UCL-INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
ARCL0134 THEMES, THOUGHT AND THEORY IN WORLD ARCHAEOLOGY: CURRENT TOPICS
2019-20 15 credits
Term 2, Mondays 2-4, Tuesdays 11-1 Room 410 Institute of Archaeology
Essay deadline: Friday 1st May 2020
Target return date: Friday 29th May 2020
Co-ordinator: Prof Stephen Shennan ([email protected]) Office: Room 407, IoA. Tel. 0207 679 4739 (Internal: 24739)
Additional teachers: Andy Bevan, Elizabeth Graham, Mike Parker Pearson, David Wengrow, Todd Whitelaw
Coordinator’s Office Hours (for regular consultation): Tuesdays from 1 pm to 3 pm. Or email for an appointment
GENERAL This handbook contains introductory information about this module. Additional handouts may be provided. If you have queries, please consult the Co-ordinator. For general information about policies & procedures, see Appendix A at end of this document. If changes need to be made to module arrangements, these will be communicated by email. It is thus essential that you consult your UCL email regularly. PLEASE BRING THIS HANDOUT TO ALL CLASS SESSIONS.
AIMS, OBJECTIVES and LEARNING OUTCOMES This module builds on the content of ARCL0133. Seminars examine selected current research topics normally explored within one or more theoretical frameworks. On successful completion of this module a student should: (a) have an understanding of theoretical issues in a range of central research domains of archaeology; (b) be aware of the reasons for debates about how to approach a particular kind of research and be able to form their own theoretical position; (c) be able to use the knowledge to develop an innovative PhD proposal or carry out sound work in their particular field of archaeology.
TEACHING METHODS This 15 credit module will be taught weekly in 10 two hour sessions. The format is that of a seminar. This handout contains weekly readings, which students are expected to complete before class.
PREREQUISITES
1
Students planning to take this module will normally be expected previously to have taken ARCL0133 Themes, Thought and Theory in World Archaeology: Foundations, which provides relevant background material which will be built upon in this module.
WORKLOAD There will be 20 hours of seminars. Students will be expected to spend around 80 hours doing the background reading and 50 hours in producing assessed work – in all, 150 hours for the module.
ASSESSMENT (see end of this document for further details)
This module is assessed by one essay of 3,800-4,200 words. Information on topics is given at the end of this handbook. The Module Co-ordinator will discuss an outline of the essay with the student in advance. If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should discuss this with the Module Co-ordinator. Students are not permitted to re-write and re-submit essays in order to try to improve their marks.
Essay due dates:
Draft Outline (not assessed): Due on Friday, 28 February 2020 via email or hardcopy. As well as the title this should provide 1) the thesis of your proposed essay, 2) a brief and general outline of the main topics to be discussed, and 3) an annotated bibliography of 5-10 articles that are central to your proposed essay. It should be 1-2 sides in length. Students should make an effort to see the coordinator in office hours, or at another time, between 2 March and 16 March, to discuss the outline. Alternatively, outlines can be discussed by email.
Essay (assessed): Deadline: Friday 1st May 2020 (midnight) The essay will be marked electronically so there is no need to submit a hard copy
Word counts 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.
Penalties will be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no penalty for using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply for your guidance to indicate the sort of length that is expected.
In the 2019-20 session penalties for 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.
2
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 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 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 [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 Sessions: Mondays 2-4, repeated 11-1 pm on Tuesdays, Room 410. A minimum attendance of 70% is required, except in the case of illness or other adverse circumstances which are supported by medical certificates or other documentation as appropriate. If any changes need to be made to the module arrangements, these will normally be communicated by e-mail. It is therefore essential that you consult your UCL e-mail account regularly
ARCL0134 Schedule – 2-4 Mondays, Room 412, and 11-1 Tuesdays, Room 410
13 and 14 January 2020 Death and Mortuary Behaviour Mike Parker Pearson
20 and 21 January Artefacts: material culture, technology, art Stephen Shennan
27 and 28 January Approaches to Trade, Exchange and Value Andrew Bevan
3 and 4 February Landscapes and regional systems Todd Whitelaw
10 and 11 February Archaeological Science Stephen Shennan
17-21 February Reading Week 24 and 25 February Evolutionary Archaeology and Anthropology Stephen Shennan
2 and 3 March Social Inequality David Wengrow
9 and 10 March The Archaeology of Religion Elizabeth Graham
16 and 17 March Identities Stephen Shennan
23 and 24 March Archaeology, Politics and the Public Mike Parker Pearson
4
1 Death and Mortuary Behaviour
The interpretation of burials and mortuary data is a central aspect of archaeology. On the one hand, physical anthropological analysis of skeletal remains can cast light on demographic and biological aspects of past peoples, such as life expectancy, general health, specific diseases, occupational injuries, and traumas. On the other hand, the study of the cultural treatment in death of individuals of known sex and age may throw light on aspects of social organisation and the cultural values attached to them, such as gender and age distinctions, rank and status. Early processual archaeologists concentrated on identifying generalising correspondences between treatment of the dead and social organisation. Post-processual critiques (and earlier ones, see Ucko 1969), drawing on the rich ethnographic literature, have argued that burial ritual does not simply reflect social organisation, but reflexively constructs it, through negotiation and re-affirmation or transformation.
Discussion questions What are the main differences in the ways in which processual and post-processual archaeologists have treated burial archaeology? How can we understand the relationship(s) between the dead community encountered archaeologically and the living community it came from? The burial record is one of the few places where archaeologists (especially prehistorians) can sometimes deal with past individuals. How can we use this opportunity? What problems arise from the fact that archaeology provides only a partial record of past mortuary rituals and their residues? Are they insuperable?
Essential Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton. ISSUE DESK IoA PAR 8, INST ARCH AH PAR Pettitt, P. 2010. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London: Routledge. ISSUE DESK IoA PET 20, INST ARCH BC 120 PET Huntington, R. and Metcalf, P. 1979 (1991 2nd edition). Celebrations of Death: the anthropology of mortuary ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ANTHROPOLOGY D 155 HUN & Online Knüsel, C. and Gowland, R. (eds) 2006. Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH JF Qto GOW Tarlow, S. and Nilsson Stutz, L. (eds) 2013. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISSUE DESK IoA TAR1 & Online Bradbury, J. and Scarre, C. (eds) 2017. Engaging with the Dead: exploring changing human beliefs about death, mortality and the human body. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH AH Qto BRA
For further reading: death and mortuary behaviour Arnold, B. and Wicker, N.I. (eds) 2001. Gender and the Archaeology of Death. AltaMira Press. Bloch, M. 1986. From blessing to violence: history and ideology in the circumcision ritual of the Merina of Madagascar. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bloch, M. & J. Parry 1982. Death and the Regeneration of Life. Brown, J.A. (ed.) 1971. Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices, especially papers by Binford, Deetz & Dethlefsen, and Saxe. Carr, C. 1995. Mortuary practices: their social, philosophical-religious, circumstantial and physical determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 105-199 TC 3274, IoA Periodicals, eJournals. Goody, J. 1962. Death, Property and the Ancestors.
5
Cannon, A. 1989. The Historical Dimension in Mortuary Expressions of Status and Sentiment. Current Anthropology, 30.4: 437-458. Chamberlain, A.T. 1994. Human Remains. Chapman, J. 2000. Tension at funerals: social practices and the subversion of community structure in later Hungarian prehistory. In M.-A. Dobres and J.E. Robb (eds.) Agency in Archaeology, 169-195. London: Routledge. DeGusta, D. 2000 Fijian Cannibalism and Mortuary Ritual: Bioarchaeological Evidence from Vuda. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10:76-92. Downes, J. & Pollard, T. (eds), The Loved Body’s Corruption: archaeological contributions to the study of human mortality. MacDonald, D. 2001. Grief and Burial in the American Southwest: the Role of Evolutionary Theory in the Interpretation of Mortuary Remains. American Antiquity 66:704-714, IoA Periodicals, eJournals. Mays, S.A. 1998. The Archaeology of Human Bones. Metcalf, P. & R. Huntington 1992. The Anthropology of Mortuary Ritual. Morris, I. 1987. Burial and Ancient Society: The Rise of the Greek City-State. Morris, I. 1991. The archaeology of ancestors: the Saxe/Goldstein hypothesis revisited. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1 (2) 147-67. Morris, I. 1992. Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity . O’Shea, J. 1984. Mortuary Variability. An Archaeological Investigation. Academic Press, New York. Parker Pearson, M. 1982. Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological study. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology: 99-113. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Parker Pearson, M. 1993. The powerful dead: archaeological relationships between the living and the dead. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3 (2) 203-29. Parker Pearson, M. 1995. Return of the living dead: mortuary analysis and the New Archaeology revisited. Antiquity 69: 1046-8. Parker Pearson, M. 1999. Death and Burial: pp. 21-44. Sutton, Thrupp. IOA Issue Desk PAR 8, INST ARCH AH PAR. Pietrusewsky, M., M. T. Douglas, E. E. Cochrane and S. Reinke 2007. Cultural Modifications in an Adolescent Earth-Oven Interment from Fiji: Sorting out Mortuary Practice. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 2(1):44 - 71. Rakita, G., Buikstra, J., Beck L, and Williams, S (eds). 2001. Interacting with the Dead: Perspectives on Mortuary Archaeology for the New Millennium. University Press of Florida. Rega, E. 1996. Age, gender and biological reality in the Early Bronze Age cemetery at Mokrin. In Moore, J. and Scott, E.(eds), Invisible People and Processes. Writing gender and childhood into European archaeology: 229-47. Leicester University Press, Leicester. Scarre, C. 1994. The meaning of death: funerary beliefs and the prehistorian. In A.C. Renfrew & E. Zubrow (eds.) The Ancient Mind: Elements of a Cognitive Archaeology: 75-82. Shennan, S. 1975. The social organisation at Branc. Antiquity 49: 279-88. Tainter, J. 1978. Mortuary practices and the study of prehistoric social systems. In Schiffer, M. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. 1. Ucko, P. 1969. Ethnography and the archaeological interpretation of funerary remains. World Archaeology 1: 262-90. TC 784, IoA Periodicals, eJournals. Whitley, J. 2002. Too many ancestors. Antiquity 76:119-26, IoA Periodicals, eJournals.
