude? In M.-­‐‑A. Dobres and J. E. Robb (eds) Agency in Archaeology. London: Routledge, 3-­‐‑17 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH DOB) *Gardner, A., 2008. Agency. In R.A. Bentley, H.D.G. Maschner and C. Chippindale (eds), Handbook of Archaeological Theories. Lanham: AltaMira Press, 95-­‐‑108 (IoA: TC 3608; IoA: AG BEN) Morris, I. 1992 Death-­‐‑Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge, Chapter 1 (Main: ANCIENT HISTORY M 55 MOR Ȯ several copies with reference and overnight loan) *Osborne R. 2006 W(h)ither Orientalization? in C. Riva and N. Vella (eds.) Debating
Orientalization: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Change in the Ancient
Mediterranean. London: Equinox, 153-­‐‑158 (IoA: DAG 100 RIV; IoA Issue Desk) Further reading Sewell, W. H. 2005 [1999]. The Concept(s) of Culture. Reprinted In Sewell, W. H., Logic(s) of History. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pgs 152Ȯ74. (Main: HISTORY 82 ab SEW) Shanks, M. and C. Tilley 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chapter 3: The individual and the social (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH SHA) 13
Gardner, A., 2007. An Archaeology of Identity: Soldiers and Society in Late Roman Britain. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press (IoA: DAA 170 GAR) Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: an anthropological theory. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Esp. "ʺThe Problem Defined,"ʺ pgs. 1-­‐‑11 (ANTHROPOLOGY E 10 GELL). Tanner, J. 2006. The Invention of Art History in Ancient Greece. Religion, Society and Artistic Rationalisation. ‘Š™Ž›ȱŚȱȃž•ž›Žǰȱœ˜Œ’Š•ȱœ›žŒž›ŽȱŠ—ȱŠ›’œ’ŒȱŠŽ—Œ¢ȱ
’—ȱŒ•Šœœ’ŒŠ•ȱ›ŽŽŒŽȄǰȱŗŚŗ-­‐‑204. Cambridge (IoA: YATES A 5 TAN) Barrett, J. 2001, Agency, the duality of structure and the problem of the archaeological record, in I. Hodder (ed.), Archaeological theory today, Cambridge: Polity press, 141-­‐‑164 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH HOD) Bourdieu, P. 1973: The Berber house or the world reversed, in M. Douglas (ed), Rules and meanings, Harmondsworth: Penguin books, 98-­‐‑110 [reprinted in Interpretive archaeology course reader] (Science ANTHROPOLOGY D 70 DOU) Bourdieu, P. 1977: Outline of a theory of practice (Cambridge studies in social anthropology), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Science ANTHROPOLOGY D 13 BOU) Dietler, M. and I. Herbich 1998: Habitus, techniques, style: an integrated approach to the social understanding of material culture and boundaries, in M. Stark (ed), The archaeology of social boundaries, Washington: Smithsonian Institution press, 232-­‐‑263 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH STA) Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration, Cambridge: Polity press (Science ANTHROPOLOGY D 10 GID) van Dommelen, P. 1998 Punic persistence: colonialism and cultural identity in Roman Sardinia, in J. Berry and R. Laurence (eds), Cultural identity in the Roman empire, London: Routledge, 25-­‐‑48 (Main ANCIENT HISTORY R72 LAU; TC 3692) Lecture 8: Post-­‐‑colonialism and identities We will already have thought of the importance of identities in the ancient world in the session above. In this session, we focus more on this and how the post-­‐‑colonial era in which we live has shaped current theoretical debates; classical archaeology has stood at the centre of these debates, particularly as far as the Greek world is concerned, but not only. Essential Meskell, L., 2001. Archaeologies of identity. In I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press, 187-­‐‑213 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH HOD) *Hall, J., I. Morris, S. Jones, S. Morris, C. Renfrew and R. Just 1998 Ethnic identity in Greek antiquity. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8: 265-­‐‑283 (online) Vives-­‐‑Ferrándiz Sánchez J. 2007. Colonial encounters and the negotiation of identities in south-­‐‑east Iberia in S. Antoniadou and A. Pace (eds) Mediterranean crossroads. Athens, Pierides Foundation, 537-­‐‑562 (IoA: TC 3623; IoA: DAG 100 ANT) 14
*Van Dommelen, P. 1997 Colonial constructs: colonialism and archaeology in the
Mediterranean, World Archaeology 28 (3), 31-­‐‑49 (online) Further reading Antonaccio, C. 2001 Colonization and Acculturation, in I. Malkin (ed.) Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity. Harvard University Press, 113-­‐‑157 (Main: ANCIENT HISTORY P 55 MAL) Diaz-­‐‑Andreu, M. et al. (eds), 2005. The Archaeology of Identity. London: Routledge, ȃ—›˜žŒ’˜—Ȅǰȱ™™ǯȱŗ-­‐‑13 (IoA: AH DIA; TC 3695) Morgan, C.A. 1991 Ethnicity and the early Greek states: historical and material perspectives. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 37: 131-­‐‑163 (Main: CLASSICS Pers) Given, M. 1998 Inventing the Eteocypriots: imperialist archaeology and the manipulation of ethnic identity. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 11: 3-­‐‑29 (IoA Pers) Fotiadis, M. 1997 Cultural identity and regional archaeological perspectives. Archaeological Dialogues 4: 102-­‐‑ 113 (IoA Pers) Hingley, R. 2010 Cultural Diversity and Unity: empire and Rome, in S. Hales and T. Hodos (eds.) Local and Global Identities: Rethinking Identity and material Culture in the Ancient Mediterranean. 54-­‐‑75. Cambridge (IoA: YATES A 99 HAL) Jones, S. 1996 Discourses of identity in the interpretation of the past. In P. Graves-­‐‑
