Archaeology International

Published by Ubiquity Press, Ltd.
Online ISSN: 2048-4194
Print ISSN: 1463-1725
A team of archaeologists and anthropologists from UCL and the University of Southampton has been awarded a large grant by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Board to set up a Centre for the Evolutionary Analysis of Cultural Behaviour. It is one of only ten research centres to be funded in the UK under this new AHRB scheme and is the first in the world dedicated to its subject. Here the Centre's director and a colleague outline its aims and describe two of the first research projects to be undertaken.
The Fiji islands (Fig. 1) were first inhabited approximately 900 B.C. by populations sailing eastward from Island Melanesia 1. Like all the founding populations of western Remote Oceania—from Vanuatu and New Caledonia, to Fiji, Tonga and Samoa—the first Fijians were part of a related group of colonising peoples sharing aspects of language, biology and material culture, including the famous intricately decorated Lapita pottery. Many archaeologists, anthropologists and other scholars suggest that over the last three millennia, these once similar populations diverged from their common origins 2. Our current research in Fiji has focused on the generation of cultural difference over some three thousand years of human occupation. Specifically, how do we explain the contemporary cultural diversity across Fiji and Remote Oceania? Is cultural divergence the most appropriate model?3
(a) Diffusion of hybrid corn usage, showing areas that planted 10 or more percent of their corn acreage to hybrid seed at successive time intervals (redrawn after Griliches 1960). (b) Within-state rate of increase of hybrid corn use, plotted against the date of arrival in each state (the date at which hybrid corn reached 10% of all corn). Data from Griliches (1957) with revised growth coefficient estimates from Dixon (1980; coefficient b 2 ). From Steele (forthcoming).  
The new Centre for the Evolution of Cultural Diversity (CECD), supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, is a successor to the Centre for the Evolutionary Analysis of Cultural Behaviour (see AI 2000/2001). Here the director of the CECD outlines the theoretical frameworks within which the Centre operates and the main research themes that will be pursued over the next five years.
PROCON is a new project hosted by the UCL Institute of Archaeology, funded by a European Research Council starting grant (No. 312603). The aim of the project is to test the hypothesis that textile production and consumption was a significant driving force of the economy and of the creation and perception of wealth in Mediterranean Europe during the period of urbanisation and early urbanism in 1000–500 BCE. The overarching question to be answered is: To what extent did textile production and consumption define the development of productive and commercial activities of early urban Mediterranean societies in the Iron Age?
UCL Provost, Malcolm Grant, unveils an Avebury sarsen in Gordon Square garden to mark the Institute of Archaeology's 75th anniversary (photo: Lisa Daniel).
Magnetometry survey in progress in Hertfordshire as part of the AHRC-funded project 'Sensing the Iron Age and Roman Past' (photo: Kris Lockyear).  
Charlotte Frearson receiving her award, in January 2013, as UCL Public Engager of the Year, Support Staff Category (photo: Jay Stone).  
Peter Drewett (photo: Stuart Laidlaw).  
The Director of the UCL Institute of Archaeology reports on events since the publication of the last issue of' Archaeology International' (No. 15), for 2011-12, and comments on current developments.
The Institute of Archaeology has begun a programme of academic collaboration with the Institutt for Arkeologi og Kulturhistorie in Trondheim, Norway. One of the first initiatives to be taken is a comparative study of facial representation in Viking art. A member of the research team outlines the project.
Sue Hamilton. 
The terracotta army (photo: Xia Jux- ian). 
The Director of the UCL Institute of Archaeology reports on events since the publication of the last issue of 'Archaeology International' (No. 16), for 2012–13, and comments on current developments.
UCL Institute of Archaeology Directors report for 2017–18.
Margaret Murray on the occasion of her 100th birthday which was marked by the presentation of an address from the Professorial Board (UCL Records).  
Margaret Murray (third from left) unwrapping a mummy at the Manchester University Museum in 1908. The other people in the picture are (from left to right): Mr Wilfred Jackson, Miss Hart-Davies and Mr Standen (photo: courtesy of Manchester Museum, The University of Manchester).  
Water-colour portrait of Margaret Murray by her former student, Winifred Brunton ; it is dated 1917, when Murray would have been 53 or 54 (photo: Stuart Laidlaw; UCL Art Museum).  
Margaret Murray, who was born 150 years ago, was one of the first archaeologists to be employed at UCL and one of the most distinguished, although her role in the history of archaeology is often underestimated. This article provides a brief outline of the career and contribution of a highly productive and innovative, if sometimes controversial, scholar, who also participated in the wider social movements of her time, particularly the campaign for women’s suffrage.
David Harris in 1989, when Director of the Institute of Archaeology (UCL). 
David Harris excavating at the Neolithic site of Jeitun, Turkmenistan, 1997. 