6
2 Artefacts: Material Culture, Technology, Style Explaining variation in artefact assemblages is basic to archaeology. Concerns with relative chronology and culture areas were central to the culture-historical approaches of the 1930s-1950s. With processual archaeology, an emphasis on artefact functions and technology was part of a broader concern with functionalism; even styles were often viewed in quite functional terms. Dissatisfaction with these models, particularly as they applied to styles and symbolic meanings of artefacts, was basic to post-processual views. There also emerged new views of technology as a social process. In recent years the idea of ‘materiality’ has become central to artefact studies, linked to frameworks such as Latour’s Actor Network Theory. Add Julian Thomas 2015 Antiquity paper next year
Discussion questions What is craft specialization? How do we identify it? How can we determine whether artefacts were prestige items? How have ideas about technology changed in archaeology? What is a ‘chaine operatoire’? How have archaeologists defined and interpreted style? What do archaeologists mean by “material engagement” and “material entanglement?” Why do some anthropologists and archaeologists say that things have ‘agency’?
Essential (try to read one under each heading) Craft production and specialization Costin, C. 1991 Craft specialization: issues in defining, documenting, and explaining the organization of production. In, M. Schiffer (ed.) Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3. Tucson, University of Arizona Press, pp. 1-56. INST ARCH AH ADV Hayden, B. 1998 Practical & prestige technologies. Journal Arch. Method and Theory 5:1-55. Online
Technology Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material culture today. Journal Anthropological Archaeology 5:147-86. Online Roux, V. 2013. Spreading of Innovative Technical Traits and Cumulative Technical Evolution: Continuity or Discontinuity? J Archaeol Method Theory (2013) 20:312–330.
Style Hegmon, M. 1992. Archaeological research on style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:517-36. TC 1357, SCIENCE: ANTHROPOLOGY Periodicals, eJournals.
Material engagement and entanglement DeMarrais, E., Gosden, C. and Renfrew, C. (eds) 2004. Rethinking Materiality: the engagement of mind with the material world. Cambridge: McDonald Institute. [ISSUE DESK IOA DEM 1; INST ARCH AH DEM] – chapter by Renfrew Hodder, I. 2011. Human-thing entanglement: towards an integrated archaeological perspective. Journal Royal Anthropological Institute, 17.1, 154-77. Online (See also the book ‘Entanglement’) Ingold, T. 2007. Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues, 14.1, 1-16 (plus comments). Online Knappett, C. 2012. Materiality. In I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today, 188-207. Cambridge: Polity Press (2nd edition) [INST ARCH AH HOD; ISSUE DESK IOA HOD 18]
7
Case studies (read 1) Dietler, M. & Herbich, I. 1998. Habitus, techniques, style: an integrated approach to the social understanding of material culture boundaries. In M. T. Stark (Ed.), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries: 232-263. Washington: Smithsonian Institution. ISSUE DESK STA4; AH STA Farbstein, R. 2011. Technologies of art: a critical reassessment of Pavlovian art and society, using chaîne opératoire method and theory. Current Anthropology 52(3): 401-432. Sillar, B. 2009. The social agency of things? Animism and materiality in the Andes. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 19(3), 367-77. [INST ARCH Pers;
For further reading: artefacts, material culture, technology, art Adams, W. & Adams, E. 1991. Archaeological typology and practical reality. Cambridge: CUP. Appadurai, A. 1986. The Social Life of Things. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Binford, L. 1973 Interassemblage variability - the Mousterian and the functional argument. In, C. Renfrew (ed.) The Explanation of Culture Change. London, Duckworth, pp. 227-54. TC 1335 Braun, D. 1983 Pots as tools. In, J. Moore and A. Keene (eds) Archaeological Hammers and Theories. New York, Academic Press, pp. 107-34. Charlton, M.F., P. Crew, T. Rehren and S.J. Shennan. Explaining the evolution of ironmaking recipes – An example from northwest Wales. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29 (2010) 352–367. Clark, J. 1995 Craft specialization as an archaeological category. Research in Economic Anthropology 16:267-94. Conkey, M. and Hastorf, C. (eds.) 1990 The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge Univ. Press. David, N., Sterner, J. and Gavua, K. 1988 Why pots are decorated, Current Anthropology 29: 365-88. Latour, B., 2005. An Introduction to Actor Network Theory. Oxford Univ Press. Lemonnier, P. (ed.) 1993 Technological Choices. London, Routledge. Miller, D. (ed.) 1998. Material Cultures: Why Some Things Matter. London, UCL Press. Nelson, M. 1991 The study of technological organization. In, M. Schiffer (ed.) Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 3. Tucson, University of Arizona Press, pp. 57-100. O'Brien, M. J. and R. L. Lyman (editors) 2003. Style, Function, Transmission. Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City. Pfaffenberger, B. 1992 Social anthropology of technology. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:491- 516. Plog, S. (1983) Analysis of style in artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:125-142. Rice, P. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rice, P. 1991. Specialization, standardization and diversity: a retrospect. In R. Bishop & F. Lange (Eds.), The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard: Boulder: University of Colorado Press. Rice, P. 1996. Recent ceramic analysis 1. function, style and origins. Journal of Archaeological Research, 4(2): 133-163. Rice, P. 1996. Recent ceramic analysis 2. composition, production, theory. Journal Archaeological Research, 4(3): 165-202.
8
Schiffer, M. (ed.) 2001. Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press. Schiffer, M., and Skibo, J. 1997. The explanation of artifact variability. American Antiquity 62:27-50. Sigaut, F. 1994. Technology. In T. Ingold (ed.), The Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology. London: Routledge: 420-59. Sillar, B. and Tite, M. 2000. The challenge of ‘technological choices’ for material science approaches in archaeology. Archaeometry 42.1:2-20. TC 2532, IoA Periodicals, Tilley, C. 1989 Interpreting material culture. In, I. Hodder (ed.) The Meanings of Things. London, Harper Collins, pp. 185-94. Wiessner, P. 1983. Style & social information in Kalahari San projectile points. American Antiquity 48:253-76. Wobst, H. M. 1977. Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director, edited by C. Cleland, pp. 317-342. Anthropological Papers. vol. 61. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Materiality Gosden, C. 2005. What do objects want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 12.3, 193- 211. [INST ARCH PERS;
9
3 Approaches to Trade, Exchange and Value
This week’s class considers theories of exchange and value with regard to how they have been applied to understand the transmission of material culture across space and over time. Trade has long been a core theoretical domain in which modern commentators have either asserted that we can use the tools of modern economics to understand past behaviour, or conversely and equally stridently, have asserted the “otherness” of “primitive” exchange mechanisms. Underpinning our understanding of past and present trade is also a wider issue of how tangible and intangible cultural products are given value in the first place. Value proves to be an ambiguous but powerful topic, with relevance to a host of other encountered during this module.
Discussion questions How useful for archaeology are the anthropological concepts of reciprocity, redistribution and market exchange? All interpretations of exchange involve concepts of ‘value’. Where do these concepts come from and how can we understand them? What, if any, are the benefits of specialisation in regional exchange? How does inequality in exchange arise (between individual, institutions or regions)? What are its implications? How convincingly can we ascribe social contexts, specific actors and/or specific behaviours to the movements of ancient artefacts that we observe?
