Artistic Tech Analysis Arch Mat

UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
G107
Technology and analysis
of archaeological materials
Course Handbook for 2015/2016
Core Course for the MSc in Technology and Analysis of Archaeological Materials
Terms I and II, 30 credits
Term I: Tue 11-1 (room 410) and Wed 9-11 (room B13) – Term II: Tue 11-1 (room 410)
Co-ordinator: Marcos Martinón-Torres

m.martinon-torres@ucl.ac.uk
Office 112, Tel 020 7679 7496
Turnitin Class ID: 2969935 – Password IoA1516

G107 Technology and Analysis of Archaeological Materials 3
Contents
Aims and objectives of the core course ...................................................................................... 5
This handbook ............................................................................................................................. 6
Course outline ............................................................................................................................. 6
There are three strands to this core course:............................................................................... 6
A) Technology within Society: The Social Context of Artefacts (Term 1) ............................... 6
B) Research Design and Materials Analysis (Term 1) .............................................................. 6
C) Seminar Series: Archaeological Analysis and Interpretation (Term 2) ............................... 6
Teaching methods and reading material .................................................................................... 7
Hours of study ............................................................................................................................. 8
Methods of assessment .............................................................................................................. 8
Submission deadlines .................................................................................................................. 8
Timetable .................................................................................................................................... 9
STRAND A – TECHNOLOGY WITHIN SOCIETY..........................................................................10
INTRODUCTORY READING...........................................................................................................11
1. ARRANGING THE ARTEFACTS ............................................................................................................ 13
2. CHAÎNE OPÉRATOIRES AND ARTEFACT LIFE-HISTORIES ........................................................................... 16
3. THE NATURE AND IDENTIFICATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ....................................................... 19
4. ASSESSING ASSEMBLAGES ................................................................................................................ 21
5. INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE ....................................................................................... 23
6. THE ORGANISATION OF PRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 27
7. USE AND MEANING OF ARTEFACTS .................................................................................................... 30
8. DISCARD AND TAPHONOMY ............................................................................................................. 33
9. PROVENANCE, TRADE AND EXCHANGE ............................................................................................... 36
10. THE SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF ARTEFACT DISTRIBUTIONS .......................................................................... 43
STRAND B – RESEARCH DESIGN AND MATERIALS ANALYSIS ...................................................45
INTRODUCTORY READING...........................................................................................................46
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE COURSE. CURRENT ISSUES IN ARCHAEOMATERIALS............................................... 49
2. THE NATURE AND IDENTIFICATION OF MATERIALS. ATOMS, MOLECULES AND CRYSTAL STRUCTURES ............. 51
3. MATERIALS AND ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: AN OVERVIEW .................................................................... 52
4. BULK CHEMICAL ANALYSIS: X-RAY FLUORESCENCE (XRF) AND INDUCTIVELY COUPLED PLASMA-MASS
SPECTROMETRY (ICP-MS)................................................................................................................... 53
5. OPTICAL MICROSCOPY. SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY AND MICROANALYSIS (SEM-EDS, WD-EPMA) . 57

COMPOUND IDENTIFICATION: FOURIER-TRANSFORM INFRA-RED SPECTROSCOPY (FTIR), X-RAY DIFFRACTION
(XRD) AND RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY...................................................................................................... 57
6. SAMPLING AND SUB-SAMPLING. SELECTING ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES ..................................................... 59
7. DATA QUALITY. ACCURACY, PRECISION, DEVIATIONS AND ERRORS .......................................................... 61
8. DATA PROCESSING AND INTERPRETATION: SOME BASIC STATISTICS ......................................................... 62
9. DATA PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION ....................................................................................... 63
10. REPORT AND PUBLICATION. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION ....................................................................... 64
STRAND C – RESEARCH PROJECT PROPOSALS ........................................................................65
RESEARCH SKILLS TRAINING ........................................................................................................68
ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................................69
Assessment 1: Scientific investigation report ........................................................................... 69
Assessment 2: Standard essay .................................................................................................. 72
Assessment 3: Project proposal ................................................................................................ 73
Assessment 4: Practical essay: analytical report....................................................................... 74
Aims and objectives of the core course

This course aims to bridge the gap between archaeology and archaeometry by integrating a
solid background in the anthropology of technology with an introduction to scientific
techniques used for the analysis of inorganic archaeological materials. More specifically, the
course aims:
1. To provide a wide-ranging and challenging introduction to the role of artefact studies

and materials analysis in modern archaeology.
2. To encourage students to think about technology from an anthropologically-informed

perspective that focuses on how and why people make and use artefacts and materials.
3. To engage with current debates about the collection, analysis, interpretation,

reporting and curation of archaeological materials.
4. To introduce students to the principles and practice of the archaeometric analysis of

inorganic materials, including issues of sampling, data quality, reporting and
interpretation, as well as practical training in the use of some of the most common
analytical instruments.
5. To encourage an interdisciplinary approach to artefact and materials studies that

considers how to develop the relevance of material studies for wider archaeological
concerns.
Upon successful completion of this course, students will, among other objectives:
1. Be familiar with a wide range of recent archaeological, anthropological, and broad

theoretical debates about the role of material culture and technology within society.
2. Have an overview of practical approaches to the study of materials in relation to

wider archaeological research questions.
3. Be able to debate the role of archaeometric studies in archaeology, including the

potential advantages and constraints inherent within different approaches to artefact
analysis.
4. Have the ability to critically assess reports and publications deriving from
archaeometric work, as well as to propose analytical projects with archaeological
relevance.
5. Have the basic skills necessary to acquire, process, report and interpret
archaeometric data from a number of techniques.
N.B. This constitutes the core course of the MSc in the Technology and Analysis of
Archaeological Materials. Although the formal taught components take place during the first
two terms only, it is expected that students will continue to fulfill the above aims and objectives
through directed reading and practical training, as well as in special seminars and tutorials
arranged throughout the year. This is particularly relevant to the practical aspects of
archaeometric analyses and interpretation, which require more extended training than feasible
in an ordinary taught module.
This handbook
This handbook contains basic information about the content and administration of this course.
If you have queries about the objectives, structure, content, assessment or organisation of the
course, please consult the Course Co-ordinator.
Further important information, relating to all courses at the Institute of Archaeology, is to be

found at in the general MA/MSc Handbook and on the Institute’s website. It is your
responsibility to read and act on it. It includes information about originality, submission and
grading of coursework; disabilities; communication; attendance; and feedback.
Course outline
This course is intended to provide a general foundation and introduction for those taking the
MSc Technology and Analysis of Archaeological Materials (for whom this is an obligatory ‘core
course’). It is intended to place the specific specialist training provided by the option courses
within a broad archaeological context, and to provide basic training on the scientific techniques
employed throughout the year. For this reason, the majority of the course is taught in the first
term. However, there are practical components that will continue during the second term and
later months.
There are three strands to this core course:

A) Technology within Society: The Social Context of Artefacts (Term 1)
This strand will provide students with an overview of current issues in studying the social
significance of technology and materials. Students will be introduced to anthropological,
archaeological and material science approaches to the study of technology and material culture
from the analysis of raw materials through acquisition, production, distribution, consumption
and disposal.
B) Research Design and Materials Analysis (Term 1)

This strand asks students to consider how to select scientific methods in relation to specific
research objectives and practical constraints. The course emphasises the practicalities of
sampling, processing, analysing, and publishing archaeological materials, and the problems of
using databases and sampling methods. Major topics covered by this course include: the
changing role of materials specialists in museums, archaeological units and universities;
laboratory-based skills relevant for the instruments available; the presentation and
interpretation of materials analyses; the selection and ethics of different methods, and the
development of meaningful research strategies.
C) Seminar Series: Archaeological Analysis and Interpretation (Term 2)

This seminar series will use case studies from current archaeological projects to consider how
the study of archaeological assemblages can be used to address wider research questions. The
seminar series will encourage a critical consideration of the problems and the potentials of
integrating the analysis of diverse materials, analytical procedures, and traditions of artefact
analysis within a single research design. The precise choice of issues, sites and materials will be
defined in consultation with students and staff.
Teaching methods and reading material

Teaching for the course is through formal lectures, seminars, artefact handling sessions, and
laboratory practicals. These varied formats are combined in order to provide you with a broad
introduction to appropriate literature, the opportunity to engage actively in debating these
issues yourself, the chance to handle artefacts and analyse arcaheological materials. The
lectures, seminars and practical sessions will largely be conducted by UCL staff, with the
addition of occasional guest speakers. Seminars for strand A have weekly essential readings,
which students are expected to have done, to be able to follow and actively contribute to
discussion – most classes will include a period of formal presentation by one or more lecturers
and a period of class discussion using the two or three essential readings as a basis from which
to discuss the topic and its relation to artefact analysis in archaeology. Sometimes we will also
have a pre-class discussion on Moodle (more on this below). For this, you will be separated into
four groups, and each group has in turn to lead the discussion on a specific topic each week.
This contribution must be posted by Monday 12.00 at latest (prior to the relevant lecture on
Tuesday). All other students should also take part in the online discussion. In class, active
participation of all students is expected. Please consider your own experiences and knowledge
and use this to contribute examples of similarities and differences in relation to the description,
theory and practice of artefact analysis and interpretation discussed in the course.
This handbook includes an outline of each session (which will usually combine some formal
lecture and extensive class discussion) in the course, and identifies essential and supplementary
readings relevant to each session. The essential readings should be consulted in advance of
each session (this is particularly important for strand A). Although information is provided as to
where in the UCL library system individual readings are available, the best starting point for any
bibliographic search should be the Online Reading List, where most of the recommended
readings are available as PDFs (see below).
In addition to the Library of the Institute of Archaeology, UCL's Science Library has holdings of
particular relevance to this degree. The British Library and the Library of Senate House also hold
a very useful collection (and are fun to visit).
IMPORTANT: You can find the relevant reading lists online, where all of the articles noted as
“essential reading” and most of the “further reading” items are available for download in PDF
format. If the PDF is not available due to copyright restrictions, you will find a link to the
relevant library shelfmark where you can find a hard copy of the publication. While we make
every effort to make teaching materials available online, you are still expected to conduct
bibliographic research in the library, and the fact that a publication is not online will not be
accepted as an excuse for not having consulted it.
The Online Reading Lists are available via the Institute’s Moodle page (UCL ID and password
required)
In addition, this core course is available via Moodle, an online teaching resource where you will
find access to the same reading lists but also to downloadable handouts and powerpoint
presentations that will be added on a weekly basis, as well as other activities and resources. You
are expected to log on to Moodle at least once a week. You may find that, once you have
registered for a course via Portico, you will be automatically enrolled in Moodle. If this is not the
case, you can register for Moodle directly, ussing the enrolment keys below.
Strand A: “ARCLG107/ARCLG120 Technology within society”. Enrolment key: g120
Strand B: “ARCLG107 Technology and Analysis of Archaeological Materials”. Enrolment key:

g107
Hours of study
The core course will be taught over ten weeks during the first term on Tuesdays (11-1) and
Wednesdays (9-11) making a total of 40 hours. The seminars in the second term will last for
two hours on Tuesdays (11-1) and they will require a total of approximately 10 to 20 hours
depending on the number of students presenting. In addition to this you are expected to
undertake around 200 hours of private reading in preparing for classes and approximately 100
hours to prepare for your essays and seminar presentation. There is a reading week in term 1
and another one in term 2; this time should be used to catch-up with any reading associated
with lectures and to research and prepare assessed work.
Methods of assessment
This course is assessed by means of approximately 8000 words of coursework, divided into four
pieces: a standard essay, two practical essays and a project paper. In addition, there will be a
substantial amount of group work and an oral presentation. More details on all of these are
given at the end of this coursebook.
All written work submitted as coursework should include a wordcount. All work must be fully
referenced; your attention is drawn to methods of referencing and to the statements on
plagiarism and ‘self-plagiarism’ in the ‘information for MA and MSc Students’ handbook. It is
also an obligation of the course to give an oral presentation during the second term seminar
series. The topics and deadlines for each assessment are specified below, and further details are
given in the last few pages of this handbook. If students are unclear about the nature of an
assignment, please contact the Course Co-ordinator. If you wish to discuss essay topics or
prepare a brief (single-page maximum) outline of how you intend to approach your assignment,
he will be happy to discuss this.
The following should not be included in the word-count: bibliography, appendices, and tables,
graphs and illustrations and their captions.
Submission deadlines
[N.B. The weeks as used in this coursebook correspond to teaching weeks and therefore skip
reading week, i.e. ‘week 6’ is the first week after reading week]
Scientific investigation report (Assessment 1): Term I, end of week 7. Word limit: 950-1050.
Weighting: 1/10 of the final mark
Standard essay (Assessment 2): Term II, end of week 1. Word limit: 2375-2625. Weighting: 3/10
of the final mark.
Project paper (Assessment 3): Term II, end of week 8. Word limit: 2850-3150. Weighting: 3/10
of the final mark.
Practical Essay (Assessment 4): Term II, end of week 10. Word limit: 1425-1575 Weighting: 3/10
of the final mark.
Timetable
Ordinary sessions will take place on Tuesdays 11-1 (Terms I and II) and Wednesdays 9-11 (Term I
only). In addition to these, the core course will include practical sessions at the laboratory
throughout terms I and II, to be arranged individually. There will also be a one day special
student conference during reading week of Term II.
A detailed timetable can be found on the last page of this coursebook.

STRAND A – TECHNOLOGY WITHIN SOCIETY
Tuesdays 11-1, Room 410
Session overview
Week Date Topic Lecturer

1 6 Oct Arranging the Artefacts US+MMT
2 13 Oct Chaîne opératoire MMT
3 20 Oct Identifying Materials IF
4 27 Oct Assessing Assemblages PhD students
+MMT+US
5 3 Nov Innovation and change MMT
9-13 Nov Reading week
6 17 Nov Organisation of production IF
7 24 Nov Artefact use and meaning US
8 1 Dec Provenance and trade IF+US
9 8 Dec Discard and taphonomy US
10 15 Dec Spatial analysis AB
Key to lecturers:
AB Andrew Bevan, IF Ian Freestone, MMT Marcos Martinón-Torres, US Ulrike Sommer

Introductory reading
Basic texts and introductory reading

Appadurai, A. (ed.) 1986. The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH BD APP
Bentley, R. A., Maschner, H. D. G., Lanham, C. (eds) 2008. Handbook of archaeological theories.
Plymouth: AltaMira Press. INST ARCH AG BEN
Caple, C. 2006. Objects: reluctant witnesses to the past. Abingdon: Routledge. INST ARCH LA
CAP
Ewen, C. R. 2003. Artifacts. Archaeologist’s toolkit 4. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press. INST ARCH
AH EWE
Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: an archaeology of the relationships between humans and things.
Chichester, Wiley/Blackwell. INST ARCH BD HOD, DOI: 10.1002/9781118241912
Hurcombe, L. M. 2007. Archaeological artefacts as material culture. Abingdon: Routledge. INST

ARCH AH HUR
Jones, A. 2004. Archaeometry and materiality: Materials-based analysis in theory and practice.
Archaeometry 46(3), 327-338.
Kingery, D. W. (ed.) 1996. Learning from things: method and theory of material culture studies
Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. INST ARCH BD KINLatour, 1999, Pandora's hope:
essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. HISTORY OF
SCIENCE W 5 LAT, ANTHROPOLOGY D 6 LAT
Lemonnier, P. 1986. The study of material culture today: towards an anthropology of technical
systems. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5, 147-86.
Martinón-Torres, M. and Killick, D.C. in press. Archaeological theories and archaeological

sciences, in A. Gardner, M. Lake and U. Sommer (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Archaeological
Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online
Miller, H. M.-L. 2007. Archaeological approaches to technology. London and Amsterdam:

Elsevier/Academic Press. INST ARCH K MIL
Nanoglou, St. 2008. Qualities of humanness, material aspects of Greek Neolithic

anthropomorphic imagery. Journal of Material Culture 13/3, 311–334. INST ARCH PERS and
online
Orton, C., Tyers, P., Vince A. 1993. Pottery in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. INST ARCH KD 3 ORT
Schick, K. D., Toth, N. 1993. Making silent stones speak. Human evolution and the dawn of
technology. London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson. INST ARCH BC 120 SCH
Schiffer, M. B. 1999. The material life of human beings: artefacts, behavior, and communication.
London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD SCH
Sigaut, F. 1994. Technology. In: T. Ingold (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology.

