UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

ARCL0042

THEORY AND METHODS FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE

ANCIENT WORLD

2019-2020

Core module for second year BA Classical Archaeology and Classical Civilisation

15 credit module; Thursday 9:00–11:00, Room B13 IoA

Coordinator: Kris Lockyear

Office: IoA 204c

Primary email: noviodunum@hotmail.com;

Alternative email: tcfacll@ucl.ac.uk;

phone: 7679 4568

Eva Mol

Office: IoA 105

Email: e.mol@ucl.ac.uk; phone 7679 1525

Please see the last page of this document for important information about

submission and marking procedures, or links to the relevant webpages.

Deadlines: assignment 1: 21st November 2019; assignment 2: Friday 17th January

2020

1

1. OVERVIEW

Module contents: This module 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 module 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. 03/10/19: History and Theory of classical archaeology

2. 10/10/19: The scientific and the interpretative turn in the Classical landscape

3. 17/10/19: Identity, materiality and postcolonialism in Classical archaeology

4. 24/10/19: The ontological turn and post-humanism

5. 31/10/19: Gender and Politics in Classical Archaeology

[4–8/11/17 – Reading Week]

6. 14/11/20: Research designs in archaeology

7. 21/11/20: Site formation processes

8. 28/11/20: Assemblages: classification, formation and analysis

9. 5/12/20: Patterning from household to city levels

10. 12/12/20: Patterning in the landscape and regional surveys

Methods of Assessment: This module 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 module.

Teaching methods: This module 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 module. Students will be

expected to undertake around 70 hours of reading for the module, plus 60 hours

preparing for and producing the assessed work. This adds up to a total workload of

some 150 hours for the module.

Prerequisites: Students planning to take this module will normally be expected

previously to have taken either ARCL0001 Introduction to Roman Archaeology, or

ARCL0005 Introduction to Greek Archaeology in their first year, which provides the

relevant background material, which will be built upon in this module.

2

2. AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT

Aims:

The module 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 module students should have developed the ability

to:

1) marshal and critically appraise other people’s arguments;

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 Monday 21st November 2019

b) Assessment on data analysis Friday 17th January 2020

Except for Affiliate Students present at the Institute for only Term I (see Module

Coordinator)

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? How can we solve them?

2. What are the key characteristics of “the new archaeology” and to what extent

is it still relevant today?

3. Using two or more case-studies, critically discuss archaeologists’ approaches to

the understanding of ancient landscapes and their value for Classical

archaeology.

3

4. What problems do archaeologists face in trying to recover “meanings” from the

archaeological record and how far can “context” take them in such an 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 and materiality 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 difference between global classical archaeology and globalization

of classical archaeology? How can we move classical archaeology towards a

global movement? Use two cases studies

9. 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.

10. Using at least two case studies, discuss how posthumanism may inform our

understanding of the material record of the Classical past, use two examples.

11. If you are very passionate about a topic that is not presented in this list, you are

allowed to choose that as an essay subject, but only after consulting me and by

handing in an essay question with at least five references.

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 up 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.

4

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 small “sub-

projects” with scholars at the various universities taking responsibility for parts of 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 and implement one of the “sub-projects”.

A number of possibilities exist.

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

how this space was used. Can we identify slave’s quarters? Activity areas? Social

hierarchy? The evidence available includes environmental evidence from rubbish pits

outside the structures in what appears to be a ‘back yard’ area, along with associated

ceramics, pottery and other finds from the grander internal gardens, small finds from

some of the smaller rooms and so on. The “rich” rooms with tessellated 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 module (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 module. 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

5

these would impact on your project and how you might approach investigating them.

This will draw on your reading for session 7 of this module. For each topic you need

to consider what analysis methods you might use drawing on your reading from

sessions 8 to 10 of the module. You should show 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 Module Coordinator. 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 2,375‒2,625. 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.

In the 2019–20 session penalties for over-length work will be as follows:

• For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than 10% the

mark will be reduced by five percentage marks, but the penalised mark will

not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a pass.

• For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more the

mark will be reduced by ten percentage marks, but the penalised mark will

not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a pass.

6

Coursework submission procedures

• All coursework must normally be submitted both as hard copy and

electronically.

• You should staple the appropriate colour-coded IoA coversheet (available

in the IoA library and outside room 411a) to the front of each piece of work

and submit it to the red box at the Reception Desk.

• All coursework should be uploaded to Turnitin by midnight on the day of

the deadline. This will date-stamp your work. It is essential to upload all

parts of your work as this is sometimes the version that will be marked.

• Instructions are given below. Please note that the procedure has changed

for 2019–20, and work is now submitted to Turnitin via Moodle.

Submitting coursework via turnitin.

1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved as a Word

doc., docx. or PDF document. Please include the module code and your

candidate number on every page as a header.

2. Go into the Moodle page for the module to which you wish to submit your

work.