Essential Sahlins, M. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Ch. 5. INST ARCH BD SAH Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as action at a distance. In Sabloff, J. & Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. (ed.) Ancient Civilisation and Trade: 3-60. Tuscon, University of Arizona Press. TC 862 Appadurai, A. 1986. Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value, in Appadurai, A. (ed.) The Social Life of Things: 3-63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TC 3723 Shennan, S. 1999. Cost, benefit and value in the organisation of Early European copper production, Antiquity 73: 352-362 Bevan, A. 2010. Making and marking relationships: Bronze Age brandings and Mediterranean commodities, in Bevan, A. and Wengrow, D. (eds.) Cultures of Commodity Branding. 35- 85. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. TC3726
For further reading: trade, exchange and value Adams, R. McC. 1974. Anthropological perspectives on ancient trade, Current Anthropology 15: 239- 58. Bevan, A. 2007. Stone Vessels and Values in the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bevan, A. 2014. Mediterranean containerization. Current Anthropology 55 (4): 387-418. Bradley, R. & M. Edmonds, 1993. Interpreting the Axe Trade. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Broodbank, C. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (especially pp175-319) Brumfiel, E. and Earle, T. (eds) 1993 Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Burton, J. 1989. Repeng and the saltmakers: ecological trade and stone axe production in the New Guinea highlands. Man 24: 255-72. Champion, T. Introduction. In, T. Champion (ed.) Centre and Periphery. Comparative Studies in
10
Archaeology. London, Harper Collins, pp. 1-21. Earle, T.K. & J.E. Ericson (eds.) 1977. Exchange Systems in Prehistory. New York, Academic Press. Earle, T. 1982 Prehistoric economics and the archaeology of exchange. In, J. Ericson and T. Earle (eds) Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange. New York, Academic Press: 1-12. Ericson, J.E. and Earle, T.K. (eds) 1982 Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange. New York, Academic Press. Flannery, K.V. 1968. The Olmec and the valley of Oaxaca: a model for interregional interaction in Formative times. In, E. Benton (ed.) Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, pp. 79-110. Gledhill, J. & M. Larsen (eds.). 1982. The Polanyi paradigm and a dynamic analysis of archaic states. In C. Renfrew, M. Rowlands and B. Seagraves (eds.) Theory and Explanation in Archaeology. New York, Academic Press, pp. 197-229. Gosden, C. 1989 Production, power and prehistory. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:355- 87. Graeber, D. 2001. Toward An Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams, New York: Palgrave. Helms, M. 1988. Ulysses’ Sail: An Ethnographic Odyssey of Power, Knowledge and Geographical Distance. Hirth, K. 1996 Political economy and archaeology: perspectives on exchange and production. Journal of Archaeological Research 4:203 Kipp, R. and Schortman, E. 1989 The political impact of trade in chiefdoms. American Anthropologist 91:370- 85. Mauss, M. 1925. The Gift. Pearson, M. 1998. Performance as valuation: Early Bronze Age burial as theatrical complexity, in Bailey, D. (ed.) The Archaeology of Value: 32-41. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum. Renfrew, A.C. 1986. Varna and the Emergence of Wealth in Later Prehistoric Europe, in Appadurai, A. (ed.) The Social Life of Things: 141-168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Renfrew, A.C. 1993. Trade beyond the material., In Scarre, C. & Healy, F. (eds.) Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe: 5-16. Rowlands, M., M. Larsen & K. Kristiansen (eds.) 1987. Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Schortman, E. and Urban, P. 1987 Modeling interregional interaction in prehistory. In, M. Schiffer (ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11: 37-95. Schortman, E. and Urban, P. 1992 Resources, power and interregional interaction. London, Plenum. Sherratt, A.G. and Sherratt, E.S. 1991. From Luxuries to Commodities: The Nature of Bronze Age Trading Systems, in Gale, N.H. (ed.) Bronze Age Trade in the Mediterranean: 351-381. Gothenburg: Paul Åströms Sherratt, A. 1993. What would a bronze age world system look like? Relations between temperate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory, Journal of European Archaeology 1: 1-57. Torrence, R. 1986. Production and Exchange of Stone Tools: Prehistoric Obsidian in the Aegean. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Wengrow, D. 2008. Prehistories of Commodity Branding, Current Anthropology 49.1: 7-34. Wright, H.T. and Johnson, G. 1975 Population, exchange and early state formation in southwestern Iran. American Anthropologist 77:267-89. Zaccagnini, C. 1987 Aspects of ceremonial exchange in the Near East during the late second millennium BC. In, M. Rowlands, M. Larsen, and K. Kristiansen (eds), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-65.
11
4 Landscape and Regional Settlement Systems
Landscape studies have had a long history in archaeology, from Antiquarian regional inventories, to the large-scale survey projects of Processual archaeology, to the phenomenological perspectives explored through Interpretive approaches. In addition to the inter-disciplinary programmes of field surveys and environmental reconstruction of ancient landscapes which developed from the 1950s, there has been an increasing interest recently in symbolic landscapes, landscapes of power and the way in which landscapes are culturally perceived and defined, not least by the monuments and spatial distribution of activities in them. The readings focus primarily on the cultural dimensions of landscape and consider a range of approaches as a basis for the seminar discussion.
Discussion questions Are economic and political models of settlement patterns, as exemplified by Site Catchment Theory and Central Place Theory, limited in relevance to Western, market economies? Are idealised models, such as Central Place Theory, relevant to analysing real landscapes? What are the fundamental bases for such models, and are they relevant to understanding past landscapes? Are social and symbolic approaches to landscape incompatible with economic analyses? Can a phenomenological approach to a landscape provide insight into how it was perceived and understood by individuals in the past? Phenomenological and experiential approaches to landscape tend to focus on local scales. Can they help us to understand larger-scale patterning in regional landscapes?
Essential Earle, T. and Preucel, R. 1987. Processual Archaeology and the radical critique. Current Anthropology 28:501-38. eJournals. Hodges, R. 1987. Spatial models, anthropology and archaeology. In J.M. Wagstaff (ed.) Landscape and Culture: Geographical and Archaeological Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell:118-33. Inst Arch AH WAG, Science: GEOGRAPHY H 58 WAG, Issue Desk AH WAG Gillings, M. In press. Landscape and environment. In A. Gardner, M. Lake and U. Sommer (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory. Available on-line through UCL Explore. Ashmore, W. 2004. Social archaeologies of landscape. In L. Meskell and R. Preucel (eds) A Companion to Social Archaeology. Malden: Blackwell:255-71. Available on-line through UCL Explore. Brück, J. 2005. Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues 12(1):45-72. IoA Periodicals, eJournals.
For further reading: landscapes Adams, R. 1981. Heartland of Cities. Chicago, Chicago University Press. Albarella, Umberto (ed.) 2001. Environmental Archaeology: Meaning and Purpose. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Alcock, S. and Osborne, R. (eds) 1994. Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece. Ashmore, W. and Knapp, B. (eds) 1999. Archaeologies of Landscape. Oxford, Blackwell. Barrett, J. 1999. The mythical landscapes of the British Iron Age. In W. Ashmore and B. Knapp (eds) Archaeologies of Landscape. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 253-65. Barrett, J. 1999. Chronologies of landscape. In P. Ucko and R. Layton (eds) 1999. The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape. Shaping your landscape. London: Routledge:21-30.
12
Barrett, J. and Ko, I. 2009. A phenomenology of landscape: a crisis in British landscape archaeology? Journal of Social Archaeology 9(3): 275-294. Bender, B. 1992. Theorising landscapes and the prehistoric landscapes of Stonehenge. Man 27:735- 55. Bender, B. 1993. Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford, Berg. Bender, B., Hamilton, S. and Tilley, C. 2007. Stone Worlds: Narrative and Reflexivity in Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Bevan, A. and Wilson, A. 2013. Models of settlement hierarchy based on partial evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 2415-2427. Binford, L. 1964. A consideration of archaeological research design. American Antiquity 29:425-41. Binford, L. 1980. Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archaelogical site formation. American Antiquity 45:4-20. Binford, L. 1982. The archaeology of place. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1:5-31. Bintliff, J. 1999. Settlement and territory. In, G. Barker (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology. Vol. 1. London: Routledge:505-45. Brown, T. 1999. Reconstructing the environment and natural landscape. In G. Barker (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology, Vol. 1. London: Routledge:222-65. Butzer, K. 1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carmichael, D., Hubert, J., Reeves, B. and Schanche, A. (eds) 1994. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. Chadwick, A. (ed.) 2004. Stories from the Landscape: Archaeologies of Inhabitation. BAR 1238. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Cherry, J.F. 1987. Power in space: archaeological and geographical studies of the state. In J.M. Wagstaff (ed.) Landscape and Culture: Geographical and Archaeological Perspectives. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 146-72. Cosgrove, D. 1984. Social Formation and Symbolic Landscape. London: Croom Helm. Crumley, C. 1979. Three locational models: an epistemological assessment for anthropology and archaeology. In M. Schiffer (ed.) Advances in archaeological method and theory. Vol. 2. New York, Academic:143-74. Crumley, C. (ed.) 1994. Historical Ecology. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. David, B. and J. Thomas (eds) 2008. Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Drennan, R., C. Berrey, C. Peterson 2015. Regional Settlement Demography in Archaeology. Clinton Corners: Eliot Warner Publications. Edmonds, M. 2006. Who said romance was dead? Journal of Material Culture 11:167-88. Feld, S. and Basso, K. (eds) 1996. Senses of Place. Santa Fe: School of American Research. Fisher, P.F., Farrelly, C., Maddocks, A. and Ruggles, C. 1997. Spatial analysis of visible areas from the Bronze Age cairns of Mull. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:581-92. Flannery, K. (ed.) 1976. The village and its catchment area. In K. V. Flannery (ed.) The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press:91-5, 103-17. Fleming, A. 1999. Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: a dreaming too far? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18(2):119-25. Fleming, A. 2006. Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16:267-80.
