ARCL 0129: Environmental Archaeology in Practice (Course Value: 15 Credits)

UCL Institute of Archaeology 2019-20

ARCL 0129:

Environmental Archaeology in Practice

MSc Core Course, 15 credits

Deadlines for coursework for this course: Friday 6th March 2020 Friday 27th March 2020

PLEASE SEE below for submission information Course Co-ordinator: Manuel Arroyo-Kalin Room 401, Institute of Archaeology Email: [email protected]

ARCL0129: Term II Timetable 2019

Lectures/Seminars: Fridays 2-4pm *- ROOM 410, IoA

17th January Course overview (modus operandi, assessments, deadlines).

Lecture: Sedimentary/soil archives and formation processes (MAK) 24th January Dating methods: radiocarbon, dendrochronology and calibration (MB)

31th January Lecture: Stratigraphy and Chronology

Seminar: Sequencing and Environmental Sampling (MAK)

7th February Lecture: Sampling and Quantification of fossil samples (MAK)

14th February Seminar: Quantification Exercise for Assignment 1. Students to bring own laptops (if possible) with Moodle dataset downloaded (MAK).

17th – 21st February (READING WEEK – NO CLASSES)

28th February Lecture: Analysing and interpreting crop processing (DF)

6th March Lecture: Environmental Archaeology in Commercial Projects (SW)

13th March Workshop (*9-5 PM) : Hands-on Environmental Processing Session at MOLA (Museum of London Archaeology) and introduction to LAARC (London Archaeological Archive) (AA)

20th March Seminar: Bioarchaeological & Geoarchaeological datasets: assessing case-studies (student presentations for assignment 2) (MAK)

27th March Seminar: Bioarchaeological & Geoarchaeological datasets: assessing case studies (student presentations for assignment 2) (MAK)

*Please Note: March 13th session will run 9-5 pm at MoLA (46 Eagle Wharf Rd, N1 7ED)

Course teachers MAK Manuel Arroyo-Kalin (IoA) MB - Martin Bridge (IoA) DF – Dorian Fuller (IoA) AA - Amy Atkins (MOLA Museum of London Archaeology) LGC- Lara González-Carretero (MOLA Museum of London Archaeology) SW – Sylvia Warman (Historic England, formerly at English Heritage)

ARCL 0129: Environmental Archaeology in Practice (Course value: 15 credits)

Short description

The principal aims of this core course are to develop a working knowledge of key methods in data analysis for environmental archaeology, including dating and the analysis of radiocarbon calibration, sampling strategies on-site and off-site, quantification of biological datasets, and approaches to statistical analysis. Problems in taphonomy of environmental datasets will also be introduced. This course is intended to provide the theoretical and analytical grounding for practical projects in zooarchaeology, archaeobotany and geoarchaeology. Basic texts

O'Connor, T & Evans, J. 2005. Environmental archaeology: principles and methods. Stroud : Sutton. INST ARCH BB 6 Wilkinson, K. and Stevens, C. 2003. Environmental Archaeology. Approaches, Techniques & Applications. Tempus, Stroud. Branch, N, Canti, M, Clarck, P, Turney C. 2005.. Environmental Archaeology: Theoretical and Practical Approaches. London: Hodder Arnold Banning, E. A. 2000 The Archaeologist’s laboratory. The Analysis of Archaeological Data. Springer/Kluwer

And see national guidelines on environmental archaeology:

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/environmental-archaeology- 2nd/environmental_archaeology/

Assessed coursework

This course is assessed by the following: (total = 4,000 words)

1) Quantification Report (1,300 words): due on 6th,March 2020; equivalent to 40% of module mark

The main features of the report will be examined during the 14th February session (Quantification Exercise).

2) Essay (3300 words) is due on 27th March 2020; equivalent to 60% of module mark

The essay (2) is based around either a single case study, two contrasting case- studies, or an investigated archaeological landscape. Overall, there must be geoarchaeological, archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological data to evaluate.

Essay question: Evaluate the sampling strategy, quantification, presentation and interpretation of zooarchaeological, archaeobotanical and geoarchaeological data, in relation to the research aims of the project.