3. Click on the correct assignment (e.g., Essay 1),

4. Fill in the “Submission title” field with the right details: It is essential that the

first word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g., YGBR8 Essay

1). Note that your candidate number changes each year.

5. Click “Upload”.

6. Click on “Submit”

7. You should receive a receipt – please save this.

If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on ioa-

turnitin@ucl.ac.uk, explaining the nature of the problem and the exact module and

assignment involved. One of the Turnitin Advisers will normally respond within 24

hours, Monday-Friday during term. Please be sure to email the Turnitin Advisers if

technical problems prevent you from uploading work in time to meet a submission

deadline - even if you do not obtain an immediate response from one of the Advisers

they will be able to notify the relevant Module Coordinator that you had attempted to

submit the work before the deadline

3. SCHEDULE AND SYLLABUS

Lectures will be held 9:00-11:00 on Thursday mornings in Room B13 in IoA

Lecturers: Eva Mol (EM), Kris Lockyear (KL).

FULL SYLLABUS AND READING LIST

The following is an outline for the module as a whole, and identifies essential and

supplementary readings relevant to each session. Information is provided as to where

7

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 module, and often will form the basis of in-class discussions.

Copies of individual articles and chapters identified as essential reading are in the

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 1 and 2): History and Theory of classical

archaeology

Lecture 1, introduction to theory: thinking things through

What is archaeological theory and why do we need theory? The first lecture, next to

providing a general overview of the course, will give an introduction to the history of

archaeological thinking and to contemporary archaeological theory.

Essential

*Johnson, M. 2014, What is theory for? In A. Gardner, M. Lake and U. Sommer (eds)

The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory (online)

Harris and Cipolla 2017, An introduction to contemporary archaeological theory:

confronting dualisms (pp1-8) Archaeological theory in the New Millennium

(online available, also in the archaeology library: INST ARCH AH HAR)

Further reading

Bintliff J. and M. Pearce (eds) 2011 The death of Archaeological Theory? Oxbow, Oxford

(INST ARCH AH BIN).

Gardner A., M. Lake and U. Sommer (eds) 2014 The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological

Theory (online)

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)

8

Johnson, M. 1999/2010 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp.

1-12, chapter 1: “Commonsense is not enough” (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH

JOH)

Morris, I. 2006. “Classical Archaeology.” In A Companion to Archaeology, edited by

J.Bintliff, 253–71. Malden, MA: Blackwell (online and INST ARCH AF BIN).

Lecture 2: History and theory in classical archaeology

The second lecture will deal with the origins of Classical Archaeology and the

antiquarian tradition in the Classical world. 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

*Voutsaki, S. 2008. “Greek Archaeology: Theoretical Developments over the Last 40

Years.” Tijdschrift voor Mediterrane Archeologie 40: 21–28.

Trigger, B., 1989, A history of archaeological thought, Classical archaeology and

antiquarianism 27-73 (online)

Terrenato, N. 2002. “The Innocents and the Sceptics: Antiquity and Classical

Archaeology.” Antiquity 76: 1104–11 (online)

Further reading

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)

Haggis D. C. and C. M. Antonaccio 2015 A contextual archaeology of ancient Greece

in D. C. Haggis and C. M. Antonaccio (eds) Classical Archaeology in Context.

Theory and Practice in Excavation of the Greek World. De Gruyter, 1-11 (online)

Momigliano, A. 1950. Ancient history and the antiquarian. Journal of the Warburg and

Courtauld Institutes, 13, 3/4, 285-315 (online)

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)

Osborne, R. 2004. “Greek Archaeology: A Survey of Recent Work.” American

Journal of Archaeology 108: 87–102. (Inst Arch Pers)

Schnapp, A. 1996. The Discovery of the Past. London, British Museum Press,

especially chapters 2-5 (IoA: AG SCH)

Whitley, J. 2001 The Archaeology of Ancient Greece, Ch. 1, “Introduction: Classical

Archaeology and its objects”, 3-16. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

(IoA Issue Desk; YATES A20 WHI)

9

Session 2 (lectures 3 and 4) The scientific and the interpretative turn in

the Classical landscape

Lecture 3: New archaeology and the Classical landscape

In this lecture we will look at the impact of the development of processual archaeology

upon Classical Archaeology and the relationship between these developments and the

emergence of a ‘social archaeology of Greece and Rome’ through an important method

that changed the way the classical landscape was studied and conceived: survey

archaeology.

Buzzwords: New Archaeology, processualism

Essential

*Harris and Cipolla 2017, chapter 2: Beyond paradigms: a potted history of

archaeological thought (13-34), Archaeological theory in the New Millennium

(online)

*Dyson, S. L. 1981, ‘A Classical Archaeologist's Response to the “New

Archaeology”’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 242, pp.

