ARCL0026 PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY...1 Institute of Archaeology UCL ARCL0026 PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY 2nd/3rd Year Undergraduate Module (15 credits) Second Term 2019/2020 Deadlines for this module:

1

Institute of Archaeology

UCL

ARCL0026 PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY

2nd/3rd Year Undergraduate Module

(15 credits)

Second Term 2019/2020

Deadlines for this module: Monday 2nd March and Tuesday 31st March

Target dates for return of marked coursework to students: Monday 16th March and Tuesday

28th April

Module Co-Ordinator: Dr. Andrew Reid

room 111 tel. 0207679-1531

e-mail: [email protected]

Teaching Assistant: Atena Ungureano e-mail: [email protected]

MONDAYS 12-2 PM

Venue: Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, W2.05

Please see the last page of this document for important information about submission and

marking procedures, or links to the relevant webpages.

1. OVERVIEW

The module examines archaeology in its wider social and political context. The module begins

with an examination of the inherently political manner in which archaeology has treated, and

continues to treat, the past. This has consequences for the ways in which archaeology has been

established across the world, fostering nationalism at the expense of other identities and

promoting colonial and imperial ideologies. The role of archaeology in the development of

concepts of 'Heritage' will be considered on a worldwide basis and issues raised at a theoretical

and practical level will be discussed. These will include recognising the differing values attached

to objects, monuments and areas of land, archaeology and politics, tourism and the means by

which archaeologists can attempt to communicate archaeology. This latter element of public

engagement is one of the major focuses of the second part of the module, helping students to

think about the strategies they could develop in their own work. How best can we present and

manage the past? Overriding all of this discussion is the notion that this is no longer a nicety

archaeologists can indulge in, but a necessity archaeologists must embrace.

mailto:[email protected]

2

MODULE SYLLABUS - SPRING TERM

1. 13.01.19 12:00-14:00

Andrew Reid: Introduction to the module: organisation and objectives.

Andrew Reid: Why should ‘Public Archaeology’ be obligatory?

2. 20.01.19 12:00-14:00

Andrew Reid: Politics and Archaeology

Ulrike Sommer: Nationalism and Archaeology in the emergence of Europe

3. 27.01.19 12:00-14:00

Andrew Reid: Indigenous and Local Archaeologies

Andrew Reid: Unesco, heritage and tourism

4. 03.02.19 12:00-14:00

Theano Moussouri: People and Museums

Andrew Reid: Displaying objects

5. 10.02.19 12:00-14:00

Tim Williams: Management of archaeological sites

Andrew Reid: Databases, national sites registers and the NHLE

READING WEEK (NO TEACHING)

6. 24.02.19 12:00-14:00

Gabe Moshenska: Communicating Archaeology

Andrew Reid: Archaeology and Television: a critique

7. 02.03.19 12:00-14:00

Andrew Reid: Archaeology and Education

Jane Humphris: Public Archaeology in action at Meroë

8. 09.03.19 12:00-14:00

Alice Stevenson: Antiquities in the free market

Kevin MacDonald: Heritage and conflict in Mali

9. 16.03.19 12:00-14:00

Andy Gardner: Archaeology, Brexit, Nationalism and the future

Andrew Reid: Alternative Archaeologies

10. 23.03.19 12:00-14:00

Atena Ungureanu: Public Archaeology at Thebes

Andrew Reid – round up

BASIC TEXTS

There are several recent publications which successfully summarise the issues behind Public

Archaeology. You are advised to make good use of journals like Public Archaeology and

Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites which are available online through e-

journals. However, the very nature of the subject, which is constantly changing and which

3

encompasses all interactions with the public (whoever they might be), means that these cannot be

considered as anything more than out-of-date introductions. For this reason also the reading lists

provided for each lecture can only be considered as introductory. You are encouraged to look for

more current material in newspapers, on television and on the internet.

Merriman N. (ed.) 2004. Public Archaeology. London: Routledge.

Moshenska, G. (ed.) 2017. Key Concepts in Public Archaeology. London: UCL Press.

Okamura, K., & Matsuda, A., eds. 2011 New Perspectives in Global Public Archaeology.

London: Springer.

Rockman, M. & J. Flatman, eds. 2012. Archaeology in Society: Its Relevance in the Modern World.

London: Springer.

Skeates, R., C. McDavid and J. Carman, eds. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Public

Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

There is also: World Archaeology 47 (Issue 2): Special Issue: Public Archaeology (2015).

METHODS OF ASSESSMENT

This module is assessed by means of two pieces of course-work: an essay of 1425-1575 words,

which contributes 70% to the final grade for the module; and a 950-1050 word review of public

archaeology issues at an archaeological/historical site or a museum that you have visited, which

contributes 30%.

TEACHING METHODS

The module is taught through weekly lectures. Seminars will also take place throughout the

module. In addition, one field-trip will be arranged to give students greater familiarity with key

issues covered in the module. This combination of specialist lectures, tutorials and field trip will

provide students with a rounded grasp of the way archaeology can be used in the public realm.

WORKLOAD

There will be 20 hours of lectures and 4 hours of seminars for this module. The field trip will take

an estimated 6 hours. Students will be expected to undertake around 40 hours of reading for the

module, plus 40 hours preparing for and producing the assessed work, and an additional 40 hours

on revision for the examination. This adds up to a total workload of some 150 hours for the

module.

2. AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT

AIMS This module provides an introduction to the way in which archaeology relates to the wider world

and has a relevance to everyday life. In this introductory module we draw attention to the wide

array of interrelated issues in the public domain, their relevance to archaeologists, and the

importance of understanding the significance of archaeology in what may appear to be unrelated

situations.

The use and abuse of archaeology and archaeological information occurs on a daily basis and is

frequently involved in political issues – often in connection with both ethnic and nationalist

debates. Increasing concern with the maintenance of international and national heritage has

resulted in a steady increase in the body of international law as well as a multitude of national

laws, which aim to regulate various aspects of the archaeological heritage. Archaeology and its

4

products also have great economic importance – for example the third largest illegal trade in the

world, after drugs and arms, is illegal antiquities – and the impact of heritage tourism has been

both harmful and beneficial (depending on one’s viewpoint) to a number of national economies.

The emphasis in the module is very much on encouraging students to engage with, experience

and critique the encounters that they have. Furthermore, students are actively encouraged to

think about the strategies they might adopt as they develop their own work. Above all, it is

emphasized that Public Archaeology is not a luxury but a necessity which we must embrace to

be successful. Students are encouraged to visit sites and museums, look at the broadsheet press

and television – you may well see numerous cases of Public Archaeology which may serve as

examples for your written assignments.