Routledge, London, 420-459. ISSUE DESK IOA ING 2
Tilley, Ch. et al. (eds) 2006. Handbook of material culture. London: Sage. INST ARCH AH TIL
Thornton, Chr. P. 2009. Archaeometallurgy: Evidence of a paradigm shift? In: Kienlin, T. L.;
Roberts, B. W. (eds), Metals and societies. Studies in honour of Barbara S. Ottaway.
Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie 169, Bonn Habelt, 25-33. Inst Arch KEA
QTO KiE
General perspectives on material culture, mainly in a modern context

Boivin, N. 2008. Material cultures, material minds: the impact of things on human thought,
society, and evolution. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH AH BOI
Conneller, Ch. 2011. An archaeology of materials. Substantial transformations in early

prehistoric Europe. Abingdon, Routledge. INST ARCH DA 100 CON
Dant, T. 1999. Material culture in the social world : values, activities, lifestyles. Buckingham:
Open Univeristy Press. ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 DAN
Donald, M., Hurcombe, L. (eds) 2000. Gender and material culture in historical perspective.
Basingstoke, Macmillan. ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 DON
Henare, A., Holbraad, M., Wastell, S. (eds) 2007. Thinking through things: theorising artefacts
ethnographically. Abingdon: Routledge. ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 HEN
Hallam, E., Ingold, T. (eds), 2014. Making and Growing: Anthropological studies of organisms
and Artefacts. Farnham, Ashgate.
Lubar, St., Kingery, W. D. 1993. History from things: essays on material culture. Washington:
Smithsonian Institution Press. INST ARCH AH LUB and ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 LUB
Meskell, l. (ed.) 2006. Archaeologies of materiality. Oxford: Blackwell. INST ARCH AH MES and
ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 MES
Miller, D. (ed.) 2005. Materiality. Durham: Duke University Press. ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 MIL
Olsen, Bj. 2010. In defense of things: archaeology and the ontology of objects.
Lanham/Plymouth, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. INST ARCH AH OLS
Schiffer, M. B. 2011. Studying technological change: a behavioral approach. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press. INST ARCH AH SCH
If you have no previous background in archaeological theory, you may wish to attend (but not be
assessed for) the undergraduate course ARCL2058 Current issues in archaeological theory to
ensure that you have the background to get the most out of the seminars in this course.
1. Arranging the artefacts
Ulrike Sommer and Marcos Martinón-Torres

Introduction to the course (organisation and objectives). We will use a group of mundane
modern artefacts to consider distinctive traditions within artefact analysis with an emphasise on
how archaeological materials have been categorised (typologies, stylistic analysis, seriation,
technological studies, function, materials analysis, etc.).
What is an artefact? Some basic definitions and questions

Ingold, T. 2007. Materials against materiality. Archaeological Dialogues 14/1, 1-16. Online
Kopytoff, I. 1986. The cultural biology of things: Commoditization as process. In: Appadurai, A.
(ed.), The social life of things: commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press, 64-94. INST ARCH BD APP
Meskell, L. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt: Material Biographies past and present. Oxford,
Berg. EGYPTOLOGY B 20 MES; ANTHROPOLOGY D 9 MES
Meskell, L. 2005. Introduction, object orientations. In: Meskell, L. (ed.), Archaeologies of

materiality. Oxford, Blackwell, 1-17. INST ARCH AH MES; ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 MES; DOI:
10.1002/9780470774052.ch1
Olsen, B. 2010. In defense of things. Archaeology and the ontology of objects. Lanham, Altamira,
21-39. INST ARCH AH OLS
Essential reading on artefact classifications

Adams, W. Y. 1988. Archaeological classification: theory versus practice. Antiquity 62, 40-56.
Online
Hayden, B. 1984. Are emic types relevant to Archaeology? Ethnohistory 31/2, 79-92. Online
Sørensen, M. L. 2015. 'Paradigm lost' - on the state of typology within archaeological theory. In:
Kristiansen, K., Šmejda, L., Turek, J. (eds.), Paradigm found. Archaeological theory, present, past
and future. Essays in honour of Evzen Neústupny. Oxford, Oxbox, 84-94. On Order. Online via
Academia.edu
Further Reading
Adams, W. Y., Adams, E. W. 1991. Archaeological typology and practical reality: a dialectical
approach to artifact classification and sorting. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. INST
ARCH AH ADA
Barrett, J. C. 1991. Bronze Age Pottery and the problem of classification. In: J. Barrett, R.
Bradley, M. Hall (eds), Papers on the prehistoric archaeology of Cranborne Chase. Oxford:
Oxbow, 201-230. INST ARCH ISSUE DESK BAR 16
Biers, W. R. 1992. Art, artefacts and chronology in Classical Archaeology. London: Routledge.
INST ARCH AJ 10 BIE
Binford, L. R. 1962. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28/2, 217-25 INST ARCH
PERS and NET
Binford, L. R. 1968. Archaeological Perspectives. In: Binford, L. R., Binford, S. R. New perspectives
in archaeology. Chicago: Aldine, 5-32. INST ARCH 765
Bisson, M. S. 2000. Nineteenth century tools for twenty-first century archaeology? Why the
Middle Paleolithic typology of François Bordes must be replaced. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 7/1,1-48. Online
Buck, C. E., Millard, A. R. (eds) 2004. Tools for constructing chronologies: crossing disciplinary
boundaries. London: Springer.
Carver, M. O. H. 1985. Theory and Practice in Urban Pottery Seriation. Journal of Archaeological
Science 12: 353-66 INST ARCH Pers
Chapman, W. R. 1985. Arranging ethnology: A. H. L. F. Pitt Rivers and the typological tradition.
In: G. W. Stocking Jr. (ed.), Objects and Others, essays on museums and material culture. History
of Anthropology 3. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 15-48. INST ARCH 2195
Clarke, D. 1968. Analytical Archaeology London: Methuen (Chapter 4 Material Culture Systems;
Chapter 5 Artefact Types; Chapter 6 Assemblage and Culture) INST ARCH CLA 20
Cumberpatch, C. G. 1997. Towards a phenomenological approach to medieval pottery. In: C. G.

Cumberpatch, P. W. Blinkhorn (eds), Not so much a pot, more a way of life. Oxford: Oxbow. INST
ARCH KD Qto CUM
Dunnell, R. C. 1986. Methodological issues in American artifact classification. In M. B. Shiffer

(ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 9. New York, Academic Press, 149-207.
INST ARCH Pers
Hodder, I. 1992. The narrative and rhetoric of material culture sequences. World Archaeology
25/2, 268-281. INST ARCH Pers and NET
Kempton, W. 1981. The folk classification of ceramics: A study of cognitive prototypes. New
York: Academic Press. 680 E 115 KEM
Klejn, Leo S. 1982. Archaeological typology (trans. P. Dole). BAR International Series
153.Oxford, British ArchaologicalReports. INST ARCH AH Qto KLE
Margolis, E., Laurence, St. (eds.) 2007. Creations of the mind: theories of artifacts and their
representation. Oxford, Oxford University Press. MAIN PHILOSOPHY J 165 MAR A philosopher's
view
Miller, D. 1982. Artefacts as products of human categorisation processes. In I. Hodder (ed.),

Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 17-25. INST ARCH
HOD 12
Miller, D. 1985 Artefacts as categories: A study of ceramic variability in central India. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. ANTHROPOLOGY RA 82 MIL Chapter 1 at: INST ARCH 637
Plog, S. 1983. Analysis of style in artefacts. Annual Review of Anthropology 12: 125-142.
Plog, S., Hantman, J. L. 1990. Chronology construction and the study of prehistoric culture
change. Journal of Field Archaeology 17, 439-456. INST ARCH Pers.
Read, D. W. 2007. Artifact classification: a conceptual and methodological approach. Walnut

Creek: Left Coast Press. INST ARCH AH REA
Rice, P. M. 1976. Rethinking the ware concept. American Antiquity 41, 538-543 INST ARCH Pers.
Rowley-Conwy, P. 2007. From Genesis to prehistory: the Archaeological Three Age System and
its contested reception in Denmark, Britain, and Ireland. Oxford, Oxford University Press. INST
ARCH AG ROW
Sackett, J., 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 1, 59–112.
Schnapp, A. 2002. Between antiquarians and archaeologists – continuities and ruptures.

Antiquity 76: 134-140. INST ARCH Pers and online
Wendrich, W. 1999. The world according to basketry : an ethno-archaeological interpretation of

basketry production in Egypt Leiden, CNWS publications. INST ARCH KK WEN, Online
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n42w0rg Chapters 2 & 3.
Wheat, J. B. 1991. Ceramic classification: Bradfield and Shepard, types and varieties. In: R. L.
Bishop, F. W. Lange (eds.), The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard. Niwot: University Press of
Colorado, 121-131. INST ARCH 2211
White, J. P., D. H. Thomas 1972. What mean these stones? Ethno-taxonomic models and
archaeological interpretations in the New Guinea highlands. In: D. L. Clarke (ed.), Models in
archaeology London: Methuen, 275-308. INST ARCH AH CLA
Widemann, F. 1982. Why is Archaeometry so boring for archaeologists? In: J. S. Olin, A. D.

Franklin (eds.), Archaeological Ceramics. Washington D. C., Smithsonian Institue Press, 29-36.
INST ARCH KD 3 OLI
Wylie, A. 2002. The typology debate. In: Wylie, A, Thinking from things: Essays in the philosophy
of archaeology. Berkley: University of California Press. INST ARCH AH WYL
2. Chaîne opératoires and artefact life-histories
Marcos Martinón-Torres
Artefact life-histories can be studied as a process, investigating the changing composition,
morphology and meaning of artefacts from resource procurement through manufacture and
use to discard, or even beyond this stage. We will consider the concepts of chaîne opératoire
and artefact biography as analytical methods and interpretative theories.
Essential reading
Benco, N. L., Ettahiri, A., Loyet, M. 2002. Worked bone tools: linking metal artisans and animal
processors in medieval Islamic Morocco. Antiquity 76, 447-57. Online
Schlanger, N. 2005. The chaîne opératoire. In: C. Renfrew, P. Bahn (eds.), Archaeology, The key
concepts. London: Routledge. INST ARCH AG REN and online.
Sillar, B., Tite, M. 2000. The challenge of ‘technological choices’ for material science approaches
in archaeology. Archaeometry 42/1, 2-20. Online.
Further reading
Audouze, F. 2002. Leroi-Gourhan, a philosopher of technique and evolution. Journal of
Archaeological Research 10/4, 277-306. Online
Binford, L. 1983. In Pursuit of the past. London: Thames and Hudson. Chapter 6: Hunters in a
Landscape, 109-143. INST ARCH AH BIN also ISSUE DESK IOA BIN 4
Collins, M. B. 1975. Lithic technology as a means of processual inference. In: Swanson E. (ed.)
Lithic technology: Making and using stone tools. The Hague, Mouton, 15-34. INST ARCH KA 3
SWA
Crabtree, D. E. 1975. Comments on lithic technology and experimental archaeology In: Swanson
E. (ed.) Lithic technology: Making and using stone tools. The Hague: Mouton, 105-113. INST
ARCH KA SWA
David, N., Kramer C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
Chapter 6. INST ARCH AH DAV
DeMarrais, E., Castillo, L. J., Earle, T. 1996. Ideology, materialization, and power strategies.
Current Anthropology 37, 15-34. INST ARCH 1576
Dobres, M.-A. 1999. Technology’s Links and Chaînes: the processual unfolding of technique and
technician. In: M.-A. Dobres, Hoffman, C. R. (eds.), The social dynamics of technology: Practice,
politics, and world views. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press, 124-146. INST ARCH 2171
Gosden, C., Marshall, Y. 1999. The cultural biography of objects. World Archaeology 31/2, 169-
178. Online
Holtorf, C. 2002. Notes on the life history of a pot sherd. Journal of Material Culture 7/1, 49-71.
Online
Hoskins, J. 1998. Biographical Objects: How things tell the stories of people’s lives. London:
Routledge. INST ARCH DBNB HOS
Hurcombe, L. 2007. Plant processing for cordage and textiles using serrated flint edges: new
chaîbes operatoires suggested by ethnographic, archaeological and experimental evidence for
bast fibre processing. In: Beugnier, V., Crombé, Ph. (eds.), Plant processing form a prehistoric
and ethnographic perspective/Préhistoire et ethnographie du travail des plantes: proceedings of
a workshop at Ghent University (Belgium) November 28, 2006. BAR international series 1718.
Oxford: John & Erica Hedges, 41-66. INST ARCH KJ Qto BEU
Ingold, T. 1999. Tools for the hand, language for the face: An appreciation of Leroi-Gourhan's
Gesture and Speech. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 30,
411-453. Online
Jeffra, C. D. 2015. Experimental approaches to archaeological ceramics: unifying disparate

methodologies with the chaîne opératoire. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 7/1,
141-149. Online
Jennings, J., K. L., Antrobus, S. J., Atencio, E., Glavish, R. Johnson, G. Loffler, C. Luu 2005.
Drinking beer in a blissful mood: Alcohol production, operational chains, and feasting in the
Ancient World. Current Anthropology 46/2, 275-303. Online
Lemonnier, P. 1992. Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Ann Arbor, Michigan. INST
ARCH BD LEM
Lemonnier, P. (ed.) 1993. Technological choices: transformations in material cultures since the
Neolithic. London: Routledge. INST ARCH BD LEM
Lucas, G. 2005. The Archaeology of Time. London: Routledge. Case study: the life and times of a
Roman jar (Chapter 4.), 95-113. INST ARCH AH LUC, INST ARCH 3273
Meskell, L. 2004. Object worlds in Acient Egypt: Material biographies past and present. Berg:
Oxford.
Rye, O. S. 1981. Pottery technology; Principles and Reconstruction. Manuals on Archaeology 4.

Washington: Taraxacum. INST ARCH KD 1 RYE
Shanks, M. 1998. The life of an artefact in an interpretive archaeology. Fennoscandia

Archaeologica 15, 15-30.
Schiffer, M. B. 1975. Behavioural Chain Analysis: Activities, organization, and the use of space.
Fieldania 65, 103-174 (reprinted in M. B. Schiffer 1995, Behavioral Archaeology: first principles.
Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 55-66.). INST ARCH 2172
Schlanger, N. 1994. Mindful technology: unleashing the chaîne opératoire for an archaeology of
mind. In: C. Renfrew, E. Zubrow (eds), The Ancient Mind: elements for cognitive archaeology
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 143-151. INST ARCH AH REN
Schlanger, N., Sinclair, A. (eds.) 1990. Technology in the Humanities. Archaeological Review from
Cambridge 9/1, INST ARCH 2194, INST ARCH Pers, especially: Ingold, T. Society, nature and the
concept of technology, 5-17, Cresswell, R., 'A New Technology' revisited, 39-54, Edmonds, M.,
Description, understanding and the chaîne opératoire, 55-70, Pigeot, N., Flintknapping
specialists and apprentices at Magdalenian Etiolles, 126-41.
Skibo, J. M., Schiffer, M. B. 2001. Understanding artifact variability and change: a behavioral
framework. In M. B. Schiffer (ed), Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press, 139-149. INST ARCH K Qto SCH, INST ARCH 3302
Vidale, M. 1998. Operational sequences beyond linearity. In S. Milliken, M. Vidale (eds.), Craft
Specialization: Operational Sequences and Beyond. BAR International Series 720. Oxford,
Archaeopress, 179-184. INST ARCH DA Qto EUR
3. The nature and identification of archaeological materials
Ian Freestone
All artefacts are influenced by the physical properties of the organic and inorganic materials
used as raw materials and tools. This in turn affects how they are valued, their methods of
acquisition, the management of the resource base, and the environmental impact of different
procurement strategies. Before we can address any of these interesting issues, we need to be
able to identify these materials and to understand the properties that make them useful under
particular circumstances.
Key reference
Rapp, G. 2009. Archaeomineralogy. Berlin, Springer Verlag.
Other useful sources

Ashurst J. A. and Dimes F. G. 1990. Conservation of Building and Decorative Stone. Volume 1.
London, Butterworth Heinemann. Contains very good introductory chapters to the main stone
classes.
Bachmann H.-G. 1982. The identification of slags from archaeological sites. London, Institute of
Archaeology (old, black and white but there is not much out there)
Bayley J., Dungworth D. G. and Paynter S. 2001. Archaeometallurgy. Swindon, English Heritage:
Centre for Archaeology Guidelines.
Biek L. and Bayley J. 1979. Glass and other vitreous materials. World Archaeology 11, 2 - 25.
[Valuable for its discussion of oddities such as vitrified clay, fuel ash slag, lead windows melted
in fires etc. Just when you think you have seen everything…..]
Freestone I. and Gaimster D. 1997. Pottery in the Making: World Ceramic Traditions. London,
BMP. [The materials of all of the main ceramic groups, including glazed wares, are discussed.]
Gleba, M. 2008. Textile production in pre-Roman Italy. Oxford, Oxbow Books. Only one specific
area, but the book gives you an idea of the indirect evidence for organic materials no longer
present. INST ARCH KJ GLE
Hurcombe, L. M. 2007. Archaeological artefacts as material culture. Abingdon: Routledge. INST

ARCH AH HUR
Orton C, Tyers P and Vince A. 2013. Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge, CUP (2nd edition)
Paynter S. and Dungworth D. G. 2011. Archaeological Evidence for Glassworking. English

Heritage: Centre for Archaeology Guidelines.
Thomson, R., Mould, Q. 2011. Leather tanneries : the archaeological evidence. London,
Archetype. INST ARCH KI THO
Tomber R. and Dore J. 1998. The National Roman Fabric Reference Collection: A Handbook.
London: MoLAS [see the colour photos at the back of the book for a good overview of pottery
fabrics and what they look like].
Also check the reading lists for other materials-based courses, for example
 Archaeological ceramic analysis (ARCLG114)
 Archaeological glass and glazes (ARCLG111)
 Archaemetallurgy 2: Metallic Artefacts (ARCLG109)
 Archaeometallurgy I: mining and extractive metallurgy (ARCLG108)
* Interpreting Pottery (ARCLG112)
* Lithic Analysis (ARCLG113)
* the undergraduate course on Organic Materials (ARCL 2041)
Web resources – the useful ones are mainly on minerals and stone:
BGS Rock Classification Scheme. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/bgsrcs/ (for those who want to get their
stone classification right. Geological knowledge essential to find your way through these four
downloadable volumes).
James Harrel’s Web pages on Egyptian stone:

http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Harrell/Egypt/AGRG_Home.html
Harrel J. A. 2012. Utilitarian Stones. UCLA Encyclopaedia of Egyptology

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/77t294df#page-1
Harrel J. A. 2012. Building stones. UCLA Encyclopaedia of Egyptology.

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3fd124g0?query=building%20stones#page-1
There are lots of websites with basic classification schemes for rocks. Wikipedia seems
reasonable on this, but should not be taken as definitive without cross-reference to peer-
reviewed sources.
Pigments Through the Ages. http://www.webexhibits.org/pigments/
Minerals. www.mindat.org lots of information about and photos of mineral species.