Brown, S. Jones and C. S. Gamble (eds), Cultural Identity and Archaeology: The Construction of European Communities, pp. 62-­‐‑80. London: Routledge (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: BD GRA) Malkin, I. 2004. Postcolonial Concepts and Ancient Greek Colonization, Modern Language Quarterly, 65, 3: 341-­‐‑364 (online) Hall, J. 2002 Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Main: ANCIENT HISTORY P 55 HAL) Vives-­‐‑Ferrándiz Sánchez J. 2008 Negotiating Colonial Encounters: Hybrid Practices and Consumption in Eastern Iberia (8th-­‐‑6th centuries BC) in Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 21: 2 with discussion (online) van Dommelen, P. 2001. Cultural imaginings. Punic tradition and local identity in Roman Republican Sardinia. In S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds), Italy and the West: Comparitive Issues in Romanization, pp. 70-­‐‑84. Oxford: Oxbow Books (IoA: DA 170 KEA; TC 3694) Woolf, G. 1997 Beyond Romans and natives, World Archaeology 28 (3), 339-­‐‑50 (online) Woolf, G. 1998 Becoming Roman: the origins of provincial civilization in Gaul, Cambridge (Main: ANCIENT HISTORY R 28 WOO) 15
Session 5 (lectures 9Ȯ10): Gender and Politics in Classical Archaeology Lecture 9: Gender and embodiment What is the role of gender in archaeological theoretical debates? In answering this, we will discuss the important realisation that gender, whether male, female or other, is culturally constructed, and that gender is part of the identity of an individual. We will look at the evolution of gender theories in the course of the last two decades that has seen a shift of scholarly attention towards the body as the medium through which the individual interacts with the world and in society. Essential *Yates, T., 1993. Frameworks for an archaeology of the body. In C. Tilley (ed.) Interpretative Archaeology. Oxford: Berg, 31-­‐‑72 (IoA: AH TIL; TC 3514) *Izzet, V. 1998 Holding a mirror to Etruscan gender in R.D. Whitehouse (ed) Gender and Italian Archaeology challenging the stereotypes, Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy, London, 209-­‐‑ff (IoA: TC 3696; IoA: DAF Qto WHI) Meskell, L. 2001 Archaeologies of Identities in I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today. Blackwell, pp. 187-­‐‑213 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH HOD) *Johnson, M. 1999. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. ȃ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ȱ Š—ȱ Ž—Ž›Ȅȱ ȱ ȃ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ǰȱ Ž—Ž›ȱ Š—ȱ ’Ž—’¢Ȅȱ ǻŘŖŗŖȱ
edition only) (IoA Issue Desk; AH JOH) Further reading Conkey, M. and Gero, J., 1997. Programme to practice: gender and feminism in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 26, 411-­‐‑37 (online) Hamilakis, Y., Pluciennik, M. and Tarlow, S. (eds.) 2002. Thinking Through the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeality. New York: Kluwer/Plenum (IoA: BD HAM) Knapp, A.B. and Meskell, L., 1997. Bodies of evidence in Cypriot prehistory. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 7/2, 183-­‐‑204 (online) Meskell, L. 1996 The somatization of archaeology: institutions, discourses, corporeality. Norwegian Archaeological Review 29: 1-­‐‑16 (online) Meskell, L., 1999. Archaeologies of Social Life: age, sex, class etc. in ancient Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell (IoA: EGYPTOLOGY B 20 MES) Morris, I. 2003 Archaeology and gender ideologies in early Archaic Greece in M. Golden and P. Toohey (eds) Sex and difference in ancient Greece and Rome, 264-­‐‑
275 (Main: ANCIENT HISTORY M 65 GOL) Nevett, L. 1999. House and Society in the Ancient Greek World (IoA: YATES K71 NEV) Osborne, R. 1994 Looking on Greek style: does the sculpted girl speak to women too in I. Morris (ed.) Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies, Cambridge, 81-­‐‑96 (IoA: Yates A 20 MOR) Osborne R. 2011 The History Written on the Classical Greek Body. Cambridge (especially Ch. 3) [Main: Ancient Hist. P 4 OSB] Rautman, A.E. (ed.), 2000. Reading the Body: Representations and Remains in the Archaeological Record. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press (IoA Issue Desk; IOA RAU) 16
Sofaer, J., 2006. The Body as Material Culture. A Theoretical Osteoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (IoA: AH SOF) Stewart, A. 1996. Reflections. In Kampen, N.B. Sexuality in Ancient Art: Near East, Egypt, Greece and Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pgs. 136-­‐‑154. (IoA: YATES A 60 KAM) Moore, H. 1994 Bodies on the move: gender, power and material culture. In H. Moore, A Passion for Difference, pp. 71-­‐‑85. Cambridge: Polity Press (Science ANTHROPOLOGY D 47 MOO) Mauss, M. 1979 [1934]. Body Techniques. Reprinted in Sociology and Psychology: Essays by M. Mauss. Translated by Ben Brewester. London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. pgs 95-­‐‑123. (SLC Science MAU) Lecture 10: The politics of Archaeology In the previous sessions, we will have realised that archaeology is not a discipline living in a glass case; quite the contrary, the theoretical debates and intellectual shifts so far discussed demonstrate the political nature of these debates. This is also the case with Classical Archaeology that has recently come under serious scrutiny for its contribution to the construction of Western identities and European national imaginations in what is today a global world. What is the role of Classical Archaeology in this world? This is not a question belonging to a theory book, but one that is at the very centre of the practice of the discipline today and, some claim, the survival of Classical Archaeology. Essential Friedman, J. 1992 The past in the future: history and the politics of identity,
American anthropologist 9, 837-­‐‑859 (online) * Rowlands, M. 1994 The politics of identity in archaeology, in G. Bond and A.