OBJECTIVES OF THE MODULE

On successful completion of the module a student should:

possess an effective insight into how archaeology exists in the wider world.

understand the broader implications of archaeology.

recognize how the discipline can be used and abused.

be familiar with the manner in which archaeology is represented in the media.

understand the challenges faced by archaeologists and by museums.

recognize a number of potential strategies that can be used in public engagement.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Through taking this module students will develop their critical skills and their ability to

recognize alternative ways of viewing and presenting the past. This will expand their powers of

observation and critical reflection. Students will also be exposed to a wide range of management

issues that face heritage sites. This will be an important source of applicable knowledge for their

future work. Above all this module will ensure that students are armed with a sense of the

importance of considering public issues relating to archaeology. The discussion groups will also

help students develop their ideas and their oral skills.

ASSESSMENTS

The coursework component of your assessment consists of the completion of one review and one

essay.

REVIEW

To promote the goal of getting students to critically experience sites and museums for

themselves, a feature of the module is an assessment contributing 15% of the final grade. This

assessment involves producing a 950-1050 word review of public archaeology issues at an

archaeological/historical site or a museum that you have visited. The location chosen may not

include the Museum of London, the Docklands Museum, the Sir John Soane Museum, the

British Museum or the Petrie Museum. Your completed review should be submitted Monday 2nd

March.

The review should examine Public Archaeology issues at the chosen location. Hence, students

may wish to focus on the political aspects of interpretation, the impact of tourism, the biases

inherent in the way in which information is presented, the nature of displays, contestation in the

landscape, or a range of other issues. It is intended that the Public Archaeology module will

expose students to these issues and that the review will be undertaken in light of students’

5

increasing recognition of Public Archaeology issues. Most students will make these

site/museum visits during the Reading Week or alternatively on weekends. Remember that the

focus should be on public rather than purely academic issues.

ESSAY

The other assessment is an essay which should be 1425-1575 words in length. The essay title

should be selected from the list provided. Your completed essay should be submitted by Tuesday

31st March.

Please refer to the undergraduate handbook on essay writing, regarding the appropriate format for

your essay. Be sure to structure your essay properly, setting out the scope and intention of your

study in the introduction and providing a coherent conclusion at the end.

How have political interests misrepresented archaeology and are archaeologists powerless

to prevent such abuses?

How important is the management of archaeological sites and what are the main public

archaeology issues site managers have to contend with?

What are the main challenges faced by presenting archaeology in museums?

Using examples, discuss the impact of modern conflict upon archaeology.

What, if anything, can archaeologists do about the trade in illicit antiquities?

Is archaeology an inclusive and publicly engaging discipline capable of addressing

diversity? Assess by weighing past performance against future potential.

Assess the qualities of the National Heritage List for England (NHLE) and consider

whether it represents an effective public resource or a waste of public money?

How effectively have archaeologists communicated their results to the public in the past

and what means could they use in the future?

What are the benefits and drawbacks of the UNESCO World Heritage List?

How could archaeology be used as a resource for full time education and what prevents this

potential from being realised?

Is tourism positive or negative for archaeological sites?

If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should discuss this with the module

Co-ordinator. Students are not permitted to re-write and re-submit essays in order to try to improve

their marks. However, students may be permitted, in advance of the deadline for a given

assignment, to submit for comment a brief outline of the assignment. The module Co-ordinator is willing to discuss an outline of the student's approach to the assignment, provided this is planned

suitably in advance of the submission date.

Word counts

6

The following should not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages, lists of

figure and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, lists of references, captions

and contents of tables and figures, appendices.

Penalties will only be imposed if you exceed the upper figure in the range. There is no penalty for

using fewer words than the lower figure in the range: the lower figure is simply for your guidance

to indicate the sort of length that is expected.

In the 2019-20 session penalties for overlength work will be as follows:

For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than 10% the mark will be reduced by five percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the

pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.

For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more the mark will be reduced by ten percentage marks, but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the

pass mark, assuming the work merited a Pass.

Coursework submission procedures

All coursework must normally be submitted both as hard copy and electronically. (The only exceptions are bulky portfolios and lab books which are normally submitted as

hard copy only.)

You should staple the appropriate colour-coded IoA coversheet (available in the IoA library and outside room 411a) to the front of each piece of work and submit it to the red

box at the Reception Desk

All coursework should be uploaded to Turnitin by midnight on the day of the

deadline. This will date-stamp your work. It is essential to upload all parts of

your work as this is sometimes the version that will be marked.

Instructions are given below. Please note that the procedure has changed for 2019-20, and work is now submitted to Turnitin via Moodle.

1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved as a Word

doc., docx. or PDF document, Please include the module code and your candidate number on every page as a header.

2.. Go into the Moodle page for the module to which you wish to submit your work. 3. Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1), 4. Fill in the “Submission title” field with the right details: It is essential that the first

word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g. YGBR8 Essay 1), Note that this changes each year.

5. Click “Upload”. 6 Click on “Submit” 7 You should receive a receipt – please save this. 8 If you have problems, please email the IoA Turnitin Advisers on ioa-

[email protected], explaining the nature of the problem and the exact module and assignment involved.

One of the Turnitin Advisers will normally respond within 24 hours, Monday-Friday during term. Please be sure to email the Turnitin Advisers if technical problems prevent you from uploading work in time to meet a submission deadline - even if you do not obtain an immediate response from one of the Advisers they will be able to notify the relevant Module Coordinator that you had attempted to submit the work before the deadline

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

7

3. SYLLABUS AND SCHEDULE Lectures will be held 12:00-14:00 on Monday in Room W2.05 of the Institute of Education, 20

Bedford Way. Further announcements may be provided on moodle. Anybody from outside the

IoA must make sure that we have your email address so that you can be included on moodle.

One field trip will be scheduled to the Museum of London on Monday 17th February. Further

details will be announced closer to the date. Attendance registers will be kept of those present on

the trip.

SEMINAR GROUPS

Students will be divided into four tutorial groups which will meet on Tuesdays in Room B13

either at 16.00 or 17.00. Group lists are produced below and will be attached to the Moodle page.

Seminars will be taken by Atena Ungureanu.

