Friday, 21 February 2014

"The Material Turn" and Three Types of Material Witnessing

Detail from a photograph of an excavation of the ditch at Wor Barrow, Dorset by General Pitt-Rivers, Sept-Oct 1893. Pitt Rivers Museum photograph collections (Accession Number 2002.73.1)
 I'm giving the keynote paper at a symposium on the theme of "The Material Turn and the Study of Objects" on Saturday 1 March at UEA's East London campus. My paper is on the theme of "Three Types of Material Witnessing" - expanding on some of the approaches I explored in my 2010 paper The Material-Cultural Turn, my paper Material Culture Studies: a reactionary view (with Mary Beaudry), and my 2013 paper on Four-Field Anthropology - all of which have sought to call into question any straightforward idea of a 'material turn' in the humanities and social sciences.

The symposium forms part of 'Material Witness' - an excellent initiative, funded by a grant from the AHRC's Collaborative Skills Development programme and led by Alixe Bovey (University of Kent), in collaboration with the University of Kent's partners in the Consortium for Humanities and Arts, South-East England (CHASE) - The Courtauld Institute of Art, Goldsmiths (University of London), the Open University, and the Universities of East Anglia, Essex, Kent, and Sussex. Further details on the Material Witness project are here.

Monday, 3 February 2014

From Museums to the Historic Environment

Image: A selection of Bronze Age copper alloy axes from the UK and Ireland, collected by General Pitt-Rivers between c.1851 and 1881, from the founding collection of the Pitt Rivers Museum. Photograph by Carlotta Gardner, taken as part of the Excavating Pitt-Rivers project in 2013
I received the exciting news last week that my application through the ESRC Impact Acceleration programme for funding for a pilot programme of knowledge exchange in partnership with the British Museum was successful. The programme builds directly on the documentation work, funded by an award from Arts Council England, that was undertaken on the English archaeological collections in the founding collection of the Pitt Rivers Museum in 2013. The project is led by me in partnership with Dan Pett (British Museum).

The award of £28,947 will fund a pilot programme titled 'From Museums to the Historic Environment': using the Pitt-Rivers archaeological collections to explore the ways in which historic archaeological museum collections hold significant, untapped information about the historic environment of England that is of wider public value. You can read more about the project on the Excavating Pitt-Rivers blog.

Friday, 17 January 2014

Archaeology and Photography (Royal Anthropological Institute Conference Panel)

Image: "The buried bank of a Bronze Age field boundary ditch found in the deeper soils of the Newark Road subsite,  Cambridgeshire". From Francis Pryor's 'Flag Fen' (1991. London: English Heritage), p. 61. 
Lesley McFadyen and I are convening a panel on the theme of 'Archaeology and Photography' at the Royal Anthropological Institute's conference on Anthropology and Photography at the British Museum, 29-31 May 2014. We received a very high number of proposals, and from which an excellent provision schedule based around four themes - Knowledge, Time, Absence, and Art - has emerged. 

The Paper titles and short abstracts are below. The panel will be chaired by Dan Hicks (Oxford) and Lesley McFadyen (Birkbeck), and Victor Buchli (UCL) will act as Discussant. 
These details are still provisional, as we await confirmation of time and venue from the RAI conference organisers. These will be posted here and on the RAI website in due course.


ARCHAEOLOGY AND PHOTOGRAPHY: PROVISIONAL PROGRAMME

I  KNOWLEDGE

Duncan Shields (De Montfort University) - Alfred Maudslay's causality dilemma: photography, archaeology and the influence of 19th-century travel literature.
This paper will attempt to account for the relationship between travel literature of the nineteenth century and the photography of archaeological surveys in the work of Alfred Maudslay.

Melania Savino (Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz) - Reaching the public: archaeology and photography in the Turkish Republic.
This paper aims to explore the visual representation of archaeology in the Turkish Republic through the medium of photography. Based on images found both in official publications and archives, this research investigates how archaeological knowledge was created and presented to the general public.

Charlotte Young (University of Exeter) - Visual literacy and site photography in the mid 20th century.
This paper considers how photographic discourse in archaeology affects our perception of the discipline. Today, there is no specific study on how Processual and Postprocessual archaeology affected the visual representation of archaeology in photography published in academic and non-academic works.

Colleen Morgan (University of York) - Archaeological photography as dangerous supplement?
This paper discusses the process of creating a theory-laden archaeological photography, using the photographic record from the sites of Catalhoyuk and Tall Dhiban. Through this record I will investigate photography and visualization as a particularly productive instance of the dangerous supplement.