Gilliam (eds), Social construction of the past: representation as power (One world
archaeology 24), London: Routledge, 129-­‐‑143 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: BD BON) * Hamilakis, Y. and E. Yalouri 1996. Antiquities as symbolic capital in modern
Greek society, Antiquity 70: 117-­‐‑29 (online) Meskell, L. (ed.) 1998. Archaeology Under Fire. London: Routledge. Meskell
ȃ—›˜žŒ’˜—Ȅȱ™™ǯŗ-­‐‑ŗŘǰȱ—Š™™ȱŠ—ȱ—˜—’Šžȱȃ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ǰȱ™˜•’’ŒœǰȱŠ— the
Œž•ž›Š•ȱ‘Ž›’ŠŽȱ˜ȱ¢™›žœȄȱ™™ǯȱŗř-­‐‑Śřǰȱ˜œ”Š”’œȱȃ‘Žȱ™Šœȱ’œȱ˜ž›œDZȱ’–ŠŽœȱ˜
›ŽŽ”ȱ ŠŒŽ˜—’ŠȄȱ ™™ǯȱ ŚŚ-­‐‑Ŝŝǰȱ ŠœœŠ—ȱ ȃŽ–˜›Š‹’•’ŠȄȱ ™™ǯŘŖŖ-­‐‑216 (IoA Issue
Desk; IoA: AG MES) Further reading Díaz-­‐‑Andreu, M. and T. Champion 1996 (eds) Nationalism and archaeology in Europe,
London: Univerity College London press (IoA: AG DIA) Dietler, M. 1994. Our Ancestors the Gauls: archaeology, ethnic nationalism, and the manipulation of Celtic identity in modern Europe. American Anthropologist 96: 584-­‐‑605 (online) 17
Fotiadis, M. 1995. Modernity and the past-­‐‑still-­‐‑present. Politics of time in the birth of
regional archaeological projects in Greece, American journal of archaeology 99,
59-­‐‑78 (online) Hamilakis, Y. 2008 Decolonising Greek archaeology: indigenous archaeologies,
modernist archaeology, and the post-­‐‑colonial critique. In Damaskos, D. and
Plantzos, D. (eds), A Singular Antiquity. Athens: The Benaki Museum, pp.
273-­‐‑84 (IoA: DAE 100 DAM) Hamilakis, Y. 2007. The nation and its ruins: antiquity, archaeology, and national
imagination in Greece. Oxford, Oxford University Press (IoA: DAE 100 HAM;
YATES A 8 HAM) Hamilakis, Y. 2011 Museums of oblivion, Antiquity 85, 625-­‐‑629 (online) Hamilakis, Y. 2012 Are we postcolonial yet? Tales from the battlefield, Archaeologies:
Journal of the World Archaeological Congress vol. 8/1, 67-­‐‑76 (online) Hobsbawm, E. and T. Ranger 1983 [1992] The invention of tradition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press (Main: ANTHROPOLOGY D 6 HOB) Lowenthal, D. 1998 The heritage crusade and the spoils of history, London: Viking (IoA: AG LOW) Žœ”Ž••ǰȱǯȱŘŖŖŘǯȱȃ‘Žȱ’—Ž›œŽŒ’˜—œȱ˜ȱ’Ž—’¢ȱŠ—ȱ™˜•’’Œœȱ’—ȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢Ȅǯȱ Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 279-­‐‑301 (online) Nelis J. 2007 'ʹConstructing Fascist identity: Benito Mussolini and Romanità'ʹ, Classical World 100.4, pgs. 391-­‐‑415 (online). Odermatt P. 1996. Built Heritage and the politics of (re)presentation in Archaeological
Dialogues 3, 95-­‐‑119 (IoA Pers) Nora, P. 1989 Between memory and history: les lieux de la mémoire, Representations 26,
7-­‐‑25 (online) Papadakis, Y. 1998 Greek Cypriot narratives of history and collective identity: nationalism as a contested process, American Ethnologist 25: 149-­‐‑165 (online) Sant Cassia, P. 1999: Tradition, tourism and memory in Malta, Journal of the royal
anthropological institute 5, 247-­‐‑263 (online) Yalouri, E. 2001. The Acropolis: Global Fame, Local Claim (IoA: YATES E 12 ATH) 18
Session 6 (lectures 11-­‐‑12): Defining your questions, research designs and the archaeological process Why do we need a research design? How do research designs impact on what we can deduce from our archaeological projects. How do research designs reflect our own interests and theoretical perspectives and how can we use the results from ˜‘Ž›ȱ™Ž˜™•ŽȂœȱ ˜›”ǵȱȱDZȱ˜ȱœ’ŽŸŽȱ˜›ȱ—˜ȱ˜ȱœ’ŽŸŽǵ BANNING, E. 2000. The Archaeologist'ʹs Laboratory, ChŠ™Ž›ȱŚDZȱȃŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽœ’—ȱŠ—ȱ