13
Fowles, S. 2010. The Southwest school of landscape archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 39:453-68. Frieman, C. and Gillings, M. 2007. Seeing is perceiving? World Archaeology 39:4-16. Haaland, R. and Haaland. G. 2011. Landscape. In T. Insoll (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion. Oxford. Hamilton, S. 2011. The ambiguity of landscape: discussing points of relatedness in concepts and methods. In E. Cochrane and A. Gardner (eds) Evolutionary and Interpretive Archaeologies. A dialogue. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press:263-80. Hamilton, S. and Whitehouse, R. 2006. Phenomenology in practice: towards a methodology for a ‘subjective’ approach. European Journal of Archaeology 9:31-71. Higgs, E. and Vita-Finzi, C. 1972. Prehistoric economies: a territorial approach. In, E. Higgs (ed.) Papers in Economic Prehistory. Cambridge, CUP, pp. 27-36. Hirsch, E. and O'Hanlon, M. (Eds) 1995. The anthropology of landscape. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Hodder, I. 1972. Locational models and the study of Romano-British settlement. In D. L. Clarke (ed.) Models in Archaeology. London: Methuen:887-909. Ingold, T. 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25(2): 152-74. Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London, Routledge. Johnson, G. 1977. Aspects of regional analysis in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 6:479-508. Johnson, M. 2012. Phenomenological approaches in landscape archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 269-84. Johnson, M. 2007. Ideas of Landscape. Oxford, Blackwell. Kantner, J. 2008. The archaeology of regions: from discrete analytical toolkit to ubiquitous spatial perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 16:37-81. Kowalewski, S. 2008. Regional settlement pattern studies. Journal of Archaeological Research 16:225-85. Lake, M. (ed.) 2007. Viewing Space. World Archaeology 39. Lock, G. 2009. Human activity in a spatial context. In C. Gosden, B. Cunliffe and R. Joyce (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Archaeology. Oxford. Llobera, M. 2001. Building landscape perception with GIS: understanding topographic prominence. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1005-14. McGlade, J. 1999. Archaeology and the evolution of cultural landscapes: towards an interdisciplinary agenda. In P.J. Ucko and R. Layton (eds) The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape: Shaping Your Landscape. London: Routledge:458-82. O’Connor, T. 2009. Culture and environment: mind the gap. In M. Allen, N. Sharples and T. O’Connor (eds) Land and People. Oxford, Oxbow:11-18. Parsons, J. 1972. Archaeological settlement patterns. Annual Review of Anthropology 1: 127-50. 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. Roberts, B. 1996. Landscapes of Settlement: Prehistory to the Present. London, Batsford Rossignol, J. and Wandsnider, L. (eds) 1992. Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum. Schama, S. 1996. Landscape and Memory. London, Fontana.
14
Smith, A. 2003. The Political Landscape. London: University of California Press. Smith, C. 1976. Regional economic systems: linking geographical models and socioeconomic problems. In C. Smith (ed.) Regional Analysis, Vol. 1: Economic Systems. New York, Academic Press, pp. 3-63. Smith, M.E. 1979. The Aztec marketing system and settlement patterns in the Valley of Mexico: a central place analysis. American Antiquity 44:110-25. Steward, J. 1977. The concept and method of cultural ecology. In J. Steward and R. Murphy (eds) Evolution and Ecology. Essays on Social Transformation by Julian H. Steward. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. Thomas, J. 2001. Archaeologies of place and landscape. In I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge, Polity, 165-86. Thomas, J. 2008. Archaeology, landscape and dwelling. In B. David and J. Thomas (eds) Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek, left Coast Press:300-306. Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford, Berg. Tilley, C. 1996. The power of rocks: topography and monument construction on Bodmin Moor. World Arch. 28:161-76. Tilley, C. 2004. Round barrows and dykes as landscape metaphors. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14:185-203. Tilley, C. 2008. Phenomenological Approaches to Landscape Archaeology. In B. David and J. Thomas (eds) Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press:271-76. Tilley, C. and Bennet, W. 2001. An archaeology of super-natural places. Journal Royal Anthropological Institute 7:335-62. Townsend, R. 1992. Landscape and symbol. In R. Townsend (ed.) The Ancient Americas: Art from Sacred Landscapes. Trigger, B.G. 1968. The determinants of settlement patterns. In K.C. Chang (ed.) Settlement Archaeology: 53-78. Tuan, Y.-F. 1977. Space and Place. The Perspective of Experience. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. Ucko, P. and Layton, R. (eds) 1999. The Archaeology and Anthropology of Landscape. London: Routledge. Wagstaff, J.M. (ed.) 1987. Landscape and Culture: Geographical and Archaeological Perspectives. Wandsnider, L. 1998. Regional scale processes and archaeological landscape units. In A. Ramenofsky and A. Steffen (eds) Unit Issues in Archaeology. Salt Lake City: Univ.of Utah Press:87-102.
15
5 Archaeological Science
In recent years archaeological science has expanded enormously, in both the number and range of its applications. In the past it was mainly associated with dating, on the one hand, and the analysis of inorganic materials to address such topics as early technologies or the identification of exchange, on the other. Recently the biological sciences that have made the running, especially isotope studies and studies of ancient DNA. In addition, computerised modelling methods based on the ideas of complex adaptive systems and using agent-based modelling (ABM) have become important. ‘Big Data’ has also begun to play a significant role in the characterisation of large-scale patterns in the archaeological record as large datasets have become increasingly available, together with methods for processing them. This session looks at the impact of these developments on archaeological theory.
Discussion questions To what extent is archaeological science replacing archaeological theory in posing and answering archaeological questions? Have biologists, especially geneticists, usurped the role of archaeologists in explaining patterns in prehistory? One aspect of post-processualism was the social critique of archaeological interpretations. How can/should this react to the new developments in archaeological science? In what ways are computational methods influencing archaeological theory and interpretation?
Essential General Kristiansen, K. 2014. Towards a new Paradigm? The Third Science Revolution and its Possible Consequences in Archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology 22, 11-34. Plus the commentaries and Kristiansen’s reply on the following pages. Online. Liden, K., and G. Eriksson 2013. Archaeology vs. archaeological science. Do we have a case? Current Swedish Archaeology 21, 11-20. Plus the commentaries and their reply on the following pages. Online. Martinon-Torres, M., and D. Killick 2015. Archaeological theories and archaeological sciences. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199567942.013.004. In book: Oxford Handbook of Archaeological Theory Chapter: Archaeological theories and archaeological sciences Publisher: Oxford University Press. Editors: Andrew Gardner, Mark Lake and Ulrike Sommer Arponen, V. et al. 2019. Between natural and human sciences: On the role and character of theory in socio-environmental archeology. The Holocene. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0959683619857226
Computational approaches Bevan, A. 2015. The data deluge. Antiquity 89, December 2015, pp 1473 – 1484. Online Collar, A. et al. 2015. Networks in Archaeology: Phenomena, Abstraction, Representation. J Archaeol Method Theory (2015) 22:1–32 Lansing, J.S. (2003) Complex Adaptive Systems. Annual Review of Anthropology. [Online] 32 (1), 183–204. Available from: doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093440. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/12/history-as-a-giant-data-set-how-analysing- the-past-could-help-save-the-future Ancient DNA Reich, D. 2018. Who We Are and How We Got Here. Oxford University Press. As well as one week loan copies there is now a short loan copy at ISSUE DESK IOA REI 2
16
Further reading Borck, L., Mills, B. J., Peeples, M. A., & Clark, J. J. (2015). Are social networks survival networks? An example from the Late Prehispanic U.S. Southwest. Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory ,22, 33-57. Downey, S., W.R. Haas Jr. and S.J. Shennan 2016. European Neolithic societies showed early warning signals of population collapse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 113: 9751–9756. Lake, M. (2014). Explaining the past with ABM: On modelling philosophy. In G. Wurzer, K. Kowarik, & H. Reschreiter (Eds.), Agent-based Modeling and Archaeology. Berlin: Springer. Online. Mills, B. J., Clark, J. J., Peeples, M. A., Haas, W. R., Roberts, J. M., Hill, J. B., Shackley, M. S. (2013). Transformation of social networks in the late pre-Hispanic US Southwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110, 5785–5790 Pollard, A. M., and Bray, P. 2007. A bicycle made for two? The integration of scientific techniques into archaeological interpretation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36: 245–259. Online. Lewis, H.M., Vinicius, L., Strods, J., Mace, R., et al. (2014) High mobility explains demand sharing and enforced cooperation in egalitarian hunter-gatherers. Nature Communications. [Online] 5, 5789. Chliaoutakis, A. & Chalkiadakis, G. (2016) Agent-based modeling of ancient societies and their organization structure. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. [Online] 30 (6), 1072– 1116. Altaweel, M. (2015) Settlement Dynamics and Hierarchy from Agent Decision-Making: a Method Derived from Entropy Maximization. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. [Online] 22 (4), 1122–1150. Lake, M.W. (2014) Trends in Archaeological Simulation. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. [Online] 21 (2), 258–287. Barton, C.M., Ullah, I.I. & Bergin, S. (2010) Land use, water and Mediterranean landscapes: modelling long- term dynamics of complex socio-ecological systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. [Online] 368 (1931), 5275–5297. An, L. (2012) Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models. Ecological Modelling. [Online] 229, 25–36. R. Alexander Bentley & Herbert D. G. Maschner (eds.) (2003) Complex systems and archaeology. Foundations of archaeological inquiry. Salt Lake City, Univ. of Utah Press.
Plus, follow up some of the references that interest you in the readings above or browse recent issues of Journal of Archaeological Science or Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. If you’re thinking of doing your essay on this subject please contact me to discuss identifying particular areas of archaeological science to take as your examples.