7- 13 (online)

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)

Shanks M. 1995 Classical archaeology of Greece. Experiences of the discipline, chapter 5

“Rudiments of a social archaeology”, Routledge. London, 118-153 (IoA: AG

SHA and Issue Desk; also available online at academia.edu)

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's Imprint from the

Past, 155-86 (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,

“Culture as system” (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH JOH)

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)

10

Renfrew, C. 1984. Approaches to Social Archaeology. “The multiplier effect in action”,

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)

Lecture 4: the landscape in post-processualism: interpretation and symbolism

The distinctive engagement with post-processual theory in Classical Archaeology is

impossible to disentangle from the impact of the critical reaction to it, also known as

post-processual archaeology. The 1980s and 1990s caused 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 discuss some of the trends of call post-processual

archaeology, the influence from Marxism, Structuralism and Social Theory, and the

benefits and problems that these changes have brought to the study of the Classical

world.

Buzzwords: post-processualism, postmodernism, the interpretative turn

Essential

*Shanks, M., and I. Hodder 1995 Processual, post-processual 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-

also online)

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)

Launaro, A., 2004. Experienced Landscapes Through Intentional Sources. In Croxford,

B.,Eckardt, H., Meade, J., and Weekes, J. (eds) TRAC 2003: Proceedings of the

Thirteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Leicester 2003, pp.

111–122. Oxford: Oxbow Books. (INST ARCH DAA 170 THE and available

online).

Further reading

Barrett, J.C., 1997. ‘Theorising Roman Archaeology’, in Meadows, K., Lemke, C., and

Heron, J. (eds) 1997. TRAC 96: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Theoretical Roman

11

Archaeology Conference, Sheffield 1996, pp. 1–7. Oxford: Oxbow Books. (INST

ARCH DAA 170 THE and available online).

Vanni, E., 2017. ‘Welcome-back Marx! Marxist Perspectives for Roman Archaeology

at the End of the Post-Modern Era.’ In Roberta Cascino, Francesco De

Stefano, Antonella Lepone and Chiara Maria Marchetti (eds), TRAC 2016

Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference,

pp.133–149 (online:

https://traj.openlibhums.org/articles/abstract/10.16995/TRAC2016_133_149/).

Session 3 (lectures 5 and 6): Identity, materiality and postcolonialism

in Classical archaeology

Lecture 5: Cultural identity, material culture and postcolonialism

Next to interpreting the landscape, the concept of ‘identity’ has been a vital focus in

Classical archaeological theory, especially concerning the ‘pots are people debate’.

How does material culture reflect cultures? Was there a Romanization process? What

is a Greek identity? Whereas in early cultural historical scholarship this would not

have been problematic, after rethinking identity and material culture in post-

processualism the idea that Romanization is only a one-way cultural influence became

untenable. Postcolonialist and hybridity theory approaches look at how ‘natives’ also

have impacted Greek and Roman (material) culture, and how identities are

constructed through the help of material culture.

Buzzwords: identity, ethnicity, postcolonialism, hybridity

Essential

*Harris and Cipolla 2017, Situating things in society: identity and personhood

(online)

*Van Dommelen, P., 2011, Postcolonial archaeologies between discourse and practice

World ArchaeologyVol. 43, No. 1, pp. 1-6 (online)

Pitts, M. 2007, The Emperor’s New Clothes? The Utility of Identity in Roman

Archaeology. American Journal of Archaeology 111/4: 693-713 (online)

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)

Further reading

Altekamp, S. 2004. Italian colonial archaeology in Libya 1912-1942. In Galaty, M.

and C. Watkinson (eds), Archaeology under Dictatorship. New York: Springer, pp.

55-71

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)

12

Diaz-Andreu, M. et al. (eds), 2005. The Archaeology of Identity. London: Routledge,

“Introduction”, pp. 1-13 (IoA: AH DIA; TC 3695)

Dietler, M. 2005. "The Archaeology of Colonization and the Colonization of

Archaeology: Theoretical Challenges from an Ancient Mediterranean Colonial

Encounter". In The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters: Comparative Perspectives,

ed. Gil J. Stein, 33-68. Santa Fe: School of American Research. (INST ARCH AH

STE)

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)

van Dommelen, P. 2016. Classical connections and Mediterranean practices in T.

Hodos et al. The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization (online)

Hawley J. C. 2014 Post-colonial theory, in A. Gardner, M. Lake and U. Sommer (eds)

The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory (online)

Woolf, G., 1998, Becoming Roman: the origins of provincial civilization in Gaul,

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (online)

Lecture 6: Beyond representation: identity, materiality and globalization

Post-processualism has been a paradigm change in archaeology, but since the turn of

the millennium an increasing amount of Greek and Roman archaeologists have voiced

criticism against the overtly interpretative approach, as it conceived of objects merely

as ‘a medium’ for communication or appreciated for its symbolic value. Recently,

materiality has been adopted to bring the object back as an agent capable of creating

values instead of merely reflecting them. What does the object do?