œŠ–™•’—ǯȄȱ˜—˜—ǯȱISSUE DESK AH BAN. *BINFORD, L. ŗşŜŚȱ ȃȱ Œ˜—œ’Ž›Š’˜—ȱ ˜ȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’ŒŠ•ȱ ›ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱ Žœ’—ǯȄȱ American Antiquity 29(4):425Ȯ441. TEACHING COLL. 2767. Available online via JSTOR. BLINKTHORNE, P. and C. G. CUMBERPATCH ŗşşŞǯȱȃ‘Žȱ’—Ž›™›ŽŠ’˜—ȱ˜ȱŠ›ŽŠŒœȱŠ—ȱ
‘Žȱ¢›Š——¢ȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ’Ž•ȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’œǯȄȱAssemblage 4 (Internet Journal). TEACHING COLL. 2047 (5 copies) and available online. *BOWKITT, L., S. HILL, D. WARDLE AND K. A. WARDLE 2001. Classical Archaeology in the Field: Approaches, chapters 1 & 2. Bristol Classical Press. YATES A 9 BOW. *ENGLISH HERITAGE (1991). Management of Archaeological Projects, 2nd edition. English Heritage. Available at http://www.eng-­‐‑h.gov.uk/guidance/map2/index.htm; INST ARCH DAA 100 ENG & INST ARCH ISSUE DESK. *FLANNERY, KǯȱŗşŝŜǯȱȃŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱœ›ŠŽ¢ȱŠ—ȱ˜›–Š’ŸŽȱŽœ˜Š–Ž›’ŒŠȄȱŠ—ȱȃȱ™›Š¢Ž›ȱ
˜›ȱŠ—ȱŽ—Š—Ž›Žȱœ™ŽŒ’ŽœȄȱin K. Flannery (ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village, pp. 1Ȯ11, 369Ȯ373. New York: Academic. ISSUE DESK FLA3; DF100 FLA; ANTHRO TK95 FLA; GEOG WN63 FLA. HASSAN, F. ŗşşŞǯȱȃŽ¢˜—ȱ‘Žȱœž›ŠŒŽDZȱŒ˜––Ž—œȱ˜—ȱ
˜Ž›Ȃœȱ›Ž•Ž¡’ŸŽȱŽ¡ŒŠŸŠ’˜—ȱ
–Ž‘˜˜•˜¢ǯȄȱAntiquity 72: 213Ȯ217. TEACHING COLL. 1610 (4 copies) and 2233 (1 copy); IOA PERS and available online. HODDER, I. ŗşşŝǯȱȃ•ways momentary, fluid & flexible: towards a reflexive Ž¡ŒŠŸŠ’˜—ȱ–Ž‘˜˜•˜¢ǯȄȱAntiquity 71: 691Ȯ700. Available online. HODDER, I. ŗşşŞǯȱȃ‘˜œŽȱ›Š’˜—Š•’¢ǵȱȱ›Žœ™˜—œŽȱ˜ȱŽ”›’ȱ
ŠœœŠ—ǯȄȱAntiquity 72: 213Ȯ
217. Available online. MILNE, G. ŗşşŘǯȱȃ‘ŽȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’œȱŠœȱŠ•Œ‘Ž–’œȄǰȱin G. Milne (ed) From Roman Basilica to Medieval Market, pp. 51Ȯ60. London: HMSO. ISSUE DESK IOA MIL 10; NST ARCH DAA 416 MIL. 19
PAYNE, S. ŗşŝŘǯȱȃŠ›’Š•ȱ›ŽŒ˜ŸŽ›¢ȱŠ—ȱœŠ–™•Žȱ‹’ŠœDZȱ‘Žȱ›Žœž•œȱ˜ȱœ˜–Žȱœ’ŽŸ’—ȱ
Ž¡™Ž›’–Ž—œǯȄȱIn E. S. Higgs Papers in Economic Prehistory, pp. 49Ȯ64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH ISSUE DESK HIG 3, INST ARCH HA QTO HIG. REDMAN, C. L. ǻŗşŝřǼȱȃž•’œŠŽȱ’Ž• ˜›”ȱŠ—ȱŠ—Š•¢’ŒŠ•ȱŽŒ‘—’šžŽœǯȄȱAmerican Antiquity 38, 61Ȯ79. INST ARCH PERS AND AVAILABLE FROM JSTOR. REDMAN, C. L. ŗşŞŝǯȱȱȃž›ŠŒŽȱ˜••ŽŒ’˜—ǰȱŠ–™•’—ǰȱŠ—ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽœ’—DZȱȱ
Ž›˜œ™ŽŒ’ŸŽǯȄȱAmerican Antiquity 52:249Ȯ265. Available online via JSTOR and IoA TC 2320 Session 7 (lectures 13-­‐‑14): Site formation processes What are site formation processes and why are they important? How can we study them, and what can they tell us about sites? How does the study of these processes help us interpret sites? DISCUSSION SESSION: site formation processes and the study of Pompeii. BINFORD, L. ŗşŞŗȱȃŽ‘ŠŸ’˜ž›Š•ȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ȱǭȱ‘Žȱ˜–™Ž’’ȱ™›Ž–’œŽǯȄȱJournal of Anthropological Research 37:195Ȯ208. TEACHING COLL. 824 (3 copies); PERS (1 copy). Also in: Working at Archaeology. ISSUE DESK BIN 5 (1 copy); AH BIN (2 copies); ANTHRO C7 BIN) Also available through JSTOR. BON, S. E. ŗşşŝǯȱ ȃȱ Œ’¢ȱ ›˜£Ž—ȱ ’—ȱ ’–Žȱ ˜›ȱ Šȱ œ’Žȱ ’—ȱ ™Ž›™ŽžŠ•ȱ –˜’˜—ǵȱ ˜›–Š’˜—ȱ
