ARCL0190 Museum Archaeology 2019–20

Home , Archaeological ethics, Archaeological science

Term II, 2nd / 3rd Year 15-credit module Tuesdays 11 am–1 pm, Room 209

Coursework deadlines: (i) object report due 28th February (marked work returned by 24th March); (ii) essay due 27th March (marked work returned by 27th April)

Co-ordinator: Dr Alice Stevenson Email: [email protected] Tel: 020 7679 4935 Internal ext.: 24935 Room: IoA 102 Student Hours: Wednesdays 10:00–12:00 (other times by appointment)

Teaching Assistant: Amanda Ford Spora Email: [email protected] Room: G7b Student Hours: Tuesdays 10:00–11:00

1. Overview This module interrogates the history, research potential, ethical considerations and institutional practices associated with museum collections of world archaeology. The module will equip students with the skills to engage critically with and conduct research on archaeology collections, provide a basic understanding of best practice in managing archaeological collections and give an insight into the museum as an institution. Although elements of exhibitionary practices are engaged with at various points throughout this module, the focus is less on museum display and more on broader issues around the history, status and use of archaeological collections within museums as institutions (ARCL0026 Public Archaeology complements what is offered here).

Date Topic Practical Teacher Week 1 World archaeology and the Object handling Alice Stevenson Tuesday 14th January museum: histories and and enquiry geographies

Week 2 Introduction to collections Object numbering Alice Stevenson Tuesday 21st January management: acquiring and accessioning Tuesday 21st Jan Petrie Museum Individual Object Anna Garnett/ 9am-11am Object Study Study tbc Institute of Archaeology Individual Object Ian Carroll / Chloe Study (various slots) Study Ward Week 3 The universal museum? Writing museum Alice Stevenson & Tuesday 28th January labels David Francis Tuesday 28th Jan Researching your object Individual object Amanda Ford Spora 9am-11am Petrie Museum study tbc Institute of Archaeology Individual object Ian Carroll / Chloe Study (various slots) study Ward Week 4 Conducting collections Databases and Alice Stevenson & Tuesday 4th February research catalogues Amanda Spora

Week 5 Human remains Loans & Object Alice Stevenson Tuesday 11th February Movement Wednesday 19th Feb Museum visit (Reading week) Week 6 Debates in museum ethics: Critical practice: Alice Stevenson Tuesday 25th February deaccessioning, corporate dilemmas sponsorship & accountability Friday 28th February Assessment 1 due Week 7 Displaying and Storing Storing and Alice Stevenson Tuesday 3rd March objects Packing Week 8 Engagements with Thinking about Alice Stevenson & Tuesday 10th March collections audiences Theano Moussouri Week 9 Beyond archaeological finds: Digitization and Alice Stevenson & Tuesday 17th March archaeological archives, reproduction Amanda Ford Spora photographs, reproductions and digital objects Week 10 Collections Care Environmental Catriona Wilson Tuesday 24th March monitoring Friday 27th March Assessment 2 due

Basic Texts

Macdonald, Sharon (ed.) 2011. A Companion to Museum Studies. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Mason, R., Robinson, A. and Coffield, E. 2018. Museum and Gallery Studies. The Basics. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Renfrew, Colin and Bahn, Paul. 2016. Archaeology, Theories, Methods, Practices. 7th Edition. Thames and Hudson. Skeates, Robin. (ed.) 2017. Museums and Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge. Sullivan, L.P and Childs, S. Terry. 2003. Curating Archaeological Collections. From the Field to the Repository. Altamira Press. Swain, Hedley 2007. An Introduction to Museum Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Introductions/resources object reports (see Moodle as well):

Institute of Archaeology Collections Harris, David.R. 1997/8. Sixty years on: The Institute of Archaeology, 1937–97, Archaeology International 1997/8, 3–5. Sparks, Rachael 2014. Near Eastern Encounters: The Collections and Archives of the Institute of Archaeology, UCL, in: M. Akar and H. Maloigne (eds), The Forgotten Kingdom. Past and Present Excavations at Tell Atchana/Alalakh, Koç University Press, 66–83. Sparks, Rachael 2009. A Future for the Past: Petrie’s Palestinian Collection. London: Institute of Archaeology.

Catalogue online at: http://archcat.museums.ucl.ac.uk/

Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology Picton, Jan, Quirke, Stephen. and Roberts, Paul (eds.) Living Images. Egyptian Funerary Portraits in the Petrie Museum. London: Institute of Archaeology Quirke, Stephen 2010. Hidden Hands. Egyptian Workforces in Petrie Excavation Archives, 1880–1924. London: Duckworth. Stevenson, Alice 2019. Introduction. Scattered Finds: Archaeology, Egyptology and Museums. (see introduction). London: UCL Press. Stevenson, Alice (ed.) 2015. The Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology: Characters and Collections. London: UCL Press [open access at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl- press/browse-books/petrie-museum-archaeology]

>Introduction to collection: https://ucldigitalpress.co.uk/Book/Article/3/27/0

Catalogue online at: http://petriecat.museums.ucl.ac.uk/ For excavated objects see also ‘Artefacts of Excavation’ project website: http://egyptartefacts.griffith.ox.ac.uk/

Methods of assessment There are two assessments for this course: (i) An object report (50%) and; (ii) an essay (50%). The object report is due after reading week on Friday 28 February and the essay is due at the end of term on Friday 27 March.

Teaching methods This module will be taught through a series of 1-hour lectures paired with a 1-hour workshop introducing students to some of the basics of museum practice. There will be a day of behind the scenes museum visits in Reading Week at the British Museum’s Blythe House Store, together with optional tutorials to support the development of your object report and essay, including scheduled time to examine objects first-hand.

Workload There will be 10 hours of lectures and 10 hours of practical sessions for this module, together with 5 hours of museum visits (lecture and store tours) and 4 hours of tutorials working with objects. Students will be expected to undertake around 73 hours of reading for the module, plus 48 hours preparing for and producing the assessed work. This adds up to a total workload of some 150 hours for the module.