Buzzwords: materiality, agency, globalization

Essential

*Knappet,C., 2014, Materiality in Archaeological Theory, Encyclopedia of Global

Archaeology (online)

*Astrid Van Oyen and Martin Pitts, ‘What did objects do in the Roman world? Beyond

representation’ in Versluys, M.J., 2014, Understanding objects in motion. An

archaeological dialogue on Romanization, Archaeological Dialogues, Volume 21

-Issue 1 (online)

Further reading

Ingold, T. 2007. Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues 14(1): 1-16

Ribeiro, 2016, Archaeology will be alright, Archaeological Dialogues,

archaeological Dialogues 23 (2) 146–151

Harris, O.J.T. and C. Cipolla (2017). ‘Finding symmetry: Actor-Network-Theory and

new materialism’, chapter 8 in Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium :

Introducing Current Perspectives. London: Routledge. Ebook available online

via the library.

13

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)

Knappett, C. 2005. Thinking through material culture: an interdisciplinary perspective.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. (INST ARCH AH KNA and

available online via the UCL Explore).

Mol, E.M., 2013. The Perception of Egypt in Networks of Being and Becoming: A

Thing Theory Approach to Egyptianising Objects in Roman Domestic

Contexts. In Bokern, A., Bolder-Boos, M., Krmnicek, S., Maschek, D. and Page,

S. (eds) TRAC 2012: Proceedings of the Twenty Second Theoretical Roman

Archaeology Conference, Frankfurt 2012, pp.117–131. (INST ARCH DAA 170

BOK and available online).

Van Oyen, A., 2015, Actor-Network Theory's Take on Archaeological Types:

Becoming, Material Agency and Historical Explanation. Cambridge

Archaeological Journal 25(1): 63–78. (online)

Session 4 (lectures 7 and 8) The ontological turn and post-humanism

Lecture 7: The ontological turn: other pasts Academia in general, but certainly Classics and Classical archaeology as we saw

during the previous session, has been approached from a Eurocentric and colonial

perspective. Whereas postcolonialism functioned as a critique against this, recently a

more active response to this is being taken in the form of decolonization. Decolonizing

approaches emerged initially as a means to counter the Western belief-categories of

Indigenous representations, but are now applied in a broader way. The ontological

turn and New Materialism as decolonizing theories have been growing in number,

but they have yet to integrate into Greek and Roman scholarship. What has Classical

archaeology to gain from other pasts and different perspectives than European and

Anglo-Saxon scholarship?

Buzzwords: decolonization, ontology, perspectivism

Essential

Harris, O.J.T. and C. Cipolla (2017). ‘ “Others”: postcolonialism, the ontological turn

and colonised Things’, chapter 10 in Archaeological Theory in the New

Millennium : Introducing Current Perspectives. London: Routledge. Ebook

available online via the library.

* Todd, Zoe. “An Indigenous Feminist's Take on the Ontological Turn: ‘Ontology’ is

Just Another Word for Colonialism.” Journal of Historical Sociology 29.1 (2016):

4-22 (available online).

14

Latour, B., Perspectivism, type or bomb? Anthropology Today, April 2009 – vol 25 – no

2 (2 Pages; online)

*Alberti, B, Severin Fowles, Martin Holbraad, Yvonne Marshall and Christopher

Witmore (2011), ‘Worlds Otherwise’: Archaeology, Anthropology, and

Ontological Difference. Current Anthropology 52(6): 896-912 (available online)

Further reading

Harris, O.J.T. and C. Cipolla (2017). ‘Finding symmetry: Actor-Network-Theory and

new materialism’, chapter 8 in Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium :

Introducing Current Perspectives. London: Routledge. Ebook available online

via the library.

Hamilakis, Y. (2014), Why ‘Palaces’? Chapter 6 in Archaeology and the Senses: Human

Experience, Memory, and Affect. Cambridge: CUP. (INST ARCH DAG 14

HAM).

MacKinnon, M., 2017, ‘Multi-species Dynamics and the Ecology of Urban Spaces in

Roman Antiquity’, in S.E. Pilaar Birch (ed.) Multispecies Archaeology, pp. 170-

182. (Available online).

Marchand, S. L. 1996 Down from Olympus: archaeology and Philhellenism in

Germany 1750-1970 (Main: GERMAN A 60 MAR)

Schnapp, A et al. (1991) “The use of Theory in French Archaeology” in I. Hodder

(ed.), Archaeological Theory in Europe. The Last Three Decades, 91-128. London,

Routledge (IoA: AG HOD; IoA Issue Desk)

Terrenato, N. 2005 ‘Start the revolution without me’: recent debates 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)

Funari, P. A.; Zarankin, A..; Stovel, E. (eds.), 2005, Global archaeological theory:

contextual voices and contemporary thoughts New York, Kluwer

Academic/Plenum Publishers. (INST ARCH AH FUN and available online).