Group 1 Group 3 (4pm on 21st Jan, 4th, 25th Feb, 10 Mar)

(4pm on 28th Jan, 11th Feb, 3rd, 17th Mar)

Alex Allen Cambria Rodriguez Ellie Crew Flora Paychere Hamizah Afandi Isabel King Kristen Barrett-Casey Layla Duckett Peter Babala Qianqian Wu Sam Munim Skye Neal Yiyi Zhang Group 2 Group 4 (5pm on 21st Jan, 4th, 25th Feb, 10 Mar)

(5pm on 28th Jan, 11th Feb, 3rd, 17th Mar)

Catherine Khatsenkova Chelsea Siying Elsa Boustany Emily Clare Jessica Manuel Kanika Leo Lizzie Cameron-Smith Nicola Pollon Rachel Soobiah Robert Ward Stephanie Drakou Tim Jones

To keep seminars small enough for effective exchange, it is essential that students attend the group

to which they have been assigned. If they need to attend a different group for a particular session,

they should confirm this arrangement with the Module Co-ordinator. The seminars will be

directed to examine a number of general themes concerned in Public Archaeology. You should

also use these group sessions to raise and explore questions relating to your understanding of the

topic or issues that have come up during lectures.

Students will be divided into 4 groups and will meet in alternate weeks. Please contact Atena

Ungureanu if the times given present major problems.

LECTURE SUMMARIES

The following is an outline for the module as a whole, and identifies essential and supplementary

readings relevant to each session. Information is provided as to where in the UCL library system

individual readings are available; their location and Teaching Collection (TC) number, and status

(whether out on loan) can also be accessed on the eUCLid computer catalogue system. Readings

marked with an * are considered essential to keep up with the topics covered in the module. Where

8

more than one paper is marked in this way you may choose either. Copies of some individual

articles and chapters identified as essential reading are in the Teaching Collection in the Institute

Library (where permitted by copyright).

1. ANDREW REID: WHY SHOULD ‘PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY’ BE OBLIGATORY?

Since its antiquarian origins and subsequent development via Processual archaeology,

archaeologists have become more aware that the kinds of interpretations of the past which are

favoured at any particular time are fashioned by the concerns of the day. There is today a growing

awareness of the importance of the social context of archaeological interpretation. The concerns

of today are fashioned by the public. All aspiring archaeologists need to be aware of the interface

between their chosen discipline and the wider community and more importantly they need to know

how to engage non-specialists.

Reading:

*Grima R. 2016. But isn’t all archaeology ‘Public’ Archaeology. Public Archaeology 15: 1-9.

Guttormsen T.S. and L Hedeager 2015. Introduction: Interactions of archaeology and the public.

World Archaeology 47: 189-193.

Littler J. 2005. Introduction: British heritage and the legacies of ‘race’. In J. Littler and R. Naidoo

(eds) The Politics of Heritage: 1-20. London: Routledge.

McManamon F.P. 2000. Archaeological messages and messengers. Public Archaeology 1: 5-20.

*Meskell L. 1998. Introduction: Archaeology matters. In L. Meskell (ed) Archaeology Under

Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East:1-

12. London: Routledge. INST ARCH AG MES

*Richardson L-J. and J. Almansa-Sanchez 2015. Do you even know what public archaeology is?

Trends, theory, practice, ethics. World Archaeology 47: 194-211.

Schadla-Hall R.T. 1999. Editorial: Public Archaeology. European Journal of Archaeology 2.2:

149-58. INST ARCH PERIODICALS

Schadla-Hall R.T. 2006. Public Archaeology in the 21st Century. In R. Layton, S. Shennan and P.

Stone (eds) A Future for Archaeology: 75-82. London: UCL.

Ucko P.J. 1989/1994 Foreword (+ other relevant chapters). In P.G. Stone and R. Mackenzie (eds)

The Excluded Past: Archaeology in Education: ix-xxiv. London: Unwin Hyman. INST

ARCH AQ STO

Watkins J. 2005 Artefacts, archaeologists and American Indians. Public Archaeology 4: 187-192.

2. ANDREW REID: POLITICS AND ARCHAEOLOGY

ULRIKE SOMMER: NATIONALISM AND ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE EMERGENCE

OF EUROPE

It is not at all rare that archaeological remains have been overtly used to promote nationalistic and

racist endeavour. Archaeological interpretations are matters of more or less subjective opinion

rather than matters of scientific fact and objectivity. As such they are open to political

manipulation. It is therefore particularly important for archaeologists to understand the nature of

archaeological evidence, of theories of ethnicity, as well as the brands of archaeological theory

which find themselves in political conflict with each other. A particularly good example of the

importance of politics and culture is the issue of reburial, emphasizing how physical possession of

human remains reinforce power hierarchies and at the same time contravene very different cultural

approaches towards the dead. The second lecture looks at the case of central Europe demonstrating

that overt political use of archaeology was the norm and that the well-established manipulations

of archaeology in Nazi Germany followed this trend rather than forging an entirely new module.

9

Reading:

Bond G.C. and A. Gilliam 1994/1997. Introduction (+several other chapters). In G.C. Bond and

A. Gilliam (eds) Social Construction of the Past: Representation as Power: 1-24. London:

Routledge. INST ARCH BD BON

Fforde C. 2002. Collection, repatriation and identity. In C. Fforde, J. Hubert and P. Turnbull (eds)

The Dead and Their Posessions: repatriation in principle, policy and practice: 25-46.

London: Routledge.

Field J. et al 2000. ‘Coming back’. Aborigines and archaeologists at Cuddie Springs. Public

Archaeology 1: 35-48.

Gathercole P. 1990/1994. Introduction. In P. Gathercole and D. Lowenthal (eds) The Politics of

the Past: 1-9. London: Unwin Hyman. INST ARCH AG GAT

González-Ruibal A. 2007. Making things public: archaeologies of the Spanish Civil War. Public


Hubert J. and C. Fforde 2002. Introduction: the reburial issue in the twenty-first century. In C.

Fforde, J. Hubert and P. Turnbull (eds) The Dead and Their Posessions: repatriation in

principle, policy and practice: 1-16. London: Routledge.

Jones S. 2005. Making place, resisting displacement: conflicting national and local identities in

Scotland. In J. Littler and R. Naidoo (eds) The Politics of Heritage: 94-114. London:

Routledge.

*Layton R. 1989/1994. Introduction: conflict in the archaeology of living traditions. In R. Layton

(ed) Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions: 1-21. London: Unwin Hyman. INST

ARCH BD LAY

Layton R. and J. Thomas 2001. Introduction: the destruction and conservation of cultural property.

In R. Layton, P.G. Stone and J. Thomas (eds) Destruction and Conservation of Cultural

Property: 1-21. London: Routledge.

McManamon F.P. 2002. Repatriation in the USA: a decade of federal agency activities under

NAGPRA. In C. Fforde, J. Hubert and P. Turnbull (eds) The Dead and Their Posessions:

repatriation in principle, policy and practice: 133-148. London: Routledge.

Naidoo R. 2005. Never mind the buzzwords: ‘race’, heritage and the liberal agenda. In J. Littler

and R. Naidoo (eds) The Politics of Heritage: 36-48. London: Routledge.