™›˜ŒŽœœŽœȱŠȱ˜–™Ž’’Ȅȱin Sara E. Bon and Rick Jones (eds) Sequence and Space in Pompeii, pp. 7Ȯ12. YATES E 22 POM. BRADLEY, R. AND M. FULFORD ŗşŞŖǯȱȃ‘Ž›ȱœ’£Žȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŠ—Š•¢œ’œȱ˜ȱ˜ŒŒž™Š’˜—ȱŽ‹›’œȂǰȱ
Bulletin of the University of London Institute of Archaeology17: 85Ȯ94. INST ARCH PERS. GREEN, FRANCIS J. AND KRIS LOCKYEAR ŗşşŚǯȱ ȱ ȁŽŽœǰȱ œ‘Ž›œȱ Š—ȱ œŠ–™•ŽœDZȱ œ’Žȱ
formation processes at the Waitrose site, ˜–œŽ¢Ȃǰȱ’—ȱ˜ •Ž¢-­‐‑Conwy, T. and Rosemary Luff (eds.) Whither Environmental Archaeology?, pp. 91 Ȯ104. Oxford: Oxbow Books Monograph 38. inst arch ioa luf. HALSTEAD, PAUL, IAN HODDER AND GLYNIS JONES ŗşŝŞǯȱ ȱ ȁŽ‘ŠŸ’˜ž›Š•ȱ ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ȱ
and Refuse Patterns: ȱŠœŽȱž¢ǯȂȱNorwegian Archaeolgical Review 11(1): 118Ȯ
131. INST ARCH PERS. 20
JANSEN, GEMMA ǯȱǯȱŘŖŖŖǯȱȃ¢œŽ–œȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱ’œ™˜œŠ•ȱ˜ȱ ŠœŽȱŠ—ȱŽ¡Œ›ŽŠȱ’—ȱ˜–Š—ȱ
Œ’’Žœǯȱ‘Žȱœ’žŠ’˜—ȱ’—ȱ˜–™Ž’’ǰȱ
Ž›Œž•Š—Žž–ȱŠ—ȱœ’ŠǯȄȱIn Xavier Dupré Raventós and Josep-­‐‑Anton Remolà (eds) Sordes Urbis. La eliminación de residues en la cuidad romana, pp. 37Ȯ50. ˜–ŽDZȱȂ›–Šȱ’ȱ›ŽœŒ‘—Ž’Ž›ǯȱYates K 120 DUP (19). LIEBESCHUETZ, W. 2000. ȃž‹‹’œ‘ȱ ’œ™˜œŠ•ȱ ’—ȱ ›ŽŽ”ȱ Š—ȱ ˜–Š—ȱ ’’ŽœǯȄȱ In Xavier Dupré Raventós and Josep-­‐‑Anton Remolà (eds) Sordes Urbis. La eliminación de residues en la cuidad romana, pp.51Ȯ62. ˜–ŽDZȱȂ›–Šȱ’ȱ›ŽœŒ‘—Ž’Ž›ǯȱŠŽœȱȱ
120 DUP (19). ORTON, C. R. ŗşŞŜǯȱ ȃ ˜ȱ žœŽž•ȱ ™Š›Š–ŽŽ›œȱ ˜›ȱ ™˜Ž›¢ȱ ›ŽœŽŠ›Œ‘Ȅǰȱ in E. Webb (ed) Computer Applications in Archaeology 1985. London: University of London Institute of Archaeology. INST ARCH AK 20 C0M. PENA, J. THEODORE 2007. Roman Pottery in the Archaeological Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH DA 170 PEN. SCHIFFER, M. B. ŗşŝŘȱȃ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’ŒŠ•ȱŒ˜—Ž¡ȱŠ—ȱœ¢œŽ–’ŒȱŒ˜—Ž¡ǯȄȱAmerican Antiquity 37:156Ȯ65. TEACHING COLL. 1102 (5 copies); Available from JSTOR. *SCHIFFER, M. B. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Chapters 1 and 2. ISSUE DESK IOA SCH 6. SIEGEL, PETER E. AND PETER G. ROE 1986. ȁ‘’™’‹˜ȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜-­‐‑ethnography: site ˜›–Š’˜—ȱ ™›˜ŒŽœœŽœȱ Š—ȱ Š›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’ŒŠ•ȱ ’—Ž›™›ŽŠ’˜—ǯȂȱ ȱ World Archaeology 18(1): 96Ȯ115. INST ARCH PERS and available through JSTOR. SULLIVAN III, ALAN P. 1989. ȃ‘ŽȱŽŒ‘—˜•˜¢ȱ˜ȱŽ›Š–’ŒȱŽžœŽDZȱ˜›–Š’˜—ȱ›˜ŒŽœœŽœȱ
Š—ȱ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜’ŒŠ•ȱŸ’Ž—ŒŽȄǰȱWorld Archaeology 21(1): pp. 101Ȯ114. INST ARCH PERS and available through JSTOR. WOOD, W. AND D. JOHNSON ŗşŝŞǯȱ ȃȱ œž›ŸŽ¢ȱ ˜ȱ ’œž›‹Š—ŒŽȱ ™›˜ŒŽœœŽœǯȂȱ Advances in Archaeological Method & Theory 1: 315Ȯ81. TEACHING COLL. 2304 (3 COPIES); PERIODICALS (1 COPY). Session 8 (lectures 15-­‐‑16): Artefacts: classification, assemblage formation and analysis How do we classify artefacts? How do our classification schemes impact on the types of analysis we can perform? How can we compare assemblages and what are the problems inherent in doing so? Why should we want to? DISCUSSION/PRACTICAL SESSION: looking at a coin assemblage. 21