Director of the Institute of Archaeology, UCL: 1989–1996 Emeritus Professor of Human Environment: 1996–2013
Rachel Maxwell-Hyslop (Fig. 1) was one of the first three students to be admitted to the Institute, in 1934, even before it had a building, and she later joined the staff as a member of the Department of Western Asiatic Archaeology. She recalls her early teachers and her later work with Max Mallowan and other colleagues during the formative years of the Institute.
Kathleen Kenyon excavation at Jericho. Photo: Stuart Laidlaw. Reproduced with permission of the photography. Institute of Archaeology Jericho Photographic Archive.
Letter from Wheeler to Kenyon, 31st May 1935, offering her the job of Secretary to the new Institute. Photo: Stuart Laidlaw. Reproduced with permission of the photographer. Institute of Archaeology Kenyon Staff Record.
The Institute of Archaeology, St. Johns Lodge, Inner Circle, Regents Park. Institute of Archaeology Archives, file 5.
Letter confirming Kenyon's appointment as Lecturer in Palestinian Archaeology, 6th February 1948. Photo: Stuart Laidlaw. Reproduced with permission. Kathleen Kenyon's staff record.
Research on the Institute of Archaeology Library Archive has unearthed a number of letters written by Kathleen Kenyon during her early career as Secretary and later Acting Director of the Institute of Archaeology, 1935-1947. These letters shed light on Kenyon’s early career and the importance of her role in the newly founded Institute of Archaeology. They reveal the versatility required of her, with responsibilities ranging from sorting out drains to collecting library books, giving tours, negotiating funds and stepping in for Mortimer Wheeler. Kenyon’s capacity for hard work and her efficiency are clearly visible and her passion for archaeology and her fierce devotion to the Institute shine through. The letters also demonstrate Kenyon’s lesser known kindness, charm, tact and ability to deal with difficult people and situations. The letters also reveal the vibrancy of the amateur archaeological community between the wars and the hard, unglamorous and unacknowledged work done by administrators and volunteers. Many of the administrators that Kenyon worked with were women, who like Kenyon came to adulthood in the inter-war period, when opportunities for women were expanding. The language of these letters reveals that these were New Women – worldly wise, briskly competent, ironic, unemotional and self-controlled, women who represented a new model of modernity for the 20th century. But modernity did not guarantee success and there are hints that although Kenyon owed much to her father, Sir Frederick Kenyon, this relationship also constrained her and she had to work hard to establish her own independence and authority as an archaeologist.
Institute of Archaeology Borrowing Ledger 1944–1947 (Photo UCL Institute of Archaeology).  
The St John's Lodge Library. Taylor and Talbot with their backs to the camera, pictured shelving books together (Photo UCL Institute of Archaeology).  
Entry for Scarborough from the Site Index (Photo UCL Library Services).  
The First Floor Gordon Square Library (Photo UCL Institute of Archaeology).  
This article documents the history of the Institute of Archaeology Library from its independent beginnings in 1937 until the merger of the Institute with UCL in 1986. Documents from the Institute of Archaeology Library Archive, unpublished Institute Management Committee Minutes and published Annual Reports are used to demonstrate how the Library and the activities of its librarians reflected changes and developments not only in the Institute community, but also within wider archaeological networks. Initially situated in a united archaeological community with fluid boundaries, the Library was to develop its own independent identity as changes in Higher Education, professionalisation and commercialisation destroyed this unity and promoted the development of distinct communities of professional practice.
The editor looks back over the history of the Institute.
Map showing the location of the Institute of Archaeology at St John's Lodge, Regent's Park.  
The proceedings of the 'Conference on the Future of Archaeology' (1943).  
Kathleen Kenyon in Red Cross uniform, in 1943, at the opening of an exhibition, 'The Present Rediscovers the Past', as Acting Director of the Institute of Archaeology.  
Bomb damage map with St John's Lodge at the centre, showing V1 missile impact points as circles, and bomb damage to buildings colour-coded from pale (minor) to dark (severe) (image: © and courtesy of City of London, London Metropolitan Archives).  
List of organisations represented at the conference (from CFA, 1943).  
At the height of the Second World War the Institute of Archaeology hosted a conference in London to map out the post-war future for archaeology. Over a bank-holiday weekend in August 1943 several hundred archaeologists – amateurs, professionals, academics, civil servants and refugees – debated the future of archaeology. The discussion ranged across fields as diverse as the British Schools of Archaeology abroad, Islamic urban archaeology, licences for excavators, and the need for a national card-index of archaeological sites. Two themes loomed over the event: the question of state funding and control of archaeology caused considerable controversy; whereas the need for greater public engagement and education in archaeology enjoyed near-universal approval. Today the proceedings of the conference are a rich, illuminating and often amusing snapshot of British archaeology at a pivotal moment in its development.
Grace Simpson (Fig. 1) was one of the small group of students who enrolled at the Institute, which was then housed in St John's Lodge in Regent's Park, when teaching re-started after the Second World War. She fondly recalls those days, when she was taught by Kathleen Kenyon, Gordon Childe, Stuart Piggott and, most memorably, Frederick Zeuner.