2. AIMS, OBECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT

Aims This course aims to introduce students to the history, theory and practice of managing and researching archaeological collections in museums. It provides a critical framework for approaching legacy collections from previous generations of fieldwork, as well as future acquisitions from ongoing fieldwork, practical experience of conducting object-based research in a museum context and direct insight into how museums function. Through case- studies, museum site visits and hands on practicals the course seeks to develop students’ understanding of museum archaeology as reflexive practice.

Objectives On successful completion of the course students should be able to:  Demonstrate a critical understanding of the history and development of world archaeological collections, particularly in the context of colonialism and post-colonialism  Demonstrate a familiarity with, and express informed opinions about, current debates in museum archaeology  Demonstrate familiarity with key principles of managing and caring for collections in professional practice and understand why good management of archaeological collections is essential to making them a useful resource  Handle and conduct research independently on archaeological objects in museums with confidence through interrogating museum objects, catalogues and navigating related documentation  Be familiar with the ethical issues surrounding collections and collecting, such as acquiring and disposing of objects and international conventions regarding collecting archaeology

Learning outcomes  Familiarity with established knowledge and museum sector practice  Ability to apply knowledge for academic and professional purposes  Capacity for independent learning  Capacity for critical thinking  Capacity for independent inquiry  Ability to read and understand a wide range of academic writing  Ability to engage with museum documentation

Coursework

(i) Object Report (2,375-2,625 words) Select one object from either the Institute of Archaeology or the Petrie Museum’s list of objects as the basis for an object report. In addition to a cover page and reference list, your report should have five sections organised under the following headings:

1. Museum label (max. 50 words). Imagine your object is selected to be ‘object of the month’ and is highlighted in a separate case of its own in the entrance area of a museum. Write a label for your object (in an appropriate font and format!) for the general museum visitor

2. Handling guidelines (c.400 words) Imagine that a researcher has requested to study your chosen object. What advice do you need to give them to ensure that they lift and handle this object appropriately? Your guidelines should take account of such issues as the material(s) that the object is made from, manufacturing techniques, its design, weight, and so on. You may use bullet points.

3. Database record (c. 350 words) Identify the database fields you would ideally need in order to fully document this object and complete as much as you are able [note it may not be possible to fill out all the fields you identify]. Include an object description and consider appropriate syntax and terminology control for each field. Put an asterisk beside the fields that are minimally required for UK accreditation standards and highlight those fields which need syntax and terminology control. You can present this in the form of a table.

4. Collection history (c.1100 words) Questions you might like to consider in order to answer this section include: Can you ascertain the object’s original provenance or identify it in an excavation report and/or excavation archive? Who is associated with its excavation or discovery or acquisition? Is there evidence of what their motivations for collecting were? When did it enter the collection and are there any other collectors or museums it was previously associated with? What do we know about these collectors/excavators? By what mechanisms has it moved through its life (e.g. by donation, purchase, bequest, looting)? Are there any markings that might relate to previous points in is collection history (excavation/collection)? Has it been displayed or used/published in research subsequent to entering the collection? Any other evidence relevant to understanding its collection history?

5. Research potential (c.500 words) What sorts of archaeological questions might be addressed through analysis of this object (these could be about understanding the ancient past or about understanding the formation of knowledge in the history of archaeology through its collection history/biography)? What sorts of analytical techniques may or may not be appropriate to use and what issues would have to take into consideration when deciding whether or not to undertake such analysis?

NOTE: Please draw from your other archaeology modules, including core modules in answering this question. You may find it helpful to refer to Renfrew and Bahn in order to identify appropriate analytical techniques that might be applied to your object.

The cover page should have a captioned image of the object identifying the collection it is from and its accession number. You should include a full reference list of all the literature cited in the body of your report, including incorporation of any professional sector guidance or standards (e.g. Collections Trust Spectrum or ICOM advice) and broader theoretical frameworks that can inform your discussions in sections 4 and 5. Please note that the word counts for parts 4 and 5 are a guide only; you may have an object which has a limited collection history, but with rich research potential and, as such, you may allocate the word count slightly differently but you should aim for sections 4 and 5 to come to roughly 1600 words in total. Use the usual Harvard (author/date) citation practices for demonstrating how theoretical and methodological frameworks for interpreting collections help you to think through the collection history and research potential of your chosen object.

(ii) Essay (2,375–2,625 words)

Select one question from the below to answer:

1. Hedley Swain has claimed that “museums have always been, and continue to be, a relatively peripheral player in archaeological motivation”. Do you agree? 2. What is the curation crisis and how might it be addressed? 3. Can museums claim to be Either (i) neutral OR (ii) universal? 4. What sorts of biases exist in museum collections and to what extent can these be mitigated? Discuss with reference to at least TWO case studies. 5. In what ways are museum collections of either (i) photographs OR (ii) archives OR (iii) casts OR (iv) scientific specimens OR (v) digital objects, relevant for archaeology? 6. If you were preparing a policy on the use and treatment of human remains for a museum, what issues would you consider and why? 7. What can archaeologists learn from artistic interventions with archaeological collections? Can the public learn about archaeology by such means? 8. Should, and under what conditions, may museums acquire and dispose of archaeological finds?

Note on word length: Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no penalty for using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply for your guidance to indicate the sort of length that is expected. In the 2019–20 session penalties for overlength work will be as follows:  For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than 10% the mark will be reduced by five percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.  For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more the mark will be reduced by ten percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.

Coursework submission procedures  All coursework must normally be submitted both as hard copy and electronically  You should staple the appropriate colour-coded IoA coversheet (available in the IoA library and outside room 411a) to the front of each piece of work and submit it to the red box at the Reception Desk.  All coursework should be uploaded to Turnitin by midnight on the day of the deadline. This will date-stamp your work. It is essential to upload all parts of your work as this is sometimes the version that will be marked.  Please note that the procedure has changed for 2019-20, and work is now submitted to Turnitin via Moodle.

