UCL INSTITUTE OF

1

ARCL0042 THEORY AND METHODS FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD

2018-2019

Core module for second year BA and Classical Civilisation 15 credits; Thursday 9:00–11:00, Room B13 IoA

Turnitin Class ID: 3884000 Turnitin Password: IoA1819

Deadlines for coursework for this module: Monday 22/11/18; Monday 14/01/19 Target dates for return of marked coursework to students: 13/12/18; 09/02/19

Coordinator: Dr. Corinna Riva Room: 406; Telephone: 07679 7536 Email: [email protected]

Please see the last page of this document for important information about submission and marking procedures, or links to the relevant webpages.

1. OVERVIEW

Module contents: This module provides students with an introduction to and methodology relevant to the understanding and analysis of the societies and of the ancient world. The module will include an introduction to key paradigms in the of archaeological theory (antiquarianism, history, , interpretive archaeology, agency theory etc); and key issues and methods in data-analysis (excavation strategies, assemblage analysis, typologies, regional analysis etc).

Summary weekly schedule: (Term 1) 1. 04/10/18: History and Theory of Classical Archaeology 2. 11/10/18: New Archaeology and Ancient Ecologies 3. 18/10/18: Interpreting Classical Archaeology, in the UK and Europe 4. 25/10/18: Individuals and Identities 5. 01/11/18: Gender and Politics in Classical Archaeology

[5–10/11/18 – Reading Week]

6. 15/11/18: Research designs in archaeology 7. 22/11/18: Site formation processes 8. 29/11/18: Assemblages: classification, formation and analysis 9. 06/12/18: Patterning in the landscape and regional surveys 10. 13/12/18: Patterning from household to city levels

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 90 hours of reading for the module, plus 78 hours preparing for and producing the assessed work. This adds up to a total workload of some 188 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.

1

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 22nd November 2018 b) Assessment on data analysis Monday 14th January 2019 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? 2. What are the key characteristics of “the new archaeology” and to what extent has it proven a helpful perspective in classical archaeology? 3. Using two or more case-studies, critically discuss archaeologists’ approaches to the understanding of ancient landscapes and their value for Classical archaeology.

2

4. What problems do archaeologists face in trying to recover “meanings” from the 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 been used by archaeologists to interpret the ? 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 small “sub-

3

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 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 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

4

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.

Please note that in order to be deemed to have completed and passed in any module, it is necessary to submit all assessments.

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 2018–19 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.

Coursework submission procedures

5

• All coursework must normally be submitted both as hard copy and electronically. (The only exceptions are bulky portfolios and lab books which are normally submitted as hard copy only.) • 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 (or room 411a in the case of Year 1 undergraduate work) • 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.

Note that Turnitin uses the term ‘class’ for what we normally call a ‘module’. 1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved as a Word doc., docx. or PDF document, and that you have the Class ID for the module (3884000) and enrolment password (this is IoA1819 for all modules this session - note that this is capital letter I, lower case letter o, upper case A, followed by the current academic year) 2. Go to http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login 3. Click on ‘Create account’ 4. Select your category as ‘Student’ 5. Create an account using your UCL email address. Note that you will be asked to specify a new password for your account - do not use your UCL password or the enrolment password, but invent one of your own (Turnitin will permanently associate this with your account, so you will not have to change it every 6 months, unlike your UCL password). In addition, you will be asked for a “Class ID” and a “Class enrolment password” (see point 1 above). 6. Once you have created an account you can just log in at http://www.turnitinuk.com/en_gb/login and enrol for your other classes without going through the new user process again. Simply click on ‘Enrol in a class’. Make sure you have all the relevant “class IDs” at hand. 7. Click on the module to which you wish to submit your work. 8. Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1). 9. Double-check that you are in the correct module and assignment and then click ‘Submit’ 10. Attach document as a “Single file upload” 11. Enter your name (the examiner will not be able to see this) 12. Fill in the “Submission title” field with the right details: It is essential that the first word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g. YGBR8 In what sense can culture be said to evolve?),

6

13. Click “Upload”. When the upload is finished, you will be able to see a text-only version of your submission. 14. Click on “Submit”

If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on ioa- [email protected], 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: Corinna Riva (CR), Andrew Gardner (AG).