Ferrera, L.M., Footsteps of the American Race, archaeology, ethnography, and

Romantism in Imperial Brazil (1838-1867), in P.A. Funari, P. A.; Zarankin, A..;

E. Stovel, (eds.), Global archaeological theory: contextual voices and contemporary

thoughts. New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 337-353. (INST

ARCH AH FUN and available online).

Piñon-Sequeira, A.C., 2005, Brazilian Archaeology: Indigenous identity in the Early

decades of the twentieth Century, in P.A. Funari, P. A.; Zarankin, A..; E.

Stovel, (eds.), Global archaeological theory: contextual voices and contemporary

thoughts New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers 353-64 (INST

ARCH AH FUN and available online).

15

Johnson, M., 2005, A response from the Core, in P.A. Funari, P. A.; Zarankin, A..; E.

Stovel, (eds.), Global archaeological theory: contextual voices and contemporary

thoughts New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 365-70. (INST

ARCH AH FUN and available online).

Lecture 8: Posthumanism

The other way to decolonize past and present is through adopting posthumanism as

a perspective. Posthumanism is a critique against anthropocentrism and the categories

it has created. The ultimate aim is the disappearance of the hierarchical boundaries

between the human, the animal, the non-human and the machine and adopt a

multispecies perspective. What is the difference between posthumanism

antihumanism, and transhumanism? Should we become less anthropocentric? And

how can the posthuman approach help Classical Archaeology?

Buzzwords: posthumanism, multispecies

Essential

*Braidotti, 2013, The Posthuman, Introduction (ANTHROPOLOGY D 10 BRA)

Wolfe, C. 2010. What Is Posthumanism? Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota

Press, introduction (online)

Further reading

Selsvold, I., and L. Webb (eds.), Beyond the Romans: Posthuman Perspectives in

Roman archaeology Oxbow Books | Series: TRAC Themes in Archaeology |

Volume: 3 | Publication: May 2020

Mol, E.M., 2019, Roman Cyborgs! On Significant Otherness, Material Absence and

Virtual Presence in the Archaeology of Roman Religion, Journal of European

Archaeology. (available via Cambridge Core, log on via library).

MacKinnon, M., 2017, ‘Multi-species Dynamics and the Ecology of Urban Spaces in

Roman Antiquity’, in S.E. Pilaar Birch (ed.) Multispecies Archaeology, pp. 170-

182. (Available online).

Session 5 (lectures 9–10): Decolonizing Classical Archaeology: Gender

and politics

Lecture 9: Gender, embodiment, and feminism

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 and to

16

current movements that want to draw attention to issues in the field such as the

Trowelblazers collective.

Buzzwords: feminism, gender, intersectionality, trowelblazers

Essential

*Battle-Baptiste, W., 2011, Black feminist archaeology, Introduction, understanding a

black feminist framework online: (file:///C:/Users/eva_m/Downloads/Battle-

Baptiste%202011%20(3).pdf) – read this and think about your own relation to

archaeology, did you ever come across racism and injustice in your practice or

life, how could you help this as an archaeologist. Also pay attention to writing

style!

*Beard, M., 2017, Women and Power, A Manifesto, second part, women and power.

Profile Books.

Conkey, M. and Gero, J., 1997. Programme to practice: gender and feminism in

archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 26, 411-37 (online)

Further reading

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)

Johnson, M. 1999. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.

“Archaeology and gender” OR “Archaeology, gender and identity” (2010

edition only) (IoA Issue Desk; AH JOH)

Perego E. 2014 Bodies and persons, in A. Gardner, M. Lake and U. Sommer (eds) The

Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory (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)

Osborne R. 2011 The History Written on the Classical Greek Body. Cambridge (especially

Ch. 3) [Main: Ancient Hist. P 4 OSB]

Russell, A., 2016. On Gender and Spatial Experience in Public: The Case of Ancient

Rome. Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal, (2015), pp.164–176

Sofaer, J., 2006. The Body as Material Culture. A Theoretical Osteoarchaeology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press (IoA: AH SOF)

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)

17

Nevett, L. C. 2011 Towards a Female Topography of the Ancient Greek City: Case

Studies from Late Archaic and Early Classical Athens (c.520–400 BCE). Gender

& History, 23: 576–596 (online)

Wilkie, Laurie A. 2010. The Lost Boys of Zeta Psi: A Historical Archaeology of Masculinity

in a University Fraternity. University of California Press

Lecture 10: The politics of Classical Archaeology: where to go?