1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved as a Word doc., docx. or PDF document. Please include the module code and your candidate number on every page as a header. 2. Go into the Moodle page for the module to which you wish to submit your work. 3. Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1), 4. Fill in the “Submission title” field with the right details: It is essential that the first word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g. YGBR8 Essay 1), Note that this changes each year. 5. Click “Upload”. 6. Click on “Submit” 7. You should receive a receipt – please save this. 8 If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on ioa- [email protected], explaining the nature of the problem and the exact module and assignment involved. One of the Turnitin Advisers will normally respond within 24 hours, Monday-Friday during term. Please be sure to email the Turnitin Advisers if technical problems prevent you from uploading work in time to meet a submission deadline - even if you do not obtain an immediate response from one of the Advisers they will be able to notify the relevant Module Coordinator that you had attempted to submit the work before the deadline

3. SCHEDULE AND SYLLABUS

Lectures will be held on Tuesdays, 11:00–13:00, in room 209. The following is an outline for the module as a whole and identifies essential and supplementary readings relevant to each session. Copies of individual articles and chapters identified as essential reading are in the Teaching Collection in the Institute Library (where permitted by copyright) or are available online.

Week 1: World Archaeology and the Museum: Histories and Geographies

We will open with an overview of the course and an introduction to the idea of ‘museums’ and ‘museum archaeology’. We will then turn to consider how archaeological excavation and discoveries in the field are often taken for granted as the foundations of the discipline of archaeology. To challenge this, we will use the examples of A.H.L.F. Pitt-Rivers and Flinders Petrie to consider how archaeology was equally formed in museums and through collections during the nineteenth century, including the ways in which museum interests shaped fieldwork practices. As we look through to the twentieth century we will examine how the role of objects and museums has shifted in the discipline, the development of site and open- air archaeology museums, and what the implications have been of the ‘new museology’. During the second part of the session there will be an object handling session to introduce best practice in working directly with museum objects. Using these artefacts we will investigate how to trace object biographies of museum collections.

 Before next week’s lecture please start to consider which objects from the lists provided you might be interested in using for your first assessment. Take the opportunity to visit the displays of the Petrie Museum (Tue-Sat afternoons 1pm-5pm) or examine the Leventis Gallery and check online catalogues. Send an email with the accession number of your chosen object to [email protected] by Friday 17 January, 6pm.

Essential Reading Alberti, S. 2005. Objects and the museum. Isis 96(4): 559–71. ONLINE SFX Gosden, C. 2009. The relational museum. In Geismar, H. Material World. A Global Hub for Thinking About Things. Available at: www.materialworldblog.com/2009/01/the- relational-museum/ MacDonald, S. 2011. Expanding museum studies: an introduction. In MacDonald, S. (ed.) A Companion to Museum Studies. Oxford: Blackwell. Pp. 1–12. ONLINE SFX

Further Reading Gosden, C. and Larson, F. 2011. Chapter 4. Objects Collect People: Past perspectives on the mind and the material world. In Gosden, C. and Larson, F. Knowing Things: Exploring the Collections at the Pitt Rivers Museum. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 64–91 [but especially pp.88-91]. Also pp. 43–52. INST ARCH MG 3 GOS Teaching Collection Number 3859 Gosden, C. and Marshall, Y. 1999. The cultural biography of things. World Archaeology 31(2): 169–78. Hicks, D. 2010. Characterizing the world archaeology collections of the Pitt Rivers Museum. In Hicks, D. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) World Archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum. A Characterization. Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 1–15. Macdonald, S. 2006. Collecting Practices. In S. Macdonald (ed.) A Companion to Museum Studies. Oxford: Blackwell. pp.81–97 [For a simplified summary of Hooper-Greenhill’s Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge: you might also like to consult pp.23-24 of Mason’s chapter in this volume on ‘cultural theory and museum studies’ for an explanation of ‘epistemes’]. Marstine, J. (ed.) New Museum Theory and Practice. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell

Publishing [read introduction] Paardekooper, R. 2012. The Value of an Archaeological Open-Air Museum is in its Use. Understanding Archaeological Open-Air Museums and Their Visitors. Leiden: Sidestone Press [See Introduction pp. 23–25]. Silverman, H. 2017. Archaeological site museums in Latin America. In Skeates, R. (ed.). Museums and Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 432–47. [ also in Silverman, H. 2006. Archaeological Site Museums in Latin America. Gainesville: University of Florida]. Stevenson, A. 2014. Artefacts of excavation: the collection and distribution of Egyptian finds to museums, 1880–1915. Journal of the History of Collections 26(1): 89–102. Ucko, P. 1994. Museums and sites: cultures of the past within education – Zimbabwe ten years on. In Molyneaux, B.L. and Stone, P.G. (eds.) The Presented Past. London and New York: Routledge.

Week 2: Introduction to Collections Management: Documentation

The management of collections is the foundation for many other museum activities. Although it may seem to involve straightforward administrative practices, many aspects of collections management are determined by social and political values of society. Consequently, what may initially appear uncomplicated, in reality requires reflexive decision making and problem solving. We will consider the kinds of documentation that are appropriate at different times in the museum object’s status and use (object entry, accessioning, loans, location and movement control, object exit). This includes consideration of the variety of mechanisms through which objects enter museums, the international conventions that seek to regulate the international movement of material and the considerations that museums must take in order to ensure that legal title over artefacts can be secured. Importantly, this includes due diligence that objects offered for sale or donation are not the result of looting or illicit trafficking.

After a quick break, we will turn our attention to marking objects. It is important that all objects in a museum collection are marked or labelled with the unique identifying number given to the object in the process of accessioning. This ensures that each object is linked with the information that the museum holds about it. Students will be shown a variety of techniques appropriate to different objects and materials, before having the opportunity to practice labelling a selection of objects using appropriate techniques.