O’Keefe P.J. 2000. Archaeology and human rights. Public Archaeology 1: 181-194.

Petersen A. 2005. Politics and narratives: Islamic archaeology in Israel. Antiquity 79: 858-864.

Rao N. and C. R. Reddy 2001. Ayodhya, the print media and communalism. In R. Layton, P.G.

Stone and J. Thomas (eds) Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property: 139-156.

London: Routledge. (And see previous two chapters for divergent interpretations.)

Ratnagar S. 2004. Archaeology at the heart of a political confrontation: the case of Ayodhya.

Current Anthropology 45(2): 239-259.

Stone P. 2005. The idenitification and protection of cultural heritage during the Iraq conflict: a

peculiarly English tale. Antiquity 79: 933-943.

Swain H. 2002. The ethics of displaying human remains from British archaeological sites. Public


Thornton R. 2002. Repatriation as healing the wounds of the trauma of history: cases of Native

Americans in the United States of America. In C. Fforde, J. Hubert and P. Turnbull (eds)

The Dead and Their Posessions: repatriation in principle, policy and practice. London:

Routledge.

*Ucko P.J. 1990/1994. Foreword. In P. Gathercole and D. Lowenthal (eds) The Politics of the

Past: ix-xxi. London: Unwin Hyman. INST ARCH AG GAT

3. ANDREW REID: INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGIES

10

The development of archaeology in the UK, and particularly in England, provides considerable

insight into the involvement of the public. In the early 20th century it was seen as the preserve of

the few – a largely upper middle class activity and of only limited interest. Archaeology was also

an exercise in colonialism, playing an integral role in the psychological marginalisation of

indigenous peoples across the world. Since the early days there has been increasing governmental

and professional involvement and as the subject has reached more people perceptions of the

significance of archaeology have changed. Have these changes made archaeology less accessible?

This case study is aimed at looking at many of the issues raised in other lectures in a more local

context. At the opposite extreme the lecture will also consider the emergence of indigenous

archaeologies and the recognition that there are very different ways of reconstructing the past.

Reading:

Australian Heritage Commission (1999) Protecting Local Heritage Places - A guide for

communities. Australian Heritage Commission.

*Faulkner N. 2000. Archaeology from below. Public Archaeology 1: 21-33.

Hamlin A. 2000. Archaeological heritage management in Northern Ireland: challenges and

solutions. In F.P. McManamon and A. Hatton (eds) Culture Resource Management in

Contemporary Society: 66-75. London: Routledge.

Hole B. 2007. Playthings for the foe: the repatriation of human remains in New Zealand. Public


James N. 2008. Repatriation, display and interpretation. Antiquity 82: 770-777.

Jopela A. and P.D. Fredriksen 2015. Public Archaeology, knowledge meetings and heritage ethics

in southern Africa: an approach from Mozambique. World Archaeology 47: 261-284.

Kyriakidis E. and A.Anagnostopoulos 2015. Archaeological ethnography, heritage management

and community archaeology: a pragmatic approach from Crete. Public Archaeology 14:

240-262.

*Mickel A. and A.R. Knodell 2015. We wanted to take real information: public engagement and

regional survey at Petra, Jordan. World Archaeology 47: 239-260.

Merriman, N 2000. Beyond the Glass Case: the past, heritage and the public. London: Institute of

Archaeology, University College London. INST ARCH MB 2 MER

Simpson F. and H. Williams 2008. Evaluating community archaeology in the UK. Public


Tarlow S. 2001. Decoding ethics. Public Archaeology 1: 245-259.

Tully G. 2007. Community archaeology: general methods and standards of practice. Public


Ucko P.J. 2001. ‘Heritage’ and ‘Indigenous Peoples’ in the 21st century. Public Archaeology 1:

227-239.

Wright A.P. 2015. Private property, public archaeology: resident communities as stakeholders in

American Archaeology. World Archaeology 47: 212-224.

ANDREW REID: UNESCO, HERITAGE AND TOURISM

Increasing concern to ensure that sites and monuments are preserved in an international context

has meant that there has been increasing emphasis on World Heritage Site status. Our initial

examination will look at the UNESCO World Heritage listing process, and its origins and compare

and contrast the expectations and realities in developing and developed countries and its

effectiveness. We will subsequently outline the issues that underscore this organization.

The growth of a world-wide tourist industry has had profound effects on the significance of the

past – for example tourism is the UK’s fourth largest sectoral employer – which has given the

11

heritage increasing economic importance. The effects of this are widespread and not always

beneficial. At the same time there has been increasing recognition of the significance of

archaeological heritage in international terms – culminating in the designation of World Heritage

sites. The protection and promotion of archaeological sites and material is now big business.

Reading:

Addyman P.V. 1989/2000. The Stonehenge we deserve. (+ various other chapters) In Cleere H.

(ed) 1990. Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World: 265-71 London:

Unwin Hyman. INST ARCH AG CLE

Anyon R., T.J. Ferguson and J.R. Welch 2000. Heritage management by American Indian tribes

in the southwestern United States. In F.P. McManamon and A. Hatton (eds) Culture

Resource Management in Contemporary Society: 120-141. London: Routledge.

Asombang R. 2000. The future of Cameroon’s past. In F.P. McManamon and A. Hatton (eds)

Culture Resource Management in Contemporary Society: 20-30. London: Routledge.

*Boniface P. and P.J. Fowler 1993. Heritage and Tourism in “the Global Village”. (Chapter 1:

Introduction: setting the global scene. 1-12). London: Routledge. INST ARCH AG BON

Cleere H. 2006. The World Heritage Convention: management by and for whom? In R. Layton,

S. Shennan and P. Stone (eds) A Future for Archaeology: 65-74. London: UCL.

Cooney G. 2007. Introduction. World Archaeology 39(3) (The Archaeology of World Heritage):

299-304.

Darvill T. 2007. Research frameworks for World Heritage sites and the conceptualization of

archaeological knowledge. World Archaeology 39(3): 436-457.

Malone C. and S. Stoddart 1998. Editorial. Antiquity 72: 731-737. INST ARCH PERIODICALS

*Meskell L. 2015. Gridlock: UNESCO, global conflict and failed ambitions. World Archaeology

47: 225-238.

Nalda E. 2002. Mexico’s archaeological heritage: a convergence and confrontation of interests.

In N. Brodie and K.W. Tubb (eds) Illicit Antiquities: 205-227. London: Routledge.

Ndoro W. 2001. Your Monument, Our Shrine: the preservation of Great Zimbabwe. Uppsala:

Uppsala University.