4. Assessing assemblages
Research students
Most of our work is based on the study of assemblages of some kind. The questions and
answers we may pose are partly dependant on our ability to recognise their potentials and
limitations. Different materials, theories and research problems lead to a variety of sampling
and methodological issues. Some of these are specific to individual material categories, whereas
others are relevant to any archaeological assemblage.
This will be an eminently hands-on session, where you will have the opportunity to handle and
assess a range of archaeological assemblages related to stone, ceramic, metal and glass
covering a wide range of chronologies and world regions. The actual researchers currently
studying those assemblages will be at hand to explain and discuss their own approaches to the
materials, from the initial assessment through research design and practice.
Introductory reading on glass

Freestone, I., 2008. Pliny on Roman glassmaking. In Martinón-Torres, M. and Rehren Th. (eds.)
Archaeology, history and science: integrating approaches to ancient materials, Left Coast Press,
77-100
Freestone, I., Hughes, M., and Stapleton, C 2008. The composition and production of Anglo-
Saxon glass’, in Evison, V Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Glass in the British Museum. London: British
Museum, 29-46
Paynter, S and Dungworth, D. 2011. Archaeological Evidence for Glassworking. Guidelines for
Best Practice. English Heritage.
Price, J. and Cottam, S. 1998. Romano-British Glass Vessels: A Handbook. York: CBA
Introductory reading on textiles

Andersson Strand, E., Gleba, M., Mannering, U., Nosch, M.-L.B., & Skals, I. 2010. Old Textiles -
New Possibilities. European Journal of Archaeology, August, (13) 149-173.
Barber, E.J.W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles; the development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze
Age with special reference to the Aegean. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
This is a classic text, outdated in places but still provides an excellent overview.
Bender Jørgensen, L. 1992. North European textiles until AD 1000 Aarhus, Aarhus University
Press. One of the first systematic, large scale analyses in Europe.
Gleba, M. & Mannering, U. 2012. Textiles and Textile Production in Europe: From Prehistory to
AD 400. Oxford, Oxbow. Good for updated regional overviews.
Harris, S. 2010, "Smooth and Cool, or Warm and Soft; Investigating the Properties of Cloth in
Prehistory," In North European Symposium for Archaeological Textiles X, vol. 5 E. Andersson
Strand et al., eds., Oxford: Oxbow Books, pp. 104-1.
Introductory reading on ceramics

Chapman, J. 2006. Dark burnished ware as sign: ethnicity, aesthetics and categories in the later
Neolithic of the central Balkans. In: Tasiš, N. and Grozdanov, C. (eds.) Homage to Milutin
Garašanin, 295-308. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Macedonian Academy
of Sciences and Arts.
Maniatis, Y. and Tite, M. S. 1981. Technological Examination of Neolithic Bronze-Age Pottery

from Central and Southeast Europe and from the near-East. Journal of Archaeological Science 8,
59-76
Orton C., Hughes M. 2013. Pottery in Archaeology. Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Quinn, P. S. 2013. Ceramic Petrography. The interpretation of Archaeological Pottery and

Related Artefacts in Thin Section. Oxford: Archeopress.
Introductory reading on metals

Bachmann, H., 1982. The identification of slags from archaeological sites. London: Institute of
Archaeology. How archaeometallurgists approach the technical study of slag.
Bayley, J., Dungworth, D. and Paynter, S. 2001. Centre for Archaeology Guidelines:
Archaeometallurgy. English Heritage. Excellent basic introduction, available online.
Bayley, J., Crossley, D. and Ponting, M. 2008. Metals and metalworking. A research framework for
archaeometallurgy. London: Historical Metallurgy Society INST ARCH KEA Qto BAY, ISSUE DESK
IOA BAY 2, or online at: http://hist-met.org/arch_comm.html
Craddock, P. T. 1995. Early metal mining and production. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
INST ARCH KE CRA, ISSUE DESK IOA CRA 6
Roberts, W. B. and Thornton, C. P. 2014 (eds). Archaeometallurgy in Global Perspective:

Methods and Syntheses. New York: Springer. Online
Introductory reading on flint

Andrefsky, W. 2005. Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.
Mesoudi, A. 2011. Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and
Synthesise the Social Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CHAPTERS 2 & 3
Schick, K. D. & Toth, N. 1993. Making Silent Stones Speak: Human Evolution and the Dawn of
Technology. London: Phoenix. Especially the Acheulean handaxe chapter.
Whitaker, J. C. 1994. Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. Austin, Tx:
University of Texas Press.
5. Innovation, mass production and technological change
Much archaeological work is devoted to documenting and explaining artefact variability. In this
session we will discuss approaches to the study of changes in technology and material culture,
with special emphasis on topical issues such as experimentation, invention and innovation.
Essential reading
Eerkens, J. W., C. P. Lipo 2005. Cultural transmission, copying errors, and the generation of
variation in material culture and the archaeological record. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 24, 316–334. Online
Hayden, B. 1998. Practical and prestige technologies: the evolution of material systems. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory 5/1, 1-55. Online
Martinón-Torres, M., Uribe-Villegas, M.A. 2015. Technology and culture in the invention of lost-
wax casting in South America: An archaeometric and ethnoarchaeological perspective.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 25 (1), 377-390. Online
Further reading
Bailey, G. 1981. Concepts, time-scales and explanations in economic prehistory. In A. Sheridan,
G. Bailey (eds), Economic archaeology. British Archaeological Reports international series 96,
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 97-117. INST ARCH AH SHE
Barnett, W. K., J. W. Hoopes 1995. The emergence of pottery: Technology and innovation in
ancient societies. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. INST ARCH BC 100 BAR
Basalla, G. 1988. The evolution of technology. Cambridge history of Science Series, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. HISTORY OF SCIENCE V 5.2 BAS
Bayley, J., 1996. Innovation in later medieval urban metalworking. Historical Metallurgy 30, 67-
71. INST ARCH Pers
Blackman, M. J., Stein, G. J., Vandiver, P. B. 1993. The standardization hypothesis and ceramic
mass production: Technological, compositional, and metric indices of craft specialization at Tell
Leilan, Syria. American Antiquity 58/1, 60-80. Online
Charlton, M. F., Crew, P., Rehren, Th. and Shennan, S. J. 2010. Explaining the evolution of
ironmaking recipes – An example from northwest Wales. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
29, 352-367. INST ARCH Pers
Costin, C., Earle, T., Owen, B., Russell G. 1989. The impact of the Inca conquest on local
technology in the upper Mantaro Valley, Peru. In: S. E. Van der Leeuw, R. Torrence (eds.), Whats
new? London: Unwin Hyman, 107-139. INST ARCH BC 100 LEE
Crossley, D.W., 1998. The English glassmaker and his search for materials in the 16th and 17th
centuries. In: McCray, P (ed) The prehistory and history of glassmaking technology, Westerville:
Ohio, American Ceramic Society, 167-179. ISSUE DESK IOA MCC
Fitzhugh, B. 2001. Risk and invention in human technological evolution. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 20, 125-167. Online
Hayden, B. 1998. Practical and prestige technologies: the evolution of material systems. Journal
of Archaeological Method and Theory 5/1, 1-55. Online
Henderson J., K. Challis, S. O’Hara, S. McLoughlin, A. Gardner, G. Priestnall 2005. Experiment

and innovation: early Islamic industry at al-Raqqa, Syria. Antiquity 79, 130-145. INST ARCH Pers.
Online
Humphris J. Martinon-Torres M., Rehren Th. And Reid A. 2009. Variability in single smelting
episodes – a pilot study using iron slag from Uganda. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 359-
369. Online
Knecht, H. 1991. The role of innovation in changing Early Upper Paleolithic organic projectile
technologies. Techniques et Culture 17–18, 115–144.
Lechtman, H. 1984. Andean value systems and the development of prehistoric metallurgy.
Technology and Culture 25, 1-36.INST ARCH PERS
Lesick, K. et al. (eds) 2002. Eureka: the archaeology of innovation and science. Calgary:
Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. INST ARCH AH LES
Loney, H. L. 2000. Society and technological control: a critical review of models of technological
change in ceramic studies. American Antiquity 65/4, 646-668 and responses American Antiquity
66/4, 726-741. NET
Martinón-Torres, M. 2012. Inside Solomon’s House: An Archaeological Study of the Old

Ashmolean Chymical Laboratory in Oxford. Ambix 59/1, 22-48. Online.
Martinón-Torres, M., Rehren, Th. 2009. Post-medieval crucible productionand distribution: a

study of materials and materialities. Archaeometry 51/1, 49-74. Online
Mellars, P. 1989. Technological changes across the Middle-upper Palaeolithic transition:

economic, social and cognitive perspectives. In: P. Mellars, C. Stringer (eds), The Human
Revolution. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 338-365. INST ARCH BB 1 MEL
Moorey, P. R. S. 2001. The mobility of artisans and opportunities for technology transfer
between Western Asia and Egypt in the Late Bronze Age. In: A. J. Shortland (ed.), The social
context of technological change: Egypt and the Near East, 1650-1550 B. C. Oxford: Oxbow, 1-14.
INST ARCH DBA 100 SHO
Nelson, M. C. 1991. The study of technological organization. Journal of Archaeological Method

and Theory 3, 57-100. Online
O'Brien, M. J., T. D. Holland, R. J. Hoard, G. L. Fox (1994). Evolutionary implications of design and
performance characteristics of prehistoric pottery. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 1, 259-304. IoA Pers.
Raymond, R. 1986. Out of the fiery furnace: the impact of metals on the history of mankind.
University Park/London: Pennsylvania State Uinersity Press. INST ARCH KEA Qto RAY
Rehder, J. E. 1994. Blowpipes versus bellows in ancient metallurgy. Journal of Field Archaeology
21, 345-350. INST ARCH Pers. Online
Rehren, Th. and Martinón-Torres, M. 2008. Naturam ars imitata: European brassmaking
between craft and science. In Martinón-Torres, M., Rehren, Th. (eds) Archaeology, History and
Science: Integrating Approaches to Ancient Materials, (UCL Institute of Archaeology
Publications). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 167-188. INST ARCH AJ MAR and ISSUE DESK IOA
MAR 9
Rehren, Th., Pusch, E., Herold, A. 1998. Glass coloring works within a copper-centered industrial
complex in Late Bronze Age Egypt. In: D. Kingery, P. McCray (eds), The prehistory and history of
glassmaking technology. Ceramics and Civilization VIII, Westerville: American Ceramic Society,
227-250. ISSUE DESK IOA MCC
Roberts, B. W. and Radivojevic, M. 2015. Invention as a process: pyrotechnologies in early

societies. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25 (1), 299-306. See also other papers in the Special
Section of this journal issue on ‘Invention as a Process’. Online
Roux, V. 2003. Ceramic standardization and intensity of production: Quantifying degrees of

specialization. American Antiquity 68, 768-782. Online
Roux, V. 2010. Technological innovations and developmental trajectories: social factors as

evolutionary forces, in: O’Brien, M.J., Shennan, S.J. (Eds.), Innovations in cultural systems:
contributions from evolutionary anthropology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 217-234.
Schiffer, M. B. 2001. The explanation of long-term technological change. In: M. B. Schiffer (ed.),
Anthropological perspectives on technology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 215-
235. INST ARCH K Qto SCH
Schiffer, M. B. 2005. The Devil is in the Details: the Cascade Model of Invention Processes.
American Antiquity 70/3:485-502.
Schiffer, M. B. 2011. Studying technological change: a behavioral approach. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press. INST ARCH AH SCH
Shennan, S. J., J. R. Wilkinson 2001. Ceramic style change and neutral evolution: A case study
from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66/4, 577-593. Online
Shennan, S. 2002. Genes, memes and human history: Darwinian archaeology and cultural
evolution. London: Thames & Hudson. INST ARCH BB 1 SHE
Shennan, S. 2013. Lont-term trajectories of technological change, in: Richerson, P.J.,

Christiansen, M.H. (Eds.), Cultural evolution: Society, technology, language and religion.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, pp. 143-155.
Shortland, A. J. 2004. Hopeful monsters? Invention and innovation in the archaeological record.
In J. Bourriau, J. Phillips (eds), Invention and innovation: the social context of technological
change 2: Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East 1650-1150 BC. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1-11. INST
ARCH DBA 1000 BOU
van der Leeuw S. E., R. Torrence (eds.) 1989 What’s new? A closer look at the process of
innovation. London: Unwin Hyman. INST ARCH BC 100 LEE.
van der Leeuw, S. E., Papousek, D. A., Coudart, A. 1991. Technical traditions and unquestioned
assumptions: the case of pottery in Michoacan. Techniques et Culture 17/18, 145-173. INST
ARCH PERS
Wengrow, D. 2001. The evolution of simplicity: Aesthetic labour and social change in the
Neolithic Near East. World Archaeology 33/2, 168-188. INST ARCH Pers. Online
6. The organisation of production
Ian Freestone
What can we learn about past societies from the nature and organization of production? We
will consider examples of craft specialization and mass production in various technologies.
Essential reading
Costin, C. L. 1991. Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Documenting, and Explaining the
Organization of Production. In Archaeological Method and Theory, 3. Michael B. Schiffer, ed.,
pp. 1-56. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Peacock D. P. S. 1982. Towards a model for Roman pottery studies. Chapter 2 in D.P.S.
Peacock, Pottery in the Roman World - an Ethnoarchaeological Approach, pp. 6-11.
Spielmann K A 2002. Feasting, craft specialisation and the ritual mode of production in small-
scale societies. American Anthropologist 104, 195-207.
Further reading
Blackman, M. James, Gil J. Stein, and Pamela B. Vandiver 1993. The standardization hypothesis
and ceramic mass production: technological, compositional, and metric indexes of craft
specialization at Tell Leilan, Syria. American Antiquity 58(1):60–80.
Burri E 2007. Production and use: temper as a marker of domestic production in the case of two
middle Neolithic villages in Concise (VD, CH). In Waksman S. Y. (ed.) Archaeometric and
Archaeological Approaches to Ceramics. BAR Internat Ser. 1691, pp. 33-39
Castano R. A. 2009. Ceramics on the side: pottery making as an augmentation of household

economy in the Valley of Puebla during the Formative Period. Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association 19, 133-147.
Costin, C.L. 2000. The use of ethnoarchaeology for the archaeological study of ceramic
production. Journal of archaeological method and theory, 7(4), 377-403.
Freestone, I. 2006. Glass production in Late Antiquity and the Early Islamic period: a
geochemical perspective. In Maggetti, Marino and Messiga, Bruno (eds) Geomaterials in
cultural heritage, London: The Geological Society, 201-216
Freestone, I. 2008. Pliny on Roman glassmaking. In Martinón-Torres, M. and Rehren Th. (eds.)
Archaeology, history and science : integrating approaches to ancient materials, Left Coast Press,
77-100
Freestone, I., Price, J. and Cartwright, C. 2009. The batch: its recognition and significance,
Annales 17th Congress AIHV 130-135
Freestone, I.C. and Gaimster, D. (eds). 1997. Pottery in the Making: World Ceramic Traditions,
London: BMP; Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Haines H. R., Feinman G. M. and L. M. Nicholas 2004. Household economic specialisation and
social differentiation: The stone tool assemblage at El Palmillo, Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica
15, 251-266.
Henderson, J., S. McLoughlin & D. McPhail. 2004. Radical changes in Islamic glass technology:
evidence for conservatism and experimentation with new glass recipes from early and middle
Islamic Raqqa, Syria. Archaeometry 46 (3): 439-68.
Henderson, J. et al., 2005. Experiment and innovation: early Islamic industry at al-Raqqa, Syria.
Antiquity, 79, 2005, pages 130-145.
Hodder, Ian, "Changing entanglement and temporalities" in Changing materialities at

Çatalhöyük : reports from the 1995-99 seasons by Hodder, Ian, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, 2005, pages 1-22.
Humphris J. Martinon-Torres M., Rehren Th. And Reid A. 2009. Variability in single smelting
episodes – a pilot study using iron slag from Uganda. Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 359-
369.
Li, X.J., Bevan, A., Martinon-Torres, M., Rehren, T., Cao, W., Xia, Y., Zhao, K. 2014. Crossbows
and imperial craft organisation: the bronze triggers of China's Terracotta Army. Antiquity 88
126-140.
Martinón-Torres, M., Li, X. J., Bevan, A., Zhao, Y. and Rehren, Th. 2014. Forty-thousand arrows
for a single emperor: from chemical data to labour organisation in the production of bronze
arrows for the Terracotta Army. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 21, 534-562.
Peacock, D. P. S, 1992. Rome in the desert: a symbol of power, University of Southampton.
Poblome J., Degryse P., Viaene W., Ottenburges R., Waelkens M., Degeest R. and Naud J., 2002.
The concept of a pottery production centre. An archaeometrical contribution from ancient
Sagalassos. Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 873-882.
Rehren, Th. et al., "Glass coloring works within a copper-centered industrial complex in Late
Bronze Age Egypt" in The prehistory and history of glassmaking technology by McCray, Patrick,
American Ceramic Society, 227-250
Rehren, Th., Pusch, E., Herold, A. 2001. Qantir-Piramesses and the organisation of the Egyptian
glass industry. In: A. Shortland (ed.), The social context of technological change. Oxford: Oxbow,
223-238. INST ARCH DBA 100 SHO, ISSUE DESK IOA SHO
Rehren, Th. and Martinón-Torres, M. 2008. Naturam ars imitata: European brassmaking
between craft and science. In Martinón-Torres, M., Rehren, Th. (eds) Archaeology, History and
Science: Integrating Approaches to Ancient Materials, (UCL Institute of Archaeology
Publications). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 167-188. INST ARCH AJ MAR and ISSUE DESK IOA
MAR 9
Rice P.M. 1981. Evolution of specialised pottery production: a trial model. Current
Anthropology 22, 219-240.
Rice P.M. 1996. Recent ceramic analysis: composition, production and theory. Journal of
Archaeological Research 4, 165-202.
Rice P. M. 2009. Late Maya pottery production: review and synthesis. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 16, 117-156.
Roux, V., 2003. Ceramic standardization and intensity of production: quantifying degrees of
specialization. American antiquity, 68(4), 768-782
Shennan, S. 1999. Cost, benefit and value in the organization of early European copper
production. Antiquity 73:352-363
Shortland A. J. 2000. The number extent and distribution of the vitreous materials workshops
at Amarna. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 19, 115-134.
Shortland A. J., Nicholson P. and Jackson C. 2001. Glass and faience at Amarna: different
methods of both supply for production and subsequent distribution. In A. J. Shortland (ed) The
social context of technological change : Egypt and the Near East, 1650-1550 B.C.: proceedings of
a conference held at St Edmund Hall, Oxford, 12-14 September 2000. Oxford: Oxbow.
7. Use and meaning of artefacts
Ulrike Sommer
Artefacts have a specific function. This is often determined by analogy to more recent objects.
The spatial context of objects can also provide information’s about their use. Since the 1950s,
use-wear has also been used to elucidate the purpose of objects.
Artefacts can also carry meaning, as "symbols of power" or as mnemonic objects. Styles of
decoration or production can express identity. Often, different types of pottery have been used
as ethnic markers. Certain artefacts are routinely identified as "status symbols", others are
assumed to have a religious significance. Recently, gender identity has become a fashionable
topic. Can archaeologists approach the question of the meaning of prehistoric artefacts, and if
so, how?
Essential reading
Jones, S. 2007. Nations, cultures and types: dismantling archaeological discourses of the
Orcadian Neolithic and beyond. In: Rieckhoff, S., Sommer, U. (eds), Auf der Suche nach
Identitäten: Volk - Stamm - Kultur - Ethnos. Internationale Tagung der Universität Leipzig vom
8.-9. Dezember 2000. British Archaeological Reports 1705. Archaeopress, Oxford, 81-92. INST
ARCH DA Qto RIE
Sørensen, M. L. 2014. The archaeological culture concept: Hot or cold understandings. In:
Alexandersson, H., Andreeff, A. Bünz, A. (eds.), Med hjärta och hjärna: En vänbok till professor
Elisabeth Arwill-Nordbladh. GOTARC Series A, Gothenburg Archaeological Studies 5. Göteborg,
Göteborgs Universitet, 247-258.
Use and use-wear