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. Even worse, the Classical world and its objects become increasingly

adopted in white supremacist, alt right, and misogynist rhetoric. What is our role as

Classical archaeologist in these developments? 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

* Quinn, J., 2017, Against Classics (https://wcc-uk.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2017/10/27/against-classics/)

*Zuckerberg, D., 2016, How to be a good classicist under a bad emperor, Eidolon

https://eidolon.pub/how-to-be-a-good-classicist-under-a-bad-emperor-

6b848df6e54a

*Morse, H., 2018, Classics and the Alt-Right: Historicizing Visual Rhetorics of White

Supremacy https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/learn-speak-act/2018/02/15/classics-and-the-alt-right/

Gardner, A. 2017. Brexit, boundaries, and imperial identities – a comparative

view. Journal of Social Archaeology 17(1), 3-26 (INST ARCH Pers; online)

Further reading

Mol, E.M., 2019, Diversity in the Past, Diversity in the Present? Issues of Gender,

Whiteness, and Class in Classical Archaeology, AIAC Proceedings 2018, Bonn-

Köln

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/academics-its-time-to-get-

behind-decolonising-the-curriculum

Ram-Prasad, K., Reclaiming the Ancient World Towards a Decolonized Classics,

Eidolon (https://eidolon.pub/reclaiming-the-ancient-world-c481fc19c0e3)

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)

18

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

“Introduction” pp.1-12, Knapp and Antoniadu “Archaeology, politics, and

the cultural heritage of Cyprus” pp. 13-43, Kotskakis “The past is ours: images

of Greek Macedonia” pp. 44-67, Hassan “Memorabilia” pp.200-216 (IoA

IssueDesk; IoA: AG MES)

Further reading

Iacono, F. 2014 A Pioneering Experiment: Dialoghi di Archeologia between Marxism

and Political Activism. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 24, Art. 5 (online)

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)

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)

Galaty, M. L. and C. Watkinson (eds) 2004 Archaeology under Dictatorship. London,

New York (IoA: AF GAL), Ch. 9 particularly good.

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)

Meskell, L. 2002. “The intersections of identity and politics in archaeology”. Annual

Review of Anthropology 31: 279-301 (online)

Nelis J. 2007 'Constructing Fascist identity: Benito Mussolini and Romanità', 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)

19

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)

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 other

people’s work? DISCUSSION: To sieve or not to sieve?

BANNING, E. 2000. The Archaeologist's Laboratory, Chapter 4: “Research design and

sampling.” London. ISSUE DESK AH BAN.

*BINFORD, L. 1964 “A consideration of archaeological research design.” American

Antiquity 29(4):425–441. TEACHING COLL. 2767. Available online via JSTOR.

BLINKTHORNE, P. and C. G. CUMBERPATCH 1998. “The interpretation of artefacts and

the tyranny of the field archaeologist.” Assemblage 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, K. 1976. “Research strategy and formative Mesoamerica” and “A prayer

for an endangered species” in K. Flannery (ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village, pp.

1–11, 369–373. New York: Academic. ISSUE DESK FLA3; DF100 FLA; ANTHRO TK95 FLA;

GEOG WN63 FLA.

HASSAN, F. 1998. “Beyond the surface: comments on Hodder’s reflexive excavation

methodology.” Antiquity 72: 213–217. TEACHING COLL. 1610 (4 copies) and 2233 (1

copy); IOA PERS and available online.

20

Historic England 2016. “Project management for Heritage”, available at

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/project-management-for-

heritage/ See also the various links, documents etc.

HODDER, I. 1997. “Always momentary, fluid & flexible: towards a reflexive

excavation methodology.” Antiquity 71: 691–700. Available online.

HODDER, I. 1998. “Whose rationality? A response to Fekri Hassan.” Antiquity 72: 213–

217. Available online.

MILNE, G. 1992. “The archaeologist as alchemist”, in G. Milne (ed) From Roman

Basilica to Medieval Market, pp. 51–60. London: HMSO. ISSUE DESK IOA MIL 10;

NST ARCH DAA 416 MIL.

PAYNE, S. 1972. “Partial recovery and sample bias: the results of some sieving

experiments.” In E. S. Higgs Papers in Economic Prehistory, pp. 49–64.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH ISSUE DESK HIG 3, INST

ARCH HA QTO HIG.

REDMAN, C. L. (1973) “Multistage fieldwork and analytical techniques.” American

Antiquity 38, 61–79. INST ARCH PERS AND AVAILABLE FROM JSTOR.

REDMAN, C. L. 1987. “Surface Collection, Sampling, and Research Design: A

Retrospective.” American Antiquity 52:249–265. 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. 1981 “Behavioural archaeology & the Pompeii premise.” Journal of

Anthropological Research 37:195–208. 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. 1997. “A city frozen in time or a site in perpetual motion? Formation

processes at Pompeii” in Sara E. Bon and Rick Jones (eds) Sequence and Space in

Pompeii, pp. 7–12. YATES E 22 POM.

21

BRADLEY, R. AND M. FULFORD 1980. “Sherd size in the analysis of occupation debris’,

Bulletin of the University of London Institute of Archaeology17: 85–94. INST ARCH

PERS.

