1. No category

Institute of Archaeology
UCL
ARCL2019 PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY
2nd/3rd Year Undergraduate Core Course
(0.5 cu)
Second Term 2014/2015
Turnitin Class ID: 783173
Turnitin Password IoA1415
Course Co-Ordinator:
Dr. Andrew Reid
room 111
tel. 0207679-1531
e-mail: [email protected]
Teaching Assistant: Sarah Dhanjal
e-mail [email protected]
MONDAYS 11-1 PM
Seminar Room 347, 16 Taviton Street (SSEES building)
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 course examines archaeology in its wider social and political context.
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 discussed. These will
include 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.
1
BASIC TEXTS
There are several recent publications which successfully summarise the issues behind Public
Archaeology. However, the very nature of the subject, which is constantly changing and which
encompasses all interactions with the public, 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more than out-of-date introductions.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.
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.
METHODS OF ASSESSMENT
This course is assessed by means of:
(a) a two-hour written examination in May (50%); students are expected to answer 2 out
of 8 questions;
(b) two pieces of course-work: an essay of 1425-1575 words, which contributes 35% to
the final grade for the course; and a 950-1050 word review of public archaeology issues at an
archaeological/historical site or a museum that you have visited, which contributes 15%.
TEACHING METHODS
The course is taught through weekly lectures. Tutorials will also take place throughout the
course. In addition, one field-trip will be arranged to give students greater familiarity with key
issues covered in the course.
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 tutorial group sessions for this course. The
field trip will take an estimated 9 hours. Students will be expected to undertake around 70 hours
of reading for the course, plus 40 hours preparing for and producing the assessed work, and an
additional 45 hours on revision for the examination. This adds up to a total workload of some
188 hours for the course.
2. AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT
AIMS
This course provides an introduction to the way in which archaeology relates to the wider world
and has a relevance to everyday life. In this introductory course we draw attention to the wide
array of interrelated issues in the public domain, their relevance to archaeologists, and the
2
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 in the media 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 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 ones viewpoint) to a
number of national economies. The emphasis in the course is very much on encouraging
students to engage with, experience and critique the encounters that they have. Students are
encouraged to visit sites and museums, look at the broadsheet press and television – you may
well see numerous examples of Public Archaeology which may serve as examples for your
written assignments.
OBJECTIVES OF THE COURSE
On successful completion of the course 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.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Through taking this course 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 course 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 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 experience sites and museums for themselves, a new
feature of the course in 2006 was an assessment contributing 15% of the final grade for the
course. 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 London Roman Amphitheatre, the Sir John
Soane Museum, the British Museum or the Petrie Museum. Your completed review should be
submitted by midnight on Friday 6th March.
3
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, contestation in the landscape, or a range
of other issues. It is intended that the Public Archaeology course will expose students to these
issues and that the review will be undertaken in light of student’s 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 submitted by midnight
on Thursday 2nd April.
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.
In what ways has archaeology been made use of by politics and what have been the
consequences of this use?
How has the role of the museum changed and how are these changes represented in their
activities?
Discuss, using at least three examples, how archaeology has been used within museums.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of using archaeological material.
Why is the return of cultural property, including human remains, such a problematic
issue?
How is archaeology currently communicated to non-archaeologists and what means offer
the best prospects for the future? Be sure to think of the audiences who are being targeted
by these initiatives.
How can archaeology be used as an educational resource and does it offer viable
educational returns?
Discuss the importance of cultural tourism for the protection and management of
archaeological sites.
How do non-archaeologists encounter archaeology and does this shape their use of the
past?
If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should discuss this with the
Course Co-ordinator.
The Course 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.
4
Word counts
The following should not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages, lists of
figure and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, lists of references, captions
and contents of tables and figures, appendices.
Penalties will 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.
EXAMINATION
This course has a two hour unseen examination, which will be held during May; the specific date
and time will be announced when the schedule of examinations is set by the College. In the
examination, students will have to answer 2 questions. Previous examination papers, with the
same format and examples of the style of questions which will be asked, are available for
consultation in the Institute Library, and are available on the UCL Web-site. A revision session
to discuss the examination will be held in the first week of the third term.
3. SYLLABUS AND SCHEDULE
Lectures will be held 11:00-13:00 on Monday, in Seminar Room 347, 16 Taviton Street (SSEES
building).
Students will be divided into four tutorial groups.
One field trip will be scheduled to the Museum of London on Saturday 28th February. Further
details will be announced closer to the date. Attendance registers will be kept of those present
on the trip.