Dolfini, A. 2011. The function of Chalcolithic metalwork in Italy: an assessment based on use-
wear analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 38/5, 1037-1049. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2010.11.025
Gramsch, A. (ed.) 2000. Vergleichen als historische Methode. Analogien in den Archäologien.
BAR International Series 825. Oxford, Archaeopress.
Goodale, N., Heather, O., Andrefsky Jr., W., Kuijt, I., Finlayson, B., Bart, K. 2010. Sickle blade life-
history and the transition to agriculture: an early Neolithic case study from Southwest Asia.
Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 1192-1201. See also criticism by Stemp et al. 2011 and
reply by authors
Ickerodt, U. F 2010. Einführung in das Grundproblem des archäologisch-kulturhistorischen

Vergleichens und Deutens: Analogien-Bildung in der archäologischen Forschung. Frankfurt, Peter
Lang.
Jones, B. A. 1989. Use-Wear analysis of White Mountain redwares at Grasshopper Pueblo,

Arizona. Kiva 54/4, 353-360
Lemorini, C., Cesaro St. N. (eds.) 2014. An integration of the use-wear and residue analysis for
the identification of the function of archaeological stone tools: proceedings of the international
workshop, Rome, March 5th-7th, 2012. BAR International Series 2649. Oxford, Archaeopress.
INST ARCH KA Qto LEM
Longo, L., Skakun, N. N. (eds.) 2008. "Prehistoric Technology" 40 years later: Functional studies
and the Russian legacy. Congress "Prehistoric technology 40 years later", Verona 2005. BAR
international Series 1783. Oxford, Archaeopress. INST ARCH K Qto LON
López Varela, S. N. 2002, De-mystifying pottery production in the Maya Lowlands: Detection of
traces of use-wear on pottery sherds through microscopic analysis and experimental replication.
Journal of Archaeological Science 29, 1133–1147. doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0760
Manuel Marreiros, J., Gibaja Bao, J. F., Ferreira Bicho, N. 2014. Use-wear and residue analysis in
archaeology. New York, Springer.
van Gijn, A. 2010. Flint in focus: lithic biographies in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Leiden,
Sidestone Press
van Gijn, A., Whittaker, J., Anderson, P. A. (eds) 2014. Explaining and exploring diversity in
agricultural technology. Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST ARCH HA Qto GIJ
Skibo, J. M, 1992. Pottery function, a use-alteration perspective. New York, Plenum. INST ARCH
KD SKI
Artefact meaning and value

Carmen, J. 1990. Commodities, rubbish and treasure: valuing archaeological objects.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 9, 195-207. INST ARCH PERS
Cochrane, E. E., Gardner, A. (eds.) 2011. Evolutionary and interpretive archaeologies: a dialogue.
Walnut Creek, West Coast. INST ARCH AH COC
Fernández Götz, M. 2008. La construcción arqueológica de la etnicidad. Noia: Toxosoutos.

STORE 13-0110/31
Jones, A. 2007. Memory and material culture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. INST
ARCH DAA 100 JON
Jones, S. 1997. The archaeology of ethnicity. Constructing identities in the past and present.
London, Routledge. INST ARCH BD JON
Larick, R. 1986. Age grading and ethnicity in the style of Loikop (Samburu) spears. World
Archaeology 18, 1986, 269–283. ONLINE
Lillios, K. T., Vasileios, T. (eds.) 2010. Material Mnemonics. Every day memory in prehistoric
Europe. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
Lucy, S., Díaz-Andreu, M., Babić, St. (eds) 2005. Archaeology of Identity. Approaches to gender,
age, status, ethnicity and religion. London, Routledge. INST ARCH AH DIA
Olivier, L. 1999. The Hochdorf ‘princely’ grave and the question of the nature of archaeological
funerary assemblages. In: T. Murray (ed.), Time and archaeology. London, Routledge, 109-138.
INST ARCH BD MUR
Olivier, L. 2011. The dark abyss of time: archaeology and memory. Lanham, AltaMira Press (Paris
2008). INST ARCH AH OLI
Parkinson, W. A. 2006. Tribal boundaries: Stylistic variability and social boundary maintenance
during the transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 25/1, 33-58. On-line
Porr, M. 2010. Palaeolithic art as cultural memory: a case study of the Aurignacian art of
Southwest Germany. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 20/1, 87–108. ONLINE
Sackett, J. R. 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 1/1, 59-112.
Shennan, S. J., Wilkinson, J. R. 2001. Ceramic style change and neutral evolution: A case study
from Neolithic Europe. American Antiquity 66/4, 2001, 577-593. ONLINE
Sørensen, M. L. 2000. Gender Archaeology. Cambridge, Polity Press. INST ARCH BD 20 SOR
Tehrani, J., Collard, M. 2002. Investigating cultural evolution through biological phylogenetic
analyses of Turkmen textiles. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21, 2002, 443–463.
ONLINE
van Dyke, R. M., Alcock, S. E. (eds.) 2003. Archaeologies of memory. Malden, Blackwell.
Wobst, H. M. 1977. Stylistic behaviour and information exchange. In: C. Cleland (ed.), Papers for
the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan,
Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers 61, 317-342.
Woodward, A. 2002. Beads and beakers: heirlooms and relics in the British Early Bronze Age.
Antiquity 76, 2002, 1040-1047. ONLINE
8. Discard and taphonomy
Ulrike Sommer
Artefacts can enter the archaeological record as the result of a conscious act like burial,
deposition(positive selection) or after being discarded as rubbish (negative selection). In the
lecture, I will discuss which cultural and natural factors influence the composition of
archaeological assemblages over time. Is the ideal archaeological site frozen in time? What is
the relation between an archaeological site and a "living" community?
Essential Reading
Beck, M. E. 2006. Midden ceramic assemblage formation: a case study from Kalinga, Philippines.
American Antiquity 71/1, 27-51. INST ARCH Pers and ONLINE
Hardy-Smith, T., Edwards, P. C. 2004. The garbage crisis in prehistory: artefact discard patterns
at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origins of household refuse disposal
strategies. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23, 253-289. INST ARCH Pers. Online
Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation processes of the archaeological record. Albuquerque: University

of New Mexico Press, 1-23. INST ARCH SCH 6 and ISSUE DESK
Further reading
Binford, L. R. 1981. Behavioral archaeology and the 'Pompeii premise'. Journal of
Anthropological Research 37, 195-208. NET
Bradley, R. 1982. The destruction of wealth in later prehistory. Man 17, 108-22. INST ARCH 1047
Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in archaeology: people, places, and broken objects in the
prehistory of south-eastern Europe. London, Routledge. INST ARCH DAR CHA
Chapman, J. 2004. Spondylus bracelets: fragmentation and enchainment in the East Balkan
Neolithic and Copper Age. In: Slavchev, V. (ed.), Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Habil. Henrieta
Todorova. Dobrudzha 21, 63-87. ON ORDER
Chapman, J. C., Gaydarska, B. I. 2007. Parts and wholes. Fragmentation in prehistoric context.
Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST ARCH DAR CHA
Deal, M. 1985. Household pottery disposal in the Maya highlands, an ethnoarchaeological

interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4, 243-291. INST ARCH Pers
Deal, M., Hagstrum, M. B. 1995. Ceramic reuse behavior among the Maya and Wanka:
Implications for Archaeology. In: J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, A. E. Nielsen (eds.), Expanding
archaeology. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 111-125. INST ARCH AH SKI
Hayden, B., A. Cannon 1983. Where the garbage goes: Refuse disposal in the Maya highlands.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 117-163. NET
Hill, J. D. 1995. Ritual and Rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex BAR 242, Oxford. INST ARCH DAA
Qto Series BRI 242
Hutson, S. R., Stanton, T. W. 2007. Cultural logic and practical reason: the structure of discard in
ancient Maya households. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17/2, 123-144. On-Line
LeeDecker, Ch. H. 1994. Discard behavior on domestic historic sites: evaluation of contexts for
the interpretation of household consumption patterns. Journal of Archaeological Method and
Theory 1/4, 345-375. ONLINE
*Martin, L., Russell, N. 2000. Trashing rubbish. In I. Hodder (ed.), Towards a reflexive method in
archaeology: the example at Çatalhöyük. Cambridge, McDonald Institute, 57-71. INST ARCH DBC
10 HOD
Moore, H. L. 1986. Space, text and gender. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Ch. 6.
ANTHROPOLOGY QQ 215 MOO
Patrik, L. 1985. Is there an archaeological record? In M. Schiffer (ed.), Advances in

archaeological method and theory 8. New York, Academic Press, 27-62. Online
Pounds, N. J. G. 1989, Hearth and home: a history of material culture. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press. ANTHROPOLOGY C 9 POU
Schiffer, M. B. 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37, 156-
65. NET
Schiffer, M. B. 1987. Formation processes of the archaeological record. Albuquerque: University

of New Mexico Press. INST ARCH AH SCH
Schofield, A. J. (ed.) 1991. Interpreting artefact scatters: contributions to ploughzone

archaeology. Oxford, Oxbow Books. INST ARCH AH SCH
Shott, M. 1998. Status and role of formation theory in contemporary archaeological practice.
Journal of Archaeological Research 6/4, 299-329. INST ARCH Pers
Sommer, U. 1990. Dirt theory, or archaeological sites seen as rubbish heaps. Journal of
Theoretical Archaeology 1, 47-60. INST ARCH Pers
Sommer, U. 2012.Wer hat Dornröschen aufgeweckt? Taphonomie und Mainstream-

Archäologie. In: Thomas Link und Dirk Schimmelpfennig (eds.), Taphonomie (nicht nur) im
Neolithikum.Fokus Jungsteinzeit. Berichte der AG Neolithikum 3. Kerpen-Loogh, Welt und Erde,
15–34.Staski, E., Sutro, L. D. (eds.) 1991. The ethnoarchaeology of refuse disposal.
Anthropological Research Papers 42. Tempe, Arizona State University. INST ARCH BD STA
Thompson, M. 1979. Rubbish Theory: The creation and destruction of value. Oxford, Oxford
University Press. INST ARCH AH THO
Walker, W. 1995. Ceremonial trash. In J. M. Skibo, W. H. Walker, A. E. Nielsen (eds.), Expanding

archaeology. Salt Lake City, University of Utah Press, 67-79. INST ARCH AH SKI
Wilson, D. C. 1994. Identification and assessment of secondary refuse aggregates. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 1/1, 41-68. INST ARCH Pers
9. Provenance, trade and exchange
Ian Freestone and Ulrike Sommer

The mechanisms of pre-capitalist trade and exchange have been debated since the 18th century.
Trade was seen as a motor for the spread of new ideas and techniques. The distribution of
artefacts from different sources can also indicate the movement of people. How do
archaeologists study distribution patterns and interpret past trade and exchange systems in
relation to social hierarchies and regional economies? What is the value of raw material
sourcing?
Essential Reading
Trade and exchange
Appadurai, A. 1986. Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In: A. Appadurai (ed.),
The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, 3-63. INST ARCH BD APP
Earle, T. 2010. Exchange systems in prehistory. In C. D. Dillian and C. L. White (eds.), Trade and
Exchange: Archaeological Studies from History and Prehistory. New York: Springer, 195-204. I
NST ARCH HE DIL
Sahlins, M. 1974. Stone Age economics. London, Tavistock, chapter 5, On the sociology of
primitive exchange. INST ARCH BD SAH
Determining source and provenance

Hughes, M. 1991. Tracing to source. In: Bowman, S. (ed.), Science and The Past. London, British
Museum Press, 99-116. INST ARCH AJ BOW, ISSUE DESK IOA BOW
Wilson, L., Pollard, A. M. 2001. The provenance hypothesis. In: D. R. Brothwell, Pollard, A. M.
(eds.), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Chichester, John Wiley, 507-517. INST ARCH AJ
BRO, ISSUE DESK IOA BRO 15
Tykot, R. H. 2004. Archaeological provenance studies. In: Martini, A., M., Milazzo, Piacentini, M.
(eds.), Physics Methods in Archaeometry. Amsterdam; Oxford, IOS Press, 407-432.
Further Reading
Theory
*Bauer, A. A., Agbe-Davies, A. S. 2010. Rethinking trade as a social activity: An introduction. In:
Bauer, A. A., Agbe-Davies, A. S. (eds.), Social archaeologies of trade and exchange: exploring
relationships among people, places, and things. Walnut Creek, Left Coast Press, 13-28.
Academia.edu
Crump, T. 1981. The phenomenon of money. London, Boston and Henley, Routledge and Kegan
Paul. ANTHROPOLOGY D 220 CRU
Dalton, G. 1969. Theoretical issues in economic anthropology. Current Anthropology 10/1, 63-
102. ONLINE
Dowling, J. H. 1979. The Good Fellows vs. the Dalton Gang: The assumption of economic
anthropology. Journal of Anthropological Research 35/3, 292-308. INST ARCH PERS
Earle, T. 1999. Production and exchange in prehistory. In: G. Barker (ed.), Companion
Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London, Routledge, 608-635. INST ARCH AH BAR
Gregory, C. 1989. Gifts to men and gifts to god: gift exchange and capital accumulation in
contemporary Papua. Man 15, 628-52. ANTHROPOLOGY Pers.
Gregory, C. 2002. Exchange and reciprocity. In: T. Ingold (ed.), Companion Encyclopedia of
Anthropology. London, Routledge, 911-933. INST ARCH BD ING
Mauss, M. 1990. The gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. Routledge,
London. [1950] INST ARCH BD MAU
Polanyi, K., Arensberg, K. M., Pearson, H. W. (eds.) 1957. Trade and Market in the Early Empires.
Glencoe, Free Press. ANCIENT HISTORY A 68 POL
Renfrew, C. 1975. Trade as action at a distance. Questions of integration and communication.

In: J. A. Sabloff, C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (eds.), Ancient civilisations and trade. Albuquerque,
University of New Mexico, 3-59. INST ARCH BC 100 SAB
Smith, M. L. 1999. The role of ordinary goods in premodern exchange. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 6/2, 109-135. INST ARCH Pers
Weiner, A. 1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of keeping-while-giving. Berkeley,

University of California Press. INST ARCH DD WEI
Case studies
Adams, N. K. 2007. Political affinities and economic fluctuations: the evidence from textiles. In:
Gillis, C., M.-L. Nosch (eds), Ancient textiles: production, craft and society. Proceedings of the
first international Conference on ancient Textiles, held at Lund, Sweden, and Copenhagen,
Denmark, March 19-23, 2003. Oxford, Oxbow Books, 201-207. INST ARCH KJ GIL
Textiles from Qasr Ibrim, Egypt.
Bamforth, D. B., P. C. Woodman 2004. Tool hoards and Neolithic use of the landscape in North-
Eastern Ireland. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23/1, 21-44. INST ARCH PERS
Barrett, J. C., Needham, S. P. 1988. Production, circulation and exchange: problems in the
interpretation of Bronze Age bronzework. In: J. C. Barrett, I. A. Kinnes (eds), The archaeology of
context in the Neolithic and Bronze Age. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 127-140. INST
ARCH AH Qto BAR
Bell, C. 2005. Wheels within wheels? A view of Mycenaen trade from the Levantine emporia. In:
R. Laffineur, E. Greco (eds), Emporia: Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Liège:
Université de Liège, 363-370. Issue Desk INST ARCH LAF 9
Bradley, R., M. Edmonds 1993. Interpreting the axe trade. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press. INST ARCH DAA 140 BRA
especially chapter 1, Neolithic Britain and the study of exchange systems, pp. 1-58.
Clough, T. and W. A. Cummins (eds), 1988. Stone axe studies, vol. 2. London, CBA. INST ARCH
DAA Qto Series COU 67
Cooney, G., Mandal, St. 1998. The Irish Stone Axe Project, Monograph 1. Bray: Wordwell. INST
ARCH KA COO
Cochrane, E. E., Neff. H. 2006. Investigating compositional diversity among Fijian ceramics with
laser Ablation-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS): Implications for
interaction studies on geologically similar islands. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 378-390.
On-line
Crawford, M. H. 1985. Coinage and money under the Roman Republic. London, Methuen. YATES
QUARTOS R 30 CRA
Creighton, J. 2000. Coins and power in Late Iron Age Britain. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press, especially Chapter 2. INST ARCH DAA 160 CRE
Dietler, M. 1999. Rituals of commensality and the politics of state formation in the "Princely"
societies of Early Iron Age Europe. In: P. Ruby (ed.), Les princes de la Protohistoire et
l'émergence de l'état. Naples: Cahiers du Centre Jean Bérard, Institut Français de Naples 17 -
Collection de l'École Française de Rome 252, 135-152. INST ARCH DA Qto RUB
Dietler, M. 2010. Archaeologies of Colonialism: Consumption, Entanglement, and Violence in

Ancient Mediterranean France. Berkeley, University of California Press. INST ARCH DAC 100 DIE
On the role of imported luxury items in the late Iron Age
Dillian, C. D., White, C. L. (eds). 2010. Trade and Exchange: Archaeological Studies from History
and Prehistory. New York, Springer.
Edmonds, M. 1995. Stone tools and society: working stone in Neolithic and Bronze Age Britain.
London, Batsford, Chapter 3. INST ARCH DAA 100 EDM
Frankenstein, S., Rowlands, M. 1978. The Internal Structure and regional Context of Early Iron
Age Society in South-Western Germany. Bulletin Institute of Archaeology 15, 1978, 73-113.
Reprinted in: Kristiansen, K., Rowlands, M. (eds) 1998. Social Transformations in Archaeology -
Global and local Perspectives. London, Routledge. INST ARCH PERS, INST ARCH BD KRI
Grierson, Ph. 1967. Commerce in the Dark Ages: a critique of the evidence. Transactions of the
Royal Historical Society 9, 123-140. HISTORY Pers
Hirth, K. G. 1996. Political economy and archaeology: perspectives on exchange and production.
Journal of Archaeological Research 4/3, 203-239. NET
Hodder, I. 1974. Regression analysis of some trade and marketing patterns. World Archaeology
6/2, 172-189. INST ARCH Pers.
Hodder, I., Orton, C. 1976. Spatial analysis in archaeology. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press. INST ARCH AK 20 HOD
Howgego, C. J. 1992. The supply and use of money in the Roman world. Journal of Roman
Studies 82, 1–31. INST ARCH Pers
Lo Cascio, E. 1996. How did the Romans view their coinage and its function? In: C. E. King, D. G.
Wigg (eds), Coin finds and coin use in the Roman World. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann, 273-287. INST
ARCH KM KIN.
Minc, L. D. 2006. Monitoring regional market systems in prehistory: Models, methods, and
metrics. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25/1, 82-116. On-line
Needham, S. 1993. Displacement and exchange in archaeological methodology. In: C. Scarre, F.