For the essay you are specifically asked to assess: Did the project have research objectives (in relation to the zooarchaeology, archaeobotany, geoarchaeology)? Were site formation processes/taphonomy investigated? Was dating undertaken and taken into account in the analyses of assemblages? How was material selected/sampled for study? Is retrieval, collection well detailed? Was there a sampling strategy described? Were sample sizes sufficient? How was quantification undertaken? Is raw data presented? Are data patterns presented well, visually, and easily understandable? Are interpretations made valid? Are research questions addressed? Please use reading/sources from each course topic in your evaluation and critique.

A list of case studies that are a suitable focus for the essay will be circulated before reading week. Students are welcome to select their own but should consult with the course coordinator before starting to work on it.

Keeping copies Please note that it is an Institute requirement that you retain a copy (this can be electronic) of all coursework submitted. When your marked essay is returned to you, you should return it to the marker within two weeks.

Word counts

Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no penalty for using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply for your guidance to indicate the sort of length that is expected. The 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. In the 2019-20 session penalties for overlength 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  All coursework must normally be submitted both as hard copy and electronically (electronic copies officially date stamp the submission).  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.

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 this changes each year. 5. Click “Upload”. 6 Click on “Submit” 7 You should receive a receipt – please save this. 8 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

Teaching methods

This core course is taught in the spring term (Term II), beginning on Friday 17th January 2020. There will be no formal teaching in Reading Week. The course consists of 9 x 2-hour sessions and one-day practical long session at MoLA **. The course is taught by a mixture of lectures by the instructors, seminar discussions, presentations by students, and some practical classes.

Lecture/seminar time: Fridays : 2-4pm room 410, Institute of Archaeology

**There will be one practical class taught at MoLA in London on 13th March 9am-5pm. Please keep this day free in advance.

During weeks 9 and 10 students will each present a 10 minute illustrated talk (Powerpoint) on their case-study for Assignment 2, with a brief introduction to their case-study, and a summary of their evaluation (of sampling strategy, quantification, presentation and interpretation of zooarchaeological, archaeobotanical & geoarchaeological data, in relation to the research aims of the project). Please keep to time; there will be 5 minutes for questions & discussion

Workload

The total workload for this course is 150 hours, broken down in the following way: Lectures 9 hours Seminars/Practicals 15 hours Private reading/preparation 66 hours 6

Written work 60 hours TOTAL workload 150 hours

Prerequisites Resources & Subsistence (ARCL0128) serves as a prerequisite for this course, but students from other degrees can on occasion take ARCL0129 as a stand-alone with the coordinator’s permission.

2. Aims and Objectives

Aims

Objectives On successful completion of this course a student should: • Have an overview of current on- and off-site environmental archaeology practices, specifically in relation to archaeobotany, zooarchaeology and geoarchaeology. • Be familiar with assessing site formation processes, and assessing appropriate sampling and retrieval methods. • Be aware of issues in the application and interpretation of dating techniques. • Be familiar with laboratory analytical approaches for assessing taphonomy, and potential for assemblage analysis. • Be familiar with approaches to quantification of environmental archaeology assemblages. • Be familiar with assessing a range of material for their analysis potential, and assessing datasets for their interpretation potential.

Learning Outcomes 1) Critical analysis of arguments; verbal discussion skills; 2) Understanding of assessment of site formation processes; 3) Understanding of practical archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological sampling, assessment and analytical procedures; 4) Understanding how archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological data is created; 5) Written and oral skills in analysis and presentation; 6) Application of acquired knowledge to new situations.

GENERAL MATTERS ATTENDANCE: A minimum attendance of 70% is required. A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email. DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers whether there is any way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia should indicate it on each coursework cover sheet.

CITING OF SOURCES and AVOIDING PLAGIARISM: Coursework must be expressed in your own words, citing the exact source (author, date and page number; website address if applicable) of any ideas, information, diagrams, etc., that are taken from the work of others. This applies to all media (books, articles, websites, images, figures, etc.). Any direct quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed between quotation marks. Plagiarism is a very serious irregularity, which can carry heavy penalties. It is your responsibility to abide by requirements for presentation, referencing and avoidance of plagiarism. Make sure you understand definitions of plagiarism and the procedures and penalties as detailed in UCL regulations: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current- students/guidelines/plagiarism

RESOURCES MOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the course on Moodle.