GREEN, FRANCIS J. AND KRIS LOCKYEAR 1994. ‘Seeds, sherds and samples: site

formation processes at the Waitrose site, Romsey’, in Rowley-Conwy, T. and

Rosemary Luff (eds.) Whither Environmental Archaeology?, pp. 91 –104. Oxford:

Oxbow Books Monograph 38. inst arch ioa luf.

HALSTEAD, PAUL, IAN HODDER AND GLYNIS JONES 1978. ‘Behavioural Archaeology and

Refuse Patterns: A Case Study.’ Norwegian Archaeolgical Review 11(1): 118–131.

INST ARCH PERS.

JANSEN, GEMMA C. M. 2000. “Systems for the disposal of waste and excreta in Roman

cities. The situation in Pompeii, Herculaneum and Ostia.” In Xavier Dupré

Raventós and Josep-Anton Remolà (eds) Sordes Urbis. La eliminación de residues

en la cuidad romana, pp. 37–50. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Yates K 120

DUP (19).

LIEBESCHUETZ, W. 2000. “Rubbish disposal in Greek and Roman Cities.” In Xavier

Dupré Raventós and Josep-Anton Remolà (eds) Sordes Urbis. La eliminación de

residues en la cuidad romana, pp.51–62. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Yates K

120 DUP (19).

ORTON, C. R. 1986. “Two useful parameters for pottery research”, 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. 1972 “Archaeological context and systemic context.” American

Antiquity 37:156–65. 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. ‘Shipibo archaeo-ethnography: site formation

processes and archaeological interpretation.’ World Archaeology 18(1): 96–115.

INST ARCH PERS and available through JSTOR.

22

SULLIVAN III, ALAN P. 1989. “The Technology of Ceramic Reuse: Formation Processes

and Archaeological Evidence”, World Archaeology 21(1): pp. 101–114. INST

ARCH PERS and available through JSTOR.

WOOD, W. AND D. JOHNSON 1978. “A survey of disturbance processes.’ Advances in

Archaeological Method & Theory 1: 315–81. 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.

ALLISON, P. M. 1992. “Artefact Assemblages: Not the Pompeii Premise” in E. Herring,

R. Whitehouse and J. Wilkins (eds) Papers of the Fourth Conference of Italian

Archaeology, London, 1990, vol. 3, 1, pp. 49–56. London: Accordia Research

Centre.

COOL, H. E. M. 2002. “An overview of the small finds from Catterick” in Wilson, P.

R. Cataractonium. Roman Catterick and its hinterland, vol. 2, pp. 24–43. Council

for British Archaeology, York. INST ARCH DAA QTO SERIES COU 129.

COOL H. E. M. AND M. J. BAXTER 2002. “Exploring Romano-British Finds

assemblages”, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21: 365–80.

CRUMMY, N. 2007. “Six honest serving men: a basic methodology for the study of

small finds”, in R. Hingley and S. Willis Roman Finds: Context and Theory, pp.

59–66. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH DAA 170 QTO HIN.

HAYDEN, B. AND A. CANNON 1983. “Where the garbage goes: refuse disposal in the

Maya highlands.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 117–63. TEACHING

COLL. 1387 (4 copies); IOA PERS. Also available online.

LOCKYEAR, K. 2000. “Site Finds in Roman Britain: a comparison of techniques.” Oxford

Journal of Archaeology 19(4), 397–423. INST ARCH PERS AND AVAILABLE ONLINE.

LOCKYEAR, K. 2007. Patterns and Process in Late Roman Republican Coin Hoards, 157–2 BC.

Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, International Series 1733. See chapter 2

on the data. YATES QUARTOS R 85 LOC.

23

LUCAS, GAVIN 2001. Critical Approaches to Fieldwork, Chapter 3: “Splitting objects.”

London: Routledge.

MILLETT, M. 2007. “Experiments in the analysis of finds deposition at Shiptonthorpe:

a retrospect”, in R. Hingley and S. Willis Roman Finds: Context and Theory, pp.

100–105. 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. 76–86; Chapter 13: Quantification, pp. 166–181;

Chapter 16: Assemblages and sites, pp. 207–216. Cambridge. ISSUE DESK IOA ORT

2; INST ARCH KD 3 ORT.

REECE, R. 1996. “The interpretation of site finds — a review”, in C. E. King and D. G.

Wigg Coin Finds and Coin Use in the Roman World, pp. 341–55. Berlin: Gebr. Mann

Verlag.

TYERS, PAUL 1996. Roman Pottery in Britain. London: Batsford. See Chapter 2 on

“Sources for the study of Roman pottery”, pp. 24–35. 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. “Artefact distribution and spatial function in Pompeian houses” in

Beryl Rawson and Paul Weaver The Roman family in Italy: status, sentiment, space,

pp. 321–54. ANCIENT HISTORY R 65 RAW.

ALLISON, P. 2006. “Introduction” and “Labels for Ladles: Interpreting the material

culture of Roman Households” in P. Allison (ed.) The Archaeology of Household

Activities, pp. 1–18, 57–77. London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD ALL.