Healy (eds), Trade and exchange in prehistoric Europe. Oxbow Monograph 33, Oxford, Oxbow,
161-9. INST ARCH HE SCA
Parkinson, W. A. 2006. Tribal boundaries: Stylistic variability and social boundary maintenance
during the transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 25/1, 33-58. On-line
Peacock, D. P. S., Williams, D. F. 1986. Amphorae and the Roman economy; an introductory
guide. London, Longman. YATES P 70 PEA
Perlès, C. 1992. Systems of exchange and organization of production in Neolithic Greece.

Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 5/2, 115-164. INST ARCH PERS
Schwartz, M., Hollander, D., Stein, G. 1999. Reconstructing Mesopotamian exchange networks
in the 4th millennium BC: Geochemical and archaeological analyses of bitumen artifacts from
Hacinebi, Turkey. Paléorient 25, 67–82. Online
Shennan, S. 1993. Commodities, transactions and growth in the Central European Early Bronze
Age. European Journal of Archaeology 1/2, 59-72. INST ARCH Pers.
Sherratt, S. 1999. Epur si muove: Pots, markets, and values in the second-millennium
Mediterranean. In J. P. Crielaard, V. Stissi, G. J. van Wijngaarden (eds), The complex past of
pottery: Production, circulation, and consumption of Mycenaean and Greek pottery. Amsterdam,
Gieben, 163-211. YATES P 6 CRI
Sherratt, A. G., Sherratt, E. S. 1991. From luxuries to commodities: The nature of Mediterranean
Bronze Age trading systems. In Gale, N. (ed.), Bronze Age trade in the Mediterranean. Jonsered,
Paul Åström, 351-386. ISSUE DESK IOA STU 90
Sillar, B. 1997. Reputable pots and disreputable potters: Individual and community choice in
present-day pottery production and exchange in the Andes. In C. G. Cumberpatch, P. W.
Blinkhorn (eds), Not so much a pot, more a way of life. Current approaches to artefact analysis
in archaeology. Monograph 83, Oxford, Oxbow, 1-20. INST ARCH KD Qto CUM
van der Leuw, S. 1999. Some notes from the potter's point of view. In J. P. Crielaard, V. Stissi, G.
J. van Wijngaarden (eds), The complex past of pottery: Production, circulation, and consumption
of Mycenaean and Greek pottery. Amsterdam: Gieben, 115-132. YATES P 6 CRI
Wolf, G. 1999. World-systems analysis and the Roman empire. Journal of Roman Archaeology 3,
44-58. INST ARCH Pers
Further Reading – provenance

These references are for guidance, should you decide to include a provenance element to your
Strand C project
Lithics
European flint sources http://www.flintsource.net/
Obsidian sources http://www.obsidianlab.com/sourcecatalog/s_home.html
Freund K P (2013) An assessment of the current applications and future directions of obsidian
sourcing studies in archaeological research. Archaeometry 55/5, 779-793 Gratuze, B. (1999)
Obsidian Characterization by Laser Ablation ICP-MS and its Application to Prehistoric Trade in
the Mediterranean and the Near East: Sources and Distribution of Obsidian within the Aegean
and Anatolia, Journal of Archaeological Science, 26, 869-881
Herz, N. (2001) Sourcing lithic artefacts by instrumental analysis. In Goldberg P, Holliday V T

and Ferring C R Earth Sciences and Archaeology New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum pp 449-
472.
Huckell, Bruce, J. David Kilby, Matthew T. Boulanger & Michael D. Glascock (2011)
Sentinel Butte: neutron activation analysis of White River Group chert from a primary source
and artifacts from a Clovis cache in North Dakota, USA. Journal of Archaeological Science, 38(5):
965-976.
Maniatis Y (2004) Scientific techniques and methodologies for the provenance of white marble.
Pp 179-202 in Martini A., M. Milazzo and M. Piacentini (2004) Physics methods in archaeometry.
Amsterdam; Oxford : IOS Press.
Renfrew, C., Dixon, J.E. and Cann, J.R. (1966) Obsidian and early cultural contact in the Near
East, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 32, 30-72. (**see also: Pollard, A. M. and C. Heron
(1996). Archaeological Chemistry. Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry. 1st edition; also
2nd edition 2008.)
Smith M E, Burke A L, Hare T S, Glascock M D (2007) Sources of imported obsidian at Postclassic

sites in the Yautepec Valley. Latin American Antiquity 7, 21-39.
Thorpe, R.S., Williams-Thorpe, O., Jenkins, D.G. and Watson, J.S. (1991) The geological sources
and transport of the bluestones of Stonehenge, Wiltshire, U.K. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society, 57, 103-157.
Ceramics
Blomster J P, Neff H, Glascock M (2005) Olmec pottery production and export in ancient Mexico
through elemental analysis. Science 307, 1068-1072
Day P.M., Kiriatzi E., Tsolakidou A. and Kilikoglou V. (1999) Group therapy in Crete: A
comparison between analyses by NAA and thin section petrography of Early Minoan pottery.
Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 1025-1036.
Freestone, I.C. (1995) Ceramic Petrography, American Journal of Archaeology, 99, 111-115
Morris E. L. & Woodward A (2003) Ceramic petrology and prehistoric pottery in the UK
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 69, 279-304.
Peacock, D.P.S. (1969) Neolithic pottery production in Cornwall, Antiquity, 43, 145-149.
Metals
Gale N H (2009) A response to the paper of A M Pollard. In Mine to Microscope (A J Shortland, I
C Freestone and Th. Rehren, eds.). Oxbow, pp. 191-196.
Gale, N. and Stos-Gale, Z. (2000). Lead isotope analyses applied to provenance studies. In
Modern Analytical methods in Art and Archaeology. Eds. E. Ciliberto and G. Spoto. Chemical
Analyses Series, Vol. 155. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Chapter 17, 503-584.
Guerra, M. F., T. Calligaro, A. Perea (2007) The treasure of Guarrazar: tracing the gold supplies
in the Visigothic Iberian peninsula. Archaeometry 49 (1), 53–74.
Krause, R. (2003), Studien zur kupfer- und frühbronzezeitlichen Metallurgie zwischen

Karpatenbecken und Ostsee. Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf. INST ARCH DA Qto KRA [With Database on
European Copper-sources.]
Pernicka E (2004) Archaeometallurgy: examples of the application of scientific methods to the

provenance of archaeological metal objects. In Martini A., M. Milazzo and M. Piacentini Physics
methods in archaeometry Amsterdam; Oxford : IOS Press. p 309-329
Pollard A M (2009) What a long, strange trip it’s been: lead isotopes and archaeology. In Mine to
Microscope (A J Shortland, I C Freestone and Th. Rehren, eds.). Oxbow, pp. 181-189.
Stos-Gale Z A (2009) Across the wine dark seas…. sailor tinkers and royal cargoes in the late
Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. In Mine to Microscope (A J Shortland, I C Freestone and Th.
Rehren, eds.). Oxbow, pp. 163-180
Other materials
Calligaro T, Dran J-C, Poirot J-P, Querre G, Saloman T and Zwaan J C (2000) PIXE/PIGE
characterisation of emeralds using an external micro-beam. Nuclear Instruments and Methods
in Physics Research B 161-163, 769-774
Calligaro T., Colinart S. Poirot J.-P., Sudres C. (2002) Combined external-beam PIXE and l-
Raman characterisation of garnets used in Merovingian jewellery. Nuclear Instruments and
Methods in Physics Research B 189, 320–327
Gratuze B and Janssens K (2004) Provenance analysis of glass artefacts. Pp. 663-712 In Janssens
K., R. Van Grieken (2004) Non-destructive microanalysis of cultural heritage materials.
Popelka-Filcoff, Rachel S., Elizabeth J. Miksa, J. David Robertson, Michael D. Glascock, & Henry
Wallace (2008) Elemental analysis and characterization of ochre sources from southern Arizona.
Journal of Archaeological Science 35(3): 752–762.
Robertshaw, Peter, Marilee Wood, Erik Melchiorre, Rachel S. Popelka-Filcoff & Michael D.
Glascock (2010) Southern African glass beads: chemistry, glass sources and patterns of trade.
Journal of Archaeological Science, 37(8): 1898–1912.
Schwartz, M., Hollander, D., Stein, G. (1999). Reconstructing Mesopotamian exchange networks
in the 4th millennium BC: Geochemical and archaeological analyses of bitumen artifacts from
Hacinebi, Turkey. Paléorient 25: 67–82. Online
Weigand, P. C., Harbottle, G., and Sayre, E., (1977) Turquoise sources and source analysis:
Mesoamerica and the southwestern USA, in Exchange systems in prehistory, studies in
archaeology (eds. T. K. Earle and J. E. Ericson), 15–34, Academic Press, New York. – Classic
paper first states the “Provenience Postulate”
10. The spatial analysis of artefact distributions
Andrew Bevan
The artefacts that we discover and study as archaeologists constitute a static, very partial and
imperfectly-recovered record of past human activity, but one that despite these limitations
often exhibits interesting spatial patterns, across an excavation, throughout a landscape or over
entire countries or continents. The challenge thus becomes how we extract further
understanding from this spatial context, for example, about the past intentions, behaviours and
wider processes that were originally behind what we find deposited in the ground. In this
regard, theoretical, computational and statistical approaches to spatial analysis can be very
helpful, offering us insights into artefact production, distribution and consumption in the past as
well artefact survival up to the present day.
Essential reading
Benito-Calvo, A. and I. de la Torre 2011. Analysis of orientation patterns in Olduvai Bed I
assemblages using GIS techniques: Implications for site formation processes, Journal of Human
Evolution 61: 50-60. Online.
Bevan, A. 2012. Spatial methods for analysing large-scale artefact inventories, Antiquity 86.332:
492-506. Online.
Martinón-Torres, M. Li, X., Bevan, A., Xia, Y., Kun, Z. and T. Rehren 2011. Making weapons for
the Terracotta Army, Archaeology International 13-14: 65-67. Online.
Tilley, C., Hamilton, S., Harrison, S. and E. Anderson 2000. Nature, culture, clitter: distinguishing
between cultural and geomorphological landscapes: the case of hilltop tors in south-west
England, Journal of Material Culture 5: 197-224. Online.
Further reading
Bevan, A., Conolly, J. 2013. Mediterranean islands, fragile communities and persistent
landscapes: Antikythera in long-term perspective. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. INST
ARCH DAG 10 BEV
Blankholm, H. P. 1991. Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Theory and Practice, Aarhus: Aarhus
University Press. INST ARCH AK 10 BLA.
Brughmans T. 2010: Connecting the dots: towards archaeological network analysis. Oxford
Journal of Archaeology 29.3: 277-303. Online.
Hietala, H. 1984. Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. INST ARCH BC 100 Qto HIE
Hodder, I. and C. Orton 1976. Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. INST ARCH AK 20 HOD.
Katsianis, M., Tsipidis, S., Kotsakis, K. and A. Kousoulakou 2008. A 3D digital workflow for
archaeological intra-site research using GIS, Journal of Archaeological Science 35: 655-667.
Online.
Kroll, E. and T.D. Price (eds.) 1991. The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, New
York: Plenum INST ARCH AH KRO.
Livingood, P. C. and Cordell, A. S. 2009. Point/counter point: the accuracy and feasibility of
digital image techniques of ceramic thin sections. Journal of Archaeological Science 36: 867-872.
Online
Vanzetti, A., Vidale, M., Gallinaro, M., Frayer, D.W. and L. Bondioli 2010. The iceman as a burial,
Antiquity 84: 681—692.
STRAND B – RESEARCH DESIGN AND MATERIALS ANALYSIS
Wednesday 9-11, Room B13
Session overview
WEEK DATE STRAND B LECTURES PRACTICALS SAME WEEK

1 7 Oct Issues in archaeomaterials (MMT)
14 Oct Atoms, molecules and crystal structures
2
(IF)
21 Oct Materials and analytical techniques
3 Lab: conduct and safety (AB)
(MMT)
28 Oct Microscopy and microanalysis: SEM-EDS
4 and WD-EPMA. Compound Lab: XRF and pXRF (PQ)
identification: FTIR, XRD and Raman (IF)
5 4 Nov Bulk chemical analysis: XRF and ICP (IF) Lab: SEM-EDS (IF, AB)
9-13 Nov READING WEEK
18 Nov Sampling and selection of techniques
6 Lab: FTIR and XRD (AB)
(MMT)
25 Nov Lab: sample preparation (AB,
7 Data quality (IF)
PQ)
2 Dec Lab: sample preparation (AB,
8 Data processing: statistics (MC)
PQ)
9 Dec Data presentation and interpretation Start labwork for assessment
9
(MMT) 4
10 16 Dec Report and publication (IF, MMT)
Key to lecturers:
AB Agnese Benzonelli, MC Michael Charlton, IF Ian Freestone, MMT Marcos Martinón-Torres,

PQ Patrick Quinn,
Introductory reading
There is an increasing number of handbooks of archaeological science. Some are organised in

chapters by analytical techniques (e.g. microscopy, chemical analysis…), and others are
organised by material (e.g. metals, ceramics…). Either way, they are useful introductions and
starting points. You are strongly encouraged to read some of these as the course progresses,
and before you start using the instruments yourself.
In addition to the books listed below, you will find relevant case studies, depending on your
material or instrument of interest, by searching in the following essential resources:
Journals (all available online through UCL Library Services):

Archaeometry
Journal of Archaeological Science
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
The British Museum Technical Research Bulletin, available on

http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/publications/online_journals/technical_research_bulle
tin.aspx
Art and Archaeology Technical Abstracts (AATA), available on http://aata.getty.edu/NPS
Published proceedings of the following conferences:

International Symposium on Archaeometry
UK Archaeological Science
Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology
Some handbooks, introductory papers and collections of case studies:

Archaeometry 49/2 (2007). Special issue devoted to Neutron Activation Analysis in Archaeology.
INST ARCH Pers
Archaeometry 50/2 and 50/6 50th anniversary issues with good review papers on a number of
topics, including artefact analysis INST ARCH Pers
Artioli, G. 2010. Scientific Methods and Cultural Heritage: An Introduction to the Application of
Materials Science to Archaeometry and Conservation Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
INST ARCH LA ART
Bowman, S. (ed), 1991. Science and the Past. London: British Museum Press. INST ARCH AJ BOW
[increasingly out of date, but the book remains one of the nicest and most accessible
introductions to the analysis of archaeological materials – if you can find a second-hand copy,
buy it!]
Brothwell, D. R. and Pollard, A. M. (eds), 2001. Handbook of Archaeological Sciences. Chichester,

New York, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. INST ARCH AJ BRO
Demortier, G. and Adriaens, A. (eds), 2000. Ion beam study of art and archaeological objects. A
contribution by members of the COST G1 Action. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities. INST ARCH LA Qto DEM
Dran J. C. et al, 2004. Ion beam analysis of art works: 14 years of use in the Louvre. Nuclear
Instruments & Methods In Physics Research Section B-beam Interactio, 219, 7-15.
Ciliberto, E. and Spoto, G. (eds), 2000. Modern Analytical Methods in Art and Archaeology.
(Chemical Analysis, 155). New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: Wiley-
Interscience. INST ARCH JDD CIL
Edwards, H. G. M. and Chalmers, J. M. 2005. Raman spectroscopy in archaeology and art

history. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry INST ARCH JKB EDW
Giumlia-Mair A. et al., 2010. Surface characterisation techniques in the study and conservation
of art and archaeological artefacts: a review. Materials technology 25(5), 345-261.
Goffer, Z. 2007. Archaeological chemistry. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley INST ARCH JD GOF, ISSUE DESK
IOA JD GOF
Henderson, J. (ed), 1989. Scientific Analysis in Archaeology and its Interpretation. (Monograph
19; Archaeological Research Tools 5). Oxford and Los Angeles: Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology and UCLA Institute of Archaeology INST ARCH AJ HEN
Henderson, J. 2000. The science and archaeology of materials: an investigation of inorganic

materials. London: Routledge. INST ARCH JDA HEN, ISSUE DESK IOA HEN 11
Janssens, K. and van Grieken, R. E. (eds), 2004. Non-destructive Microanalysis of Cultural