ARCL0129: Environmental Archaeology in Practice Preliminary Reading List

Week 1 (Jan 17th): Sedimentary/soil archives and formation processes (MAK)

All environmental archaeological enquiry needs consideration of site formation processes before sampling strategies are designed and implemented. This session discusses various considerations with off- and on-site formation processes. Specifically we review key sedimentary processes and soil forming dynamics that define the contexts studied by environmental archaeology.

Butzer, K. 1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press. Pp. 67- 122 Stahl, Peter W. ‘Vertebrate Taphonomy in Archaeological Research’. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology, edited by Claire Smith, 7617–23. New York, NY: Springer New York, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_2134. O'Connor, T & Evans, J. 2005. Environmental archaeology: principles and methods. Stroud : Sutton. Chapters 3 (pp. 31-46) and 7 Waters M.R. 1992. Principles of Geoarchaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona. CHAPTER 7. Post Burial disturbance, pp. 291-3 16. INST ARCH BA 10 WAT. Wilkinson, K. and Stevens, C. 2003. Environmental Archaeology. Approaches, Techniques & Applications. Tempus, Stroud. Chapter 2

Week 2 (Jan 24th):

Lecture: Dating methods: radiocarbon, dendrochronology and calibration (MB)

This session introduces the potentials and problems of the various dating techniques commonly applied to environmental remains, and outlines best practice and guidelines for the use of particularly radiocarbon and dendrochronology. Students undertake class exercises with radiocarbon calibration approaches.

In preparation for the class, please read one of the 3 *-marked references below, and be familiar with the historic England resources at the following link:

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/archaeological-science/scientific-dating/

Radiocarbon *R. J. Telford, E. Heegaard, and H. J.B. Birks (2004) The intercept is a poor estimate of a calibrated radiocarbon age. The Holocene vol. 14: 296 - 298.

*Bayliss, A., and Bronk Ramsey, C., 2003, Pragmatic Bayesians: a decade of integrating radiocarbon dates into chronological models, in Tools for constructing chronologies: crossing disciplinary boundaries (eds. C. E. Buck and A. R. Millard), 25–41, SpringerVerlag.

*James A. Zeidler; Caitlin E. Buck; Clifford D. Litton 1998. Integration of Archaeological Phase Information and Radiocarbon Results from the Jama River Valley, Ecuador: A Bayesian Approach Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 9: 160-179. Millard, A 2006 Bayesian Analysis of Pleistocene Chronometric Methods. Archaeometry 48 (2), 359–375. doi: 10.111 1/j. 1475-4754.2006.0026 1 .x

Dendrochronology

Eckstein, D., Baillie, M.G.L. & Egger, H. 1984. Dendrochronological Dating. Handbook for Archaeologists No.2, European Science Foundation: Strasbourg. 55pp. INST ARCH AJ 10 ECK; INST ARCH Issue Desk AJ 10 ECK OR Hillam, J. (1998) Dendrochronology: Guidelines on producing and interpreting dendrochronological dates. Ancient Monuments Laboratory. English Heritage, London. 35pp. INST ARCH AJ 10 DEN; INST ARCH Issue Desk AJ 10 DEN Baillie, M.G.L. 1995. A Slice Through Time: dendrochronology and precision dating. B.T. Batsford Ltd, London. 176pp.

Fritts, H. 1976. Tree Rings and Climate. Academic Press: London. 567pp. Berger, R., Giertz, V., Horn, W. 1971. Can German tree-ring curves be applied in England and France? Vernacular Architecture 2, 3-6.

Bridge, M.C. 1988. The dendrochronological dating of oak in southern England. Medieval Archaeology 32, 166- 174.

Bridge, M. C. 1995. Tree rings, sequence matching and response function. In: Statistical Modelling of Quaternary Science Data. [Eds. Maddy, D. & Brew, J.] Quaternary Research Association Technical Guide No. 5, Pgs 107- 123. QRA, Cambridge.