ALLISON, P. M. ŗşşŘǯȱȃ›ŽŠŒȱœœŽ–‹•ŠŽœDZȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ˜–™Ž’’ȱ›Ž–’œŽȄȱin E. Herring, R. Whitehouse and J. Wilkins (eds) Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian Archaeology, London, 1990, vol. 3, 1, pp. 49Ȯ56. London: Accordia Research Centre. COOL, H. E. M. 2002. ȃAn overview of the small finds from CatteriŒ”Ȅ in Wilson, P. R. Cataractonium. Roman Catterick and its hinterland, vol. 2, pp. 24Ȯ43. Council for British Archaeology, York. INST ARCH DAA QTO SERIES COU 129. COOL H. E. M. AND M. J. BAXTER 2002. ȃExploring Romano-­‐‑British Finds ŠœœŽ–‹•ŠŽœȄǰȱOxford Journal of Archaeology 21: 365Ȯ80. CRUMMY, N. 2007. ȃ’¡ȱ‘˜—ŽœȱœŽ›Ÿ’—ȱ–Ž—DZȱŠȱ‹Šœ’Œȱ–Ž‘˜˜•˜¢ȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱœž¢ȱ˜ȱ
œ–Š••ȱ’—œȄǰȱin R. Hingley and S. Willis Roman Finds: Context and Theory, pp. 59Ȯ66. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH DAA 170 QTO HIN. HAYDEN, B. AND A. CANNON ŗşŞřǯȱȃ‘Ž›Žȱ‘ŽȱŠ›‹ŠŽȱ˜ŽœDZȱ›ŽžœŽȱ’œ™˜œŠ•ȱ’—ȱ‘Žȱ
Š¢Šȱ‘’‘•Š—œǯȄȱJournal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 117Ȯ63. TEACHING COLL. 1387 (4 copies); IOA PERS. Also available online. LOCKYEAR, K. ŘŖŖŖǯȱ ȃ’Žȱ ’—œȱ ’—ȱ ˜–Š—ȱ ›’Š’—DZȱ Šȱ Œ˜–™Š›’œ˜—ȱ ˜ȱ ŽŒ‘—’šžŽœǯȄȱ
Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19(4), 397Ȯ423. INST ARCH PERS AND AVAILABLE ONLINE. LOCKYEAR, K. 2007. Patterns and Process in Late Roman Republican Coin Hoards, 157Ȯ2 BC. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1733. See chapter 2 on the data. YATES QUARTOS R 85 LOC. LUCAS, GAVIN 2001. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork, ‘Š™Ž›ȱ řDZȱ ȃ™•’’—ȱ ˜‹“ŽŒœǯȄȱ
London: Routledge. MILLETT, M. ŘŖŖŝǯȱȃ¡™Ž›’–Ž—œȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŠ—Š•¢œ’œȱ˜ȱ’—œȱŽ™˜œ’’˜—ȱŠȱ‘’™˜—‘˜›™ŽDZȱ
a ›Ž›˜œ™ŽŒȄǰȱin R. Hingley and S. Willis Roman Finds: Context and Theory, pp. 100Ȯ105. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH DAA 170 QTO HIN. ORTON, C., P. TYERS AND A. VINCE 1994. Pottery in Archaeology, Chapter 6: Classification of form and decoration, pp. 76Ȯ86; Chapter 13: Quantification, pp. 166Ȯ181; Chapter 16: Assemblages and sites, pp. 207Ȯ216. Cambridge. ISSUE DESK IOA ORT 2; INST ARCH KD 3 ORT. 22
REECE, R. 1996. ȃ‘Žȱ’—Ž›™›ŽŠ’˜—ȱ˜ȱœ’Žȱ’—œȱȯ Šȱ›ŽŸ’Ž Ȅǰȱin C. E. King and D. G. Wigg Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World, pp. 341Ȯ55. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. TYERS, PAUL 1996. Roman Pottery in Britain. London: Batsford. See Chapter 2 on ȃ˜ž›ŒŽœȱ˜›ȱ‘Žȱœž¢ȱ˜ȱ˜–Š—ȱ™˜Ž›¢Ȅǰȱ™™ǯȱŘŚȮ35. INST ARCH DAA 170 TYE. Session 9 (lectures 17-­‐‑18): Patterning at a household to settlement level Archaeologists often try to understand the function of a room or structure by examining the artefacts found there. What are the advantages, disadvantages and problems inherent in such an approach? How can we approach the analysis of settlements on a city-­‐‑wide basis? What has such research shown us? ALLISON, P. 1997. ȃ›ŽŠŒȱ’œ›’‹ž’˜—ȱŠ—ȱœ™Š’Š•ȱž—Œ’˜—ȱ’—ȱ˜–™Ž’Š—ȱ‘˜žœŽœȄȱin Beryl Rawson and Paul Weaver The Roman family in Italy: status, sentiment, space, pp. 321Ȯ54. ANCIENT HISTORY R 65 RAW. ALLISON, P. ŘŖŖŜǯȱ ȱ ȃ—›˜žŒ’˜—Ȅȱ Š—ȱ ȃŠ‹Ž•œȱ ˜›ȱ Š•ŽœDZȱ —Ž›™›Ž’—ȱ ‘Žȱ –ŠŽ›’Š•ȱ
Œž•ž›Žȱ˜ȱ˜–Š—ȱ
˜žœŽ‘˜•œȄȱin P. Allison (ed.) The Archaeology of Household Activities, pp. 1Ȯ18, 57Ȯ77. London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD ALL. *FLANNERY, K. ŗşŝŜǯȱ ȃ—Š•¢œ’œȱ ˜—ȱ ‘Žȱ ‘˜žœŽ‘˜•ȱ •ŽŸŽ•Ȅȱ Š—ȱ ȃ‘Žȱ Š›•¢ȱ
Žœ˜Š–Ž›’ŒŠ—ȱ