TUTORIAL GROUPS
Students will be divided into four tutorial groups which will meet in Room 410. Group lists are
attached below. Students may also consult the second-year notice board (basement staircase
landing) for details of groups and meeting times. Tutorials will be taken by Sarah Dhanjal.
To keep tutorial groups 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 Course Co-ordinator.
The tutorial groups will be directed to examine a number of general themes concerned in Public
Archaeology. Four themes will be examined. You should also use these group sessions to raise
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 Sarah Dhanjal if the times given below present major problems
Tutorial Group A (Room 410)
Tuesdays 1.00-2.00
Jan 20, Feb 3, 24, Mar 10,
Tutorial Group B (Room 410)
Tuesdays 2.00-3.00
Jan 20, Feb 3, 24, Mar 10,
5
Emma Clark
Dan Hobbins
Hannah Mills
Alasdair Chi
Emma Densham
Jimm Hunt
Erin Niles
Hannah Sas-Skowronski
Piers Thomas
Anthony Welland
10
Maximilian Austin
Sarah Cowell
Xingdi Fang
Sarah Hoynes
Lily Kidulis
Rosalind Mocroft
Pippa Postgate Foulsham
Joe Saxon
Thomas Warburton
Mandy Weston
10
Tutorial Group C (Room 410)
Tuesdays 1.00-2.00
Jan 27, Feb 10, Mar 3, 17
Fergus Hooper
Regine Isaksen
Madeleine Riley
Ella Bekesi
Becky Li
Lawrence Rees
Adam Rigby
Arthur Starzec
Frida Vonstad
9
Tutorial Group D (Room 410)
Tuesdays 2.00-3.00
Jan 27, Feb 10, Mar 3, 1
Maxime De Sadeleer
Caterina Gregori
Katie Hung
Shan Mughal
Mariana Ribas Albuquerque
Miri Sakamoto
Lydia Thomas
Laura Webb
Marina Coppoli Dias De Miranda
9
LECTURE SUMMARIES
The following is an outline for the course 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 course.
Where 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: OBLIGATORY ‘PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY’- WHY?
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 become aware
of the interface between their chosen discipline and the wider community.
Reading:
6
Austin D. 1987. The future of Archaeology in British Universities. Antiquity 61: 227-38. INST
ARCH Periodicals
Cleere H.F. 1989/2000. Introduction: the rationale of archaeological heritage management (+
other relevant chapters). In Cleere H.F. (ed) Archaeological Heritage Management in the
Modern World: 1-22. London: Unwin Hyman. INST ARCH AG CLE
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.
McGimsey W. 1972. Public Archaeology. London: Seminar Press. ISSUE DESK IOA McG 1
McManamon F.P. 1994. Presenting archaeology to the public in the USA. In P.G. Stone and B.
Molyneaux (eds) The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums and Education: 61-81. London:
Routledge. INST ARCH M 6 STO
McManamon F.P. 2000. Archaeological messages and messengers. Public Archaeology 1: 520.
*Meskell L. 1998. Introduction: Archaeology matters. In L. Meskell (ed) Archaeology Under
Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East:112. London: Routledge. INST ARCH AG MES
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.
Stone P.G. and P.G. Planel 1999. Introduction (+ other chapters). In P.G. Stone and P.G. Planel
(eds) The Constructed Past: Experimental Archaeology, Education and the Public: 1-14.
London: Routledge. INST ARCH AH STO
*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: 187192.
2. ANDREW REID: POLITICS AND ARCHAEOLOGY
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 course.
Reading:
7
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
Archaeology 6: 203-226.
Hitchens C. 1998. The Elgin Marbles: Should they Return to Greece? London: Verso. YATES
M 32 HIT
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.
Lowenthal D. 1990/1994. Conclusion: archaeologists and others. In P. Gathercole and D.
Lowenthal (eds) The Politics of the Past: 302-14. London: Unwin Hyman.
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 Archaeology 2: 95-100.
Tarlow S. 2001. Decoding ethics. Public Archaeology 1: 245-259.
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.
8
*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
Ucko P.J. 2001. ‘Heritage’ and ‘Indigenous Peoples’ in the 21st century. Public Archaeology 1:
227-239.
3. ANDREW REID: INDIGENOUS AND LOCAL ARCHAEOLOGIES
ANDREW REID: UNESCO, HERITAGE AND TOURISM
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. Since then 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.
Cooper M.A. et al (eds) 1995. Managing Archaeology. London: Routledge. INST ARCH AG
COO
Department of the Environment 1990. Archaeology and Planning. London: HMSO. INST
ARCH AG 20 ARC
Faulkner N. 2000. Archaeology from below. Public Archaeology 1: 21-33.