17
6 Evolutionary Archaeology and Anthropology
In recent years there has been renewed application of Darwinian evolutionary theory to the study of cultural change. Such approaches generally explain variation in the archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic records by processes of cultural transmission, selection, adaptation, and other processes similar to those used in explanations of biological change. We will examine the structure of biological evolutionary theory, and consider the relevance of the analogy with cultural change.
Discussion questions
Are evolutionary approaches deterministic? What is the difference between human behavioural ecology and cultural evolution? Why is culture conceived as an inheritance system? Where does the concept of the ‘individual’ fit into evolutionary archaeologies? Why pursue an evolutionary framework in archaeology? What is niche construction?
Essential Codding, B.F. and D.W. Bird 2015. Behavioral ecology and the future of archaeological science. Journal of Archaeological Science 56, 9-20. Neiman, F. 2008. The lost world of Monticello. Journal of Anthropological research 64, 161-193. O'Brien, M.J. and K.N. Laland. 2012. Genes, Culture, and Agriculture: An Example of Human Niche Construction. Current Anthropology 53, 434{470. Shennan, S. (2008). Evolution in archaeology. Annual Review Of Anthropology 37:75-91. Science: ANTHROPOLOGY Journals, eJournals.
For further reading: evolutionary archaeology and anthropology Bettinger, R. L. and J. W. Eerkens (1999) Point typologies, cultural transmission, and the spread of bow-andarrow technology in the prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64(2):231-242. Boone, J. L. and E. A. Smith (1998) Is it evolution yet? A critique of evolutionary archaeology. Current Anthropology 39(Supplement):S141-S174. Broughton, J. M. and J. F. O'Connell (1999) On evolutionary ecology, selectionist archaeology, and behavioral archaeology. American Antiquity 64(1):153-165. Charlton, M.F., P. Crew, T. Rehren and S.J. Shennan. Explaining the evolution of ironmaking recipes – An example from northwest Wales. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29 (2010) 352–367. Currie, T. and Mace, R. (2011) Mode and tempo in the evolution of socio-political organization: reconciling ‘Darwinian’ and ‘Spencerian’ evolutionary approaches in anthropology. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 366 [1567]: 1108-1117. Science Periodicals, eJournals. Eerkens, J., and C. Lipo (2007). Cultural transmission theory and the archaeological record: providing context to understanding variation and temporal changes in material culture. Journal of Archaeological Research 15:239. Holden, C. J. (2002) Bantu language trees reflect the spread of farming across sub-Saharan Africa: a maximum-parsimony analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 269, 793-799. Jordan, P. and S. Shennan (2003) Cultural transmission, language, and basketry traditions amongst the California Indians. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22(1):42-74.
18
Kandler, A. and Steele, J. (eds) (2012). Cultural Evolution in Spatially Structured Populations. Advances in Complex Systems 15(1-2). Leonard, R. D. and G. T. Jones (1987) Elements of an inclusive evolutionary model for archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:199-219. Lipo, C. P., M. J. O'Brien, M. Collard and S. Shennan (editors) (2006). Mapping Our Ancestors: Phylogenetic Methods in Anthropology and Prehistory. Aldine de Gruyter, New York. Lipo, C. P., M. Madsen, R. C. Dunnell and T. Hunt (1997) Population structure, cultural transmission, and frequency seriation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 16(4):301-333. Lyman, R. L. and M. J. O'Brien (1998) The goals of evolutionary archaeology: history and explanation. Current Anthropology 39(5):615-652. Mattison, S., et al. 2016. The evolution of inequality. Evolutionary Anthropology 25:184-199 Mesoudi, A., A. Whiten and K. N. Laland (2004). Is human cultural evolution Darwinian? Evidence reviewed from the perspective of The Origin of Species. Evolutionary Anthropology 58(1):1-11. Mesoudi, A. et al. (2006). Towards a unified science of cultural evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29:329-383. Science Periodicals, eJournals. Murray, T. (2002). Evaluating evolutionary archaeology. World Archaeology 34(1): 47-59. Neiman, F.D. (1995). Stylistic variation in evolutionary perspective: inferences from decorative diversity and inter-assemblage distance in Illinois Woodland ceramic assemblages. American Antiquity 60: 7-36. Neiman, F. (1997). Conspicuous consumption as wasteful advertising: a Darwinian perspective on spatial patterns in Classic Maya terminal monument dates. In C.M. Barton and G.A. Clark (eds), Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation, pp. 267-290. Arlington, Virginia: American Anthropological Association. O'Brien, M. J., J. Darwent and R. L. Lyman (2001). Cladistics is useful for reconstructing archaeological phylogenies: Palaeoindian points from the Southeastern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1115-1136. O'Brien, M. J., R. L. Lyman and R. D. Leonard (1998). Basic incompatibilities between evolutionary and behavioral archaeology. American Antiquity 63(3):485-498. Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd (1992) Cultural inheritance and evolutionary ecology. In Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior, edited by E. A. Smith and B. Winterhalder, pp. 61-94. Aldine De Gruyter, New York. Richerson, P.J., R. Boyd and R.L. Bettinger (2001). Was agriculture impossible during the Pleistocene but mandatory during the Holocene. American Antiquity 66: 387-412. Richerson, P. J. and R. Boyd (2001). Institutional evolution in the Holocene: the rise of complex societies. In W.G. Runciman (ed.) The Origin of Human Social Institutions. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 110: 197- 234. Rogers, D. S. and P. R. Ehrlich (2008). Natural selection and cultural rates of change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(9): 3416-3420. Schiffer, M. B. (1996). Some relationships between behavioral and evolutionary archaeologies. American Antiquity 61:643-662. Shennan, S. J. and J. R. Wilkinson (2001) Ceramic style change and neutral evolution: a case study from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66(4):577-593. Shennan, S.J. (2002). Genes, Memes and Human History: Darwinian Archaeology and Cultural Evolution. London: Thames and Hudson.
19
Steele, J., Glatz, C. and Kandler, A. (2010) Ceramic diversity, random copying, and tests for selectivity in ceramic production. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 1348-1358. Steele, J. and Shennan, S. (eds) (2009) Demography and cultural macroevolution. Human Biology, 81 [2-3]: 105- 384. Steele, J., Jordan, P. and Cochrane, E. (eds) (2010) Cultural and linguistic diversity: evolutionary approaches. Phil. Trans . Roy. Soc. Series B 365(1559): 3781-3933. Science Periodicals, eJournals. Tehrani, J. and M. Collard (2002) Investigating cultural evolution through biological phylogenetic analyses of Turkmen textiles. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21(4):443-463. Tëmkin, I. and N. Eldridge (2007). Phylogenetics and material culture evolution. American Anthropologist 48(1): 146-153.
20
7 Inequality and scale in human societies
Archaeology is one strand of a broad inter-disciplinary effort to understand the evolving relationship between scale and inequality in human societies, from human origins to the present day. Research into human cognition has produced a body of theory known as ‘scalar stress’ or ‘group size’ theory, which has been explored in a range of social sciences, extending from anthropology to management theory. Such theories relate to the effect of group size on human social and political organisation, and also that of other primates. They raise fundamental questions about social evolution, which archaeologists are increasingly engaging with through their own material.
Discussion questions
What is the relationship between scale and inequality in human societies? Have small-scale societies usually been more egalitarian than large-scale ones in human history? Are significant levels of social equality only attainable in small groups? Do modes of subsistence (e.g. farming), and modes of production more generally, have clear evolutionary implications for levels of social inequality? Does living in cities necessarily require a central decision-making apparatus (e.g. an administrative hierarchy, or hierarchical forms of government)?
Essential (read at least two of the following)
Feinman, G.M. 2010. Size, Complexity, and Organizational Variation: A Comparative Approach. Cross Cultural Research 45 (1), 37-58.
Manzanilla, L.R. 2014. Cooperation and tensions in multi-ethnic corporate societies using Teotihuacan, Central Mexico, as a case study. PNAS 112 (30), 9210–9215.
Wengrow, D. 2019. 'Rethinking cities, from the gound up.' The British Academy (Essays on Social Cohesion) https://medium.com/whose-society-whose-cohesion/rethinking-cities-from-the-ground- up-73d92059b15f
Wengrow, D and D. Graeber. 2015. Farewell to the 'childhood of man': ritual, seasonality, and the origins of inequality. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 21 (3), 597-619.
For further reading Bandy, M.S. 2004. Fissioning, Scalar Stress, and Social Evolution in Early Village Societies. American Anthropologist 106 (2), 322-333. Birch, J. (ed). 2013. From prehistoric villages to cities: settlement aggregation and community transformation. London: Routledge. Blanton, R.E. 1998. Beyond centralisation: steps toward a theory of egalitarian behaviour in archaic states. In G.M. Feinman and J. Marcus (eds.) Archaic States. Santa Fe: School of American Research, 135-172. Blanton, R.E., et al. 1996. A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37 (1), 1–14. Dunbar, R. 1996. Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. London: Faber & Faber. Dunbar, R.I.M. et al. (eds) 2014. Lucy to Language. The Benchmark Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press (chapter 17, Coward and Dunbar, ‘Communities on the edge of civilisation’, and 21, Coward and Gamble, ‘Big brains, small worlds: material culture and the evolution of mind’). Fargher, L., Blanton, R., Espinoza, V., Millhauser, J., Xiuhtecutli, N., & Overholtzer, L. 2011.