4. THEANO MOUSSOURI: PEOPLE AND MUSEUMS

ANDREW REID: DISPLAYING OBJECTS There have been considerable attempts to involve the public in archaeological activity in recent

years, ranging from wider participation in fieldwork, liaison with metal detector users, better

presentation in museums and on sites, and greater involvement in the school and adult education

sector. This has been accompanied by a growth in critical analysis of how museums go about

ensuring presentation, access and involvement. The role of museums have drastically changed,

they are no longer seen as temples for the worshipping of knowledge but rather they now have to

acknowledge and embrace their role as sponsors of public education and entertainment. To help

achieve such goals museums now have to consider how best to present to and engage with the

public. This session will provide an overview of current issues and review the possible shape of

future developments. In the second session there will be a practical class where we will consider

the strengths and limitations of archaeological artefacts as display items.

Reading:

Colomer L. 2002. Educational facilities in archaeological reconstructions. Public Archaeology 2:

85-94.

Davison P. 2001. Typecast: representations of the Bushmen at the South African Museum. Public


12

Garrison L. 1990. The Black historical past in British education. In P.G. Stone and R. Mackenzie

(eds) The Excluded Past: Archaeology in Education: 231-244. London: Unwin Hyman.

INST ARCH AQ STO

Hall M. 2001. Cape Town’s District Six and the archaeology of memory. In R. Layton, P.G.

Stone and J. Thomas (eds) Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property: 298-311.

London: Routledge.

James N. 2008. Can a museum explain imperialism? Antiquity 82: 1104-1110.

Merriman N.J. 1991. Beyond the Glass Case: the Past, the Heritage and the Public in Britain.

Leicester: Leicester University Press. INST ARCH MB 2 MER

Merriman N.J. 2000. The crisis of representation in archaeological museums. In F.P.

McManamon and A. Hatton (eds) Culture Resource Management in Contemporary Society:

300-309. London: Routledge.

Ramos Lopes C. 2005. What is a Museum for? The Magüta Museum for the Ticuna people,

Amazonas, Brazil. Public Archaeology 4: 183-186.

5. TIM WILLIAMS: MANAGEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES The management of archaeological sites might be said to be trying to reconcile three potentially

conflicting aims: research, conservation and public access. Whereas in the past the archaeologists’

interests in research have often taken precedence, there is now a greater concern for long-term

preservation and for the interpretation of sites to the public. The lecture will use international

examples of site conservation and presentation, reviewed in the light of internationally agreed

principles and charters, to discuss this balance.

Reading:

*Aplin, G (2002) Heritage: identification, conservation, and management. South Melbourne:

Oxford University Press. INST ARCH AG APL

Cleere H.F. 2000. Introduction: the rationale of archaeological heritage management. (+various

chapters) In H.F. Cleere (ed) Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World.

London: Unwin Hyman. INST ARCH AG CLE

Cooper M. 2008. This is not a monument: rhetorical destruction and the social context of Cultural

Resource Management. Public Archaeology 7: 17-30.

Demas M., N. Agnew, S. Waane, J. Podany, A Bass, and D. Kambamba 1996. Preservation of the

Laetoli hominid trackway in Tanzania. In A. Roy and P. Smith (eds) Archaeological

Conservation and its Consequences: Preprints of the Contributions to the Copenhagen

Congress, 26-30th August 1996. London: International Institute for Conservation. INST

ARCH LA Qto ROY

Jameson J.H. and W.J. Hunt 1999. Reconstruction versus preservation-in-place in the US National

Park Service. In P.G. Stone and P.G. Planel (eds) The Constructed Past: Experimental

Archaeology, Education and the Public: 35-62. London: Routledge. INST ARCH AH STO

Jameson J.H. 2000. Public interpretation, education and outreach: the growing predominance in

American archaeology. In F.P. McManamon and A. Hatton (eds) Culture Resource

Management in Contemporary Society: 288-299. London: Routledge. INST ARCH AG

MCM

Ndoro W. and G. Pwiti 2001. Heritage management in southern Africa: local national and

international discourse. Public Archaeology 2: 21-34.

Price, C 2000. Following fashion: the ethics of archaeological conservation, in McManamon, F &

Hatton, A (eds) Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society: 213-230.

London: Routledge. INST ARCH AG MCM

13

Walderhaug Saetersdahl E.M. 2000. Ethics, politics and practices in rock art conservation. Public

Archaeology 1: 163-180

ANDREW REID: DATABASES, NATIONAL SITES REGISTERS AND THE NHLE

The creation of national monuments, protected sites and historical properties of national interest

all require bureaucracies on a national scale to run them. These bureaucracies are faced by an

essential conundrum: ensuring the protection of sites, locations and monuments to the highest

levels whilst also justifying their work in the public interest – which increasingly means facilitating

engagement and access for the public. National sites databases or registers thus are essential in

documenting a nation’s heritage resources, but they also provide a potential source of information

on how the public can access such resources, whether their intention is to respect the property or

resource or to interfere with it. One of the world’s most accessible national sites register is the

National Historical List for England which is fully digitised and can be accessed online at:

https://historicengland.org.uk/. This session will explore the NHLE and consider its strengths and

weaknesses.

Reading:

Aplin, G (2002) Heritage: identification, conservation, and management. South Melbourne:

Oxford University Press. INST ARCH AG APL

Burtenshaw P. 2014. Mind the gap: cultural and economic values in archaeology. Public


Cleere H.F. 2000. Introduction: the rationale of archaeological heritage management. (+various

chapters) In H.F. Cleere (ed) Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World.

London: Unwin Hyman. INST ARCH AG CLE

Cooper M. 2008. This is not a monument: rhetorical destruction and the social context of Cultural

Resource Management. Public Archaeology 7: 17-30.

McManamon F.P. and A. Hatton 2000. Introduction: considering cultural resource management

in modern society. In F.P. McManamon and A. Hatton (eds) Culture Resource Management

in Contemporary Society: 1-19. London: Routledge. INST ARCH AG MCM

6. GABE MOSHENSKA: COMMUNICATING ARCHAEOLOGY

The huge growth in public interest in archaeology in recent years has been accelerated by far wider

coverage of the subject in recent years in print, radio and television journalism. Some of this

coverage is sober and informative. Some especially the news coverage, is still stuck in the ancient

stereotypes to do with the supposed value of “buried treasure”, obsessed almost to exclusion with

glamorous finds or with the image of the archaeologist as an adventurous explorer in distant

continents. An important aspect for archaeologists to embrace is to communicate results using the

diverse media forms that now exist. This lecture will consider the importance of such initiatives

as well as examining the potential for future efforts.