II  TIME

Dan Hicks (Oxford University) - Unrepeatable experiments: photographs and the double historicity of archaeological archives
This paper reports on archival research undertaken in 2014 into the author's own archaeological fieldwork, carried out for English archaeological units between 1989-1999. In doing so, the paper thinks through some of the limits of life-writing in archaeological thought and practice.

Antonia Thomas (University of the Highlands and Islands) - The Brodgar Stone: image and artefact
This paper presents a photographic biography of the Brodgar Stone, a carved Neolithic slab found in 1924 at the Ness of Brodgar, Orkney. It then extends the discussion to include the wider assemblage from the site to explore the role that photography plays in constructing archaeological narratives.

Mark Knight (Cambridge Archaeological Unit) and Lesley McFadyen (Birkbeck) - At any given moment: archaeology and photography
This paper is about how archaeology and photography share similar properties especially when it comes to exploring ideas concerning extent (space) and duration (time).


III ABSENCE

Oscar Aldred (Newcastle) and Ian Thompson (Newcastle University) - Archaeological imaginaries and erasures: photographing the Great Northern Coalfield
This paper is based on a collaborative project called Imaginaries and Erasure in the Great Northern Coalfield. In this paper we will explore our research by addressing the specific way that Imagination and Erasure interact with one another when viewed through an archaeological lens.

Jennifer Baird (Birkbeck) - Mistaken images: intent and accident in archaeological photography
Archaeological archives preserve many failed photographs. Using archival photographs from 1920s and 30s excavations at Dura-Europos, this paper considers how unpublished photographs shaped archaeological knowledge, and what alternate histories of archaeology they might reveal.

Danae Fiore (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires) and Marie Lydia Varela (Universidad de Buenos Aires) Photographs as artefacts: a visual archaeology of three indigenous societies of Tierra del Fuego.
This presentation proposes a "visual archaeology" of ethnographic photographs as artefacts which contain information about indigenous socioeconomic practices and material culture trends. This approach is applied to 1130 photographs of 4000 individuals from 3 indigenous societies of Tierra del Fuego.


IV  ART

Ursula Frederick (Australian National University) - Dust on the lense: intersections in archaeology and art photography
This paper surveys the work of contemporary Australian art photographers whose practice involves a dialogue with archaeology. In addition to considering artwork made within the landscapes and fabric of heritage, it explores how contemporary art photographers think and practice archaeologically.

Carolyn Lefley (University of Hertfordshire) - Excavating images: a photographic response to an archaeological excavation
In 2013 Timespan Heritage Museum in Scotland commissioned photographic artist Carolyn Lefley as their Artist in Residence during the excavation of a longhouse ruin. This paper explores the relationship between photography and archaeology, referencing Lefleys methodology and photographic output.

Helen Wickstead (Kingston University) and Martyn Barber (English Heritage) - Drawing on photos: aerial photogrammetry and virtual mapping, 1865 to 1900
The spectacular failures of early aerial photography reveal that, although aerial photographs are often treated as virtual maps today, making this equivalence requires fundamental transformations in ways of viewing and relating drawings and photographs.

Sunday, 29 December 2013

A Model of Wayland's Smithy Neolithic Chambered Tomb

Image: A scale model of Wayland's Smithy Neolithic Chambered Tomb, made in the 1860s by Alfred Lewis, and acquired by General Pitt-Rivers shortly thereafter. Pitt Rivers Museum Accession Number 1884.140.97

I published this account of an archaeological model from the founding collection of the Pitt Rivers Museum in 2011 in the inaugural issue of the Edgar Wind Society's Journal. You can read more about my work on Pitt-Rivers' collections on the blog Excavating Pitt-RiversCite this paper as: Dan Hicks 2011. A model of Wayland's Smithy. Edgar Wind Journal 1 (unpaginated).

When it was founded in 1884, the collections of the Pitt Rivers Museum comprised some 26,000 archaeological and ethnographic objects: a number that over the course of the twentieth century grew to over 300,000. Within the founding collection are a number of artefacts that relate directly to Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt Rivers’ own interests in the archaeology of Britain. These include a set of thirteen models of prehistoric monuments, one of which is illustrated here (Accession Number 1884.140.97). Like the other twelve, this model was made by Alfred Lionel Lewis, a chartered accountant and amateur anthropologist, in the late 1860s, acquired by Pitt-Rivers soon afterwards, and displayed at his exhibitions in Bethnal Green and South Kensington before being brought to Oxford.