˜žœŽȄǰȱin K. Flannery (ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village, pp. 13Ȯ24. New York: Academic Press. ISSUE DESK FLA3; DF100 FLA; ANTHRO TK95 FLA; GEOG WN63 FLA. GARDNER, A. ŘŖŖŝǯȱȃ›ŽŠŒœǰȱŒ˜—Ž¡œǰȱŠ—ȱ‘ŽȱŠ›Œ‘ŠŽ˜•˜¢ȱ˜ȱœ˜Œ’Š•ȱ™›ŠŒ’ŒŽœǯȄȱIn R. Hingley and S. Willis Roman Finds: Context and Theory, pp. 128Ȯ39. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH DAA 170 QTO HIN GRAHAME, M. 1997. Public and private in the Roman house: the spatial order of the Casa del Fauno. In Domestic Space in the Roman World. R. Laurence & A. Wallace-­‐‑Hedrill, eds. Pp. 137-­‐‑164. Portsmouth.YATES QTOS K73 LAU GRAHAME, M. 2000. Reading space. Social interaction and identity in the houses of Roman Pompeii: a syntactical approach to the analysis and interpretation of built space. Oxford: BAR International Series 886. YATES QUARTOS K 73 GRA. LAMOTTA, V. M, AND M. B. SCHIFFER 2006. ȃThe formation processes of house floor ŠœœŽ–‹•ŠŽœȄȱin P. Allison (ed.) The Archaeology of Household Activities, pp. 19Ȯ
29. London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD ALL. 23
LAURENCE, RAY 1994. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. London: Routledge. See also second edition 2007. YATES E 22 POM. WALLACE-­‐‑HADRILL, A 1994. Houses and society in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Princeton: Princeton University Press. YATES K 73 WAL. Session 10 (lectures 19-­‐‑20): Regional survey and landscape archaeology What are the aims of regional survey and what methods have they employed? What are problems in comparing different surveys? How can we interpret the patterns revealed and what are the problems? Practical: estimating site numbers from surface survey. BARKER, G. 1995. A Mediterranean Valley. Landscape Archaeology and Annales history in the Bifurno Valley. Leicester: Leicester University Press. See especially chapters 1, 3, 10 and 13. INST ARCH DAF 10 BAR. BARKER, G. ET AL. 1996. Farming the desert: the UNESCO Libyan Valleys Archaeological Survey. London: Society for Libyan Studies. INST ARCH DCB BAR. BARKER, G., AND J. LLOYD (eds.) 1991. Roman Landscapes: Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Region. London: British School at Rome. YATES QUARTOS E 5 BAR; ISSUE DESK INST ARCH CDC 400 BAR. BELCHER, M., A. HARRISON AND S. STODDART 1999. ȃ—Š•¢£’—ȱ˜–ŽȂœȱ‘’—Ž›•Š—Ȅǰȱin M. Gillings, D. Mattingly and J. van Dalen Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology, pp. 55Ȯ64. Oxford: Oxbow. ISSUE DESK IOA BAR 3; INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO BAR. *FLANNERY, K. (ed.) 1976. The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press. Chapter 5: Sampling on the Regional Level, pp. 131Ȯ160 (all articles); Chapter 6: Analysis on the Regional Level, Part I; introduction (pp. 161Ȯ162); article by Flannery (pp. 162Ȯ173); Inter-­‐‑regional exchange networks: introduction (pp. 283Ȯ286). ISSUE DESK FLA3; DF 100 FLA; ANTHRO TK 95 FLA; GEOG WN 63 FLA HAYES, J. W. ŘŖŖŖǯȱ ȃ‘Žȱ Œž››Ž—ȱ œŠŽȱ ˜ȱ ˜–Š—ȱ ŒŽ›Š–’Œȱ œž’Žœȱ ’—ȱ Ž’Ž››Š—ŽŠ—ȱ
œž›ŸŽ¢ǰȱ˜›ȱ‘Š—•’—ȱ™˜Ž›¢ȱ›˜–ȱœž›ŸŽ¢œȄǰȱin R. Francovich and H. Patterson Extracting meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, 105Ȯ109. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO BAR. LOCK, G., T. BELL AND J. LLOYD ŗşşşǯȱȃ˜ Š›œȱŠȱ–Ž‘˜˜•˜¢ȱ˜›ȱ–˜Ž•’—ȱœž›ŠŒŽȱ
œž›ŸŽ¢ȱŠŠDZȱ‘ŽȱŠ—›˜ȱŠ••Ž¢ȱ›˜“ŽŒǰȄȱin M. Gillings, D. Mattingly and J. van 24