21
Tlaxcallan: The archaeology of an ancient republic in the New World. Antiquity 85 (327), 172- 186. Fletcher, R. 1995. The limits of settlement growth: a theoretical outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frangipane, M. 2016. The development of centralised societies in Greater Mesopotamia and the foundation of economic inequality. Tagungen des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte HALLE • Band 13: 1-22. Froese et al. 2014. Can Government Be Self-Organized? A Mathematical Model of the Collective Social Organization of Ancient Teotihuacan, Central Mexico. PLOS One. Jennings, J. 2016. Killing civilization: a reassessment of early urbanism and its consequences. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Johnson, G.A. 1982. Organizational structure and scalar stress. In C. Renfrew et al. (eds.) Theory and Explanation in Archaeology. London: Academic Press, 389-421. McGuire, R., & Saitta, D. 1996. Although They Have Petty Captains, They Obey Them Badly: The Dialectics of Prehispanic Western Pueblo Social Organization. American Antiquity 61 (2), 197-216. Wengrow, D. 2015. Cities before the state in early Eurasia. Halle: Max Planck Institute. [https://ucl.academia.edu/DavidWengrow] Wengrow, D. 2018. 'The origins of civic life - a global perspective.' Origini XLII (special issue in memory of Robert McC. Adams): 25-44. Yoffee, N. 2005. Myths of the archaic state: evolution of the earliest cities, states and civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Essay question
What is the relationship between scale and inequality in human societies? Discuss with reference to at least two archaeological case studies.
22
8 Archaeology of Religion
Religion and ritual have always been of interest in anthropology. In archaeology, asking questions about ritual seem easier to address because, by definition, the term refers to an activity with a high degree of formality—that is, repeated according to particular rules or expectations or habits.1 The repetitive face of ritual means that ritual activities can leave material remains. ‘Religion’ on the other hand is not even easy for us to define, let alone envision what its material correlates might be. In this seminar we will look at ritual, but more important, I will ask you to deconstruct ‘religion’ and think about the utility of the concept: whether the concept is both helpful, and not helpful, in furthering our understanding of past—and present—societies.
Discussion questions What is ‘religion’? What is definitive of religion that is not also part of culture? To what extent is it possible to separate religion from other aspects of past social behaviour and idea systems? Provide an example of ritual from your time at the Institute. What purpose(s) does the ritual serve, and what sorts of material culture are associated with your examples?
Potential essay question How has the concept of ‘religion’ been helpful in explaining past behaviour through material remains? What is problematic about using ‘religion’ as explanatory, both in the past and present?
Essential Shanks, M. & Tilley, C. 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices. In Hodder, I. (ed.), Symbolic and Structural Archaeology: 129-54. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Issue Desk HOD 12, Inst Arch AH HOD. Fogelin, L. 2007. The archaeology of religious ritual. Annual Review of Anthropology 36:55-71. Science: ANTHROPOLOGY Journals, eJournals. Graham, E., S. Simmons, C.D. White. 2013. The Spanish Conquest and the Maya collapse: How ‘religious’ is change? World Archaeology 45(1): 1-25. DOI:10.1080/00438243.2013.770962
For further reading: What exactly is ‘religion’? Asad, Talal. 1993. Genealogies of Religion: Disciplines of Power in Christianity and Islam. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Bowie, Fiona. 2000. The Anthropology of Religion. Blackwell, Oxford. Burkhart, Louise M. 1989. The Slippery Earth: Nahua Christian Moral Dialogue in Sixteenth- Century Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Carrette, Jeremy R. 2000. Foucault and Religion. Routledge, London. Case, Shirley Jackson. 1971. Experience with the Supernatural in Early Christian Times. Benjamin Blom, New York. (This will get you thinking that ‘magic’ is a political term as well. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Religion as a Cultural System. In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz, 87-125. Basic Books, New York. Geertz, Clifford. 2000. The Pinch of Destiny: Religion as Experience, Meaning, Identity, Power. In Available light: Anthropological Reflections on Philosophical Topics, by Clifford Geertz, 167-86. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
23
Graham, Elizabeth. 2009. Close Encounters. In Maya Worldviews at Conquest, ed. By Leslie G. Cecil and Timothy W. Pugh, 17-38. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Graham, Elizabeth. 2011. Chapter 3 in Maya Christians and Their Churches in Sixteenth-Century Belize. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Graham, E., Simmons, S. and White, C. 2013. The Spanish Conquest and the Maya collapse: How ‘religious’ is change? World Archaeology 45(1): 1-25. Insoll, Timothy. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. Routledge, London. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lambek, Michael. 2000. The Anthropology of Religion and the Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy. Current Anthropology 41(3): 309-20. Lett, James. 1977. Science, Religion, and Anthropology. In Anthropology of Religion: A Handbook, ed. By Stephen D. Glazier, 103-20. Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn. Neusner, Jacob, and Ernest S. Frerich, eds. 1985. ‘To See Ourselves as Others See Us’: Christian, Jews, ‘Others’ in Late Antiquity. Scholars Press, Chico, CA. Pharo, Lars Kirkhusmo. 2007. The Concept of ‘Religion’ in Mesoamerican Languages. Numen, no. 54: 28-70. Sandstrom, Alan R. 1991. Corn Is Our Blood: Culture and Ethnic Identity in a Contemporary Aztec Indian Village. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Seznec, Jean. 1981. The Survival of the Pagan Gods. Transl. from the French by Barbara F. Sessions. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Smith, Jonathan Z. 1985. What a Difference a Difference Makes. In ‘To See Ourselves as Others See Us’: Christian, Jews, ‘Others’ in Late Antiquity, ed. J. Neusner and E.S. Frerichs, 3-48. Scholars Press, Chico, CA. Taylor, Mark ed. 1998. Critical Terms for Religious Studies. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Other readings on religion and ritual Alcock, S.E. & R. Osborne (eds.) 1994. Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Clarendon Press Barrett, J.C. 1991. Towards an archaeology of ritual. In Garwood, P., D. Jennings, R. Skeates & J. Toms (eds.) 1991. Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, Oxford: 1–9. Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, Monographs no, 32, Oxford. Barth, F. 1975. Ritual and Knowledge among the Baktaman of New Guinea. New Haven: Yale University Press. Bloch, M. 1986. From blessing to violence: history and ideology in the circumcision ritual of the Merina of Madagascar. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Bloch, M. 2008. Why religion is nothing special but is central. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 2055-2061. Doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.00007 Boyer, P. and B. Bergstrom. 2008. Evolutionary perspectives on religion. Annual Review of Anthropology 37:111-30. Boyer, P. 2001. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought. New York: Basic Books. Carmichael, D.L., J. Hubert, B. Reeves & A. Schanche (eds.) 1994. Sacred Sites, Sacred Places. New York: Routledge. Crown, P. L. 1994 Ceramics and Ideology: Salado Polychrome Pottery. Univ.of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Crown, P. L. and W. H. Wills 2003, Modifying Pottery and Kivas at Chaco: Pentimento, Restoration, or Renewal? American Antiquity 68 (3): 511-532.
24
Douglas, M. 1984. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. New York: Praeger. Douglas, M. 1996 (new edition). Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology. New York: Pantheon Books. Edwards, D.N. 2005. The archaeology of religion. In M. Díaz-Andreu, S. Lucy, S. Babić and D.N. Edwards (eds.) The Archaeology of Identity, 110-128. London: Routledge. Garwood, P., D. Jennings, R. Skeates & J. Toms (eds.) 1991. Sacred and Profane: Proceedings of a Conference on Archaeology, Ritual and Religion, Oxford. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Graves, M. W. and M. Sweeney1993 Ritual Behavior and Ceremonial Structures in Eastern Polynesia: Changing Perspectives on Archaeological Variability. In The Evolution and Organisation of Prehistoric Society in Polynesia, edited by M. W. Graves and R. C. Green, pp. 102-121. vol. Monograph 19. New Zealand Archaeological Association, Auckland. Geertz, C. 1983. Local Knowledge, chapter 6 (‘Centres, kings and charisma: reflections on the symbolics of power’). New York: Basic Books. Hays-Gilpin, K. and Whitley, D.S. (eds.) 2008. Belief in the Past: theoretical approaches to the archaeology of religion. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Howey, M. C. L. and J. M. O'Shea 2006. Bear's journey and the study of ritual in archaeology. American Antiquity 71(2):261-282. Insoll, T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London, Routledge. Kemp, B. 1989. Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation, Chapter 2. New York: Routledge. Kolb, M., J 1994. Ritual Activity and Chiefly Economy at an Upland Religious Site on Maui, Hawai`i. Journal of Field Archaeology 21:417-436. Lessa, W. & E. Vogt (eds.) 1979. Readers in Comparative Religion: An Anthropological Approach. New York: Harper and Row. Lynch, A. 1996. Thought Contagion: how belief spreads through society. New York: Basic Books. McCauley, R.N. & Lawson, E. T. 2002. Bringing Ritual to Mind. Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morris, B. 1987. Anthropological Studies of Religion: An Introductory Text (chapter 3 ‘The anthropological tradition’). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. O’Day, S. J, Van Neer, W., and Ervynck, A. (eds) 2004. Behaviour behind bones : the zooarchaeology of ritual, religion, status and identity. Oxford : Oxbow Books. Peatfield, A.A.D. 1992. Rural ritual in Bronze Age Crete: the peak sanctuary at Atsipadhes. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2: 59-87. Polignac, F de. 1995. Cults, Territory, and the Origins of the Greek City-State. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. Renfrew, C. 1994. The archaeology of religion. In A.C. Renfrew & E. Zubrow (eds), The Ancient Mind, pp. 47- 54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Renfrew, C. 2001 Production and Consumption in a Sacred Economy: The Material Correlates of High Devotional Expression at Chaco Canyon. American Anquity 66 (1):14-25. Rives, J. 2000. Religion in the Roman world. In J. Huskinson (ed.) Experiencing Rome: culture, identity and power in the Roman empire, 245-275. London: Routledge/Open University. Sillar, B. 2009. The social agency of things? Animism and materiality in the Andes. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 19:367-77.