Essential Reading

Sullivan, L.P and Childs, T. 2003. Managing curated collections: the basics. In Sullivan, L.P and Childs, S.T. Curating Archaeological Collections. From the Field to the Repository. Altamira Press, pp. 59–78. [reproduced in Skeates, R. (ed.) 2017. Museums and Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge.] Teaching Collection number 3860 Renfrew, C. 2006. Museum acquisitions. Responsibilities for the illicit traffic in antiquities, in N. Brodie, M.M. Kersel, C. Luke, & K.W. Tubb (ed.) Archaeology, Cultural Heritage and the Antiquities Trade: Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 245–57. ONLINE SFX.

Further Reading

Archaeological Institute of America 2006 Principles for Museum Acquisitions of Antiquities https://www.archaeological.org/pdfs/archaeologywatch/museumpolicy/AIA_Principles_M usuem_Acquisition.pdf Brodie, N. 2012. Marion True. Trafficking Culture Website [https://traffickingculture.org/case_note/marion-true/] DCMS. 2006. Combating Illicit Trade: Due diligence guidelines for museums, libraries and archives on collecting and borrowing cultural material. London: DCMS [http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20121204133803/http://www.culture.gov. uk/images/publications/Combating_Illicit_Trade05.pdf] Emberling, G., and K. Hanson, eds. 2008. Catastrophe! The Looting and Destruction of Iraq’s Past. Oriental Institute Museum of the University of Chicago: Chicago. [provides an example of context for thinking about why due diligence is necessary – see chapters on the looting of Baqdad Museum and Iraqi sites]. Matassa, F. 2011. Museum Collections Management: A Handbook. London: Facet Publishing. (Chapter 8: Acquisitions, pp.145-167) Morris, J. 2007. ‘Collecting from Specialist Dealers’, Museum Practice 40: 55-57 (Moodle) Museums Association. 2004. ‘Acquisition: Guidance on the Ethics and Practicalities of Acquisition’ Robson, E., L. Treadwell and C. Gosden. eds. 2006. Who Owns Objects? The Ethics and Politics of Collecting Cultural Artefacts. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Numbering and Labelling Objects

Collections Trust: http://collectionstrust.org.uk/spectrum/ [free online resource for all aspects of collections management] Collections Trust. 2017. SPECTRUM Advice: Labelling and Marking Museum Objects. SPECTRUM 5 [ https://collectionstrust.org.uk/resource/labelling-and-marking-museum-objects-booklet/ ] http://icom.museum/programmes/fighting-illicit-traffic/red-list/ https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICOM-code-En-web.pdf

Share Museums East. 2012. The Contents of a Museum Labelling and Marking Kit - http://youtu.be/osEIQsqG3CU Share Museums East. 2012. Labelling and Marking Paper Objects in Museum Collections - http://youtu.be/BF2olxg1hmc Share Museums East. 2012. Labelling and Marking Textiles in Museum Collections - http://youtu.be/-zCXNphTv0U

Week 3: The Universal Museum?

Collections of world archaeology are not merely a feature of the British Museum; they are present in regional collections across the UK and the Global North, a product of colonialist, imperialist and nationalist agendas. The legacies of these modes of acquisition weigh heavily on these assemblages today, both in their material biases and their information deficiencies.

Decisions made in categorizing, labelling and displaying have created silences; they have frequently elided indigenous histories and voices. In this session we examine the emergence of calls for repatriation and challenges to the authority of museums, drawing first from the example of the USA’s development of the NAGRA law in the 1990s, through to counter- challenges in the form of the concept of the ‘universal museum’ that emerged in the 21st century and the sorts of narratives that it perpetuates. We will also consider how former ‘colonial museums’ in various parts of the world are responding to contemporary heritage issues, the challenges that museums in non-Western regions are themselves trying to address and the role they play in post-conflict development, as well as how they foster national and regional identities.

In our practical session we will look at strategies for writing clear museum object labels for the general public, while also reflecting on whose voice these labels convey and the challenges for inclusive interpretive practice.

Essential Reading

Abungu, G. 2004. The declaration: a contested issue. ICOM News 1: 5 [see also the Declaration itself published on the previous page, available open access at http://archives.icom.museum/pdf/E_news2004/p4_2004-1.pdf and on Moodle] Boast, R. 2011. Neo-colonial collaboration: Museum as contact zone revisited. Museum Anthropology 34(1): 56–70. ONLINE SFX.

Further Reading

Cuno, J. 2008. Who Owns Antiquities? Museums and the Battle Over Our Ancient Heritage. Princeton. Curtis, N. 2006. Universal museums, museum objects and repatriation: the tangled stories of things. Museum Management and Curatorship 21(2): 117–27. Daehnke, J. and Lonetree, A. 2010. Repatriation in the United States: the current state of NAGPRA. In Lydon, J. and Rizvi, U.Z. (eds.) Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge [you might also want to look at the chapter by Bauer on Cultural Property] Emberling, G. and Hanson, K. (eds). 2008. Catastrophe! The Looting and Destruction of Iraq’s Past. Oriental Institute Museum of the University of Chicago: Chicago. Fiskesjo, M. 2010. Commentary: The Global Repatriation Debate and the New ‘Universal Museums’. In Lydon, J. and Rizvi, U.Z. (eds.) Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. London and New York: Routledge Hakimian, S. 2010. The Beirut National Museum and collective memory: sanctuary, repository, or interactive space? Near Eastern Archaeology 73 (2/3): Ingold, T. 2000. Ancestry, generation, substance, memory, land. In Ingold, T. (ed.) The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 132–51 Jilani, S. 2018. How to decolonize a museum. Times Literary Supplement June 7 2018. Available at: https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/how-decolonize-museum/