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 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 1–2): History and Theory of Classical Archaeology

Lecture 1: Theory and theorising in Classical Archaeology

7

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. 1-12, chapter I “Commonsense is not enough” (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH JOH) or Johnson, M. 2014 What is theory for? In A. Gardner, M. Lake and U. Sommer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory (online) – compare with: 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)

*Morris, I. 1994 Archaeologies of Greece in I. Morris (ed.) Classical Greece. Ancient and Modern Archaeologies, 8-47 (IoA: YATES A20 MOR; IoA: TC 569) *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) *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 “The health of a discipline”, pp. 1-36 (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: YATES A20 SNO)

Further reading Biers, W. 1993. Art, Artefacts and Chronology in Classical Archaeology (IoA: AJ10 BIE) Bintliff J. and M. Pearce (eds) 2011 The death of Archaeological Theory? Oxbow, Oxford. Gardner A., M. Lake and U. Sommer (eds) 2014 The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory (online) Hawkes, C. 1954. Archaeological theory and method: some suggestions from the Old World. American Anthropologist 56: 155-68 (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) 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: M 72 GOL)

8

Lecture 2: Antiquarianism, cultural history and pottery styles

The origins of Classical Archaeology and the 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 “Cities and sanctuaries, art and archaeology: roots in the past”, Routledge. London, 21-51 (IoA: AG SHA and Issue Desk; also available online at: http://documents.stanford.edu/michaelshanks/71) Dyson, SL. 1989. “The role of ideology and institutions in shaping classical archaeology”, 127-35 in A. L. Christenson (ed.) Tracing Archaeology’s past: the of 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 ’s ‘Great Divide’ in N. Schlanger and J. Nordbladh (eds) , Ancestors, Practices. Archaeology in the light of history. New York, Oxford, pgs. 75-87 (IoA: AG SCH) Ceserani G. 2013 'Antiquarian transformations in eighteenth century Europe' 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).

9

Schnapp, A. 1996. The Discovery of the Past. London, 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 3–4): 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 developments and the emergence of a ‘social archaeology of Greece’. The distinctive engagement with theory in Classical Archaeology, as we shall see, however, is such that it is impossible to disentangle the impact of the New Archaeology on the discipline from the impact of the critical reaction to it, also known as post-processual archaeology. We will therefore have to reflect on this reaction both here, and next week, when we will look at the major shifts in archaeological theory in the 1980s and 1990s in more detail.

Essential *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) *Johnson, M. 1999/2010 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. chapter II “The new archaeology” (IoA Issue Desk JOH6; IoA: AH JOH) 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 “Rudiments of a social archaeology”, Routledge. London, 118-153 (IoA: AG SHA and Issue Desk; also available online at academia.edu) Snodgrass, A.M. 1985. “The new archaeology and the classical archaeologist”, 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's 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 “Culture as system” (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH JOH)

10

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) 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 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: 341–365 (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 – 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)

11

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) 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 . 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 "Ancient landscapes", 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 5–6): 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 . We shall be looking at the many trends of what some call post-processual archaeology, the influence from Marxism, Structuralism and Social Theory, and the ‘benefits’ that these changes have brought to the study of the Classical world.

12

Essential *Dyson, S.L. 1993 “From new age to new archaeology: archaeological theory and classical archaeology – a 1990’s perspective”, American Journal of Archaeology 97: 195-206 (online) Johnson, M. 1999/2010 Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Chapter 7 “Post-processual and interpretative archaeologies” and Chapter 6 “Thoughts and ideologies” (2010 edition only) (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: AH JOH) *Morris I. 2000 Archaeology as Cultural History: Words and Things in Iron Age Greece. Chapter 1, “Archaeology as cultural history”, 3-36 & **Chapter 6 “The Past, the east and the hero of Lefkandi”, 195-256 (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. Chapter 7 “Contextual Archaeology”, 121-155 (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) 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. Chapter 5, “The first figure scenes in Greek art”, 132-69 (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's 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

13

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 the past that have concerned ancient and classical archaeologists by selecting a few studies from Europe and the Mediterranean.

Essential d’Agostino, B. 1991, The Italian perspective on theoretical archaeology, in I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory in Europe. The Last Three Decades, 52-64. London, Routledge (IoA: AG HOD; IoA Issue Desk) Iacono, F. 2014 A Pioneering Experiment: Dialoghi di Archeologia between Marxism and Political Activism. Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 24, Art. 5 (online) Kotsakis, K. 1991 “The powerful past: theoretical trends in Greek archaeology” in I. 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 "Looking at the Vase", 23-38 Bérard and Durand "Entering the imagery", 39-52 Lissarrague "The world of the warrior", 71-88 Schnapp "Eros the hunter" (IoA Issue Desk; IoA: YATES A70 CIT) *Bintliff, J. L. (ed.) 1991 The Annales School and Archaeology. London, Leicester – pp. 1- 33 Bintliff “The contribution of an Annaliste/structural history approach to archaeology, 57-72 Snodgrass “structural history and classical archaeology” (IoA: AH BIN; online at https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/7980)