25
Smith, A.T. & Brookes, A. (eds) 2001. Holy ground: theoretical issues relating to the landscape and material culture of ritual space objects: papers from a session held at the Theoretical Archaeology Group Conference, Cardiff 1999. BAR International Series 956. Thomas, J. and C. Tilley 1993. The axe and the torso: symbolic structures in the Neolithic of Brittany. In C. Tilley (ed), Interpretative Archaeology, pp. 225-326. Oxford: Berg. Walter, R., T. Thomas and P. Sheppard 2004. Cult assemblages and ritual practice in Roviana Lagoon, Solomon islands. World Archaeology 36(1):142-157. Whitehouse, R. 1992. Underground Religion: Cult and Culture in Prehistoric Italy. London: Accordia Research Centre, University of London. Whitehouse, R. 1996. Ritual Objects. Archaeological joke or neglected evidence? In Wilkins, J.B. (ed.), Approaches to the Study of Ritual, pp. 9–30. London: Accordia Research Centre, University of London.
1See Barfield, Thomas (ed.). 1997. The Dictionary of Anthropology. Blackwell, Oxford, for both ‘ritual’ and ‘religion’.
26
9. Identities
Identity has been a central concern in Archaeology throughout much of the history of the discipline, and remains a powerful motivation for popular interest in the past. Different approaches have emphasised different aspects of identity, from the sometimes-naïve linkage of patterns and ethnic peoples within culture-history, to processual archaeologists’ interest in rank and status, to more recent approaches to situated identities, embodiment and personhood within and beyond post-processual and interpretative archaeologies. In this seminar we will examine some of these different approaches and their continuing significance, as well as exploring the similarities and differences between categories of identity, and underlying processes of identity construction and internalisation.
Discussion questions How have different concepts of identity shaped and been shaped by the history of archaeology? Are their more or less challenges in reconstructing the details of different categories of identity? Is the distinction between essentialist and constructivist approaches to identity generalizable across different sorts of identity categories? What kinds of archaeological evidence are involved in talking about identity in the past? To what extent are there universal processes of identification in human societies? How should archaeologists deal with the new politics of identity emerging in Europe and the US?
Essential readings Casella, E.C. and Fowler, C. 2005. Beyond identification: an introduction. In E.C. Casella and C. Fowler (eds) 2005. The Archaeology of Plural and Changing Identities: beyond identification, 1-8. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. [INST ARCH AH CAS;
Further reading Social identities Conkey, M. and Spector, J. 1984. Archaeology and the study of gender. In M.B. Schiffer (ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 7, 1-29. New York: Academic Press. [INST ARCH Pers; Science ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 SCH;
27
Gardner, A. 2007. An Archaeology of Identity: Soldiers and Society in Late Roman Britain. (Especially Ch. 2). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. [INST ARCH DAA 170 GAR] Gardner, A. 2011. Paradox and praxis in the archaeology of identity. In L. Amundsen-Meyer, N. Engel and S. Pickering (eds.) Identity Crisis: Archaeological perspectives on social identity. Proceedings of the 42nd (2009) Chacmool Conference, 11-26. Calgary: Chacmool Archaeology Association. [INST ARCH BD AMU] Geller, P. 2009. Identity and difference: complicating gender in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 38: 65-81. [Science ANTHROPOLOGY Pers;
28
Hamilakis, Y., Pluciennik, M. and Tarlow, S. (eds.) 2002. Thinking Through the Body: Archaeologies of Corporeality. New York: Kluwer/Plenum. [INST ARCH BD HAM; ISSUE DESK IOA HAM 4] Joyce, R. 2004. Embodied subjectivity: gender, femininity, masculinity, sexuality. In L. Meskell and R. Preucel (eds) A Companion to Social Archaeology, 82-95. Oxford: Blackwell. [INST ARCH BD MES;
29
10 Archaeology, Politics and the Public
Archaeologists are increasingly recognising the importance of the social and political contexts in which archaeological interpretations have been produced in the past, and in the present. They are also increasingly recognising the claims of other groups to the material that they study, and the role of archaeological interpretations and narratives in claiming the past for particular interests. How can or should archaeologists evaluate and mediate the competing claims of multiple interested individuals and groups, with respect to the interpretation of the past?
Discussion questions Why is the past important today? Why is it so important to ask who owns the past? Should Western museums return cultural artefacts to their countries of origin? In what ways does consideration of the public affect the way we practice archaeology? Does academic training give archaeologists authority in mediating alternative interpretations of the past? Can we incorporate multiple perspectives into archaeological interpretation? How can we evaluate alternative interpretations and claims about the past?
Essential: Kohl, P.L. 1998. Nationalism and archaeology: on the constructions of nations and the reconstructions of the remote past. Annual Review of Anthropology 27: 223-46. eJournals. Leone, M., et al. 1995 Can an Afro-American historical archaeology be an alternative voice? In, I. Hodder, et al. (eds) Interpreting Archaeology. London, Routledge, pp. 110-24. TC 3513, Inst Arch AH HOD, Issue Desk HOD 1. Meskell, L. 2002. The intersections of identity and politics in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 31:279-301. Science: ANTHROPOLOGY Journals, eJournals. Parker Pearson, M. and Pryor, F. 2006. Visitors and viewers welcome? In J.R. Hunter and I. Ralston (eds) Archaeological Resource Management in the UK: an introduction. Second edition. Stroud: Sutton Publishing. 316-27. Watkins, J. 2005. Through wary eyes: indigenous perspectives on archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 34:429-449. Science: ANTHROPOLOGY Journals, eJournals.
For further reading: archaeology, politics and the public Appadurai, A. 1981. The past as a scarce resource. Man 16: 201-19. Arnold, B. 1990. The past as propaganda: totalitarian archaeology in Nazi Germany. Antiquity 64: 464-78. Atkinson, J., Banks, I. and O’Sullivan, J. (eds) 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology. Glasgow: Cruithne Press. Bernbeck, R. and Pollock, S. 2004. The political economy of archaeological practice and the production of heritage in the Middle East. In L. Meskell and R. Preucel (eds) A Companion to Social Archaeology. Malden: Blackwell:335-52. Bernbeck, R. & S. Pollock 1996. Ayodhya, archaeology & identity. Current Anthropology 37 (Supp.): 138-42. Champion, T. & M. Diaz Andreu (eds.) 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. London: UCL Press. Chippindale, C. et al. 1990. Who Owns Stonehenge? London: Batsford.