MacKenzie, J.M. 2009. Museums and Empire. Natural History, Human Cultures and Colonial Identities. Manchester: Manchester University Press [read intro]/ MacGregor, N. 2004. The whole world in our hands. The Guardian, 24 July 2004. Robson, E. 2016. Rethinking Iraq’s past – and its future – at the Basrah Museum. Apollo Magazine 11 October 2016. https://www.apollo-magazine.com/rethinking-iraqs-past- and-its-future-at-the-basrah-museum/ Stevenson, A. 2019. Scattered Finds: Archaeology, Egyptology and Museums. London: UCL Press [see Chapter 5: Ghosts, orphans and the disposed pp. 206–10 for case studies of National Museum of Ghana & South African museums]. Singh, K. 2009. Universal Museums: the view from below. In Prott, L.V. (ed.) Witnesses to History. A Compendium of Documents and Writing on the Return of Cultural Objects. Paris: UNESCO, pp.123–29

Writing Museum Labels Coxal, H. 1991. Museum text: accessibility and relevance. Journal of Education in Museums 12, 9-10 McManus, P.M. (2000) Written communications for museums and heritage sites. In McManus, P.M. Archaeological Displays and the Public. Second Edition, London, Achtype Press, p. 97–114. Skeates, Robin 2002. Speaking for the past in the present: Text, authority and learning in archaeology museums. Public Archaeology 2(4): 209–18, DOI: 10.1179/ pua.2002.2.4.209 https://www.museumsassociation.org/museum-practice/14449

Week 4: Conducting Collections Research

In this session we will consider the sorts of archaeological research that can be conducted using museum collections and the curatorial decision-making processes that mediate between research demands on the one hand and responsibilities of maintaining object integrity for perpetuity on the other. This includes consideration of issues related to destructive and non- destructive sampling for a range of archaeological science projects. We will also evaluate how representative museum collections are of fieldwork and the sorts of biases that are introduced in the processes of transferring finds from excavation site to museum repository that may impact on future archaeological interpretation. In what ways are fieldwork and museum study interrelated?

In our practical session, we will discuss the kinds of information that it is important to record for different types of objects, and the importance of data consistency and terminology control. We explore some examples of museum object and materials thesauri. The majority of museums now use computer-based collection management systems. There is a great variety of systems available – we will discuss the basic features common to all systems.

Essential Reading

Frieman, C.J. and Janz, L. 2018. A very remote storage box indeed: the importance of doing archaeology with old museum collections. Journal of Field Archaeology 43(4): 257– 68. ONLINE SFX

Further Reading Freedman, J., van Dorp, L. and Brace, S. 2018. Destructive sampling natural science collections: an overview for museum professionals and researchers. Journal of Natural Science Collections 5, 21–34. [useful for thinking about organic materials in archaeology collections; copy of paper on Moodle] Heitman, C.C. 2017. The creation of gender bias in museum collections: recontextualizing archaeological and archival collections from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Museum Anthropology 40(2): 128–42. Huster, A. 2013. Assessing systematic bias in museum collections: a case study of spindle whorls. Advances in Archaeological Practice: A Journal of the Society for American Archaeology Kokkinidou, D. and Nikolaidou, M. 2000. A sexist present, human-less past: museum archaeology in Greece. In Donald, M. and Hurcombe, L. (eds.) Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective. Palgrave MacMillan. King, J. 2016. Comparative colonialism and collections-based archaeological research. Dig less, catalogue more. Museum Worlds 4: 4–17 Levine, M.N. and Martínez de Luna, L. 2013. Museum salvage: A case study of Mesoamerican artifacts in museum collections and on the antiquities market. Journal of Field Archaeology 38(3): 264–76. Prendergast, M.E. and Sawchuk, E. 2018. Boots on the ground in Africa’s ancient DNA ‘revolution’: archaeological perspectives on ethics and best practice. Antiquity 92: 803–15. Sparks, R. 2013. Flinders Petrie through word and deed: re-evaluation field techniques and their impact on object recovery in British Mandate Palestine. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 145(2): 143–59. Villing, A. Reconstructing a 19th-century excavation: problems and perspectives. In Villing, A., Bergeron, M., Bourogiannis, G., Johnston, A., Leclere, F., Masson, A. and Thomas, R. (eds.) Naukratis. Greeks in Egypt. [www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/Naukratis_ORC_Reconstructing_19thC_Excavation_Vi lling.pdf] Voss, B. 2012. Curation as research: a case study in orphaned and underreported archaeological collections. Archaeological Dialogues 19(2): 145–69. Whitley, J. 2016. Discussion and debate: fusing the horizons, or why context matters: the interdependence of fieldwork and museum study in Mediterranean archaeology. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 29(2): 247–69. Ytterberg, N. 2016. Analysing museum collections in Scandinavia. Museum Worlds 4(1): 126–37.

See Moodle for a range of resources and advice, including links to the British Museum’s thesauri and Collections Trust guidance.

Week 5: Human Remains / Object Movement & Loans

Relics, specimens, subjects, objects, ancestors, evidence? Human remains are some of the most complex and contentious types of collection museums manage. UK museums alone are estimated to hold more than 60,000 human remains, many acquired in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century as part of imperial racial profiling. Over the last few decades attitudes to such collections have shifted through ongoing and largely constructive public debate, but there remain a range of legal, ethical, and political issues that museums must contend with. Who has cultural or scientific authority over the dead? Who gets to speak for them? What do(did?) the dead want? In this session we will look at the ways in which the dead are present in archaeological collections, the key pieces of ethical and legislative guidance relating to their management in museums, as well as logistical issues pertaining to their care. In the second part of the session we will look at case studies of practical issues in moving objects into and out of museum spaces, including human remains.