Heritage Materials. (Wilson & Wilson's Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, XLII). Amsterdam,
Boston, Heidelberg, London, New York, Oxford, Paris, San Diego, San Francisco, Singapore,
Sydney, Tokio: Elsevier. INST ARCH JDD JAN
Lambert, J. B., 1997. Traces of the Past: Unraveling the Secrets of Archaeology Through
Chemisty. Reading (Mass.): Helix Books and Addison-Wesley. INST ARCH JD LAM
Martini, A., Milazzo, M. and Piacentini, M. 2004. Physics methods in Archaeometry. Amsterdam;
Oxford: IOS Press. INST ARCH AJ MAR
Martinón-Torres, M. and Rehren, Th. (eds) 2008. Archaeology, History and Science: Integrating
Approaches to Ancient Materials. (UCL Institute of Archaeology Publications). Walnut Creek, CA:
Left Coast Press INST ARCH AJ MAR, ISSUE DESK IOA MAR 9
Moreau, J.F., Auger, R., Chabot, J. and Herzog, A. (eds), 2009. Proceedings of the 36th
International Symposium on Archaeometry, April 2006, Quebec (Les cahiers d'archeologie du
CELAT, 25; Series Archeometrie, 7), Quebec: Universite Laval. INST ARCH AJ MOR
National Academy of Sciences, 2005. Scientific examination of art: modern techniques in

conservation and analysis (Arthur M. Sackler Colloquia of the National Academy of Sciences).
Washington, DC: National Academies Press. INST ARCH KN 1 NAT
Nesse, W. D. 2004. Introduction to optical mineralogy, 3rd edn. New York; Oxford: Oxford
University Press. GEOLOGY D32 NES
Olsen, S. L. (ed) 1988. Scanning electron microscopy in archaeology. (BAR International Series
452). Oxford: BAR. INST ARCH AJ 10 Qto OLS
Parkes, P. A. 1986. Current scientific techniques in archaeology. London: Croom Helm. INST
ARCH AJ PAR
Pérez-Arantegui, J. (ed), 2006. Proceedings of the 34th International Symposium on

Archaeometry, Zaragoza, 3-7 May 2004. Zaragoza: Institución Fernando el Católico.
http://ifc.dpz.es/publicaciones/ebooks/id/2610
Pollard, A. M. and Heron, C. 1996. Archaeological Chemistry. (RSC Paperbacks). Cambridge:

Royal Society of Chemistry. INST ARCH JD POL
Pollard, A. M., Batt, C. M., Stern, B. and Young, S. M. M. 2007, Analytical Chemistry in
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press INST ARCH JDD POL
Shackley, M. S. (ed), 2011. X-Ray Flourescence Spectrometry in Archaeology. New York: Springer
[mostly focused on lithic materials, but it also includes a good generic introduction to the basics
of XRF in archaeology, available here.]
Torrence, R., Rehren, T., Martinon-Torres, M. (eds.), 2015. Scoping the Future of Archaeological
Science: Papers in Honour of Richard Klein. Journal of Archaeological Science 56, special issue. [a
recent compilation of papers reviewing recent research, suggesting best practice strategies and
outlining future challenges for archaeological science in a wide range of subfields]
Uda, M., Demortier, G. and Nakai, I. 2005. International Symposium on X-ray Archaeometry
(Tokyo, Japan). Dordrecht: Springer. INST ARCH JM UDA
Non-destructive analysis and testing of museum objects: An overview of 5 years of research.

Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy, 2005, Vol.60(12), pp.1503-1516. (a lot of
interesting papers in the bibliography).
1. Introduction to the course. Current issues in archaeomaterials
Why are we here? Introduction to the structure, aims and methods of this part of the course.
The role of the finds specialist and the materials scientist in museums, archaeological units and
universities.
What do we want to know? What’s the point of doing analyses? Current research topics,
problems and potentials. “Possible” vs “impossible” research questions. Material-oriented vs
question-oriented research. Characterisation vs interpretation.
Raw materials, debris, semi-finished items and artefacts. Technological studies and their
informative potential.
Reading
All of the papers below address interesting debates about the relationships between
archaeology and materials science. For those less familiar with archaeological science, you may
find Tite’s paper a simple and succint introduction to the typical questions and approaches. This
can be followed by Sillar and Tite’s paper. You can also have a look at Martinón-Torres and
Killick’s recent paper, which challenges archaeologists to learn more science.
De Atley, S. P. and Bishop, R. L., 1991. Toward an Integrated Interface for Archaeology and
Archaeometry, in R. L. Bishop and F. W. Lange (eds), The Ceramic Legacy of Anna O. Shepard,
358-381. Niwot: University Press of Colorado. INST ARCH KD 3 BIS
Hamilton, E., 2004. The Four Scales of Technical Analysis; or, How to Make Archaeometry More
Useful, in J. R. Mathieu and R. E. Scott (eds), Exploring the Role of Analytical Scale in
Archaeological Interpretation, 45-48. (BAR International Series 1261). Oxford: Archaeopress.
INST ARCH AH Qto MAT
Killick, D. and Young, S. M. M. 1997. Archaeology and archaeometry: from casual dating to a
meaningful relationship? Antiquity 71 (273): 518-524. INST ARCH Pers
Killick, D. 2015. The awkward adolescence of archaeological science. Journal of Archaeological

Science 56: 242-247. INST ARCH Pers
Jones, A. 2001. Archaeological Theory and Scientific Practice. (Topics in Contemporary

Archaeology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH AJ 10 JON
Jones, A. 2004. Archaeometry and materiality: materials-based analysis in theory and practice.
Archaeometry 46: 327-338. INST ARCH Pers
Martinón-Torres, M. 2008. Why should archaeologists take history and science seriously? in M.
Martinón-Torres and Th. Rehren (eds), Archaeology, History and Science: Integrating
Approaches to Ancient Materials, 15-36 (UCL Institute of Archaeology Publications). Walnut
Creek CA: Left Coast Press. INST ARCH AJ MAR, ISSUE DESK IOA MAR 9
Martinón-Torres, M. and Killick, D.C. in press. Archaeological theories and archaeological

sciences, in A. Gardner, M. Lake and U. Sommer (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Archaeological
Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online
Rehren, Th., Pusch, E. & Herold, A., 2001 Qantir-Piramesses and the organisation of the Egyptian
glass industry. In: A. Shortland (ed) The Social Context of Technological Change Oxford: Oxbow
Books, 223-238. INST ARCH DBA 100 SHO
Sillar, B. and Tite, M. S. 2000. The challenge of the 'technological choices' for materials science
approaches in archaeology, Archaeometry 42: 2-20. INST ARCH Pers
Tite, M. S., 2001. Overview - Materials Study in Archaeology, in D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard
(eds), Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, 443-448. Chichester, New York, Weinheim,
Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. INST ARCH JD POL
2. The nature and identification of materials. Atoms, molecules and

crystal structures
Ian Freestone
We will be looking at the fundamental structures of materials, using simple, descriptive models.
This will include a look at individual atoms and their various components; isotopes; the periodic
table of elements; different bonding models to form molecules; valencies and stoichiometry;
alloys and solid solutions; from molecules to crystal structures; and how various aspects of this
are being exploited for analytical purposes.
Learning objectives:
The amount of physics and chemistry that you need for this course is actually quite limited.
However, it is crucial that you understand these very basics so that we have a solid foundation
to build on. If any of the above terms is unclear, please seek clarification!
Reading
Any basic textbook on inorganic chemistry can give you the relevant background for this. And
you can also try the Internet! I have provided in Moodle a link to a simple introduction to atoms
and molecules, but many other similar introductions are available.
3. Materials and analytical techniques: an overview
In this session we will provide an overview of the main categories of archaeological materials
and the most important analytical techniques. We will discuss the suitability of different
techniques for different materials and questions.
The main purpose of this session is not to learn by heart all the fancy acronyms. You will be
familiarising yourself with them as we go along. More important than that is to have a general
understanding of the following:
 spectrometry/spectroscopy: interactions between radiation and matter
 the difference between an excitation source and a detector
 three main types of detectors: MS, EDS, WDS
Reading
You will find introductions to the different instruments in the general handbooks given in the
introductory reading (top block of the Moodle page), as well as excellent tutorials online (google
by yourself!). These introductions, and not the papers below, should be your starting points if
you are new to the analytical techniques.
4. Bulk chemical analysis: X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and

inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)
Ian Freestone
Applications of bulk chemical analyses in archaeometry. Uses of major, minor and trace
elements. Foundations of XRF and ICP and a comparison between both methods, including
sampling requirements, pros and cons.
From now onwards, your practical training with the analytical instruments will start. Most of
your training with bulk analysis will take place at the Institute's XRF. However, it is important to
be aware that other techniques of bulk chemical analyses are available, each of them with their
advantages and limitations.
It is very helpful to have some idea of what goes on inside the XRF instrument before you start
your practical training - make sure you refresh your basic knowledge before turning up at the
lab!
Reading
There are no specific readings for this session. With the handouts and online tutorials available
through Moodle you should have enough to get started. If you would like to find examples of
specific applications of these instruments in archaeometric studies, just go to the journals
Archaeometry or Journal of Archaeological Science, and search by keyword.
The paper below is pointed out here because it covers quite succintly the applications of
chemical analyses in archaeological materials.
Hancock, R. G. V., 2000. Elemental analysis, in E. Ciliberto and G. Spoto (eds), Modern Analytical
Methods in Art and Archaeology, 11-20. New York, Chichester, Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore,
Toronto: Wiley-Interscience. INST ARCH JDD CIL
Specifically on XRF, a good introduction to fundamentals and application can be found in the
following, available online here
Shackley, M. S. 2011. An introduction to X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis in archaeology, in M.

S. Shackley (ed), X-Ray Flourescence Spectrometry in Archaeology. New York: Springer.
Portable XRF
Below, a few introductory references on portable XRF, a relatively new technique that is
increasingly available and offers great potential – but also many risks. This list is not
comprehensive but it provides some basic foundations and examples of use. Some of the
references, particularly are not strictly concerned with portable XRF but with the more
traditional stationary XRF. However, they are included here because the applications and
problems are very similar.
General introduction to XRF

Shackley, M. S. 2011. An introduction to X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis in archaeology, in M.
S. Shackley (ed), X-Ray Flourescence Spectrometry in Archaeology. New York: Springer.
Conrey, G. M., Goodman-Elgar, M., Bettencourt, N., Seyfarth, A., Van Hoose, A., Wolff, J.A.
2014. Calibration of a portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer in the analysis of archaeological
samples using influence coefficients. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment, Analysis 14(3),
291-301.
General articles and collections

Frahm, E. and Doonan, R. C. P. 2013. The technological versus methodological revolution of
portable XRF in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2: 1425–1434.
Shackley, M. S. 2010. Is there reliability and vailidity in portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry
(PXRF)? The SAA Archaeological Record, November 2010, 17-20.
Shackley, M. S. 2012. Portable X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (pXRF): The Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly. Archaeology Southwest Magazine 26, 2.
Shugar, A. N. and Mass, J. L. (eds) 2012. Handheld XRF for Art and Archaeology. Leuven
University Press, Studies in Archaeological Sciences.
Shugar, A. N. 2013. Portable X-ray Fluorescence and Archaeology: Limitations of the Instrument
and Suggested Methods To Achieve Desired Results. Archaeological Chemistry VIII, 173-189.
Washington DC: ACS.
Metals
Charalambous, A., Kassianidou, V., Papasavvas, G., 2014. A compositional study of Cypriot
bronzes dating to the Early Iron Age using portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (pXRF).
Journal of Archaeological Science 46, 205–216.
Dussubieux, L. and Walder, H. 2015. Identifying American native and European smelted coppers
with pXRF: A case study of artifacts from the Upper Great Lakes region. Journal of
Archaeological Science 59, 169-178.
Kearns, T. Martinón-Torres, M. and Rehren, Th. 2010. Metal to mould: alloy identification in
experimental casting moulds using XRF. Historical Metallurgy 44,1: 48-58.
Martinón-Torres, M., Li, X. J., Bevan, A., Xia, Y., Zhao, K. and Rehren, Th. 2014. Forty thousand
arms for a single Emperor: from chemical data to the labor organization behind the bronze
arrows of the Terracotta Army. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 21 (3), 534-562.
Martinón-Torres, M., Valcarcel Rojas, R., Guerra, M. F. and Saenz Samper, J. 2012 Metallic
encounters in Cuba: the technology, exchange and meaning of metals before and after
Columbus. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31, 4: 439-454.
Martinón-Torres, M. and Uribe-Villegas, M.A. in press. The prehistoric individual,

connoisseurship, and archaeological science: the Muisca goldwork of Colombia. Journal of
Archaeological Science.
Nicholas, M., Manti, P., 2014. Testing the applicability of handheld portable XRF to the
characterisation of archaeological copper alloys. In J. Bridgland (ed.) ICOM-CC 17th Triennial
Conference Preprints, Melbourne 15–19 September 2014, 1-13. Paris: International Council of
Museums.
Orfanou, V., Rehren, Th., 2014. A (not so) dangerous method: pXRF vs. EPMA-WDS analyses of
copper-based artefacts. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, June 2014, 1-11.
Ceramics
Forster, N., Grave, P., Vickery, N. and Kealhofer, L. 2011.Non-destructive analysis using PXRF:
methodology and application to archaeological ceramics. X-Ray Spectrometry, 40, 5: 389-398.
Goren, Y., Mommsen, H. and Klinger, J. 2011. Non-destructive provenance study of cuneiform
tablets using portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF). Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 3: 684-
696
Hunt, A.M.W. and Speakman, R.J. 2015. Portable XRF analysis of archaeological sediments and
ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science 53, 628-638.
Speakman, R. J., Little, N. C., Creel, D., Miller, M. R. and Inanez, J. G. 2011. Sourcing ceramics
with portable XRF spectrometers? A comparison with INAA using Mimbres pottery from the
American Southwest , Journal of Archaeological Science, 38, 12: 3483-3496.
Glass
Dungworth, D. and Girbal, B. 2011. Waler Castle, Deal, Kent: Analysis of Window Glass. English
Heritage Research Department Series 2-2011.
Liu, S., Li, Q. F., Gan, F., Zhang, P. and Lankton, J. W. 2012. Silk Road glass in Xinjiang, China:
chemical compositional analysis and interpretation using a high-resolution portable XRF
spectrometer. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 7: 2128-2142.
Obsidian
Nazaroff, A. J., Prufer, K. M. and Drake, B. L. 2010. Assessing the applicability of portable X-ray
fluorescence spectrometry for obsidian provenance research in the Maya lowlands. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 37, 4: 885–895.
Frahm, E. 2013. Validity of “off-the-shelf” handheld portable XRF for sourcing Near Eastern
obsidian chip debris. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2: 1080–1092.
Speakman, R. J. and Shackley, M. S. 2013. Silo science and portable XRF in archaeology: a
response to Frahm. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2: 1435–1443.
Frahm, E. 2013. Is obsidian sourcing about geochemistry or archaeology? A reply to Speakman

and Shackley. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 2: 1444–1448.
Milic, M. 2014. PXRF characterisation of obsidian from central Anatolia, the Aegean and central
Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science, 41: 285-296.
Stone
Grave, P., Attenbrow, V., Sutherland, L., Pogson, R. and Forster, N. 2012. Non-destructive pXRF
of mafic stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39, 6: 1674-1686
Ogburn, D., Sillar, B., Sierra, J.C. 2013. Evaluating effects of chemical weathering and surface
contamination on the in situ provenance analysis of building stones in the Cuzco region of Peru
with portable XRF. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 4: 1823–1837.
Pigments
Colombo, C., Bracci, S., Conti, C., Greco, M. and Realini, M. 2011. Non-invasive approach in the
study of polychrome terracotta sculptures: employment of the portable XRF to investigate
complex stratigraphy. X-Ray Spectrometry, 40, 4: 273-279.
Chaplin, T. D., Clark, R. J. H. and Martinón-Torres, M. 2010. A combined Raman microscopy, XRF
and SEM–EDX study of three valuable objects – A large painted leather screen and two
illuminated title pages in 17th century books of ordinances of the Worshipful Company of
Barbers, London. Journal of Molecular Structure 976, 350–359.
Geochemical survey
Eliyahu-Behar, A., Shilstein, S., Raban-Gerstel, N., Goren, N., Gilboa, A., Sharon, I. and Weiner, S.
2008. An integrated approach to reconstructing primary activities from pit deposits: iron
smithing and other activities at Tel Dor under Neo-Assyrian domination. Journal of
Archaeological Science, Volume 35, Issue 11, November 2008, Pages 2895-2908
Gauss, R. K., Batora, J., Nowaczinski, E., Rassmann, K. and Schukraft, G. 2013. The Early Bronze
Age settlement of Fidvár, Vráble (Slovakia): reconstructing prehistoric settlement patterns using
portable XRF Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 7: 2942-2960.
5. Optical microscopy. Scanning electron microscopy and

microanalysis (SEM-EDS, WD-EPMA)
Compound identification: Fourier-Transform Infra-Red