30
Brophy, K. 2018. The Brexit Hypothesis and Prehistory and responses by other authors. Antiquity 92, 1650-1670. Clack, T. and Brittain, M. (eds.) 2007. Archaeology and the Media. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Coombes, A.E. 1994. Reinventing Africa: Museums, Material Culture and Popular Imagination. Fagan, G.G. (ed.) 2006. Archaeological Fantasies. London: Routledge. Fforde, C., Hubert, J. and Turnbull, P. (eds.) 2002. The Dead and Their Possessions: repatriation in principle, policy and practice. London: Routledge. Fowler, D., Jolie, E. & Salter, M. 2008. Archaeological ethics in context and practice. In R.A. Bentley, et al. eds.) Handbook of Archaeological Theories. Walnut Creek: AltaMira,409-22. Fowler, P.J. 1992. The Past in Contemporary Society, Then, Now. New Haven: Yale U.P. Gathercole, P. and D. Lowenthal (eds.) 1990. The Politics of the Past. London, Harper-Collins. Gosden, C. 2001. Postcolonial archaeology. Issues of culture, identity, and knowledge. In I. Hodder (ed.) Archaeological Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity Press:241-61. Gosden, C. 2004. The past and foreign countries: colonial and post-colonial archaeology and anthropology. In L. Meskell and R. Preucel (eds) A Companion to Social Archaeology. Malden: Blackwell:161-78. Habu, J., C. Fawcett and J.M. Matsunaga (eds.) 2008. Evaluating Multiple Narratives: beyond nationalist, colonialist, imperialist archaeologies. New York: Springer. Hingley, R. 2000. Roman Officers and English Gentlemen. London: Routledge. Holtorf, C. 2005. From Stonehenge to Las Vegas: archaeology as popular culture. Walnut Creek: AltaMira. Holtorf, C. 2007. Archaeology is a Brand: the meaning of archaeology in contemporary popular culture. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. James, S. 1999. The Atlantic Celts: ancient people or modern invention? London: B.M.P. Jones, G. & Harris, R. J. 2003. Archaeological human remains: scientific, ethnical and cultural considerations. Current Anthropology, 39(2): 253-264. Jones, S. 2005. Making place, resisting displacement: conflicting national & local identities in Scotland. In Littler, J. & Naidoo, R. (eds.) The Politics of Heritage, 94-114. London: Routledge. Kehoe, A.B. 2008. Controversies in Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Kohl, P. & Fawcett, C. (eds) 1995. Nationalism, Politics & the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: CUP . Layton, R. (ed.) 1989. Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. London: Unwin Hyman. Layton, R. (ed.) 1989. Who Needs the Past? Indigenous Values and Archaeology. London: Unwin Hyman. Layton, R., Shennan, S. and Stone, P. (eds.) 2006. A Future for Archaeology. London: UCL Press. Leone, M. and R. Preucel. 1992. Archaeology in a democratic society: a critical perspective. In L. Wandsnider (ed.) Quandaries and Quests. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ.115-35. Lowenthal, D. 1985. The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: C.U.P. Mandal, D. 2003 Ayodhya, Archaeology After Demolition. New Delhi: Orient Longman. McGuire, R. 2004. Contested pasts: archaeology and Native Americans. In L. Meskell and R. Preucel (eds) A Companion to Social Archaeology. Malden: Blackwell:374-95. McGuire, R. 2008. Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
31
McManamon, F. 1991. The many publics for archaeology. American Antiquity 56:121-30. Merriman, N. 2000. Beyond the Glass Case. London: UCL Press (2nd Edition). Merriman, N. (ed.) 2004. Public Archaeology. London: Routledge. Meskell, L. 1998. Archaeology Under Fire. London: Routledge. Mizoguchi, K. 2006. Archaeology, Society and Identity in Modern Japan. Cambridge: C.U.P. Moshenska, G. 2009. The reburial issue in Britain. Antiquity, 83, 815-820. Murray, T. 1993. Communication and the importance of disciplinary communities. In N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt (eds.) Archaeological Theory: Who Sets the Agenda? Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press:105-16. Ratnagar, S. 2004. Archaeology at the heart of a political confrontation. Current Anthropology 45:239- 59. Reid, D.M. 2002. Whose Pharaohs? Berkeley, CA: U.C.P. Scarre, C. and Scarre, G. (eds.) 2006. The Ethics of Archaeology. Cambridge: C.U.P. Schablitsky, J.M. (ed.) 2007. Box Office Archaeology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Seidemann, R. M. 2004. Bones of contention: a comparative examination of law governing human remains from archaeological contexts in formerly colonial countries. Louisiana Law Review, 64(3): 546-588. Silberman, N.A. 1989. Between Past and Present: Archaeology, Ideology and Nationalism in the Modern Middle East. New York: Holt. Silberman, N. 1995. Promised lands and chosen peoples. In P. Kohl & Fawcett, C. (eds) 1995. Nationalism, Politics & the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: C.U.P.:249-62. Smith, L. 2004. The repatriation of human remains – problem or opportunity? Antiquity 78 (300): 404- 413. Smith, L. 2004. Archaeological Theory and the Politics of Cultural Heritage. London: Routledge. Tarlow, S. and L. Nilsson Stutz 2013. Can an archaeologist be a public intellectual? Archaeological Dialogues 20 (1) 1–5. Thomas, D. H. 2000 Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology and the Battle for Native American Identity. New York, NY: Basic Books. Tilley, C. 1989. Archaeology as socio-political action in the present. In V. Pinsky and A. Wylie (eds.) Critical Traditions in Contemporary Archaeology. Cambridge: CUP: 104-16. Trigger, B. 1980. Archaeology and the image of the American Indian. American Antiquity 45:662-76. Trigger, B. 1984. Alternative archaeologies: nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man 19: 355-70. Trigger, B. 1989. Hyperrelativism, responsibility and the Social Sciences. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 26:776-97. Reprinted in Trigger, B. 2003. Artifacts & Ideas. London: Transaction Publishers. Trigger, B. 1995. Romanticism, nationalism and archaeology. In P. Kohl and Fawcett, C. (eds) 1995. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology . Cambridge: C.U.P.:263-79. Ucko, P.J. 1987. Academic Freedom and Apartheid: The Story of the World Archaeological Congress. Vitelli, K.D. 1996. Archaeological Ethics. New York, Altamira Press. Wylie, A. 1995. Alternative histories. Epistemic disunity and political integrity. In P. Schmidt and T. Patterson (eds) Making Alternative Histories. Santa Fe: School of American Research:255-72. Wylie, A. 2008. The integrity of narratives: deliberative practice, pluralism and multivocality. In J. Habu, C. Fawcett and J. Matsunaga (eds.) Evaluating Multiple Narratives: beyond nationalist, colonialist, imperialist archaeologies. New York: Springer:201-12.
32
Zimmerman, L.J., Vitelli, K.D. and Hollowell-Zimmer, J. (eds.) 2003. Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
33
Assessment: One essay, 3,800-4,200 words Topic choice: choose something that interests you and feel free to contact the Coordinator to discuss. It would be wise to have some idea by Reading Week. Students are asked to submit an outline in advance and to discuss this outline with the Coordinator. As well as the title this should provide 1) the thesis of your proposed essay, 2) a brief and general outline of the main topics to be discussed, and 3) an annotated bibliography of 5-10 articles that are central to your proposed essay. It should be 1-2 sides in length. Due dates for outline and essay: see schedule on page 2.
Essay Question: It is important to have a question that you are seeking to answer, rather than a statement. All the topics covered are huge and a question will direct you to those aspects that are relevant to addressing it. You can devise your own question or develop one of the discussion questions that are given for each topic. Whichever you decide, your question must be agreed with the module coordinator. It is always a good idea to illustrate your arguments using examples or case-studies but the major focus of the essay must be the theory.
Like almost any satisfactory piece of academic writing, your essay should present an argument supported by analysis. Typically your analysis will include a critical evaluation (not simply summary or description) of concepts relevant to some subset of the theoretical literature. You need to identify and evaluate the principal or most relevant previous ideas and arguments, and develop your own reasoned argument, supporting, critiquing, or combining elements of earlier scholarship, or developing a new perspective or synthesis.
Express your arguments in your own words; your essay is meant to demonstrate your understanding of an issue. Some submitted essays are essentially just a string of quotations illustrating what others have said, but this does not demonstrate a critical assessment of those claims, or a clear understanding of the issues. Second, do not rely on web sources. You should be extremely cautious about relying on information from websites, and should not, normally, use them as sources for academic essays. The reliable information in them has almost invariably come from some other source, and if they are academically reputable sites, they should be properly referenced, so you can chase ideas back to their original source.
Coursework production and submission General policies and procedures concerning modules and coursework, including submission procedures, assessment criteria, and general resources, are available in your Degree Handbook and on the following website:
For this module, please do not use fancy fonts or, for the text, a font size less than 11 point, and use 1.5 line spacing to allow the marker space to make comments on the text. A smaller font size (8-10) and 1.0 line height may be used for the bibliography (to reduce printing costs), as long as it is still readable, and two-sided printing is welcome (to save paper and trees). Please leave at least 1 inch/2.5 cm margins to allow room for comments.
Bearing in mind that you cannot get credit for the same work twice, either in the same or different modules that are assessed as part of the same degree, you must avoid any significant overlap in your assessed work with that for other modules. If you have concerns about potential overlaps, please discuss this with the Co-ordinators of the relevant modules.
34
To accord with UCL regulations on anonymous marking, all coursework cover-sheets must be identified with student Candidate Numbers only, not names. This is a 5 digit alphanumeric code and can be found on Portico; it is different from the Student Number/ID. The filenames for all assessed work submitted through ‘Turnitin’, should include the student’s Candidate Number, not name as a unique identifier (e.g. YBPR6 _ARCL0133_Assessment_1). Please do this, as otherwise it is difficult to match hard-copy of your essay with the Turnitin version on-line.
______
APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2019-20 (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY) This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to modules. It is not a substitute for the full documentation, with which all students should become familiar. For full information on Institute policies and procedures, see the IoA Student Administration section of Moodle: https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/module/view For UCL policies and procedures, see the Academic Regulations and the UCL Academic Manual: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulations ; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/
GENERAL MATTERS ATTENDANCE: A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email. Students are normally required to attend at least 70% of classes. DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers whether there is any way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia should indicate it on each coursework cover sheet.
COURSEWORK LATE SUBMISSION: Late submission will be penalized in accordance with current UCL regulations, unless formal permission for late submission has been granted. The UCL penalties are as follows: The marks for coursework received up to two working days after the published date and time will incur a 10 percentage point deduction in marks (but no lower than the pass mark). The marks for coursework received more than two working days and up to five working days after the published date and time will receive no more than the pass mark (40% for UG modules, 50% for PGT modules). Work submitted more than five working days after the published date and time, but before the second week of the third term will receive a mark of zero but will be considered complete.
GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: Please note that there are strict UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of extensions for coursework. You are reminded that Module Coordinators are not permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a the appropriate UCL form, together with supporting documentation, via Judy Medrington’s office and will then be referred on for consideration. Please be aware that the grounds that are acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties should contact UCL Student Support and Wellbeing (SSW) to make special arrangements. Please see the IoA website for further information. Additional information is given here http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/
RETURN OF COURSEWORK AND RESUBMISSION: You should receive your marked coursework within one month of the submission deadline. If you do not receive your work within this period, or a written explanation, notify the Academic Administrator. When your
35 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])
36