Essential Reading Fletcher, A. Antoine, D. and Hill, J.D. (eds.) Regarding the Dead: Human Remains in the British Museum. London: British Museum Press. [https://www.britishmuseum.org/PDF/Regarding-the-Dead_02102015.pdf] Mubaya, T. 2015. Africanising museums on the African soil: a critique of the Western concept of keeping human remains in Zimbabwean museums. In Madwere, M. and Chiwaura, H. (eds.) African Museums in the Making. Oxford: African Books Collective [https://muse.jhu.edu/book/40074 and MOODLE]

Further Reading Bardill, J., Bader, A.C., Garrison, N.A, Bolnick, D.A., Raff, J.A., Walker, A., Malhit, R.S and the Summer internship for Indigenous people in Genomics (SING) Consortium. 2018. Advancing the ethics of paleognomics. Science 360: 384–5. Curtis, N.G.W. 2003. Human remains: the sacred, museums and archaeology Public Archaeology 3(1): 21–32. English Heritage 2009. Research into Issues Surrounding Human Bones in Museums. https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/research/opinion-survey- results.pdf Exell, K. 2016. Covering the mummies at Manchester Museum. In Williams, H. and Giles, M. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ganiaris, H. and Calver, A. 1999. London bodies on display. Museum Practice 4(2):24-28 Giesen, M. (ed.) 2013. Curating Human Remains. Caring for the Dead in the United Kingdom. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press. Redfern, R. and Clegg, M. 2017. Archaeologically derived human remains in England: legacy and future. World Archaeology 49(5): 574–587. Pendergast, M.E. and Sawchuk, E. 2018. Boots on the ground in Africa’s ancient DNA ‘revolution’: archaeological perspectives on ethics and best practices. Antiquity 92: 803–15. Williams, H. and Giles, M. (eds.) 2016. Archaeologists and the Dead. Mortuary Archaeology In Contemporary Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press [see ch 2. Displaying the Dead]

Zimmerman, L. J. 2002. A decade after the Vermillion Accord: what has changed and what has not. In Fford, C., Hubert, J. and Turnbull, P. (eds.) The Dead and Their Possessions. Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 91–8.

READING WEEK: MUSEUM VISITS

British Museum Stores, Latin American collections Wednesday 19 February

Dr Laura Osorio Sunnucks, Curator and Director of the British Museum Santo Domingo Centre, will give us a tour of the stored British Museum collections. Further details will be provided closer to the time. This is an entirely optional session to see behind the scenes of a major collection.

Week 6: Debates in Museum Ethics: Deaccessioning, Sponsorship and Accountability

The concept of ethics will be introduced and debated, specifically with a focus on museum ethical codes and how they can be reconceived of as contingent and ‘radically transparent’. We will then consider how museums can approach the display and management of archaeological collections in an ethical way with regard to issues such as the antiquities trade, corporate sponsorship and, in particular, deaccessioning. Many people regard museums as places where collections are kept in perpetuity. As such the issue of deaccessioning and disposal of collections can be controversial. We will think through the legalities, ethics and practicalities of this issue.

In the second part of the session students will work in groups through a series of real-life case studies to come up with responses and policies to address ethical dilemmas, including repatriation requests, destructive sampling of human remains requests, and controversial event management requests.

Essential Reading

Marstine, J. 2011. The contingent nature of the new museum ethics. In Marstine, J. (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Museum Ethics. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 3–25. ONLINE SFX Museum Association 2016. Code of Ethics for Museums. London: Museums Association. Available at: https://www.museumsassociation.org/ethics/code-of-ethics Stevenson, A. 2016. Conflict antiquities and conflicted antiquities: addressing commercial sales of legally excavated artefacts. Antiquity 90: 229–236. ONLINE SFX

Further Reading

Argyropoulos, V. et al. 2014. Museum Education and Archaeological Ethics: An

Approach to the Illicit Trade of Antiquities. Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies 12(1) DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/jcms.1021210 Hamilakis, Y. 2011. Museums of oblivion. Antiquity 85: 625–29. Hilger, M. 2016. ‘Definitely stolen?’ Why there is no alternative to provenance research in archaeological museums. In Murphy, B.L. (ed.) Museums, Ethics and Cultural Heritage. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 210–17. Serafini, P. and Garrard, C. 2019. Fossil fuel sponsorship and the contested museum: agency, accountability and arts activism. In Janes, R.R. and Sandell, R. (eds.) Museum Activism. London & New York: Routledge. Society for Museum Archaeology 2018. Guidance on the Rationalisation of Museum Archaeology Collections, London: Historic England. Vecco, M and Piazzi, M. 2015. Deaccessioning of museum collections: what do we know and where do we stand in Europe? Journal of Cultural Heritage 16(2): 221–227. Wylie, A. 1996. Ethical dilemmas in archaeological practice: looting, repatriation, Stewardship and the (trans)formation of disciplinary identity. Perspectives on Science 4(2): 154–94. Wylie, A. 2005. The problems and perils of an ethic of stewardship. In L. Meskell and P. Pels (ed.) Embedding Ethics: 47–68. Oxford & New York: Berg.

Blogs Durrant, J. 'Discussing Disposal" http://collectionstrust.org.uk/news-and-blog/discussing- disposal/

Week 7: Display Strategies and Storing Objects

We begin by briefly reviewing some of the key strategies and considerations in developing archaeological displays. Many museum practitioners, however, recognise the false premise of the division between display and storage, positioning their responsibilities more holistically toward curating publicly-accessible and visible collections. How do we tackle the common misconception that museums are solely a form of exhibitionary media? It is certainly true that in most museums only a portion of the permanent collection to be on display at any one time. How then are stored collections used? Can they be sustained given the ‘curation crisis’ where more and more archaeological finds are being recovered, but there is less and less space available to accommodate them in museums? Are they accessible, and if not why not? In this session we deconstruct the binary opposition between ‘display’ and ‘backstage’ to examine the wider question of the purpose of collections and access to them. Interventions from artists, discovery centres and visible storage are some of the range of practices that have broached these divides.

In our practical session we will think about how proper storage is key to collections care. We will look at various materials used to store archaeological finds and then move on to devise storage solutions for a selection of objects taking into consideration particular vulnerabilities.