Hillam, J., Groves, C.M., Brown, D.M., Baillie, M., Coles, J., Coles, B. 1990. Dendrochronology of the English Neolithic. Antiquity 64, 208-220. Kuniholm, P.I. 1995. Dendrochronology. In Science in Archaeology: A Review (ed P.E. McGovern) American Journal of Archaeology 99, 99-102.

Kuniholm, P.I., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Newton, M., Latini, C.E., Bruce, M.J. 1996 13 Anatolian tree rings and the absolute chronology of the eastern Mediterranean, 2220-718 BC. Nature 381, 780-783.

Morgan, R.A. 1975. The selection and sampling of timber from archaeological sites for identification and tree-ring analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 2, 221-230. Trenard, Y. 1982. Making wood speak. Forestry Abstracts 43, 729-759. 1996. Tree Rings, Environment and Humanity. Proceedings of the International Conference, Tucson, Arizona, 17- 21 May 1994. Edited by Dean, J.S., Meko, D.M. and Swetnam, T.W. Radiocarbon, Arizona. 889pp.

Week 3 (Jan 31st):

Lecture: stratigraphy and chronology (MA-K)

Designing an appropriate sampling strategy in environmental archaeology, one permitting comparison of environmental evidence through space and time, depends on our ability to sequence: develop a sequence of contexts. In this session we will examine some of the key challenges that arise in developing sequences for environmental archaeological research.

Required readings:

Branch, N, Canti, M, Clarck, P, Turney C. 2005.. Environmental Archaeology: Theoretical and Practical Approaches. London: Hodder Arnold. Chapter 2

French, C. A. I. (2003). Geoarchaeology in Action: Studies in Soil Micromorphology and Landscape Evolution. London: Routledge. Ch 4

Karkanas, P. & Goldberg, P. (2019) Reconstructing Archaeological Sites. Chichster: Wiley & Sons: Chapter 4

Harris, E. C. Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. London: Academic Press, 1989. (download from: http://harrismatrix.com)

Seminar: sequencing (MA-K)

During the seminar students will be asked to think through the most effective sampling sequencing strategy to be employed for three case studies that will be assigned the previous week. These reports are available through the ARCL0129 Moodle page and should be perused by students, with special emphasis on stratigraphy and sequencing, before the seminar.

Case Study 1: Leazes Bowl (Carne 2001, Durham Archaeological Journal 16:35-118) Case study 2: The Howe (Ballin-Smith 1994) Case Study 3: Göbekli Tepe (Dietrich et a. 2019)

Week 4 (February 7th): Sampling and Quantification of fossil samples

Sampling and quantification are essential aspects of the study of fossil assemblages in environmental archaeology. In this session, we examine different sampling strategies and review the various measures of abundance that have been used in data analysis, the latter with a view to understanding their assumptions, biases, and appropriate uses.

Environmental Sampling Courty, M., Paul Goldberg, Richard Macphail.1989. Soils and micromorphology in archaeology Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1989. [ISSUE DESK IOA COU 1] Dobney, K., Hall, A., Kenward, H. and Milles, A. 1992. A working classification of sample types for environmental archaeology. Circaea 9, 24-26. INST ARCH Periodicals Jones, Martin K. 1991. Sampling in palaeoethnobotany, in Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany (W. Van Zeist, K. Wasylikowa, and K.-H. Behre eds.), pp. 53-63. Rotterdam: Balkema Lyman, R.L. and Ames, K. 2004 Sampling to Redundancy in Zooarchaeology: lessons from the Portland Basin, Northwestern Oregon and Southwestern Washington, Journal of Ethnobiology, 24/2. *Orton, C. 2000. Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 3 and 6. INST ARCH AK 10 ORT

Solomon, S., Davidson, I. and Watson, D. 1990. 'Problem Solving in Taphonomy'. Tempus Vol 2. University of Queensland, Anthropology Museum. Turner, A. (1984) Sub-sampling animal bone assemblages: reducing the work-load or reducing the information? Circaea 2/2, 69-75. Veen, M. van der, and Fieller, N. 1982. Sampling seeds. Journal of Archaeological Science 9 (3) 287-298. INST ARCH Periodicals