Reading:

Beavis, J. and A. Hunt (eds) 1999. Communicating Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow.

Finn C. 2001. Mixed messages: Archaeology and the media. Public Archaeology 1: 261-268.

Hamilakis Y. 2000. No laughing matter. Antiquity in Greek political cartoons. Public


Seetah K. 2015. “The Minister will tell the nation”: the role of the media for archaeology in

Mauritius. World Archaeology 47: 285-298.

Seymour M. 2004. Ancient Mesopotamia and Modern Iraq in the British Press, 1980-2003.

Current Anthropology 45(3): 351-368.

https://historicengland.org.uk/

14

Stoddart S. and C. Malone 2001. Editorial. Antiquity 75: 459-80.

*Students are required to search for archaeology-related stories in one of the following websites:

The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/

The Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/

The Times http://www.thetimes.co.uk/

The Financial Times http://www.ft.com/

The Economist http://www.economist.co.uk/

The Glasgow Sunday Herald http://www.sundayherald.com/search

BBC http://search.bbc.co.uk

BBC news http://www.news.bbc.uk/hi/english/world/default.stm

BBC World Service http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/index.shtml

Students may be interested to compare what they find with:

Archaeology Magazine http://www.archaeology.org/

(Click on archived stories so you do not have to subscribe)

ANDREW REID: ARCHAEOLOGY AND TELEVISION

This lecture will provide a critical look at the manner in which archaeology has been represented

on television, primarily with regard to factual programming and how this has evolved over time.

This critical review will help develop an understanding of the current place of archaeology on

television and its prospects for future programming. With the emergence of huge numbers of

channels, not to mention social media platforms, archaeology simply does not command the

presence on television that it once enjoyed. Mention will be made of programming such as

Animal, Mineral, Vegetable, Horizon, Down to Earth, Time Team, Meet the Ancestors, Extreme

Archaeology and Digging for Britain.

7. ANDREW REID: ARCHAEOLOGY AND EDUCATION

A key aspect of Public Archaeology is developing a greater awareness of the audiences that there

are for our outputs. One of the ways in which the public may be exposed to archaeology is

through education, either on the school grounds or as part of school visits. Archaeologists need

to be aware of how archaeology is able to contribute to learning. This lecture will briefly

address ways in which archaeology has been used to support the English National Curriculum.

It will focus on the use of archaeology in schools, but will also make reference to informal

education, to make more general points about how archaeology can be used as an educational

tool.

* Agate, A., Long, M., & Ramsay, S. (2005). Getting Archaeology into Class. London

Archaeologist, (February). - A case study on 'doing archaeology' in schools.

Bardavio, A., Gatell, C., & González-Marcén, P. (2004). Is archaeology what matters? Creating

a sense of local identity among teenagers in Catalonia. World Archaeology, 36(2), 261–274.

Bradley, D., Coombes, M., Bradley, J., & Tranos, E. (2011). 5395 Assessing the importance and

value of historic buildings to young people. Final Report to English Heritage. Newcastle.

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/historic-buildings-young-people/importance-

value-historic-buildings-young-people.pdf

Cole T. 2015. Understanding and assessing the theories behind archaeological education. Public


*Corbishley, M. (2011). Pinning Down the Past: archaeology, heritage and education today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/http://www.independent.co.uk/http://www.thetimes.co.uk/http://www.ft.com/http://www.economist.co.uk/http://www.sundayherald.com/searchhttp://search.bbc.co.uk/http://www.news.bbc.uk/hi/english/world/default.stmhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/index.shtmlhttp://www.archaeology.org/http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/historic-buildings-young-people/importance-value-historic-buildings-young-people.pdfhttp://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/historic-buildings-young-people/importance-value-historic-buildings-young-people.pdf

15

Woodbridge,The Boydell Press. Concentrate on the introduction and use the index to look at the

curriculum.

Dhanjal, S. (2005). Touching the Past? Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 16, 35–49.

Gransard-Desmond J-O. 2015. Science educators: bridging the gap between the scientific

community and society. World Archaeology 47: 299-316.

Henson, D., Stone, P., & Corbishley, M. (2004). Education and the Historic Environment.

London: Routledge. Particularly the introduction and chapters by Don Henson and Tim

Copeland.

Huffer D. and M. Oxenham 2015. How much life do I lose from the plague? Educational board

games as teaching tools in Archaeology and Ancient History courses. Public Archaeology

14: 81-91.

*Moshenska, G., Dhanjal, S., & Cooper, D. (2011). Building Sustainability in Community

Archaeology : The Hendon School Archaeology Project. Archaeology International, (13), 94–100.

JANE HUMPHRIS: PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY IN ACTION AT MEROË

This lecture provides us with an excellent case study of what can be achieved through ensuring

that research projects have a full engagement with their host populations. Research at Meroë,

Sudan, was itself instigated as a result of Qatar’s desire to extend its influence in the region – and

came to an end when regime change at UCL decided to pull out of its commitments to Qatar.

Meroë, one of the world’s great sites, was once the preserve of Egyptologists and of the colonial

world. When this project first went to the site, the local population had never previously been

approached by archaeological expeditions. A range of strategies, including open days, school

visits and a literacy programme have for the first time enabled the surrounding communities to

feel a sense of pride and responsibility towards the site.

8. ALICE STEVENSON: ANTIQUITIES IN THE FREE MARKET

Ownership of the past is not a straightforward matter. Questions of ownership, the morality of the

commodification of antiquities and the psychological significance of archaeological material have

engendered impassioned debate by collectors, bureaucrats and the general public. The looting of

archaeological sites to supply the trade poses an increasing threat to the archaeological record.

Illicit operations range from opportunistic individuals to major activites associated with drug

cartels and pariah states. International efforts to try to curtail trafficking in illicit antiquities have

not been particularly successful. The session will examine some of the main reasons for this

failure, in part through an examination of the relevant International Conventions.

Reading:

Askerud P. and E. Clement 1997. Preventing the Illicit Trade in Cultural Property: a Resource

Handbook for the Implementation of the UNESCO Convention. Paris: UNESCO. INST

ARCH AG 20 ASK

Brodie N. 2002. Introduction. In N. Brodie and K.W. Tubb (eds) Illicit Antiquities: 1-22. London:

Routledge.

Brodie N. 2002. Britannia waives the rules? The licensing of archaeological material for export

from the UK. In N. Brodie and K.W. Tubb (eds) Illicit Antiquities: 185-204. London:

Routledge.

*Brodie N., J. Doole and P.A. Watson 2000. Stealing History: the Illicit trade in Cultural Material.