Essential Reading Kersel, Morag 2017. Remnants of past lives – storing archaeological stuff. In Brusius, M. and

Singh, K. (eds.) Museum Storage and Meaning. Tales from the Crypt. London and New York; Routledge, pp. 272–84. ONLINE SFX. [For a longer version of this paper and responses see: Kersel, M. 2015. Storage wars: solving the archaeological curation crisis? Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 3(1): 42– 54.] Moser, S. 2010. The devil is in the detail: museum displays and the creation of knowledge. Museum Anthropology 33(1): 22–32.

Further Reading on Display Batty, J., Carr, J, Edwards, C., Francis, D., Frost, S., Miles, E. and Penrose, R. 2016. Object- focused text at the British Museum. Exhibition Spring 2016. Kaplan, F. E. S., 1995. Exhibitions as communicative media. In Hooper-Greenhill, E. (ed.), Museum, Media, Message. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 37–58.

Further Reading on Storage Baxter, Katherine, Gail Boyle, and Lucy Creighton. 2018. Guidance on the Rationalisation of Museum Archaeology Collections. London: Historic England. Bonacchi, Chiara et al., 2014. Crowd-sourced Archaeological Research: The MicroPasts Project. Archaeology International 17, pp.61–68 Boyle, Gail. 2019. Always on the receiving end? Reflections on archaeology, museums and policy. The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice. Brusius, Mirjam and Singh, Kavita. (eds.) Museum Storage and Meaning. Tales from the Crypt. London and New York: Routledge. [read introduction and browse rest of volume for good case studies] Childs, Terry .S. and Benden, D. 2017. A checklist for sustainable management of archaeological collections. Advances in Archaeological Practices 5(1): 12–25. Friberg, Zanna and Isto Huvila 2019. Using object biographies to understand the curation crisis: lessons learned from the museum life of an archaeological collection. Museum Management and Curatorship DOI: 10.1080/09647775.2019.1612270 MacFarland, K. and Vokes, A.W. 2016. Dusting off the data. Curating and rehabilitating archaeological legacy and orphaned collections. Advances in Archaeological Practice 4(2): 161–175.

Week 8: Engagements with Collections

In this session we will explore the possibilities for physical and emotional interaction with objects in museums, noting that it is not just archaeologists that are interested in engaging with these collections. This includes the social role of archaeological collections for healing work, as well as contemporary artistic interventions and educational initiatives. We will look in particular at ways in which such interventions in the museum can engage with wider heritage issues in archaeology such as looting, illicit trade in antiquities and site protection. This leads on to museum’s wider responsibilities towards accessibility for individual and communities of different and mixed abilities.

In our practical session Theano Moussouri will examine some of the questions museum staff might have about their audience (e.g. key information about how people might engage with and relate to objects and other media in an exhibition) and how they may go about answering

17 them. It will also explore what impact this evidence gathering exercise might have on museum practice. Students will work in small groups to draft the outline of an evaluation plan.

Essential Reading

Candlin, F. 2007. Don’t touch! Hands off! Art, blindness, and the conservation of expertise. In Pye, E. (ed.) The Power of Touch. Handling Objects in Museum and Heritage Contexts. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, pp. 89–106. Merriman, N. 2004. Involving the public museum archaeology. In Merriman, N. (ed.) Public Archaeology. London: Routledge.

Further Reading

Acheson Roberts, L. 2013. The role of sculpture in communicating archaeology in museums. Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 23(1) Ander, E., Thomson, L., Noble, G., Lanceley, A., Menon, U. and Chatterjee, H. 2013. Heritage, health and well-being: assessing the impact of a heritage focused intervention on health and well-being. International Journal of Heritage Studies 19(3): 229–42. Davis, G. 2014. Open up to archaeology – the VIP way. Museum Archaeologist 34: 47–61. Hall, J. and Swain, H. 1996. Roman boxes for London’s schools: an outreach service by the Museum of London. In McManus, P.M. (ed.) Archaeological Displays and the Public. Museology and Interpretations. Dorchester: Dorset Press, pp. 87–96. Kamash, Z with H. Abd el Gawad, P. Banks, A. Bell, F. Charteris, S. Ekdawi, Z. Glen, J. Howe, A. Laidlaw, M. Mitchell, A. Nafde, A. Parkin, F. Wilson, L. Thandie Wilson, and A. Wood. 2017 “Remembering the Romans in the Middle East and North Africa: memories and reflections from a museum-based public engagement project. Epoiesen http://dx.doi.org/10.22215/epoiesen/2017.9 Phillips, L. 2008. Reminiscence: Recent work at the British Museum. In Chatterjee, H. (ed.) Touch in Museums. Policy and Practice in Object Handling. Oxford: Berg, pp. 199– 204. Rakowitz, Michael. 2017. Backstroke of the West. Delmoico Books. Renfrew, C. 2003. Figuring it Out: The Parallel Visions of Artists and Archaeologists. London: Thames and Hudson. [see Chapter 3 ‘Off the Plinth’] Copy available in the Teaching Collection Teaching Collection number 3861

Audience Evaluation

BigPicnic: https://www.bgci.org/resources/bgci-tools-and-resources/bigpicnic-resources/ MOODLE

Happy Museum Project – Measure What Matters: http://happymuseumproject.org/resources/measure-what-matters/

McLean, K. 1993. Planning for People in Museum Exhibitions. Washington, D.C.: Association of Science-Technology Centers, p. 68-80 [Chapter 5, Doing it Right: Visitor Studies, Evaluation, and Exhibits].