Quantification of Environmental Data

Banning, E. A. 2000 The Archaeologist’s laboratory. The Analysis of Archaeological Data. Springer/Kluwer, Chapters 5, 10, 11 Cannon, M. 2001 Archaeofaunal Relative Abundance, Sample Size and Statistical Methods, Journal of Archaeological Science 28, 185-195. *Grayson, D.K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Orlando: Academic. Hubbard, R. N. L. B. and A. Clapham 1992. Quantifying macroscopic plant remains, Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 73: 117-132 Jones, G. E. M. 1991. Numerical analysis in archaeobotany, In Progress in Old World Palaeoethnobotany (W. Van Zeist, K. Wasylikowsa, and K-E Behre eds.), pp.63- 80. Rotterdam: Balkema [INST ARCH BB VAN, with 1 copy at issue desk] *Klein, R.G. and Cruz-Uribe, K. (1984) The Analysis of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (see pp24-38). Lyman, R.L. (1994). 'Quantitative units and terminology in zooarchaeology' American Antiquity 59(1) pp36-71. Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyman, R.L. 2008. Quantitative Paleozoology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. *Pearsall, D. 1989. Palaeoethnobotany: a handbook of procedures. Left Coast Press. Reitz, E. and Wing, E. 1999. Zooarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marean, C.W. and Spencer, L.M. 1991. ‘Impact of carnivore ravaging on zooarchaeological measures of element abundance’, American Antiquity 56 (4), 645-658. Marshall, F. and Pilgram, T. 1993 NISP vs MNI in Quantification of Body Part Representation, American Antiquity 58. Watson, J.P.N. 1979. 'The estimation of the relative frequencies of mammalian species: Khirokitia 1972' Journal of Archaeological Science 6 pp127-137. [Introduces the concept of diagnostic zones].

Assemblage formation

Binford, L.R. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press. (Dip into this- it’s too dense to read much of!). INST ARCH DEC BIN (3copies) Lyman, R.L. 1984. ‘Bone density and differential survivorship of fossil classes’, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3, 2 59-299. Crabtree, P. (1990). 'Zooarchaeology and complex societies: some uses of faunal analysis for the study of trade, social status, and ethnicity.' in (ed) M. Schiffer) Archaeological Method and Theory 2 pp 155-205. INST ARCH teaching collection. Early herders and their flocks, 223-241. Oxford: BAR Int. Series 202. Kent, S. 1993 'Variability in Faunal Assemblages: the influence of hunting skill, sharing, dogs, and mode of cooking on faunal remains at a sedentary Kalahari community' Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 12 pp323-385 (especially pp341-348). Klein, R.G. 1989. Why does Skeletal Part Representation Differ Between Smaller and Larger Bovids at Klasies River Mouth and other Archaeological Sites? Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 363-381. Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Especially Chapter 7: Frequencies of skeletal parts). INST ARCH BB£ LYM (8 copies) Marshall, F. 1994. ‘Food sharing and body part representation in Okiek faunal assemblages’, Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 65-77. INST ARCH Moore, H. (1981). Bone refuse: possibilities for the future. In A. Sheridan and G. Bailey Economic Archaeology. Oxford: BAR Int. Series 96, 87-94. O'Connell, J. F., K. Hawkes and N. G. Blurton-Jones 1991. Distribution of refuse-producing activities at interpretation of archaeological spatial patterning (E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price eds.), pp. 61-77. New York: Plenum Press. Payne, S. and Munson, P.J. 1985. ‘Ruby and how many squirrels? the destruction of bones by dogs’ in Palaeobiological Investigations - research design, methods and data analysis (eds) N. Fieller, D. Gilbertson and N. Ralph. Oxford: BAR International Series 266, 31-39. Redding, R. 1984. Theoretical determinants of a herder’s decisions: modelling variation in the sheep/goat ratio. In J. Clutton-Brock and C. Grigson Animals in Archaeology 3: teaching collection.Lyman, R.L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Veen, M van der. ‘Formation Processes of Desiccated and Carbonized Plant Remains – the Identification of Routine Practice’. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, no. 6 (1 June 2007): 968–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.09.007.