The model depicts Wayland’s Smithy, a Neolithic chambered tomb, which lies a short distance along the Ridgeway from Uffington White Horse in south-west Oxfordshire. The site consists of a trapezoidal mound with a stone-lined trancepted chamber, and was constructed some 6,500 years ago in the middle of the fourth millennium BC. It was little explored in the 1880s, but was the focus of excavations conducted in the early 1960s by Richard Atkinson and Stuart Piggott, at the invitation of the Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments of the Ministry of Public Building and Works, after which the site was restored.

The stones, rendered in cork, are surrounded by undergrowth and small trees, depicted by moss. The model’s focus is the sarsen stones of the chamber and the kerb, while the mound is suggested under the vegetation. The cork and the moss are mounted on a square wooden block covered with painted paper. A hand-written label identifies the site as ‘Wayland’s Cave, 3 miles from Shrivenham Station, Berkshire’: a reminder of the significance of rail travel to stations such as this (opened 1840) in facilitating visits to archaeological monuments in the early Victorian period. Each edge of the block is labelled with a compass point, and the whole model is at a scale of 1 inch to 10 feet. Text written on the base indicates the date on which Lewis visited the site and possibly when he manufactured the object: “16 May 1868 3pm & 10 July 1869”.

Perhaps inspired by Lewis, Pitt Rivers went on in the late 1880s to have more than 100 models of archaeological sites produced for his second museum at Farnham from detailed contoured plans, crafted of out plaster or carved in mahogany. These models, of which more than 50 survive in Salisbury Museum, included sites that he had visited while Inspector of Ancient Monuments, Celtic crosses, and his own excavations, where brass pins indicated the precise locations and levels at which artefacts were found. Some were very complex, for example his hinged model of excavations at Cissbury Ring on the South Downs, which lifted up to show how the remains of Neolithic flint mines lay beneath the ramparts of an Iron Age hillfort.

Archaeological model-making came to form part of museum displays, but Chris Evans has observed that physical models were a medium with which archaeologists were experimenting in the second half of the 19th century, and especially after the Great Exhibition of 1851, in a number of different ways. The purpose of models was not simply to document and understand sites and monuments, but for the scientific demonstration of the results of excavations at professional meetings, at a time before widespread use of archaeological photography, and as a three-dimensional alternative to illustration by woodcut, etching or lithography. It is also possible that the models formed more explicitly a part of the archaeological documentation of the site, for instance being used for reference when a site was excavated for a second season.

Today, the model is of interest to us as part of a moment in the history of archaeology when the visualization of the past took a peculiarly physical, and perhaps more creative, form than it did in subsequent years. The object perhaps crystallizes the emerging tensions between the discipline’s scientific or artistic aspirations in the late Victorian period. At the same time, it provides a unique record of the condition and state of preservation of the site in the 1860s, and how it was understood by Alfred Lionel Lewis, long before its ‘restoration to its appearance in Antiquity’, conducted by the Ministry of Works in 1964 after Atkinson and Piggott had departed.

Further Reading
Caroline Butler 2010. Model Monuments: a set of models of prehistoric stone monuments. http://web.prm.ox.ac.uk/rpr/index.php/objectbiographies
Chris Evans 2004. Modelling Monuments and Excavations. In S. de Chadarevian and N . Hopwood (eds) Models: The Third Dimension of Science Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, pp. 109-137.

Wednesday, 27 November 2013

Call for Papers: Archaeology and Photography

Image: Detail from a photograph by Harold St George Gray of the British Association excavations at Avebury, Wiltshire, April 1922 (Pitt Rivers Museum photographic collections 1998.262.11.5)

Call for Papers: Archaeology and Photography

On 29-31 May 2014, the Royal Anthropological Institute is holding a conference on Anthropology and Photography in London at the British Museum
I'm convening a panel at the conference on Archaeology and Photography with Lesley McFadyen (University of London, Birkbeck). Paper proposals are invited, and are due by 8th January 2014. The Discussant for the panel will be Victor Buchli (Anthropology, UCL).

The session outline is as follows:

Photography has been a central element of archaeological method and practice since the late 19th century, but archaeological photography has been relatively little explored, especially when compared with visual anthropology. This panel brings together new studies of archaeological photography: both of historical photographs in archives, and of contemporary practice. Particular themes in the study of archaeological photography may include, but are not limited to, time, materials, fieldwork, representation, and documentation and the profilmic.