Spectroscopy (FTIR), X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) and Raman
Spectroscopy.
Ian Freestone
Applications of microscopy and microanalysis. Principles of SEM-EDS and WD-EPMA. Imaging
and practical procedures. Recording and comparing microanalytical data.
As with the XRF, this session will provide you with a basic foundation before you start your
practical training at the labs. Whilst you will be expected to conduct SEM/EDS analyses
independently, MSc students do not typically do their own analytical work with the EPMA.
However, both instruments are available to you. If you have a good reason, you can request
that some of your samples are analysed at the EPMA (particularly when you begin work on your
dissertation), and you are welcome to look over the technician's shoulder as they do the work.
In any case, what is important is that you understand the potentials and limitations of both
instruments and their respective detectors, including their similarities and differences.
And remember...
You should bring the class handouts from this session with you the first few times that you go to
the SEM. You may find them useful as a guide or reminder, and many ideas that seemed
abstract and irrelevant in the classroom will hopefully become more useful.
Reading
There are no specific readings for this session. With the handouts and online tutorials available
through Moodle you should have enough to get started. We will be uploading a few key
examples of SEM analysis via Moodle. If you would like to find examples of specific applications
of these instruments in archaeometric studies, just go to the journals Archaeometry or Journal of
Archaeological Science, and search by keyword. Below, you can find a few examples of the
application of SEM, XRD, FTIR and Raman – again, many more can be found online.
Abe, Y. et.al, 2009. On-site analysis of archaeological artifacts excavated from the site on the
outcrop at Northwest Saqqara, Egypt, by using a newly developed portable fluorescence
spectrometer and diffractometer. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 395(7), 1987-1996.
Cotte, M. et al., 2009. Recent applications and current trends in Cultural Heritage Science using
synchrotron-based Fourier transform infrared micro-spectroscopy. Comptes rendus - Physique
10(7), 590-600.
De Benedetto, G.E. et al, 2002. Infrared spectroscopy in the mineralogical characterization of

ancient pottery. Journal Of Cultural Heritage 3(3), 177-186.
Eiland, M.L., Williams, Q, 2001. Investigation of Islamic Ceramics from Tell Tuneinir Using X-Ray
Diffraction. Geoarchaeology-an International Journal 16(8), 875-903.
Freestone, I. C. and Middleton, A. P. 1987. Mineralogical applications of the analytical SEM in

archaeology. Mineralogical Magazine 51, 21-31.
Ingo, G.M. et al., 2006. Combined use of SEM-EDS, OM and XRD for the characterization of
corrosion products grown on silver roman coins. Applied Physics A, 83(4), 493-497.
Martinón-Torres, M. and Uribe-Villegas, M.A. in press. The prehistoric individual,

connoisseurship and archaeological science: the Muisca goldwork of Colombia. Journal of
Archaeological Science 63: 136-155.
Ricciardi, P. et al., 2009. A non-invasive study of Roman Age mosaic glass tesserae by means of
Raman spectroscopy. Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 1-9.
Sax, M., Walsh, J.M., Freestone, I.C., Rankin, A.H., and Meeks, N.D. 2008. The origins of two
purportedly pre-Columbian Mexican crystal skulls. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2751-
2760.
The Getty Conservation institute, 1999. Infrared spectroscopy in conservation science.
Young, M. et al., 2010. Non-invasive characterization of manufacturing techniques and

corrosion of ancient Chinese bronzes and a later replica using synchrotron X-ray diffraction.
Applied Physics A, 100(3), 635-646.
6. Sampling and sub-sampling. Selecting analytical techniques
The first part of this session will focus on a range of spectroscopic techniques that are employed
to identify compounds, minerals or phases – as opposed to chemical compositions or
microstructures.
After this, we will discuss the various aspects that affect sampling and the selection of analytical
equipment for specific research questions of archaeological relevance.
Practical aspects of science-based analyses. Invasive vs non-invasive. Destructive vs non-

destructive. Research agenda vs equipment availability.
Some frequent concerns: how many samples? where from? is this representative?
Like with the other techniques discussed, the class presentation will focus on their basic
foundations and some of their applications – to be followed by practical demonstrations in the
lab.
Sampling issues are at the core of archaeology as a whole, and of archaeometry in particular. By
the end of this session you should be aware that sampling strategies should always be carefully
thought and explicitly stated. You should also begin to make your own mind about the ethical
concerns involved in invasive sampling of archaeological materials, and to remember the main
criteria to consider when deciding which instrumental techniques should be employed in each
case.
Reading
Like in the previous introductory sessions on analytical techniques, there are no specific readings
for these. With the handouts and online tutorials available through Moodle you should have
enough to get started. If you would like to find examples of specific applications of these
instruments in archaeometric studies, just go to the journals Archaeometry or Journal of
Archaeological Science, and search by keyword.
Regarding sampling, Clive Orton's book offers the best coverage of sampling in archaeology,
introducing a variety of sampling frames and strategies with their potentials and limitations. The
book is concerned with sampling at the scale of sites and assemblages, not with the removal of
samples from objects for analytical purposes.
For the latter topic, Mike Tite's article, and the replies to his paper, highlight many relevant
practical and ethical issues.
And while we are discussing ethics, you should also read Kathy Tubb’s paper and responses.
Orton, C. R. 2000. Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp, 40-66
and 148-170. INST ARCH AK 10 ORT
Tite, M. S. 2002. Archaeological Collections: Invasive Sampling versus Object Integrity. Papers
from the Institute of Archaeology 13, 1-6. [and replies in the same volume] INST ARCH Pers, and
available online
Tubb, K. W. 2007. Irreconcilable differences? Problems with unprovenanced antiquities. Papers

from the Institute of Archaeology 18, 3-11. [and replies in the same volume] INST ARCH Pers,
and available online
7. Data quality. Accuracy, precision, deviations and errors
Ian Freestone
Is the analysis correct? Can we trust the numbers? How many decimal places? Why should we
worry anyway?
We will discuss ways of monitoring the quality of the data, particularly for accuracy and
precision, but also incuding detection limits, error margins and normalisation.
As with sampling, one needs to be able to assess (and report!) the quality of the analytical data.
Sometimes, relatively "bad" data may be good enough for certain purposes (e.g. differentiating
bronze from brass). However, we need to be able to recognise the degree of data quality
needed for specific questions, and how to rectify errors.
If time allows, we will also begin to discuss different ways of presenting, processing and
interpreting data.
Reading
You can find brief and useful introductions to many relevant issues in the AMC Technical Briefs
of the Royal Society of Chemistry. We have included some of these in the Moodle page.
http://www.rsc.org/Membership/Networking/InterestGroups/Analytical/AMC/TechnicalBriefs.a
sp
Below, some examples of calibrations and reproducibility studies
Hein, A., Tsolakidou, A., Iliopoulos, I., Mommsen, H., Buxeda i Garrigos, J., Montana, G. and
Kilikoglou, V. 2002. Standardisation of elemental analytical techniques applied to provenance
studies of archaeological ceramics: an inter laboratory calibration study. The Analyst 127, 542-
553.
Heginbotham A. et al, 2010. An Evaluation of inter-laboratory reproducibility for quantitative

XRF of historic copper. In Mardikian, P. et al. (eds.) Metal 2010. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Metal Conservation, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, October 11-15, 2010.
Clemson University, 244-255.
Kovacs, R., Schlosser, S., Staub, S.P., Schmiderer, A., Pernicka, E. and Gunter, D. 2009
Characterization of calibration materials for trace element analysis and fingerprint studies of
gold using LA-ICP-MS.Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 24: 476-483.
8. Data processing and interpretation: some basic statistics
Michael Charlton
Whatever your research topic, you are likely to end up with tables full of numbers. The really
interesting part starts here: how to make sense of the data? How to present, analyse and
interpret your data? In this session, we will introduce multivariate statistical techniques and
their application to archaeometric data.
It is impossible to learn multivariate statistics in two hours. However, after this session you
should be familiar with the potential applications of a range of statistical techniques, so that you
can assess whether they are useful for your particular dataset. If you choose to use them, be
prepared to invest some more time...
Reading
Baxter, M. J. 1994. Exploratory multivariate analysis in archaeology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press. STORE 00-03201
Baxter, M. J. 2003. Statistics in Archaeology. London: Arnold. INST ARCH AK 10 BAX
Baxter, M. J. and Buck, C. E., 2000. Data handling and statistical analysis, in E. Ciliberto and G.
Spoto (eds), Modern Analytical Methods in Art and Archaeology, 681-746. New York, Chichester,
Weinheim, Brisbane, Singapore, Toronto: Wiley-Interscience. INST ARCH JDD CIL
Baxter, M. J. and Freestone, I. 2006. Log-ratio compositional data analysis in Archaeometry.

Archaeometry 48(3): 511-531. Available online
Charlton, M. F., Blakelock, E., Martinón-Torres, M. and Young, T. 2012. Investigating the
production provenance of iron artifacts with multivariate methods. Journal of Archaeological
Science 39, 2280-2293. Available online
Drennan, R. D. 1996. Statistics for archaeologists: a commonsense approach. New

York; London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press. INST ARCH AK 10 DRE
Fletcher, M. and Lock, G. 2005. Digging numbers: elementary statistics for archaeologists.
Oxford: Oxford University School of Archaeology. INST ARCH AK 10 FLE
Orton, C. 1980. Mathematics in Archaeology. London: Collins. INST ARCH AK 10 SHE, ISSUE DESK
IOA ORT 1
Shennan, S J, 1997. Quantifying Archaeology. 2nd edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University

Press. INST ARCH AK 10 SHE
9. Data presentation and interpretation
Barcharts, scatterplots, ternary diagrams, pies... which one is the best?
Based on the critical review of of some relevant publications, we will discuss appropriate (and
inappropriate) ways of presenting your data. By now you should be able to critically assess the
quality of the data published by others, and the way analytical results are reported by other
researchers, rather than taking their conclusions at face value.
In particular, we will also introduce ternary diagrams and their uses in archaeometry.
Reading
Student activity BEFORE the class:
Read the three papers required (two of them noted below and available via Moodle, a third one
to be distributed in the previous class): what do you think of the methods employed and the
way they report their results? are their conclusions supported by the data? what do you think of
the project design overall?
Thornton, C.P. et al. 2002. On pins and needles: tracing the evolution of copper-based alloying
at Tepe Yahya, Iran, via ICP-MS analysis of common-place items. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 29: 1451-1460.
Ponting, M. J. 2002. Keeping up with the Romans? Romanisation and copper alloys in First
Revolt Palestine. IAMS (Institute for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies Newsletter), 22: 3-6.
10. Report and publication. Concluding discussion
Marcos Martinón-Torres and Ian Freestone

Making our data and interpretation available to others to use, discuss and enjoy is an ethical
duty. After all, we often work with public heritage and funded by public resources. What is the
best way of doing so?
Defining an audience. Deciding a publication venue. Comparing data and interpretations to

original research questions. Structuring a report. Acknowledging weaknesses and potentials.
An MSc dissertation: where do I start? We will use this session to discuss general practical
aspects of research design, as well as any other relevant subject that you may wish to talk
about.
Reading
Chippindale, C. 2006. Colleagues, Talking, Writing, Publishing, in Maschner, H. D. G. and
Chippindale, C. (eds) Handbook of archaeological methods, vol. 2, 1339-1371. Lanham, Md.;
Oxford: Altamira Press. INST ARCH AH MAS
Sand-Jensen, K., 2007. How to write consistently boring scientific literature. Oikos 116(5): 723-
727. Available online
White, P. 2006. Producing the Record, in Balme, J. and Malden, A. (eds) Archaeology in practice:
a student guide to archaeological analyses. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell. INST ARCH AH BAL
STRAND C – RESEARCH PROJECT PROPOSALS
Developing relevant methodologies for addressing archaeological

research questions
Term II, Tuesday 11-1, Room 410 (in addition to one full day in Reading Week)
In this part of the course you will use specific case studies to consider how the analysis of
artefact assemblages can be used to address wider research questions. The intention is to
encourage a critical discussion of the problems and potentials of integrating the analyses of
distinctive artefact types. The class will be subdivided in groups and assigned specific projects.
For each project, a particular site, period, landscape, or museum collection will be chosen and a
specific research question highlighted. Each team will be given one hour to present the overall
project and how the individual members will contribute to it. The presentation will include
overarching introduction and conclusions, as well as presentations by each specialist outlining
the material of his or her choice (metals, lithics, pottery, wood etc.) discussing how these
artefacts could be recorded and what analytical techniques could be adopted to tackle the
research question that the group has chosen to address.
For example, for a project presentation on medieval Novgorod, you could explore how to study
the development of craft specialisation. One student could take on the role of pottery
‘specialist’ and discuss what methods of collection, and sampling they would choose, which
analytical techniques are most capable of providing data relevant to the research question, and
how the interpretation of ‘their’ pottery could be used to assess the presence of specialist
potters, or full-time cooks, at the site. Other students might look at the potential of wood,
metal, or leather, to address similar issues of craft-specialisation and economic organisation.
It is hoped that the projects will provide the opportunity for a wider discussion of how diverse
data sets; analytical techniques and sampling methods can be co-ordinated most effectively. In
other words, we are expecting you to draw on what you have learned in strands A and B.
The precise choice of issues, sites and materials will therefore be defined in consultation with
the students and with reference to the available literature and in-house expertise of Institute
staff.
The following paragraphs provide an outline of how this part of the course will be organised.
The first session of Term II will be devoted to further clarify this and solve any questions you
may have, in addition to giving you a mock-up project presentation to provide an example.
Preparation
After choosing a site and research topic each Work Group (usually consisting of 3-4 students,
and including students from both the MA and the MSc) will be appointed a member of staff
who will provide initial advice and orientation with regard to the research topic and available
literature. After this you are encouraged to work together as a group in preparing a one-page
outline of your research topic as well as another page prepared by each student summarising
their specialist contribution. This short document should be discussed with your appointed staff
member at least one week prior to the Reading Week presentation.
One week before the presentation, you should upload on Moodle a handout containing some
basic information (maps, chronology, the main research questions and the methods to be used)
with a selected bibliography, to give your fellow students the chance to prepare for your
presentation. For MSc-students: remember that not everyone is up to date in analytical
methods and the latest acronyms. A short idiot's guide/list of acronyms may be useful here!
The conference
During the February Reading Week (specific date to be confirmed) we will hold a one day
MA/MSc Conference where every group will present their project proposals as if they were
applying for funding to undertake these projects. You should also provide each of the class
members with a your one-page handout. Staff members present as well as the other groups will
act as the review panel to assess the merits of each project proposal presented, ask questions
and provide feedback. Each team will be appointed as the main designated review panel for
another team, but everyone is expected to contribute to the discussion of all proposals.
Each team will be given one hour for their joint presentation, to be followed by discussion.
Remember that the primary aim of any visual aid should be to clarify your ideas or to assist in
presenting a clear summary of materials and techniques to the audience.
We will have strict time-keeping. Make sure you do a mock-up presentation to make sure
everything works and the time-frame was assessed correctly. Powerpoint can be difficult to
start, USB-sticks tend to misbehave, etc!
The formal review

On the week following the conference, every student will have to submit a formal review of the
proposal they have been assigned to review, using the peer-review form from the Arts and
Humanities Research Council (AHRC) as a template. This will allow everyone to obtain further
feedback on their project design and presentation skills. Together, we will try to agree on which
one of the projects presented deserves the funding to go through.
The project paper

By the end of week 8 (i.e. three weeks after your presentation), you are required to write a
Project Paper based on the topic of your seminar presentation, hopefullly adjusting your project
in the light of the feedback obtained during previous weeks.
The whole paper, including jointly written and individual parts, should not exceed 2850-3150
words.
This Project Paper will usually consist of a 2000-2500 word research-proposal discussing how
you would analyse your chosen material. This should normally include the following topics:
 introduction to the material you are studying;
 a brief outline previous work relating to the study of this material;

 a proposal for appropriate methods for collecting, sampling and analysing your chosen
material discussing how this will contribute to the specified research questions;
 if you wish, you may briefly consider how the expense and duration of the research
work would affect the prioritisation, or timetabling, of the proposal.
In addition to your own research proposal, you should also work with the rest of your group to
collaboratively write a c. 500-1000 word introduction to the project, its theoretical framework
and the research question you want to address, thus making each essay a total of 3000-3500
words (if you wish you may also use part of this joint 500-1000 word allocation to write a co-
operative conclusion, but this is not essential). Please print the common parts in italics. Illustrate
your text with images that help explain the material and your choice of research methods.
Remember that illustrations have to be properly referenced as well!
The cohesion of your independent paper towards a unified research design for the chosen site
will be assessed as well.
Avoid empty wordage, try to be as concise as possible. Remember that in real life, reviewers
have to read quite a lot of grant proposals. They will not be impressed by your immortal prose
(though correct grammar, spelling, and short, concise sentences do help), they want to know
what you plan to find out and how, and why this is important for somebody who has never even
heard the name of your site, let alone knows in which country it is located in.
The mark for this Project Paper contributes 3/10 to your overall coursework mark for this
course, with the mark for the powerpoint/keynote presentation being 10% of this. It is hoped
that preparing your seminar presentation and the Project Paper will help to prepare you to
integrate your data analysis in relation to a suitable research question within your final
dissertation.
Your submission should also include a printout of your slide presentation (at 6 slides per page),
including introductory and concluding slides used for the joint parts of the presentation (which
should be clearly marked as such), as well as the handout.
Research skills training

During this strand of the course, we will use some of the scheduled slots to invite relevant staff
to provide training at research skills. The timetable outlined below is tentative only, as it may be
adjusted and completed depending on the availability of staff and the needs and interests
expressed by the students
Week Date Topic Lecturer
1 14 Jan Introduction to strand C, selection of MMT+US

student projects
2 Tbc The use of scanners and Photoshop Tbc
3 Tbc The use of online research resources KM
4 Tbc Introduction to Microsoft Excel IF
5 Tbc Designing academic posters MMT
15-19 READING WEEK – STRAND C MMT+US

Feb CONFERENCE (full day)
6 25 Feb Post-conference review panel MMT+US

meetings
7 Tbc Writing a PhD proposal MMT
8 Tbc Tbc
9 Tbc Tbc
10 Tbc Tbc
Key to lecturers:
IF Ian Freestone, MMT Marcos Martinón-Torres, US Ulrike Sommer