*Hall, C M & McArthur, S 1996. The Human dimension of heritage management: different
values, different interests, different issues, in Hall, C M & McArthur, S (eds) Heritage
Management in Australia and New Zealand: 2-21. Oxford University Press. INST ARCH
DD HAL
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
Archaeology 6: 5-27.
*Hunter J. and I. Ralston 1994. The structure of British archaeology. In J. Hunter and I. Ralston
(eds) Archaeological Resource Management in the UK: 30-43. Alan Sutton Publishing
Ltd. INST ARCH AG HUN
James N. 2008. Repatriation, display and interpretation. Antiquity 82: 770-777.
Little, B (ed) 2002. The public benefits of archaeology. Gainesville: Florida University Press.
INST ARCH DED 100 LIT
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
Merriman, N (ed) 2004. Public archaeology. London: Routledge. INST ARCH AG MER
Simpson F. and H. Williams 2008. Evaluating community archaeology in the UK. Public
Archaeology 7: 69-90.
Spoerry P. 1993. Archaeology and Legislation in Britain. Hertford: Rescue. INST ARCH AG
20 SPO
9
Tully G. 2007. Community archaeology: general methods and standards of practice. Public
Archaeology 6: 155-187.
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
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.
Hewison R. 1987. The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline. London: Methuen.
INST ARCH MB HEW
*Johnson P. and Thomas B. 1992. Tourism, Museums and the Local Economy. (Chapter 1: The
purpose of the study: 1-15). Aldershot: Edward Elgar. INST ARCH MA 42 JOH
*Malone C. and S. Stoddart 1998. Editorial. Antiquity 72: 731-737. INST ARCH
PERIODICALS Mowforth M. and Hunt I. 1998. Tourism and Sustainability: new
Tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge. ANTHROPOLOGY E 40 MOW
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.
Ndoro W. and G. Pwiti 2001. Heritage management in southern Africa: local national and
international discourse. Public Archaeology 2: 21-34.
Van Schalkwyk L.O. 1999. oNdini: the Zulu royal capital of King Cetshwayo ka Mpande
(1873-1879). In P.G. Stone and P.G. Planel (eds) The Constructed Past: Experimental
10
Archaeology, Education and the Public: 269-82. London: Routledge. INST ARCH AH
STO
Wainwright G. 1996. Stonehenge saved? Antiquity 70: 9-12. INST ARCH PERIODICALS
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.
Copeland T. 1999. Past experience – the view from teacher education. In J. Beavis and A. Hunt
(eds) Communicating Archaeology: 79-86.
Bournemouth University School of
Conservation Sciences, Occasional Paper 4. Oxford: Oxbow Books. INST ARCH AQ
BEA
Davison P. 2001. Typecast: representations of the Bushmen at the South African Museum.
Public Archaeology 2: 3-20.
*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.
Mackenzie R. and P.G. Stone 1990. Introduction: the concept of the excluded past. In P.G.
Stone and R. Mackenzie (eds) The Excluded Past: Archaeology in Education: 1-14.
London: Unwin Hyman. INST ARCH AQ STO
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.
*Stone P.G. 1997. Presenting the past: a framework for discussion. In J. Jameson (ed)
Presenting Archaeology to the Public: 23-34. New Mexico: Altamira. INST ARCH DED
100 JAM
Stone P.G. and Molyneaux B.L. 1994. The Presented Past: Heritage, Museums and Education.
London: Routledge. INST ARCH M 6 STO
11
5. TIM WILLIAMS: CONSERVATION AND PRESENTATION OF 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
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
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
Smith, L 2004. Archaeological theory and the politics of cultural heritage. London: Routledge.
INST ARCH AG SMI
Stanley-Price N.P. (ed) 1995. Conservation on Archaeological Excavations, with Particular
Reference to the Mediterranean area. (2nd Ed). Rome: ICCROM. Ch 7-10. INST ARCH
LA PRI
Walderhaug Saetersdahl E.M. 2000. Ethics, politics and practices in rock art conservation.
Public Archaeology 1: 163-180
SARAH DHANJAL: ARCHAEOLOGY AND EDUCATION
12
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-youngpeople/importance-value-historic-buildings-young-people.pdf
Copeland, Tim. (2009). Archaeological Heritage Education : Citizenship from the
Ground Up. Treballs d’Arqueologia, 15, 9–20.
***Corbishley, M. (2011). Pinning Down the Past: archaeology, heritage and education
today.
Woodbridge,The Boydell Press. 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.
***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.
McGill, A. E. (2012). Old Tings, Skelintans and Rooinz: Belizean Student Perspectives
about Archaeology. Chungara, Revista de Antropologia Chilena, 44(1), 475–485.