Cambridge: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. INST ARCH AG Qto BRO

*Brodie N. and J. Doole 2001. Illicit antiquities. In Brodie N., J. Doole and C. Renfrew (eds)

Trade in Illicit Antiquities: the Destruction of the World’s Archaeological Heritage: 1-6.

Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.

16

Huffer D, D. Chappell, L. T. M. Dzung and H.L. Nguyen 2015. From the ground, up: the looting

of Vinron Chuoi within the Vietnamese and southeast Asian antiquities trade. Public


Lidington H. 2002. The role of the internet in removing the ‘shackles of the saleroom’. Public


McIntosh S.K., Renfrew A.C. and S. Vincent 2000. Forum. ‘The Good Collector’: fabulous beast

or endangered species? Public Archaeology 1: 73-81.

McManamon F.P. and S.D. Morton 2000. Reducing the illegal trafficking in antiquities. In F.P.

McManamon and A. Hatton (eds) Culture Resource Management in Contemporary Society:

247-275. London: Routledge.

Politis K.D. 2002. Dealing with the dealers and tomb robbers: the realities of the archaeology of

the Ghor es-Safi in Jordan. In N. Brodie and K.W. Tubb (eds) Illicit Antiquities: 257-267.

London: Routledge.

Renfrew C. 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: the Ethical Crisis in Archaeology. (Chapter

2: Unprovenanced antiquities: the role of the private collector and the dealer: 27-38).

London: Duckworth. INST ARCH AG 20 REN

Tubb K.W. and N. Brodie 2001. From museum to mantelpiece: the antiquities trade in the United

Kingdom. In R. Layton, P.G. Stone and J. Thomas (eds) Destruction and Conservation of

Cultural Property: 102-116. London: Routledge.

Tubb K.W. 2002. Point, counterpoint. In N. Brodie and K.W. Tubb (eds) Illicit Antiquities: 280-

300. London: Routledge.

Also consult:

www.trace.co.uk/

KEVIN MACDONALD: CONFLICT IN MALI AND THE TRADE IN TERRACOTTAS Consideration will be given to the case of the trade in Malian terracottas which at one time

threatened to be catastrophic but which had been brought under control, principally through

empowering local populations. Mali has one of the longest histories of systematic looting of

cultural goods in Sub-Saharan Africa. Because of this, it also has the longest history of initiatives

to combat what some have called ‘cultural genocide’. We will consider the history and relative

effectiveness of the fight against looting objects such as ‘Djenne terracottas.’ In 2012/13 Mali

suffered considerable political unrest which resulted in the destruction of cultural heritage by

military/political authorities and insurgents. This further poses the question of how to attempt to

protect heritage resources when “officials” determine such resources to be unethical.

Essential: MacDonald, K.C. 2013. Timbuktu under Threat. Current World Archaeology 58: 26-31.

Panella, C. 2014. Looters or Heroes? Production of Illegality and the culture of looting in Mali.

European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 20: 487-502.

Recommended:

Chippendale, C. 1991. Editorial. Antiquity 65: 823-30.

Dembélé, M. And Van der Waals, J.D. 1991. Looting the Antiquities of Mali. Antiquity 65: 904-

5.

Inskeep, R. 1992. Making an Honest Man Out of Oxford: Good News for Mali. Antiquity 66:

114

http://www.trace.co.uk/

17

Karoupas, M.P. 1995. US Efforts to Protect Cultural Property: implementation of the 1970

UNESCO Convention. African Arts 28 (4): 32-41.

Kiethega, J.B. 1995. Regional Museums on Archaeological Sites. In Museums and the

Community on West Africa. C.D. Ardouin and E. Arinze (eds.) 50-9, Washington (DC):

Smithsonian.

McIntosh, R.J. 1996. Just Say Shame: excising the rot of cultural genocide. In Plundering

Africa’s Past, P.R. Schmidt and R.J. McIntosh (eds.), 45-62, Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.

McIntosh, R.J. 1991. Resolved: to act for Africa’s Historical and Cultural Patrimony. African

Arts 24 (1): 18-22.

McIntosh, R.J., Togola, T., McIntosh, S.K. 1995. The Good Collector and the Premise of Mutual

Respect among Nations. African Arts 28 (4): 60-9.

Shapiro, D. 1995. The Ban on Malian Antiquities: a matter of law. African Arts 24 (1): 42-51.

Shaw, T. and MacDonald, K.C. 1995. Out of Africa and Out of Context. Antiquity 69: 1036-9.

Togola T. 2002. The rape of Mali’s only resource. In N. Brodie and K.W. Tubb (eds) Illicit

Antiquities: 250-256. London: Routledge.

9. ANDREW GARDNER: ARCHAEOLOGY, BREXIT, NATIONALISM AND THE

FUTURE

It is only right to recognize the profound impact that Brexit has had on the UK, since the EU

referendum in 2016. Although this issue is largely focused on national questions within Britain,

it does relate to broader global issues and particularly the emergence of what has been called

reactionary populism. Reactionary populism is of particular concern to academics because it

creates an ideology with which academic thought and substantive scientific evidence can be

rejected. This is of especial concern in archaeology because of the significance of the past and

elements from the past in forming national and ethnic identities and by inference rights to land,

work and resources. Such ideologies have as a consequence renewed narrow focus on late

nineteenth century ideas such as race, imperialism, nationalism and gender. Archaeology is

presented with the need to face up to these renewed borrowings of its data and with the need to

re-establish its credibility.

*Bonacchi, C., Altaweel, M. and Krzyzanska, M. 2018. The heritage of Brexit: roles of the past in the construction of political identities through social media. Journal of Social Archaeology 18(2), 174-192. *Brophy, K. 2018. The Brexit hypothesis and prehistory. Antiquity 92 (366), 1650-1658. (Plus follow-up discussion pieces by Bonacchi, Gardner, Schlanger and Brophy, same volume). Gardner, A. 2017. Brexit, Boundaries, and Imperial Identities: a comparative view. Journal of Social Archaeology, 17.1, 3--26. https://howardwilliamsblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/29/brexit-and-archaeodeath/ *Gardner, A. and Harrison R. 2017. Brexit, archaeology and heritage: reflections and agendas (Forum paper with replies and response). Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 26/27 [http://doi.org/10.5334/pia-544]. González-Ruibal, A., Alonso González, P. and Criado-Boado, F. 2018. Against reactionary populism: towards a new public archaeology. Antiquity 92 (362), 507-515. Green, S. (ed.) 2016. Brexit referendum: first reactions from Anthropology. Social Anthropology 24(4): 478–502, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12331 Niklasson, E. and Hølleland, H. 2018. The Scandinavian far-right and the new politicisation of heritage. Journal of Social Archaeology 17(2), 138-162.

https://howardwilliamsblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/29/brexit-and-archaeodeath/https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12331

18

Schlanger, N. 2017. Brexit in Betwixt. Some European Conjectures on its Predictability and Implications. The Historic Environment: Policy and Practice, 8(3), 212-222. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17567505.2017.1358324.