ASSESSMENT
Assessment 1: Scientific investigation report

Deadline: Term I, end of week 7
This assessment requires you to:
 Demonstrate an understanding of a range of different types of analytical information.
 Use the information to make an argument about the history of an object.
 Explain your methods and results in terms that can be understood by an informed lay-
person.
 Present your data and arguments in the form of an official scientific report and in an
objective, structured and formal manner, suitable for presentation to the Board of
Trustees of a Museum.
The word length for your report is 950-1050 words, plus diagrams and tables. This assessment
amounts to 1/10 to your final module mark.
The scenario
You are a scientist in the laboratory of the National Museum of Transylvania. You have a small
laboratory, equipped with a range of equipment for the investigation of archaeological and
museum artefacts.
The head curator of the Department of European Art and Archaeology is very excited. The
Museum has been offered a rare Renaissance enamelled ewer, believed to have been made in
Limoges, France and dating to the sixteenth century. The item has been in a private collection
for many decades and hence purchasing it would be legal and bring the artefact to public view.
This will fill an important gap in the collections. The curator wishes to buy the object at the
price being offered by the dealer, which is slightly below the market value for such an object.
The Director of the Museum, while sympathetic to the enthusiasm of the curator, is more
cautious. The cost of the ewer will consume the total funds available for acquisitions in the
current financial year. He will have to justify the expenditure to the Museum’s Trustees and is
ultimately responsible to the Culture Department of the government. If the object is purchased
and later turns out to be problematic, his job will be on the line. Therefore he has told the
European department to refer it to the scientific laboratory for careful evaluation.
Your job is to examine the object and to produce a report on its condition and authenticity.
Your report needs to present the details of your findings, in an objective way. You are not
required to comment upon value or cost, and should not do so. Remember that examinations
of this type often do not “prove” something, they “suggest” or are “consistent with” with a
process or characteristic. This report, particularly if unfavourable in some way to the object,
might well be used by the Museum in negotiations with the owner. Therefore it is crucial that it
is as objective as possible, and does not leave the Museum liable to legal action.
The Investigation
You are provided with the results of the investigation (via Moodle):
 A picture of the artefact
 Two radiographs of the artefact
 A page from a lab book with a sketch of the appearance of the artefact in ultraviolet
light
 The results of an X-Ray Fluorescence examination of the object
 XRF results for a standard
 A radiograph showing the appearance of the central join in a typical 16th century
enamelled ewer from Limoges
 A report on something completely different (glass from Cluny), which shows how a
report of this type might be organised.
Your Report
 Your report should include the following (you should use sub-headings as appropriate).
Refer to the example of a report provided but use a style and layout that you think
looks appropriate (typeface, paragraph spacing, etc.). YOU MUST USE DOUBLE LINE
SPACINGS IN YOUR REPORT.
 Title of your Institution and Department (Top of page)
 Title of the Report (“Report on ……..”)
 Department requesting the report (in brackets: “(Requested by Department of………)”.)
 At the beginning a short summary or abstract (up to 4 sentences) of what you have
done and what you have found).
 An introduction indicating what you are looking at and why
 A description of the methods used – indicate the methods used and the reasons for
using them. You should indicate clearly any limitations.
 A section outlining the results – what you found/observed. Refer to figures (as fig. 1, 2
etc) and any tables.
 An interpretation section – what do the results mean? Refer back to the previous
section as you develop your argument.
 A concise conclusion – very clearly and simply state what you have concluded about the
object.
 On the left hand side at the bottom of the report, you should sign it, type your name,
the date and a file number for this study
 Your report will have referred to previous work in the literature, and references should
be provided in the standard way.
 Figures and also tables, if any, should be numbered sequentially and referred to in the
text. They may be embedded in the report or provided at the end (NB Captions are
ESSENTIAL).
Reading material
Bowman S G E (1991) Science and The Past . London:British Museum Press. esp Chapter 5.
Röhrs, S. and Stege, H., (2004). ‘Analysing Limoges painted enamels from the 16th to 19th
centuries by using a portable micro X-ray fluorescence spectrometer’. X-ray Spectrom. 33, 396-
401.
Röhrs, S., Biron, I. and Stege, H. (2006) About Limoges Painted Enamels – Chronological
Evolution of the Glass Chemical Composition, Association International pour l’histoire du Verre,
Annales du 17e congres, 500-509.
Assessment 2: Standard essay

Deadline: Term II, end of week 1
Select one of the following topics for a 2375-2625 word essay. You must include a wordcount,
excluding bibliography. This essay will contribute 3/10 to your final course mark. These topics
have been selected from the Strand A. You will find appropriate bibliographies in relation to the
specific lecture topics, but you should also take time to consider the relevance of works you
have read in relation to other parts of this or other courses, as well as doing your own research.
Please write the essay topic on your essay cover just as it appears in this list.
 ‘Artefact classification in archaeology should seek to distinguish differences in the way

that the artefacts were originally made and used.’ With reference to one class of
material (e.g. lithics, pottery, metal, coins, or building materials) discuss whether or not
this principle is an effective starting point for the development of artefact typologies.
 ‘If technology is primarily determined by the knowledge and intentions of the artisan,
then the study of ancient technologies is the study of human agency in the past.’ Do you
agree?
 With reference to published examples discuss what aspects of the physical and social
processes of artefact production (e.g. pottery, lithics, metal or textiles) can be inferred
and interpreted from the material remains and which aspects you consider to be
irrecoverable.
 Does the separation of artefacts into material-based categories (e.g. lithic, ceramic,
bone) for their study by different ‘specialists’ influence the way that artefacts and sites
are published and interpreted?
 Select one artefact type and prepare a chaîne opératoire that illustrates and explains its
production as a sequence of transformations (e.g. from clay collection to pot breakage).
State which stages can be identified from material evidence on the artefact and which
stages would require confirmation through further analysis or more contextual
information. In conclusion discuss what you have learned from this exercise.
 ‘Exchange is a social act that leaves no waste product. Archaeologists can gain great
insights through studying the evidence for artefact production, distribution and
deposition, but this does not provide a sufficient basis from which to reconstruct past
exchange systems.’ Discuss.
 A well-respected researcher wants to study a museum collection of Attic red-figure

vases. This includes the request to remove a small section from some of the vases in
order to conduct analyses using the scanning electron microscope as one aspect of her
investigation into the production methods. Discuss the roles of the archaeologist, the
museum curator, the conservator and the researcher in negotiating this request.
Assessment 3: Project proposal

Deadline: Term II, end of week 8 (and presentation during reading week)
The Strand C is assessed by an oral presentation as a part of a group during the reading week
conference, followed by a 2850-3150 word specialist research plan, which you are expected to
submit by the deadline shown above. Your essay should start with an introduction to the overall
research goals (which should be common for all the students working on the same project),
followed by your specialist approach to the material. The nature of this assessment is more
clearly explained in the section on “Strand C” of this coursebook, and will be further discussed
in the class.
Your submission should include a printout of your slide presentation (at 6 slides per page),
including introductory and concluding slides used for the joint parts of the presentation (which
should be clearly marked as such).
This assessment amounts to 3/10 to your final module mark.

Assessment 4: Practical essay: analytical report

Deadline: Term II, end of week 10
This essay comprises practical work in the laboratory (sample preparation and analysis), to give
you experience in the preparation of specimens, selection of analytical techniques, and the
presentation of the resulting data.
The word count should be 1425-1575 words only: you are expected to write a concise report
characterising the sample and the specimen preparation, explaining and justifying the analytical
procedures, and reporting your results and primary interpretation in a suitable way.
The emphasis here is on the technical and methodological side: ideally your essay will
demonstrate that you can generate useful analytical data and report your results clearly, with
just some primary technological interpretation. You are not expected to perform in-depth
bibliographic research (although you may want to survey the literature just to see how other
people have reported their analyses).
Each student will be provided with a different sample, considering their specific interests.
Start with an Introduction

Here, you give a brief mention of the material and the task in front: i.e. the characterisation or
description of the sample including a photograph or drawing (scale bar!), what you know about
it (origin, data, nature), and what the task is: Material identification and characterisation.
Discuss your approach

Explain why you chose a specific analytical approach (microscopy, SEM-EDS, XRF), and which
sample preparation this includes / requires. Also say why you are not using another of the
available methods!!
Describe the sample preparation and analysis to the level of documentation necessary for
someone else in five years to understand what you’ve done, when looking at your report,
without giving a step-by-step description.
Here you have to find the balance between over-describing your manual steps of preparation
and analysis, and giving the necessary detail for a knowledgeable reader to follow your work.
Report your results

This should be the body of your report, including illustrations (e.g. micrographs of sections;
tables of analysis; graphical presentation of data), enabling the reader to evaluate the results,
and possibly compare them with other reports / published evidence from elsewhere. Here, it is
important to decide what should be in the text in what in an appendix, to what extent the data
can be summarised using tables or figures, etc.
There is no need for a long discussion in this essay, but a concluding paragraph would be
sensible, summarising the results on the level of sample identification and characterisation.
Take care to neatly present and proof read your text; if you as the author don’t think it’s worth
this effort, then any reader will assume it probably isn’t a good text anyway.
Submission
The printed essay should be submitted together with a suitably labelled CD-ROM, including a a
digital verision of the essay as presented, as well as any further documentation generated (i.e.
files and raw data from SEM-EDS, additional micrographs, etc).
The sample studied and the specimens produced for analyses should all be properly labelled
and returned with the essay.
This essay counts as 3/10 of your assessed coursework for this course.
APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2015-16 (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY)
This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to courses. 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 following website: http://wiki.ucl.ac.uk/display/archadmin
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 minimum attendance of 70% is required. A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a
class, please notify the lecturer by email.
DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers whether there is any way in which they
can help you. Students with dyslexia should indicate it on each coursework cover sheet.
COURSEWORK
SUBMISSION PROCEDURES: You must submit a hardcopy of coursework to the Co-ordinator's pigeon-hole via the Red Essay Box
at Reception (or, in the case of first year undergraduate work, to room 411a) by stated deadlines. Coursework must be stapled to
a completed coversheet (available from IoA website; the rack outside Room 411A; or the Library). You should put your Candidate
Number (a 5 digit alphanumeric code, found on Portico. Please note that this number changes each year) and Course Code on all
coursework. It is also essential that you put your Candidate Number at the start of the title line on Turnitin, followed by the
short title of the coursework (example: YBPR6 Funerary practices).
LATE SUBMISSION: Late submission is penalised in accordance with UCL regulations, unless permission for late submission has
been granted. The penalties are as follows: i) A penalty of 5 percentage marks should be applied to coursework submitted the
calendar day after the deadline (calendar day 1); ii) A penalty of 15 percentage marks should be applied to coursework submitted
on calendar day 2 after the deadline through to calendar day 7; iii) A mark of zero should be recorded for coursework submitted
on calendar day 8 after the deadline through to the end of the second week of third term. Nevertheless, the assessment will be
considered to be complete provided the coursework contains material than can be assessed; iv) Coursework submitted after the
end of the second week of third term will not be marked and the assessment will be incomplete.
GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: New UCL-wide regulations with regard to the granting of extensions for coursework have been
introduced with effect from the 2015-16 session. Full details will be circulated to all students and will be made available on the
IoA intranet. Note that Course Coordinators are no longer permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be
submitted on a new 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 now acceptable are limited. Those with long-term difficulties
should contact UCL Student Disability Services to make special arrangements.
TURNITIN: Date-stamping is via Turnitin, so in addition to submitting hard copy, you must also submit your work to Turnitin by
midnight on the deadline day. If you have questions or problems with Turnitin, contact ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk.
RETURN OF COURSEWORK AND RESUBMISSION: You should receive your marked coursework within four calendar weeks of the
submission deadline. If you do not receive your work within this period, or a written explanation, notify the Academic
Administrator. When your marked essay is returned to you, return it to the Course Co-ordinator within two weeks. You must
retain a copy of all coursework submitted.
WORD LENGTH: Essay word-lengths are normally expressed in terms of a recommended range. Not included in the word count
are the bibliography, appendices, tables, graphs, captions to figures, tables, graphs. You must indicate word length (minus
exclusions) on the cover sheet. Exceeding the maximum word-length expressed for the essay will be penalised in accordance
with UCL penalties for over-length work.
CITING OF SOURCES and AVOIDING PLAGIARISM: Coursework must be expressed in your own words, citing the exact source
(author, date and page number; website address if applicable) of any ideas, information, diagrams, etc., that are taken from the
work of others. This applies to all media (books, articles, websites, images, figures, etc.). Any direct quotations from the work of
others must be indicated as such by being placed between quotation marks. Plagiarism is a very serious irregularity, which can
carry heavy penalties. It is your responsibility to abide by requirements for presentation, referencing and avoidance of
plagiarism. Make sure you understand definitions of plagiarism and the procedures and penalties as detailed in UCL regulations:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current-students/guidelines/plagiarism
RESOURCES
MOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the course on Moodle. For help with Moodle, please contact Nicola Cockerton,
Room 411a (nicola.cockerton@ucl.ac.uk).
G107 Technology and Analysis of Archaeological Materials overview
Key to lecturers: AB Agnese Benzonelli, ABv Andrew Bevan, MC Michael Charlton, IF Ian Freestone, SL Stuart Laidlaw, MMT Marcos Martinón-
Torres, KM Katie Meheux, PQ Patrick Quinn, BS Bill Sillar, US Ulrike Sommer,
Term I
WEEK STRAND A STRAND B LAB/OTHER

(Tue 11-1, 410) (Wed 9-11, B13) (individual or group
arrangement)
1 Introduction. Issues in
Arranging the archaeomaterials (MMT)
artefacts (US, MMT)
2 Chaînes opératoires Atoms, molecules and
and life-histories crystal structures (IF)
(MMT)
3 Identifying materials Materials and analytical Lab: conduct and safety (AB)
(IF) techniques (MMT)
4 Assessing assemblages Bulk chemical analyses: Lab: XRF and pXRF (PQ)
(PhD students) XRF and ICP (IF)
5 Innovation and change Microscopy and Lab: SEM-EDS (IF, AB)
(MMT) microanalysis SEM-EDS
and WD-EPMA.
Compound id: XRD, FTIR,
Raman (IF)
Reading week
6 Organisation of Sampling and selection of Lab: FTIR and XRD AB)
production (IF) techniques (MMT)
7 Use and meaning (US) Data quality (IF) Lab: sample preparation (AB,PQ)
Deadline: assessment 1 (report)
8 Provenance and trade Data processing: statistics Lab: sample preparation (AB, PQ)
(US+IF) (MC)
9 Discard and Data presentation and Start labwork for assessment 4
taphonomy (US) interpretation (MMT)
10 Spatial analysis of Report and publication
distributions (ABv) (IF, MMT)
Term II
WEEK STRAND C LAB/OTHER

(Tue 11-1, 410)
1 Introduction and project allocation Deadline: assessment 2 (essay)
(US, MMT)
2 Scanners and Photoshop (SL)
3 Online research resources (KM)
4 Microsoft Excel (IF)
5 Academic Posters (MMT) Upload project material on Moodle
Reading week: STRAND C CONFERENCE
6 Post-conference review (US, MMT)
7 Writing a PhD proposal (MMT)
8 Tbc Deadline: assessment 3 (project proposal)
9 Tbc
10 Tbc Deadline: assessment 4 (analytical report)

Artistic Tech Analysis Arch Mat

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Artistic Tech Analysis Arch Mat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

Co-ordinator: Marcos Martinón-Torres

Turnitin Class ID: 2969935 – Password IoA1516

5. OPTICAL MICROSCOPY. SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY AND MICROANALYSIS (SEM-EDS, WD-EPMA) . 57

Aims and objectives of the core course

1. To provide a wide-ranging and challenging introduction to the role of artefact studies

2. To encourage students to think about technology from an anthropologically-informed

3. To engage with current debates about the collection, analysis, interpretation,

4. To introduce students to the principles and practice of the archaeometric analysis of

5. To encourage an interdisciplinary approach to artefact and materials studies that

1. Be familiar with a wide range of recent archaeological, anthropological, and broad

2. Have an overview of practical approaches to the study of materials in relation to

3. Be able to debate the role of archaeometric studies in archaeology, including the

Further important information, relating to all courses at the Institute of Archaeology, is to be

There are three strands to this core course:

B) Research Design and Materials Analysis (Term 1)

C) Seminar Series: Archaeological Analysis and Interpretation (Term 2)

Teaching methods and reading material

Strand A: “ARCLG107/ARCLG120 Technology within society”. Enrolment key: g120

Strand B: “ARCLG107 Technology and Analysis of Archaeological Materials”. Enrolment key:

A detailed timetable can be found on the last page of this coursebook.

STRAND A – TECHNOLOGY WITHIN SOCIETY

Tuesdays 11-1, Room 410

Week Date Topic Lecturer

AB Andrew Bevan, IF Ian Freestone, MMT Marcos Martinón-Torres, US Ulrike Sommer

Basic texts and introductory reading

Hurcombe, L. M. 2007. Archaeological artefacts as material culture. Abingdon: Routledge. INST

Martinón-Torres, M. and Killick, D.C. in press. Archaeological theories and archaeological

Miller, H. M.-L. 2007. Archaeological approaches to technology. London and Amsterdam:

Nanoglou, St. 2008. Qualities of humanness, material aspects of Greek Neolithic

Sigaut, F. 1994. Technology. In: T. Ingold (ed.) Companion Encyclopedia of Anthropology.

General perspectives on material culture, mainly in a modern context

Conneller, Ch. 2011. An archaeology of materials. Substantial transformations in early

1. Arranging the artefacts

Ulrike Sommer and Marcos Martinón-Torres

What is an artefact? Some basic definitions and questions

Meskell, L. 2005. Introduction, object orientations. In: Meskell, L. (ed.), Archaeologies of

Essential reading on artefact classifications

Cumberpatch, C. G. 1997. Towards a phenomenological approach to medieval pottery. In: C. G.

Dunnell, R. C. 1986. Methodological issues in American artifact classification. In M. B. Shiffer

Miller, D. 1982. Artefacts as products of human categorisation processes. In I. Hodder (ed.),

Read, D. W. 2007. Artifact classification: a conceptual and methodological approach. Walnut

Sackett, J., 1982. Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of Anthropological

Schnapp, A. 2002. Between antiquarians and archaeologists – continuities and ruptures.

Wendrich, W. 1999. The world according to basketry : an ethno-archaeological interpretation of

Widemann, F. 1982. Why is Archaeometry so boring for archaeologists? In: J. S. Olin, A. D.

2. Chaîne opératoires and artefact life-histories

Jeffra, C. D. 2015. Experimental approaches to archaeological ceramics: unifying disparate

Rye, O. S. 1981. Pottery technology; Principles and Reconstruction. Manuals on Archaeology 4.

Shanks, M. 1998. The life of an artefact in an interpretive archaeology. Fennoscandia

3. The nature and identification of archaeological materials

Other useful sources

Hurcombe, L. M. 2007. Archaeological artefacts as material culture. Abingdon: Routledge. INST

Paynter S. and Dungworth D. G. 2011. Archaeological Evidence for Glassworking. English

 Archaeological ceramic analysis (ARCLG114)

 Archaeological glass and glazes (ARCLG111)

 Archaemetallurgy 2: Metallic Artefacts (ARCLG109)

 Archaeometallurgy I: mining and extractive metallurgy (ARCLG108)

* Interpreting Pottery (ARCLG112)

* Lithic Analysis (ARCLG113)

* the undergraduate course on Organic Materials (ARCL 2041)

James Harrel’s Web pages on Egyptian stone:

Harrel J. A. 2012. Utilitarian Stones. UCLA Encyclopaedia of Egyptology

Harrel J. A. 2012. Building stones. UCLA Encyclopaedia of Egyptology.