This research note aims to draw attention to a little-studied aspect in the history of archaeology: the relationship between university training and international students. The article provides a brief background to the social and political context of international student recruitment in the UK (principally, but not exclusively, from the Commonwealth) before turning to the status of museum training courses in the Institute in the 1950s, which, it is argued, was a key concern for students coming from abroad. Six of these students are then briefly introduced: Richard Nunoo (Ghana), Justus Dojuma Akeredólu (Nigeria), Mom Chao Subhadradis Diskul (Thailand), Syed Ashfaq Naqvi (Pakistan), Braj Basi Lal (India) and Bijan Bihari Lal (India).
My years at the Institute were split into four often strongly contrasting parts. Primarily, there were the terms at St John's Lodge, the quietly decaying Regency mansion that fitted so appropriately, in its atmosphere, with the evidence of bomb damage still evident elsewhere in London. Secondly, there was the home life my wife Falmai and I had in our one room in Hackney, made exciting and consistently demanding following the birth of our son Jonathan in November 1953. Falmai had taken a degree in English at Bedford College, close to the Institute in Regent's Park, from whose hall of residence I had sometimes left by a back door late on a Sunday night to race for the bus back to Cambridge, to get into college before midnight.
In the two previous issues of Archaeology International, life at the Institute in the 1950s was recalled by a former student, Peter Gathercole, and a former member of staff, Sheppard Frere. Charles Higham, who is now Professor of Anthropology at the University of Otago in New Zealand, studied for the diploma in Roman Archaeology at that time. He provides a student's counterpoint to the article by Professor Frere, based on impressions recorded in his diary, including the Institute's move in 1958 from Regent's Park to its new building in Gordon Square.
Geoffrey Dimbleby succeeded Frederick Zeuner as the senior environmental archaeologist at the Institute in 1964, on his appointment to the newly named Chair of Human Environment. He retired in 1979, and here recalls how he first became involved in environmental archaeology and how research in the subject developed during his years at the Institute. (Fig. 1)
Peter Ucko, who became Director in August 1996, describes some new developments at the Institute.
The Director of the Institute comments on academic developments since the 1997/98 issue of Archaeology International was published.
The coordinators of each of the Institute's four primary Research Groups report on their group's activities during the 1999/2000 academic year.
The Director of the Institute comments on developments since the second issue of Archaeology International was published.
Silo-pits and post-granaries: (a) a band across temperate Europe of silo-pit concentrations and re-used silo-pits with burials, along with a northern distribution of Late Bronze Age 'house' urns that probably imitate granaries (selected sources are: Ailincăi 2015; Bradley 2002; Delattre et al. 2000; Garcia 1997; Griebl et al. 2017; Király et al. 2013; Landolt et al. 2010; Le Brun Ricalens 2014; Unger and Pecinovská 2015; Van Oyen 2019), (b) a concentration of silo-pits inside the hillfort at Danebury, UK (courtesy of Institute of Archaeology, Oxford University), and (c) two examples of 'house' urns from Saxony-Anhalt and Pomerania (Sabatini 2007: pls. 45.1, 42.6, with permission). Note that silo-pits are certainly also found south of the shaded area (e.g. in the Mediterranean Europe), but not in the same concentrations in this period (Figure: A. Bevan, with image permissions as above).
Storage dynamics through Iron Age containers (Figure: A. Bevan): (a) a bivariate histogram and weighted mean of amphora height-width ratios (n = 688 types, see Bevan 2014 for source data), along with the frequency of Mediterranean shipwrecks (after Wilson 2009, fig. 9.4) and (b) a bivariate histogram of large storage jar (dolium) volumes from southern France (n = 32 types, solid-of-revolution profiles from drawings in Marlier and Sciallano 2008; Py 1993), along with the changing percentage of grape seeds amongst all seeds from the major port site of Lattes (after Py and Buxó 2001: fig. 4). b
Keeping plants and animals beyond their natural shelf life is a central human challenge, both as a matter of immediate survival and for the social and economic opportunities that stored foods offer. Understanding different food storage and preservation strategies in the past is key to a whole series of other research agendas, but remains challenging, not least because the evidence is patchy and hard to interpret. The paper below joins growing efforts to address this long-established challenge and surveys a host of changes in preservative treatments and food storage facilities across the Mediterranean and temperate Europe during the 1st millennium BC. While in most cases, the observed changes have a deeper prehistoric pedigree, nevertheless their mutually-reinforcing intensification at this time constitutes a real revolution, with far-reaching consequences.
The Director of the Institute comments on developments since the third issue of Archaeology International was published.
Top-cited authors
Dorian Q Fuller
  • University College London
Alison Weisskopf
  • University of London
Cristina Cobo Castillo
  • University College London
Andrew Bevan
  • University College London
Thilo Rehren
  • The Cyprus Institute