Paper proposals can be submitted through the conference website here - http://www.nomadit.co.uk/rai/events/rai2014/panels.php5?PanelID=2938 

To discuss a potential paper, please email Dan Hicks - dan.hicks@prm.ox.ac.uk - and Lesley McFadyen - ublmcf01@mail.bbk.ac.uk

You can read more about the conference on the RAI's website here:
http://www.therai.org.uk/conferences/anthropology-and-photography/

Tuesday, 15 October 2013

Four-Field Anthropology


Image: A hand-drawn table of "the various sections and sub-sections of Anthropological science according to my view of the matter” by General Augustus Pitt-Rivers: Copyright Bodleian Library, University of Oxfords (Acland Papers d92, fol. 90). For the full discussion and documentation see the Current Anthropology paper

As part of the research for the Excavating Pitt-Rivers project, my team has worked through primary manuscript sources as well as documenting objects in the stores of the Pitt Rivers Museum. Archives and manuscripts are often considered as different kinds of evidence from artefacts, but this kind of distinction was alien to General Pitt-Rivers' own approach - and the project team, informed by ideas developed from historical archaeology, has tried to approach manuscript sources as just another kind of material culture: as material evidence.

With this approach in mind, I wrote this paper, about a previously unpublished drawing made by General Pitt-Rivers in 1882. The drawing shows the discipline of anthropology as consisting of four fields - Physical Anthropology, Ethnology, Culture and Archaeology - and pre-dates the 'four-field' model of anthropology associated with Franz Boas by some 24 years. This idea of anthropology as including archaeology has remained important for North American archaeology, while during the 20th century more commonly archaeology and anthropology took different directions in Europe.

The paper was published in full open access form online by the journal Current Anthropology, includes a supplement that provides a transcription of the letter written by Pitt-Rivers that accompanies the drawing, outlining his view of the organisation and teaching of the discipline.

The drawing is a unique insight into the early transatlantic exchanges in the development of anthropology as an academic subject. The Current Anthropology paper argues that museums, as places that require the physical organisation of knowledge in material form, were key locations at which classificatory approaches in anthropology came to start to classify anthropological knowledge. It also explores the kind of disciplinary histories that can be written from museums and archives.

You can read the paper on the Current Anthropology website here - http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/673385


The abstract of the paper is below:

"The four-field model of anthropology is conventionally understood to have begun with a paper read by Franz Boas in St. Louis in 1904. Publishing for the first time a drawing made by Augustus Pitt-Rivers in England in 1882, this paper rethinks this proposition by making two arguments. First, the paper explores the role of the classificatory anthropology of the 1870s and 1880s on both sides of the Atlantic in the emergence of the idea of organizing anthropological knowledge. It suggests that this emergence was bound up with the problem of classifying anthropological knowledge in material form in European and North American museums. Second, the paper considers how our knowledge of the discipline's past can develop from the study of objects and documents (rather than only through rereading anthropologists' published texts), in a manner akin to documentary archaeology. In this respect, the anthropological problem of organizing knowledge in material form is still with us, but with a new challenge: How adequate are our current forms of disciplinary historiography for the use of material evidence? Rather than proposing a new set of “charter myths,” the paper explores writing the history of four-field anthropology as a form of material culture studies or historical archaeology (in other words, as a subfield of anthropology), working with the “time warps” created by museums and archives in which disciplinary history is not always already written." Continue reading at Current Anthropology

Monday, 18 February 2013

World Archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum: open access

image: Cover of World Archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum: a characterization

My latest book - an overview of the world archaeology collections of the Pitt Rivers Museum, edited with Alice Stevenson - is now published in open access form on the Pitt Rivers Museum website

Each chapter of the 280,000-word volume is reproduced as a searchable pdf. The links to purchase a hard copy of the book are also provided on the Museum page at http://www.prm.ox.ac.uk/world.html 

My own authored and co-authored chapters from the book are also published on my academia.edu pages - http://oxford.academia.edu/DanHicks

Tuesday, 8 January 2013

Pitt Rivers Museum Lunchtime Seminars, Hilary Term 2013

Image: Energy Matter. Christian Thompson. Shown at the We Bury Our Own show at the Pitt Rivers Museum, discussed in a conversation with the artist by Chris Morton in Week 1.
I am convening the Hilary Term 2013 lunchtime seminar series at the Pitt Rivers Museum. The schedule is below. The seminars run on Fridays, 1pm-2.15pm, and are held in the Lecture Room of the Pitt Rivers Museum. For further details, email me: dan.hicks@prm.ox.ac.uk 

Pitt Rivers Museum: Lunchtime Seminar Series Hilary Term 2013
Fridays, 1pm-2.15
Pitt Rivers Museum Lecture Room 

Friday 18 January (Week 1)
Christian Thompson (Ruskin School of Drawing) and Chris Morton (Pitt Rivers Museum)
We Bury Our Own (conversation)

Friday 25 January (Week 2)
Beverly Lemire (University of Alberta and Visiting Fellow, All Soul’s College)
"Men of the World": English Mariners, Fashion & Material Culture in an Era of Global Trade, c. 1600-1800