ALLISON, P. 2013. People and spaces in Roman military bases. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press. YATES K 82 ALL.

*FLANNERY, K. 1976. “Analysis on the household level” and “The Early Mesoamerican

House”, in K. Flannery (ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village, pp. 13–24. New

York: Academic Press. ISSUE DESK FLA3; DF100 FLA; ANTHRO TK95 FLA; GEOG WN63

FLA.

24

GARDNER, A. 2007. “Artefacts, contexts, and the archaeology of social practices.” In R.

Hingley and S. Willis Roman Finds: Context and Theory, pp. 128–39. 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. “The formation processes of house floor

assemblages” in P. Allison (ed.) The Archaeology of Household Activities, pp. 19–

29. London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD ALL.

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. “Analyzing Rome’s hinterland”, in

M. Gillings, D. Mattingly and J. van Dalen Geographical Information Systems and

25

Landscape Archaeology, pp. 55–64. 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. 131–160 (all articles); Chapter

6: Analysis on the Regional Level, Part I; introduction (pp. 161–162); article by

Flannery (pp. 162–173); Inter-regional exchange networks: introduction (pp.

283–286). ISSUE DESK FLA3; DF 100 FLA; ANTHRO TK 95 FLA; GEOG WN 63 FLA

HAYES, J. W. 2000. “The current state of Roman ceramic studies in Mediterranean

survey, or handling pottery from surveys”, in R. Francovich and H. Patterson

Extracting meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, 105–109. Oxford: Oxbow. INST

ARCH DAG 100 QTO BAR.

LOCK, G., T. BELL AND J. LLOYD 1999. “Towards a methodology for modeling surface

survey data: the Sangro Valley Project,” in M. Gillings, D. Mattingly and J. van

Dalen Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology, pp. 55–64.

Oxford: Oxbow. ISSUE DESK IOA BAR 3; INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO BAR.

MATTINGLY, D. 2000. “Methods of collection, recording and quantification”, in R.

Francovich and H. Patterson Extracting meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, 5–

15. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO BAR.

MATTINGLY, D. AND R. WITCHER 2004. “Mapping the Roman world: the contribution of

field survey data”, in Susan E. Alcock and John F. Cherry Side-by-side survey.

Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, pp. 173–188. Oxbow:

Oxford. INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO ALC.

MILLETT, M. 2000. “Dating, quantifying and utilizing pottery assemblages from

surface survey”, in R. Francovich and H. Patterson Extracting meaning from

Ploughsoil Assemblages, 53–59. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO BAR.

*ORTON, C. R. 2000. Sampling in Archaeology, Chapter 4: “Covering the ground”, pp.

67–111. ISSUE DESK IOA ORT 3; INST ARCH AK 10 ORT.

TERRENATO, N. 2000. “The visibility of sites and the interpretation of field survey

results: towards an analysis of incomplete distributions”, in R. Francovich and

H. Patterson Extracting meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, 60–71. Oxford:

Oxbow. INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO BAR.

TERRENATO, N. 2004. “Sample size matters! The paradox of global trends and local

surveys”, in Susan E. Alcock and John F. Cherry Side-by-side survey. Comparative

26

Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, pp. 36–48. Oxbow: Oxford. INST

ARCH DAG 100 QTO ALC.

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.

Information for intercollegiate and interdepartmental students

Students enrolled in Departments outside the Institute should obtain the Institute’s

coursework guidelines from Judy Medrington (email: j.medrington@ucl.ac.uk). These

guidelines will also be available on Moodle under Student Administration.

APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2019-20 (PLEASE READ

CAREFULLY)

This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to modules.

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 IoA Student

Administration section of Moodle: https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/module/view

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 register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class,

please notify the lecturer by email. Students are normally required to attend at least

70% of classes.

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

Late submission: Late submission will be penalized in accordance with current UCL

regulations, unless formal permission for late submission has been granted.

The UCL penalties are as follows:

27

• The marks for coursework received up to two working days after the

published date and time will incur a 10 percentage point deduction in marks

(but no lower than the pass mark).

• The marks for coursework received more than two working days and up to

five working days after the published date and time will receive no more

than the pass mark (40% for UG modules, 50% for PGT modules).

• Work submitted more than five working days after the published date and

time, but before the second week of the third term will receive a mark of

zero but will be considered complete.

Granting of extensions

Please note that there are strict UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of

extensions for coursework. You are reminded that Module Coordinators are not

permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a the

appropriate 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 acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties

should contact UCL Student Support and Wellbeing (SSW) to make special

arrangements. Please see the IoA website for further information. Additional

information is given here

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/

Return of coursework and resubmission

You should receive your marked coursework within one month 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 Module Co-ordinator within two weeks. You must retain a copy of all

coursework submitted.

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 module on Moodle. For help

with Moodle, please contact Charlotte Frearson (c.frearson@ucl.ac.uk)