Week 5 (February 14th) : Seminar 2: Quantification fossil samples - exercise

Students are taken through the most common currently-used methods of quantification, critically, in preparation for Assignment 1 for this course.

READING WEEK 17-21 February

Week 6 (February 28th): Analysing and Interpreting Crop Processing (DF)

Hillman, G. C. 1981. Reconstructing Crop Husbandry Practices from Charred Remains of Crops, in Farming Practice in British Prehistory (R. Mercer ed.), pp. 123-161. Edinburgh: University Press.

or alternatively: Hillman, G. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: The appilication of ethnographic model from turkey, in Plants and ancient man: studies in palaeoethnobotany (W. van Zeist and W. Casparie eds.), pp. 1-41. Rotterdam: Balkema [INST ARCH BB 5 VAN; with 1 copy at issue desk] Harvey, E. and Fuller, D. Q. 2005. Investigating crop processing through phytolith analysis: the case of rice and millets. Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 739-752 [can download from: www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/%7Etcrndfu/downloads.htm, Or sciencedirect.com]. Fuller, Dorian Q & Chris J. Stevens 2009. Agriculture and the development of complex societies. In A. Fairbairn & Ehud Weiss (eds). From Foragers to Farmers. Papers in Honour of Gordon C. Hillman. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Pp. 37-57. Reddy, Seetha N. 1997. If the threshing floor could talk: integration of agriculture and pastoralism during the Late Harappan in Gujarat, India, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16: 162-187 [INST ARCH PERS; also available on-line] Jones, G. E. M. 1984. Interpretation of archaeological plant remains: Ethnographic models from Greece, pp. 42-61 in W. Van Ziest and W. A. Casparie (eds.) Plants and Ancient Man - Studies in Paleoethnobotany . Rotterdam: A.A. Balkema. Jones, G. E. M. 1987. A statistical approach to the archaeological identification of crop processing, Journal of Archaeological Science 14: 311-323 Jones, Martin K. 1985. Archaeobotany beyond subsistence reconstruction, in Beyond Domestication in Prehistoric Europe (G. W. Barker and C. Gamble eds.), pp. 107- 128. New York: Academic Press [ISSUE DESK IOA BAR 2] Stevens, C. J. 2003a An investigation of consumption and production models for prehistoric and Roman Britain, Environmental Archaeology, 8, 2003, 61-76 Van der Veen, Marike 1992. Crop Husbandry Regimes. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs. Chap 7. [INST ARCH DAA 100 VAN] Van der Veen, Marike and G. E. M. Jones (2006) A re-analysis of agricultural production and consumption: implications for understanding the British Iron Age, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 15(3): 217-228 [download through www.springerlink.com] Wilkinson, K. and Stevens, C. J. 2003. Environmental Archaeology. Approaches, Techniques, Applications. Tempus. Pp. 136-167, 175-208

Dung vs. Crop-processing Waste Miller, N. and T. L. Smart 1984. Intentional burning of dung as fuel: a mechanism for the incorporation of charred seeds into the archaeological record, Journal of Ethnobiology 4: 15-28 [INST ARCH PERS] Miller, Naomi F. Seed eaters of the ancient Near East: Human or Herbivore?, Current Anthropology 37(3): 52 1-528

Hillman, G. C., A. J. Legge and P. A. Rowley-Conwy 1997. On the charred seeds from Epipalaeolithic Abu Hureyra, Current Anthropology 3 8(4): 651-655 Miller, N. F. 1997. Reply to Hillman et al., Current Anthropology 38(4): 655-659 [ANTHROPOLOGY PERS; these may be downloaded through the UCL network from http:/uk.jstor.org/]

Charles, Michael 1998. Fodder from Dung: the Recognition and Interpretation of Dung- Derived Plant Material from Archaeological Sites, Environmental Archaeology 1: 111-122 [INST ARCH PERS]