Dalen Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology, pp. 55Ȯ64. Oxford: Oxbow. ISSUE DESK IOA BAR 3; INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO BAR. MATTINGLY, D. ŘŖŖŖǯȱ ȃŽ‘˜œȱ ˜ȱ Œ˜••ŽŒ’˜—ǰȱ ›ŽŒ˜›’—ȱ Š—ȱ šžŠ—’’ŒŠ’˜—Ȅǰȱ in R. Francovich and H. Patterson Extracting meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, 5Ȯ
15. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO BAR. MATTINGLY, D. AND R. WITCHER ŘŖŖŚǯȱȃŠ™™’—ȱ‘Žȱ˜–Š—ȱ ˜›•DZȱ‘ŽȱŒ˜—›’‹ž’˜—ȱ
˜ȱ’Ž•ȱœž›ŸŽ¢ȱŠŠȄǰȱin Susan E. Alcock and John F. Cherry Side-­‐‑by-­‐‑side survey. Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, pp. 173Ȯ188. Oxbow: Oxford. INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO ALC. MILLETT, M. ŘŖŖŖǯȱ ȃŠ’—ǰȱ šžŠ—’¢’—ȱ Š—ȱ ž’•’£’—ȱ ™˜Ž›¢ȱ ŠœœŽ–‹•ŠŽœȱ ›˜–ȱ
œž›ŠŒŽȱ œž›ŸŽ¢Ȅǰȱ in R. Francovich and H. Patterson Extracting meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, 53Ȯ59. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO BAR. *ORTON, C. R. 2000. Sampling in Archaeology, ‘Š™Ž›ȱŚDZȱȃ˜ŸŽ›’—ȱ ‘Žȱ›˜ž—Ȅǰȱ™™ǯȱ
67Ȯ111. ISSUE DESK IOA ORT 3; INST ARCH AK 10 ORT. TERRENATO, N. ŘŖŖŖǯȱ ȃ‘Žȱ Ÿ’œ’‹’•’¢ȱ ˜ȱ œ’Žœȱ and the interpretation of field survey ›Žœž•œDZȱ˜ Š›œȱŠ—ȱŠ—Š•¢œ’œȱ˜ȱ’—Œ˜–™•ŽŽȱ’œ›’‹ž’˜—œȄǰȱin R. Francovich and H. Patterson Extracting meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, 60Ȯ71. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO BAR. TERRENATO, N. ŘŖŖŚǯȱ ȃŠ–™le size matters! The paradox of global trends and local œž›ŸŽ¢œȄǰȱ in Susan E. Alcock and John F. Cherry Side-­‐‑by-­‐‑side survey. Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, pp. 36Ȯ48. Oxbow: Oxford. INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO ALC. 25
4. 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 Classics and Ancient History sections of the Main UCL Library. Attendance A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please —˜’¢ȱ ‘Žȱ •ŽŒž›Ž›ȱ ‹¢ȱ Ž–Š’•ǯȱ ȱ ȱ Ž™Š›–Ž—œȱ Š›Žȱ ›Žšž’›Žȱ ˜ȱ ›Ž™˜›ȱ ŽŠŒ‘ȱ œžŽ—Ȃœȱ
attendance to UCL Registry at frequent intervals throughout each term. Students are expected to attend at least 70% of classes. Information for intercollegiate and interdepartmental students žŽ—œȱŽ—›˜••Žȱ’—ȱŽ™Š›–Ž—œȱ˜žœ’Žȱ‘Žȱ—œ’žŽȱœ‘˜ž•ȱ˜‹Š’—ȱ‘Žȱ—œ’žŽȂœȱ
coursework guidelines from Judy Medrington (email: j.medrington@ucl.ac.uk), which will also be available on the IoA website. Institute of Archaeology coursework procedures General policies and procedures concerning courses and coursework, including submission procedures, assessment criteria, and general resources, are available in your Degree Handbook and on the following website: http://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/display/archadmin. It is essential that you read and comply with these. Note that some of the policies and procedures will be different depending on your status (e.g., undergraduate, postgraduate taught, affiliate, graduate diploma, intercollegiate, interdepartmental). If in doubt, please consult your course co-­‐‑ordinator. Granting of extensions New UCL-­‐‑wide regulations with regard to the granting of extensions for coursework have been introduced with effect from the 2015Ȯ16 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, viŠȱ ž¢ȱ Ž›’—˜—Ȃœȱ ˜’ŒŽȱ Š—ȱ 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. 26