Simon, N. 2010. The Participatory Museum, chapter 10: Evaluating participatory projects. http://www.participatorymuseum.org/chapter10/ MOODLE

Exhibitions  Penn Museum 2018. Cultures in the Crossfire: Stories from Syria and Iraq. See: https://www.penn.museum/information/press-room/press-release-exhibitions/1105- cultures-in-the-crossfire-stories-from-syria-and-iraq  Museo Egypizio 2018. Statues Also Die. See: http://fsrr.org/en/mostre/statues-also- die/  Whitechapel Gallery 2019 Michael Rakowitz https://www.whitechapelgallery.org/exhibitions/michael-rakowitz/

Week 9: Beyond Archaeological Finds: Documents, Photographs, Film, Samples, Reproductions and Digital Objects

Archaeology produces, and is itself a product of, processes of documentation in the field and the museum. This session foregrounds the types of collections that are produced by archaeologists themselves and which have historically ranked low in hierarchies of museum objects: archives, photographs, film, reproductions (casts, models and 3D prints) and material/environmental samples. Most museums possess one or several of these types of media. Some, like photographs or reproductions, are frequently employed in exhibitions. Others, like samples or field notes, rarely are. It is also necessary to consider critically not just how this material is utilized in exhibitionary contexts, but also how these media are ethically and professionally curated, managed and researched as part of institutional and disciplinary practice. This includes the materiality of these collections, each with their own problems and possibilities for preservation, research, interpretation and engagement.

In the second half Amanda Ford Spora will discuss a current research case study that employs 3D print replicas of ancient Egyptian and Sudanese artefacts in outreach object handling workshops with teens in Sudan, United Kingdom and Australia. The research is considering the place of digitally produced replicas in terms of engaging with archaeological audiences. The replicas used within the research were made by ThinkSee3D (https://www.thinksee3d.com, twitter handle @ThinkSee3d) a company that specialises in applying 3D technologies to natural and cultural heritage projects for museums and university researchers. There will be an opportunity to experience the digitally produced replicas first- hand, alongside other archaeological documentation that was employed within the outreach workshops.

Essential Reading

Edwards, E. and Morton, C.A. 2015. Introduction. In Edwards, E. and Morton, C. (eds.) Photographs, museums, collections: between art and information. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. ONLINE SFX Quinn, P. 2018. Scientific preparations of archaeological ceramics status, value and long term future. Journal of Archaeological Science https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2018.01.001

Further Reading

Abungu, L. 2002. Access to digital heritage in Africa: bridging the digital divide. Museum International 54(3): 29–34. Anderson, H., Galvin, E. and Rodriguez, JdT. 2018. Museological approaches to the management of digital research and engagement: the African Rock Art Image Project. African Archaeological Review 35: 321–37. Baird, J. A. and McFadyen, L. 2014. Towards an archaeology of archaeological Archives. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 29(2) (The Archive Issue): 14–32. Bilsel, C. 2012. Antiquity On Display: Regime of the Authentic in Berlin’s Pergamon Museum. Oxford: Oxford University Press [see introduction]. Cambridge University. Why Casts? https://www.classics.cam.ac.uk/museum/about-us/why- casts Dawson, P. Levy, R. and Lyons, N. 2011. ‘Breaking the fourth wall’: 3D virtual worlds as tools knowledge repatriation in archaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 11(3): 387–402. Dey, S. 2018. Potential and limitations of 3D digital methods applied to ancient cultural heritage: insights from a professional 3D practitioner. In KELLEY, K. and WOOD, R. (eds.) Digital Imaging of Artefacts: Developments in Methods and Aims Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing, pp 5-36. Open access [MOODLE]: http://www.archaeopress.com/public/displayProductDetail.asp?id=%7B5538CD4D- 1A45-47F9-AACD-42A389B5ABCA%7D Fash, B. 2004. Cast Aside: Revisiting the Plaster Cast Collections from Mesoamerica. Visual Resources 20(1): 3-17, Foster, S. and Curtis, N. 2016. The thing about replicas. European Journal of Archaeology 19(1): 122-148. Merriman, N. and Swain, H. 1999. Archaeological archives: serving the public interest. European Journal of Archaeology 2(2): 249–67. Morton, C. 2014. The place of photographs in the collections, displays, and other work of General Pitt-Rivers. Museum History Journal 7(2): 168–87. Riggs, C. 2017. The body in the box: archiving the Egyptian mummy. Archival Science 17(2): 125–150. Shields, D. 2015. Multiple collections and fluid meanings: Alfred Maudslay’s archaeological photographs at the British Museum. In Edwards, E. and Morton, C.A. (eds.). 2015. Photographs, Museums, Collections: Between Art and Information. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Wilson, P.F. et al., 2017. Evaluation of Touchable 3D‐ Printed Replicas in Museums. Curator: The Museum Journal 60(4): 445–465.

Exhibitions

Photography exhibitions at Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology: https://www.peabody.harvard.edu/all-exhibitions/54

British Museum online projects: • MicroPasts: micropasts.org • African Rock Art VR: http://vr.africanrockart.britishmuseum.org/ • British Museum Sketchfab: https://sketchfab.com/britishmuseum

Week 10: Collections Care and Environmental Monitoring

In our final session the Head of the Petrie Museum collection, Catriona Wilson, will take us through the environmental conditions and control measures that need to be considered for archaeological collections. This will include an introduction them to the various agents of deterioration, including light, relative humidity, pollutants, security and pests. The Society for Museum Archaeology’s new Standards of Care for Archaeology Collections will also be introduced. In our practical we will have an introduction to equipment used to measure the various environmental factors and gain experience using these instruments.

Essential Reading

Pye, E. 2001. Caring for the Past: Issues in Conservation for Archaeology and Museums. London: James and James [see especially the early chapters] INST ARCH L PYE

Further Reading

Institute of Conservation. 2012. Caring and Conservation of... (a series of factsheets on care and conservation of a range of different materials and objects, available online at www.conservationregister.com/PIcon-CaringFor.asp) Museum & Galleries Commission. 1992. ‘Standards in the Museum Care of Archaeological Collections’ Museums Galleries Scotland. 2009. ‘Advice Sheet: What is Environmental Monitoring?’ (Moodle)

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

22 within this period, or a written explanation, notify the Academic Administrator. When your marked essay is returned to you, return it to the Module Co-ordinator within two weeks. You must retain a copy of all coursework submitted.

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