Taphonomy and Plant Assemblage Formation (excluding crop-processing) Asouti, E., and P. Austin (2005) Reconstructing woodland vegetation and its relation to human societies, based on the analysis and interpretation of archaeological wood charcoal macroremains. Environmental Archaeology 10: 1-18. Cappers, R. 1995. A palaeoecological model for the interpretation of wild plant species, Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 4: 249-257 Grieg, J. 1981. The investigation of a medieval barrel-latrine from Worcester, Journal of Archaeological Science 8: 256-282 [Teaching Collectionn 1759; INST ARCH PERS] Hastorf, C. 1991. Gender, space and food in prehistory. In: Engendering Archaeology (eds J. Gero & M. Conkey), pp. 132-159. Oxford: Blackwell. Hillman, G. C. 1989. Late Palaeolithic plant foods from Wadi Kubbaniya in Upper Egypt: dietary diversity, infant weaning, and seasonality in a riverine environment, in Foraging and Farming (D. R. Harris and G. C. Hillman eds.), pp. 207-233. London: Unwin and Hyman [INST ARCH HA HAR, or Issue Desk IOA HAR 6] [alternative reading: G. Hillman, E. Madeyska and J. Hather. (1989) Wild plant foods and diet at late Palaeolithic Wadi Kubbaniya : the evidence from charred remains, in The prehistory of Wadi Kubbaniya Vol. 2. (Fred Wendorf, Romuald Schild and Angela E. Close eds.). Dallas, Tex. : Southern Methodist University Press: Pp. 162-242. Teaching Collection 918; EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS E 7 WEN] Martinoli, Daniele. 2009. Reconstruction of local woodland vegetation and use of firewood at two Epipalaeolithic cave sites in southwest Anatolia (Turkey). In A. Fairbairn & Ehud Weiss (eds). From Foragers to Farmers. Papers in Honour of Gordon C. Hillman. Oxbow Books, Oxford. Pp. 161-170 Mithen, S. (ed.) 2000. Hunter-gatherer landscape archaeology : the Southern Hebrides Mesolithic project, 1988-1998. Cambridge : McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. [Read section on plant remains and their interpretation] Wollstonecroft M (2002) "The Fruit of their labour: plants and plant processing at EeRb 140 (860 ± 60 uncal to 160± 50 uncal B.P.) a late prehistoric hunter-gatherer-fisher site on the southern Interior Plateau, British Columbia, Canada". Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 11: 6170 Marston, J.M. (2009) Modeling wood acquisition strategies from archaeological charcoal remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 2192-200 Shackleton, C.M. and F. Prins (1992) Charcoal analysis and the "Principle of Least Effort" - A conceptual model. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 631-637. Zutter, C. 1999. Congruence and Concordance in Archaeobotany: Assessing Micro- and Macrobotanical Data sets from Icelandic Middens, Journal of Archaeological Science 26: 833844. Week 7 (March 6th) Environmental Archaeology in Commercial Archaeological Projects (SW)

In any archaeological situation, the need to understand the policy for archaeological remains on land, and how archaeology/heritage should be recorded or preserved, is paramount. In the UK, guidance is provided through Policy Documents (from the Secretary of State ultimately). In an increasingly commercial world, the place of environmental archaeology (what should be recorded, preserved, stored) needs consideration. In this session, Dr Sylvia Warman (Historic England Science Advisor) will lead a discussion on the role of environmental archaeology in archaeological ‘unit’ work, commercial archaeology, or CRM.

Try to skim through these links before the session: https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/technical-advice/archaeological-science/ http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/policy/ 15

Week 8 (March 13th): Environmental processing in practice: visit to MOLA (46 Eagle Wharf Rd Hoxton, London N1 7ED)

Preliminary programme for the day 9am - 12pm - processing 12pm - 1pm - lunch 1pm - 3pm - processing 3pm – Talk by Dr Lara González-Carretero

Weeks 9 &10 (March 20th): Bioarchaeological and Geoarchaeological Datasets: assessing case-studies. (Student presentations). Students should each present a 10 minute illustrated talk (Powerpoint) on their case- study for Assignment 2, with a brief introduction to their case-study, and a summary of their evaluation (of sampling strategy, quantification, presentation and interpretation of zooarchaeological, archaeobotanical & geoarchaeological data, in relation to the research aims of the project). Please keep to time; there will be 5 minutes for questions & discussion.

These presentations are NOT assessed.