Moshenska, G., Dhanjal, S., & Cooper, D. (2011). Building Sustainability in Community
Archaeology : The Hendon School Archaeology Project. Archaeology International,
(13), 94–100. A case study in 'doing archaeology' in schools. A case study on 'doing
archaeology' in schools.
The wider public interest in 'teaching archaeology' - search for references to
'Curriculum' and 'Schools'
English Heritage. (2000). Power of Place. The Future of the Historic Environment.
English Heritage. Retrieved from www.englishheritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1447
Pokotylo, D. (2013). Public Opinion and Canadian Archaeological Heritage: A National
Perspective. Canadian Archaeological Association, 26(2), 88–129.
Ramos, M., & Duganne, D. (2000). Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes about
Archaeology (pp. 1–53).
6.
GABRIEL MOSHENSKA: COMMUNICATING ARCHAEOLOGY
13
ANDY BEVAN: CROWD-FUNDING AND CROWD-SOURCING FOR
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.
Increasingly archaeologists are recognizing the need for proactive engagement with the public
using the full range of media facilities that are available today. Several interesting initiatives
have been developed using social networking and dedicated smartphone apps. These lectures
challenge us to continue to explore new ways to engage the public, arguing that it is the only
means by which we can effectively communicate with a broader audience. In addition,
networking media offer new opportunities to fund and resource research activities themselves.
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
Archaeology 1: 57-72.
Jordan P. 1981. Archaeology and Television. In J.D. Evans, B. Cunliffe, and C. Renfrew (eds)
Antiquity and Man: 207-213. London: Thames and Hudson. INST ARCH AE DAN
Peters E. 1981. Archaeology and Publishing. In J.D. Evans, B. Cunliffe, and C. Renfrew (eds)
Antiquity and Man: 195-202. London: Thames and Hudson. INST ARCH AE DAN
Seymour M. 2004. Ancient Mesopotamia and Modern Iraq in the British Press, 1980-2003.
Current Anthropology 45(3): 351-368.
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
BBC news
BBC World Service
http://search.bbc.co.uk
http://www.news.bbc.uk/hi/english/world/default.stm
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)
14
For crowd-sourcing and crowd-funding:
Bevan, A., Pett, D., Bonacchi, C., Keinan-Schoonbaert, A., Lombraña González, D, Sparks, R.,
Wexler, J. and Wilkin, N. 2014. Citizen archaeologists. Online collaborative
research about the human past, Human Computation (2014) 1:2:183-197
http://dx.doi.org/10.15346/hc.v1i2.9
(and see the website http://micropasts.org/)
Crowd crafting Citizen Science site
http://crowdcrafting.org/about
http://www.theguardian.com/culture-professionals-network/2014/mar/18/brendon-wilkinsdigventures-archaeology-drones
(and see the website http://digventures.com/)
Kickstarter Crowdfunding site
https://www.kickstarter.com/hello?ref=footer
7. ROY STEPHENSON: BEYOND THE MUSEUM – COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND
THE MUSEUM OF LONDON
MERIEL JEATER: CREATING NEW GALLERIES
These two lectures will be presented by members of staff of the Museum of London as part of
our consideration of the activities of that institution. These lectures will give you an insight into
the workings of a museum and will build on your experiences from the field trip In particular,
we will explore how galleries are designed and implemented and how specific intentions have to
be catered for. This was very clearly the case with the War, Fire, Plague gallery. The gallery
was very carefully designed and planned out. Compare it with the London Before London
(prehistory) gallery from 2001 and the Roman section dating from 1996. A particular focus will
be on recent initiatives which drew young people into the modification of existing Roman
galleries as part of a broader range of activities in part relating to the London Olympics. You
can see more about this on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpeSdODK_Yk
The Museum of London has in recent years been able to demonstrate a widespread ability to
attract members of the public. This is in terms of innovative exhibits, manipulation of the media,
special activity days, but also in terms of outreach to members of the community who might not
otherwise be interested in the activities of the museum.
Besides the reading for the museum’s lecture you should also consult their website:
WWW.MUSEUMOFLONDON.ORG.UK/
Which has all kinds of useful information on displays, learning and also a back catalogue of
press releases.
It is strongly recommended that students visit the Museum of London prior to these
presentations.
15
8. KATHY TUBB: ANTIQUITIES IN A 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. 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
Briat M. and J.A. Freedburg (eds) 1996. Legal Aspects of International Trade in Art. Vol.V:
International Sales of Works of Art. (Especially chapters by Merryman and Coggins)
Paris: ICC Publishing and Kluwer Law. INST ARCH AG 20 BRI
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.