Further reading d’Agostino B. 1990 Military Organisation and social structure in Archaic Etruria, in O. Murray and S. Price (eds) The Greek City from Homer to Alexander Oxford, Clarendon Press: 59-82 (Main: ANCIENT HISTORY P 61 MUR) Bietti-Sestieri, A. M. 1992 The Iron Age community of Osteria dell’Osa: a study of socio 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) Dyson, Stephen L. 1981 Some Reflections on the Archaeology of Southern Etruria, Journal of Field Archaeology, 8:1, 79-83 (online) Guidi A. 2016 “Marxism in the European archaeology of the Sixties: the case studies in Italy and ” in G. Delley, M. Diaz-Andreu et al. (eds) History of

14

Archaeology: International Perspectives. Proceedings of the XVII UISPP World Congress, Vol. 11, Oxford Archeopress, 161-168 (online) 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. "Epiktetos egraphsen: the Writing on the Cup", 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 1750-1970 (Main: GERMAN A 60 MAR) Schnapp, A et al. “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 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)

Session 4 (lectures 7–8): 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 – several copies with reference and overnight loan)

15

*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 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) van Dommelen, P. 1998 Punic persistence: colonialism and cultural identity in Roman Sardinia, in J. Berry and R. Laurence (eds), Cultural identity in the , London: Routledge, 25-48 (Main ANCIENT HISTORY R72 LAU; TC 3692) 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. "The Problem Defined," pgs. 1-11 (ANTHROPOLOGY E 10 GELL). Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration, Cambridge: Polity press (Science ANTHROPOLOGY D 10 GID) Knapp, A.B. and van Dommelen, P. 2008. Past practices: rethinking individuals and agents in archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18.1, 15-34 (online) 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 152–74. (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) Tanner, J. 2006. The Invention of in Ancient Greece. Religion, Society and Artistic Rationalisation. Chapter 4 “Culture, social structure and artistic agency in classical Greece”, 141-204. Cambridge (IoA: YATES A 5 TAN)

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

16

has stood at the centre of these debates, particularly as far as the Greek world is concerned, but not only. We will explore how and why post-colonial theory has gone hand in hand with connectivity and networks.

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) * Van Dommelen, P. 2016 Classical connections and Mediterranean practices in T. Hodos et al. The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization (online)

On post-colonial theory more broadly: Hawley J. C. 2014 Post-colonial theory, in A. Gardner, M. Lake and U. Sommer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory (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, “Introduction”, pp. 1-13 (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) Hall, J. 2002 Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Main: ANCIENT HISTORY P 55 HAL)

17

Malkin, I. 2004. Postcolonial Concepts and Ancient Greek Colonization, Modern Language Quarterly, 65, 3: 341-364 (online) Malkin, I. 2003. ‘Networks and the emergence of Greek identity’, Mediterranean Historical Review 18: 56-74 (online) Malkin, I. 2011. A Small Greek World: Networks in the Ancient Mediterranean. (online) Morris, I. 2003. ‘Mediterraneanization’, Mediterranean Historical Review 18: 30-55. (online) 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. 1997 Colonial constructs: colonialism and archaeology in the Mediterranean, World Archaeology 28 (3), 31-49 (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)

Session 5 (lectures 9–10): 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) *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)

Further reading

18

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: 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) 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) 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) 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)

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

19

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. 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 Issue Desk; IoA: AG MES) * 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 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)

20

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) 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.

21

*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.

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.

MILLS, N. 2013. Presenting the Romans: interpreting the frontiers of the Roman Empire world heritage site. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. INST ARCH DAA 410 R.4 MIL; online

MOSHENSKA, G. and DHANJAL, S. (eds) 2012. Community Archaeology: Themes, Methods and Practices. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH AH MOS

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.

22

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

SYMONDS, M.F.A. and MASON, D.J.P. 2009. Frontiers of knowledge : a research framework for Hadrian's Wall. 2 vols. Durham: Durham County Council and Durham University. INST ARCH DAA 410 Qto SYM

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 “ & 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.

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, 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).

23

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.

PAPACONSTANTINOU, D. (ed.) 2006. Deconstructing Context: a critical approach to archaeological practice. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH AH PAP

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.

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.

24

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.

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.

25

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.

VAN OYEN, A. and PITTS, M. (eds) 2017. Materialising Roman histories. Oxford: Oxbow Books. INST ARCH DA 170 OYE

VERSLUYS, M.J. 2014. Understanding objects in motion. An archaeological dialogue on Romanization. Archaeological Dialogues 21(1), 1-20. INST ARCH Pers; online

Session 9 (lectures 17-18): Regional survey and 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 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

26

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 Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, pp. 36–48. Oxbow: Oxford. INST ARCH DAG 100 QTO ALC.

Session 10 (lectures 19-20): 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?

27

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.

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.

4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

28

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: [email protected]), which will also be available on the IoA website.

______APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2018-19(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.php?id=40867 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. 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: • 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

29

grounds that are acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Student Disability Services 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 ([email protected])

1 Nora, the Roman city (Sardinia)

30