ANDREW REID: ALTERNATIVE ARCHAEOLOGIES

Public demand for archaeological stories has outstripped the supply of solid information, and much

of what is offered to the public is hardly user-friendly. This situation has encouraged a boom in

“alternative archaeologies” – involving druids, new agers, spacemen, magic and earth goddesses.

This is not a new phenomenon, indeed it has a long pedigree. Its current vogue, expressed in the

enormous sales of popular books on pseudo archaeology, may signify the need to invent new and

comprehensive pasts in a time of bewilderingly rapid change in the present. To some extent, it is

a synthetic substitute for traditional religion.

Reading:

Consult any of the following.

Cope J. 1998. The Modern Antiquarian. London: Thorsons. INST ARCH DAA 100 COP

Hancock G. 1998. Heaven’s Mirror. London: Michael Joseph. INST ARCH AS HAN

Meacham H. 2007. The amazing Dr Kouznetsov. Antiquity 81: 779-783.

Moshenska G. 2008. “The Bible in Stone”: Pyramids, Lost Tribes and Alternative Archaeologies.

Public Archaeology 7: 5-16.

Perry W.J. 1923 The Children of the Sun: a study in the early history of civilization. London:

Methuen. INST ARCH STORE BC 100 PER

Von Daniken E. 1969. Chariots of the Gods? Unsolved Mysteries of the Past. London: Michael

Heron and Souvenir Press.

10. ATENA UNGUREANU: PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY AT THEBES

Ancient Egypt occupies a unique place in the public psyche because of its treasures, epic tales of

discovery, the widespread distribution of its often-looted material culture and the use of

Egyptology as a setting for film. This prominence in the public mindset has driven demand to

consume ancient material culture in museums and homes and to visit the sites from where such

items were found. In this lecture the themes of the module will be reviewed in particular

focusing on a necropolis and its treatment. As we will see, this location has been subject to

looting of various kinds, has been impacted by cultural imperialism and is being confronted by

the demand for tourism. These and other issues highlight how important an understanding of

public archaeology is wherever we should find ourselves working.

Readings to follow.

ANDREW REID: ROUND UP OF THE MODULE

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17567505.2017.1358324

19

MOODLE

This handbook and all other essential information for the module will be available on Moodle. In

addition, there will be regular postings on the Moodle account highlighting news stories which

relate to elements of public archaeology and these will be sent out as an email to the group. It is

therefore essential that all students, especially those from other departments, are signed up to the

module’s moodle page.

LIBRARIES AND OTHER RESOURCES

In addition to the Library of the Institute of Archaeology, other libraries in UCL with holdings of

particular relevance to this degree are: the Main Library; the Science Library. Students are

encouraged to visit museums in general in order to view the different ways of presenting of the

past to the public. A field trip will be made to the Museum of London. Students are also strongly

recommended to visit the British Museum. Students should look out for representations of

archaeology in newspapers and on television.

INFORMATION FOR INTERCOLLEGIATE AND INTERDEPARTMENTAL

STUDENTS

Students enrolled in Departments outside the Institute should obtain the Institute’s coursework

guidelines from Judy Medrington (email [email protected]). These guidelines will also be

available on Moodle under Student Administration.

mailto:[email protected]

20

APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2019-20 (PLEASE READ CAREFULLY)

This appendix provides a short précis of policies and procedures relating to modules. It is not a substitute

for the full documentation, with which all students should become familiar. For full information on

Institute policies and procedures, see the IoA Student Administration section of Moodle:

https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/module/view For UCL policies and procedures, see the Academic Regulations and the UCL Academic Manual:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulations ; http://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/

GENERAL MATTERS

ATTENDANCE: A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify

the lecturer by email. Students are normally required to attend at least 70% of classes. DYSLEXIA: If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please discuss with your lecturers whether there

is any way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia should indicate it on each coursework cover

sheet.

COURSEWORK

LATE SUBMISSION: Late submission will be penalized in accordance with current UCL regulations,

unless formal permission for late submission has been granted.

The UCL penalties are as follows:

The marks for coursework received up to two working days after the published date and time will incur a 10 percentage point deduction in marks (but no lower than the pass mark).

The marks for coursework received more than two working days and up to five working days after the published date and time will receive no more than the pass mark (40% for UG modules,

50% for PGT modules).

Work submitted more than five working days after the published date and time, but before the second week of the third term will receive a mark of zero but will be considered complete.

GRANTING OF EXTENSIONS: Please note that there are strict UCL-wide regulations with regard to

the granting of extensions for coursework. You are reminded that Module Coordinators are not

permitted to grant extensions. All requests for extensions must be submitted on a the appropriate UCL

form, together with supporting documentation, via Judy Medrington’s office and will then be referred on

for consideration. Please be aware that the grounds that are acceptable are limited. Those with long-

term difficulties should contact UCL Student Support and Wellbeing (SSW) to make special arrangements. Please see the IoA website for further information. Additional information is given here

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/

RETURN OF COURSEWORK AND RESUBMISSION: You should receive your marked coursework

within one month of the submission deadline. If you do not receive your work within this period, or a

written explanation, notify the Academic Administrator. When your marked essay is returned to you, return

it to the Module Co-ordinator within two weeks. You must retain a copy of all coursework submitted.

CITING OF SOURCES and AVOIDING PLAGIARISM: Coursework must be expressed in your own

words, citing the exact source (author, date and page number; website address if applicable) of any

ideas, information, diagrams, etc., that are taken from the work of others. This applies to all media

(books, articles, websites, images, figures, etc.). Any direct quotations from the work of others must

be indicated as such by being placed between quotation marks. Plagiarism is a very serious

irregularity, which can carry heavy penalties. It is your responsibility to abide by requirements for

presentation, referencing and avoidance of plagiarism. Make sure you understand definitions of

plagiarism and the procedures and penalties as detailed in UCL regulations:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/current-students/guidelines/plagiarism

MOODLE: Please ensure you are signed up to the module on Moodle. For help with Moodle, please

contact Charlotte Frearson ([email protected])
https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/module/viewhttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-regulationshttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/academic-manual/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/mailto:[email protected]

Documents

ARCL0026 PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY...1 Institute of Archaeology UCL ARCL0026 PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY 2nd/3rd Year Undergraduate Module (15 credits) Second Term 2019/2020 Deadlines for this module: