Ucl Institute of Archaeology
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Issue Information
Juengst and Becker, Editors Editors and Becker, Juengst of Community The Bioarchaeology 28 AP3A No. The Bioarchaeology of Community Sara L. Juengst and Sara K. Becker, Editors Contributions by Sara K. Becker Deborah Blom Jered B. Cornelison Sylvia Deskaj Lynne Goldstein Sara L. Juengst Ann M. Kakaliouras Wendy Lackey-Cornelison William J. Meyer Anna C. Novotny Molly K. Zuckerman 2017 Archeological Papers of the ISSN 1551-823X American Anthropological Association, Number 28 aapaa_28_1_cover.inddpaa_28_1_cover.indd 1 112/05/172/05/17 22:26:26 PPMM The Bioarchaeology of Community Sara L. Juengst and Sara K. Becker, Editors Contributions by Sara K. Becker Deborah Blom Jered B. Cornelison Sylvia Deskaj Lynne Goldstein Sara L. Juengst Ann M. Kakaliouras Wendy Lackey-Cornelison William J. Meyer Anna C. Novotny Molly K. Zuckerman 2017 Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, Number 28 ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Lynne Goldstein, General Series Editor Number 28 THE BIOARCHAEOLOGY OF COMMUNITY 2017 Aims and Scope: The Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association (AP3A) is published on behalf of the Archaeological Division of the American Anthropological Association. AP3A publishes original monograph-length manuscripts on a wide range of subjects generally considered to fall within the purview of anthropological archaeology. There are no geographical, temporal, or topical restrictions. Organizers of AAA symposia are particularly encouraged to submit manuscripts, but submissions need not be restricted to these or other collected works. Copyright and Copying (in any format): © 2017 American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. -
Silbury Hill – А Case Study with LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY: SILBURY HILL – a CASE STUDY LIONEL LIONEL SIMS LIONEL SIMS
VI. LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY AND ARCHAEOASTRONOMY INTEGRATING ARCHAEOASTRONOMY Integrating Archaeology: with Landscape ArchaeoastronomySilbury Hill – а Case Study WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY: SILBURY HILL – A CASE STUDY LIONEL LIONEL SIMS LIONEL SIMS Abstract Weaknesses in both archaeoastronomy and landscape archaeology can be overcome by their combination. This is demonstrat- ed through a new interpretation of Silbury Hill in Avebury, Wiltshire. If monuments in their local landscape are considered as one choice in a system of alternatives, tests can be devised to intepret the prehistoric builders‘ intentions. This exercise finds that the builders chose a prescriptive arrangement of views of Silbury Hill to simulate a facsimile of the moon entering and returning from the underworld. Key words: dark moon, crescent moon, paired alignments, Silbury Hill, West Kennet Avenue, Beckhampton Avenue, Ave- bury, underworld. Introduction with a level circular summit platform.To date, no con- vincing explanation as to its meaning has been offered. Archaeoastronomy has to move on from the legacy of Archaeologists have long expected that excavating the the Thom paradigm if it is to prove its relevance to sci- interior of the hill would reveal burials or deposited ar- ence (Sims 2006). Over the last three decades the dis- tefacts that would provide the clues to its decoding. In cipline has established robust field methods procedures spite of the many tunnels that have been dug, so much and, in so doing, falsified Thom‘s claim for a prehis- so that the Hill has now to be rescued from imminent toric precision astronomy (Thom 1971; Ruggles 1999; collapse, no burials have been found nor interpretive Hoskin 2001, Belmonte 2006; Schaefer 1993; North breakthroughs made. -
Reconstructing Bell Beaker Society
Contents About 4 Timetable 5 Thursday, 21 January 2021: Morning Session..........................5 Thursday, 21 January 2021: Afternoon Session.........................6 Friday, 22 January 2021: Morning Session...........................7 Friday, 22 January 2021: Afternoon Session..........................8 Abstracts 9 Thursday Morning (21.01.2021): Archaeological Material ...................9 Thursday Afternoon (21.01.2021): Archaeological Material .................. 17 Friday Morning (22.01.2021): Funerary Archaeology and Anthropology ........... 26 Friday Afternoon (22.01.2021): Reconstructing Bell Beaker Society ............. 34 List of Authors 41 Practical Information 42 Virtual Workshops......................................... 42 Publication............................................. 43 3 About The first "Archéologie et Gobelets" conference, founded by Marie Besse, Maxence Bailly, Fabien Convertini, and Laure Salanova, took place in Geneva, Switzerland in 1996. For the past 25 years, the goal of this conference has been to bring together researchers of the Bell Beaker and Final Neolithic periods as well as the Early Bronze Age in order to encourage collaborations between institutions and to initiate contacts between junior and senior researchers. "Archéologie et Gobelets" 2021 at the University of Geneva The Laboratory of prehistoric archaeology and anthropology at the University of Geneva is happy to host the next “Archéologie et Gobelets” conference in Geneva, Switzerland. This year will involve the conference’s first sessions in a virtual format, with all presentations and discussions passing through a virtual platform. For this reason, we have waived all conference fees. The goal of this year’s theme, “The Bell Beaker Culture in All its Forms”, is to bring together the various fields working to better understand the Bell Beaker culture. During these two days of presentations, we look forward to hearing about recent and ongoing work from both junior and senior researchers. -
ARCHY 469 – Theory in Archaeology
ARCHY 469 – Theory in Archaeology Lecture: TTh 1:30 – 3:20pm, SMI 307 Instructor: Debora C. Trein Instructor’s office: DEN 133 Office Hours: F 11:30 – 1:30pm, or by appointment Email: [email protected] Source: unknown artist Course Description: How do we go from artifacts to statements about the lives of people in the past? How much of the past can we truly know, when most of the pertinent evidence has long since degraded, and when the people we aim to study are long dead? This course provides a broad survey of the major theoretical trends that have shaped anthropological archaeology over time. We will outline and examine some of the major publications, debates, and shifts in archaeological thought that have influenced the diverse ways in which we claim to know what we know about the past. In this course, we will explore the notion that the various intellectual approaches we employ to make statements about the past are influenced by the different perspectives we have of the relationship between the past and the present, the kinds of meaning we believe can be derived from the archaeological record, the questions we seek to answer, and the methods we use to retrieve (and prioritize) information. This course will start with a broad overview of the major periods of theoretical development in archaeology from the 1800s to the present, followed by discussions of how archaeologists tackle common archaeological questions through diverse theoretical lenses (and why sometimes they don’t tackle these questions at all). While the politics of archaeological practice will be 1 | Page touched upon throughout the course, we will devote the last quarter of the course to the repercussions of archaeological practice to present-day communities and stakeholders. -
Landscape Archaeology - M
ARCHAEOLOGY – Vol. I - Landscape Archaeology - M. Gojda LANDSCAPE ARCHAEOLOGY M. Gojda Institute of Archaeology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic Keywords: landscape, space, site, monument, archaeology, geography, survey, mapping, fieldwalking, non-destructivity. Contents 1. The Concept of Landscape: Past and Present 1.1 Perceptions of the Landscape and their Reflection in the Arts 1.2 Contemporary Views of the Landscape in Philosophy and the Natural Sciences 1.3 The Landscape Phenomenon in Contemporary Archaeology and Anthropology 2. Sites and Monuments in the Context of Landscape 2.1 The Birth of Interest: Founding Fathers 2.2 New Impulses: Crawford and his Discoveries 2.3 From the Archaeology of Settlements to the Archaeology of Landscapes 3. The Main Fields Concerned with Understanding Landscape Archetypes 3.1 Landscape and Spatial Archaeology 3.2 Historical and Settlement Geography, Cartography, GIS 4. Non-Destructiveness and Future Developments in Landscape Archaeology Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary The gradually increasing awareness of the deep mutual relationships between the natural and social environments determines the ever more pronounced contemporary orientation of archaeology towards the protection and study of cultural landscapes and their historical development. The landscape is a phenomenon claimed by the advocates of both positivist (scientific) and postmodern approaches to archaeology. Each has found within it inspiration for the expansion of its paradigms. A summary is presented of the understanding to date of the landscape phenomenon and the expression of man’s relation to it in the arts, philosophy, natural sciences, and particularly in archaeology and anthropology.UNESCO The roots of the –burge EOLSSoning interest in the discovery and documentation of monuments in the landscape, and of the tracing of their relationships both to natural landscapeSAMPLE components and to eaCHAPTERSch other, are examined. -
Annual Report 2016
2016 Annual Report Board of Trustees Contents Message from the director 7 MANAGEMENT 9 About us: Big general data for 2016 11 Staff 14 Scientific Advisory Board 19 RESEARCH 21 Research Groups 23 Research Projects Hosted by IPHES 29 Research Projects not Hosted by IPHES 33 Research Fellowships 37 Publications 40 Activity as Referee 54 Fieldwork activity 58 Congresses, workshops & seminars 63 Short-term stay at other research centers 79 ACADEMY 83 Degrees and Doctoral Programme 85 PhD Thesis supervised and defended 87 Master Thesis supervised and defended 89 Participation in assessment Committees to evaluate PhD 93 OUTREACH 95 Conferences and talks 97 Outreach publications 104 Science education 105 Management of exhibitions 107 Participatory activities 109 Didactic contents and materials 109 Science Communication 110 KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER & SERVICES 117 2016 Message from the director Robert Sala, IPHES director/IPHES theless they still need an increase in st It is for me a pleasure to introduce the number of papers within the 1 the 2016 Annual Report of Activ- quartile. After accomplishing with ities of the Catalan Institute of Hu- good absolute figures is time for our man Palaeoecology and Social institute to gain the relative score in Evolution. IPHES is a mature institute excellence and increase our cur- st hosting very active research teams rent 31.8% of 1 quartile papers. devoted to the creation and social- isation of knowledge on the human The visibility of the research of an in- evolutionary process in all its dimen- stitute can be also measured by its sions and framework. The scientific presence in the main international activity of our institute is currently congresses. -
Shanti Morell-Hart's CV
SHANTI MORELL-HART Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Building 50, 450 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305-2034 39 Boardman Place, #204, San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415) 747-0698 Email: [email protected] _______________________________________________________________________________ EDUCATION: 2002-2011: Ph.D. in Anthropology, the University of California at Berkeley (UCB) Dissertation title: Paradigms and Syntagms of Ethnobotanical Practice in Ancient Northwestern Honduras . Committee members: Rosemary Joyce (Anthropology), Christine Hastorf (Anthropology), Louise Fortmann (Environmental Science and Policy Management). 2003: M.A. in Anthropology, the University of California at Berkeley (UCB). 1999-2002: M.A. coursework in Anthropology, the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). 1994-1998: B.A. in Latin American Studies (Concentration in Anthropology) B.A. in Anthropology (Bio-Archaeology Track) Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT Senior Project title: Insect Feasts of Mexico: Aztec Entomophagy and its Eradication and/or Appropriation by the Spanish. 1997: Coursework in History, Literature, and Archaeology (conducted in Spanish) at La Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Mexico. TEACHING EXPERIENCE: 2013-present: Lecturer at Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Courses ([undergraduate course number]/ [graduate course number]): Anthro 100B/200B: Lifeways of the Ancient Maya (AU13) Anthro 114B/200B: Landscape Archaeology and Global Information Systematics (WI14) Anthro 100B/200B: Peoples and Cultures of Ancient Mesoamerica -
An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions
P1: GFU/GDB/GDX/LMD/GCX P2: GCR Journal of Archaeological Research [jar] PP078-295745 April 20, 2001 8:23 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999 Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectives and Directions Kurt F. Anschuetz,1,4 Richard H. Wilshusen,2 and Cherie L. Scheick3 This review calls for the definition of a landscape approach in archaeology. After tracing the development of the landscape idea over its history in the social sciences and examining the compatibility between this concept and traditional archaeolog- ical practice, we suggest that archaeology is particularly well suited among the social sciences for defining and applying a landscape approach. If archaeologists are to use the landscape paradigm as a “pattern which connects” human behavior with particular places and times, however, we need a common terminology and methodology to build a construct paradigm. We suggest that settlement ecology, ritual landscapes, and ethnic landscapes will contribute toward the definition of such a broadly encompassing paradigm that also will facilitate dialogue between archaeologists and traditional communities. KEY WORDS: landscape; culture; paradigm; epistemology. INTRODUCTION The intellectual foundations of contemporary landscape approaches in ar- chaeology may be traced back to at least the 1920s (Stoddard and Zubrow, 1999, p. 686; discussed later). Despite their historical depth in the discipline’s develop- ment, until recently landscape approaches largely were subsumed within archae- ological inquiry to provide a backdrop against which material traces were plotted and evaluated (Knapp and Ashmore, 1999). Now, as evident from a review of the previous decade of Society for American Archaeology Annual Meeting Abstracts, 1Rio Grande Foundation for Communities and Cultural Landscapes, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504- 8617. -
Archaeology: the Key Concepts Is the Ideal Reference Guide for Students, Teachers and Anyone with an Interest in Archaeology
ARCHAEOLOGY: THE KEY CONCEPTS This invaluable resource provides an up-to-date and comprehensive survey of key ideas in archaeology and their impact on archaeological thinking and method. Featuring over fifty detailed entries by international experts, the book offers definitions of key terms, explaining their origin and development. Entries also feature guides to further reading and extensive cross-referencing. Subjects covered include: ● Thinking about landscape ● Cultural evolution ● Social archaeology ● Gender archaeology ● Experimental archaeology ● Archaeology of cult and religion ● Concepts of time ● The Antiquity of Man ● Feminist archaeology ● Multiregional evolution Archaeology: The Key Concepts is the ideal reference guide for students, teachers and anyone with an interest in archaeology. Colin Renfrew is Emeritus Disney Professor of Archaeology and Fellow of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge. Paul Bahn is a freelance writer, translator and broadcaster on archaeology. YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED IN THE FOLLOWING ROUTLEDGE STUDENT REFERENCE TITLES: Archaeology: The Basics Clive Gamble Ancient History: Key Themes and Approaches Neville Morley Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt Michael Rice Who’s Who in the Ancient Near East Gwendolyn Leick Who’s Who in the Greek World John Hazel Who’s Who in the Roman World John Hazel ARCHAEOLOGY The Key Concepts Edited by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2005 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX 14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005. -
Investigation Into the Implications of Zooarchaeological Studies for Climate Reconstruction in the No
SIT Graduate Institute/SIT Study Abroad SIT Digital Collections Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection SIT Study Abroad Fall 2016 Independent Study Project: Investigation into the implications of zooarchaeological studies for climate reconstruction in the North Atlantic; zooarchaeological research at the Agricultural University of Iceland, Reykjavík Hazel Cashman SIT Study Abroad Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Eastern European Studies Commons, Human Geography Commons, Nature and Society Relations Commons, Place and Environment Commons, and the Scandinavian Studies Commons Recommended Citation Cashman, Hazel, "Independent Study Project: Investigation into the implications of zooarchaeological studies for climate reconstruction in the North Atlantic; zooarchaeological research at the Agricultural University of Iceland, Reykjavík" (2016). Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 2451. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/2451 This Unpublished Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the SIT Study Abroad at SIT Digital Collections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection by an authorized administrator of SIT Digital Collections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Independent Study Project: Investigation into the implications of zooarchaeological studies for climate reconstruction in the North Atlantic; zooarchaeological research at the Agricultural -
Virtually Dead: Digital Public Mortuary Archaeology
Virtually Dead: Digital Public Mortuary Archaeology Howard Williams1 and Alison Atkin2 Cite this as: Williams, H. and Atkin, A. 2015 Virtually Dead: Digital Public Mortuary Archaeology, Internet Archaeology 40. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.40.7.4 1. History and Archaeology Department, University of Chester, UK [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3510-6852 2. Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield, UK [email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2249-8781 Key words: communication, community archaeology, digital media, digital public archaeology This publication is open access and made possible by the generous support of Manchester Metropolitan University. © Author(s). Except where otherwise noted, content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that attribution to the author(s), the title of the work, the Internet Archaeology journal and the relevant URL/DOI is given. Summary Over recent decades, the ethics, politics and public engagements of mortuary archaeology have received sustained scrutiny, including how we handle, write about and display the archaeological dead. Yet the burgeoning use of digital media to engage different audiences in the archaeology of death and burial have so far escaped attention. This article explores categories and strategies by which digital media create virtual communities engaging with mortuary archaeology. Considering digital public mortuary archaeology (DPMA) as a distinctive theme linking archaeology, mortality and material culture, we discuss blogs, vlogs and Twitter as case studies to illustrate the variety of strategies by which digital media can promote, educate and engage public audiences with archaeological projects and research relating to death and the dead in the human past. -
How the Perception of Identity in Roman Funerary Archaeology Developed in Slovenia
Stemberger, K. 2020. Identity Through the Looking Glass: How the Perception of Identity in Roman Funerary Archaeology Developed in Slovenia. Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal, 3(1): 7, pp. 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.16995/traj.423 RESEARCH ARTICLE Identity Through the Looking Glass: How the Perception of Identity in Roman Funerary Archaeology Developed in Slovenia Kaja Stemberger Independent researcher, SI [email protected] This paper addresses how the changes in Slovenian politics have been influencing the inter- pretation of identity in the sphere of Roman mortuary archaeology. The paper starts with an overview of the political history of Slovenia, separated into three phases: the period until 1945, the Yugoslav period (1945–1990), and independent Slovenia (1991–present). The second part of the paper focusses on theoretical studies directly discussing identity of the deceased in Roman period Slovenia. The majority of such studies is centred on the material from larger cemeteries, notably those of Colonia Ulpia Traiana Poetovio (modern Ptuj) and Colonia Iulia Emona (modern Ljubljana), of which the latter is better documented and researched. The paper concludes with a discussion of the potential for future studies. Keywords: Roman archaeology; History of archaeology; Identity Introduction This article aims to examine how the context—political, cultural, ethnic, historical, personal—of the researcher as an individual human being influences their work. The idea sprouted from a study on the role of communication and linguistic theory in archaeology (Stemberger Flegar 2020), which discussed the ways in which language and communication can influence understanding of the theory. It soon became clear that language is only one of the factors which affect our understanding of the world.