Lidington H. 2002. The role of the internet in removing the ‘shackles of the saleroom’. Public
Archaeology 2: 67-84.
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: 2738). London: Duckworth. INST ARCH AG 20 REN
Stead I.M. 1998. The Salisbury Hoard. Stroud: Tempus Publishing. INST ARCH AG 20 STE
Tubb K.W. (ed.) 1995. Antiquities: Trade or Betrayed: Legal Ethical and Conservation Issues.
London: Archtype. (Especially Palmer paper) INST ARCH AG 20 TUB
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.
16
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
has suffered considerable political unrest which has 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:
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.
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: 9045.
Healey, P. F. 1984. Archaeology Abroad: Ethical Considerations of Fieldwork in Foreign
Countries, in Ethics and Values in Archaeology, E. L. Green (ed.), 123-32. New York:
Free Press.
Inskeep, R. 1992. Making an Honest Man Out of Oxford: Good News for Mali. Antiquity 66:
114
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., 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. GARY BROWN: COMMUNITY ARCHAEOLOGY AT PCA
17
MOLA: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND ORAL HISTORY AS PART OF THE WALBROOK
DISCOVERY PROGRAMME
A dynamic area which is proving to be very important in the last few years is commercial
archaeology providing outreach services. This satisfies a need amongst developers and/or local
and regional authorities to provide targeted programmes in relation to particular issues and also
widens the scope of commercial archaeology companies making them less susceptible to the
vagaries of the economy and the amount of construction projects being conducted. There are of
course dangers in commercializing education and there is the further potential for political
interference.
This session will look at two ongoing initiatives that are attempting such outreach projects. They
will provide you with examples of good practice and the challenges that have to be dealt with.
There are no readings available for this session but additional readings may be suggested.
10. PUBLIC ARCHAEOLOGY PANEL: GABE MOSHENSKA AND MIKE
HEYWORTH (DIRECTOR OF THE COUNCIL FOR BRITISH ARCHAEOLOGY)
As a different way of concluding the course this year we have decided to experiment with a
discussion panel to provide a conclusion to the course and an indication of the future directions
Public Archaeology will explore. You will be able to participate in this discussion and we will
seek to draw questions from you in advance. The session will also provide an overview and
summary of public archaeology the will be a useful stepping stone in your preparations for your
exam.
4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
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]), which will also be available
on the IoA website.
18
APPENDIX A: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 2014-15 (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, except in case of illness or other adverse
circumstances which are supported by medical certificates or other documentation. 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 penalized in accordance with UCL regulations, unless prior permission
for late submission has been granted and an Extension Request Form (ERF) completed. 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.
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 [email protected].
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 penalized 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 ([email protected]).
19
COURSE SYLLABUS
1.
12.01.15
11:00-13:00
Andrew Reid: Introduction to the course: organisation and objectives.
Andrew Reid: Obligatory ‘Public Archaeology’- why?
2.
19.01.15
11:00-13:00
Andrew Reid: Politics and Archaeology
Ulrike Sommer: Nationalism and Archaeology in the emergence of Europe
(Tutorial Groups A, B)
3.
26.01.15
11:00-13:00
Andrew Reid: Indigenous and Local Archaeologies
Andrew Reid: Unesco, heritage and tourism
(Tutorial Groups C, D)
4.
02.02.15
11:00-13:00
Theano Moussouri: People and Museums
Andrew Reid: Displaying objects
(Tutorial Groups A, B)
5.
09.02.15
11:00-13:00
Tim Williams: Presentation and Management of Sites
Sarah Dhanjal: Archaeology and Education
(Tutorial Groups C, D)
READING WEEK (NO TEACHING)
6.
23.02.15
11:00-13:00
Gabriel Moshenska: Communicating Archaeology
Andy Bevan: Crowd-funding and crowd-sourcing for archaeology
(Tutorial Groups A, B)
7.
02.03.15
11:00-13:00
Roy Stephenson: Beyond the museum: the Museum of London
Meriel Jeater: Creating new galleries
(Tutorial Groups C, D)
8.
09.03.15
11:00-13:00
Kathy Tubb: Antiquities in the free market
Kevin MacDonald: Heritage and conflict in Mali
(Tutorial Groups A, B)
9.
16.03.15
11:00-13:00
Gary Brown from PCA: Community Archaeology at PCA
MOLA: Public Outreach and Oral history on Walbrook Discovery Programme
(Tutorial Groups C, D)
10.
23.03.15
11:00-13:00
Public Archaeology Panel: Gabe Moshenska,
20
Mike Heyworth MBE, Director of the Council for British Archaeology
21