Friday 1 February (Week 3)
Pierre Lemonnier (Université d'Aix-Marseille)
The transformations of 'technologie culturelle' in the last 40 years

Friday 8 Feburary (Week 4)
Object and Image: conflict and correspondence in transdisciplinary museum research

Friday 15 February (Week 5)
Imagining the Museum of Britain: How Victorians discovered the past and then tried to save it

Friday 22 February (Week 6)
Andy Jones (University of Southampton)
Artists’ Materials: late Neolithic art and the question of agency

Friday 1 March (Week 7)
John Schofield (University or York)
In Berlin: Heritage, Memory and the "Easyjet" Set

Friday 8 March (Week 8)
David Griffiths (Department of Continuing Education, University of Oxford)

Wednesday, 19 December 2012

Asia and the Middle East (World Archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum)

Image: Cuneiform school exercise or model account (PRM Accession Number 1900.64.2), dating from the Ur III period (c.21002000 BCE), probably from the site of Telloh, Iraq, detailing an account of temple livestock.


My next book - an edited volume titled World Archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum: a characterization will be published in March 2013. The book is the product of a research programme that I ran at the Pitt Rivers Museum between 2009 and 2011. It offers an overview - what we have called a 'characterization' - of the whole of the archaeological collections of the museum, from around the world. The chapter that I wrote on Asia and the Middle East (Chapter 21) is published below. Further details on the book are here. The introduction to the book is online on this blog here, or on academia.edu here.
Cite this paper as: Dan Hicks 2013. Asia and the Middle East. In D. Hicks and A. Stevenson (eds) World Archaeology at the Pitt Rivers Museum: a characterizationOxford: Archaeopress.

21 Asia and the Middle East

Dan Hicks

21.1 Introduction

The Pitt Rivers Museum (PRM) holds c. 14,624 objects from Asia that are currently defined as ‘archaeological’. The largest collections within this Asian material are represented by the c. 5,449 artefacts from India, the c. 3,524 artefacts from Israel, the c. 1,602 artefacts from Sri Lanka, the c. 1,099 artefacts from Jordan, the c. 510 artefacts from Japan, and the c. 363 artefacts from the Palestinian Territories. These collections are explored over the next five chapters (Chapters 22–26), and are introduced in this chapter.

The material from the Middle East is considered first (21.2 below). A brief overview of the c. 3,524 objects from the Palestinian Territories, Israel and Jordan is provided in section 21.2.1, before a full account of them is set out in Chapter 22. The subsequent sections outline the c. 323 objects from Iraq (21.2.2), the c. 227 objects from Saudi Arabia (21.2.3), the c. 132 objects from Syria (21.2.4), the c. 92 objects from Lebanon (21.2.5), the c. 19 objects from Iran (21.2.6), and the 5 objects from Yemen (21.2.7).The material from the South Asia is considered next (21.3): a brief overview of the c. 7,029 ‘archaeological’ objects from India and Sri Lanka (21.3.1) is provided, before a full account of them is set out in Chapter 23. The c. 235 objects from Pakistan are considered in section 21.3.2, and the 4 remaining objects from the rest of South Asia (from Nepal and Afghanistan) are described in section 21.3.3. Section 21.4 considers South-east Asia. A brief overview of the c. 601 ‘archaeological’ objects from Malaysia and Myanmar (21.4.1) is provided, before a full account of them is set out in Chapter 26. The rest of the section considers the c. 80 objects from Thailand (21.4.2), and the remaining 11 objects from the rest of South-east Asia (from Vietnam and Indonesia) are considered in section 21.4.3. The East Asian ‘archaeological’ collections are introduced next. Brief overviews of the c. 510 objects from Japan (21.5.1), and the c. 253 objects from China (21.5.2) are provided, before they are discussed at more length in Chapters 24 and 25 respectively. The remaining objects from East Asia – c. 51 objects from North Korea and South Korea – are described in section 21.5.3. Elsewhere in East Asia, there are no ‘archaeological’ objects from Mongolia or Taiwan. The collections from Central and Northern Asia are introduced in section 21.6. These comprise wholly of the c. 42 objects from Russia. Elsewhere in central and Northern Asia, there are no ‘archaeological’ objects from Georgia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan or Kazakhstan. Brief conclusions are drawn in section 21.7.

As well as the material discussed below, there are c. 24 ‘archaeological’ objects recorded as from ‘Asia’, but with no country of provenance listed. These comprise 2 carved stone figures from the PRM founding collection (1884.59.17, 1884.59.25), a stone figure transferred from the Ashmolean Museum in 1886, possibly from the Tradescant Collection (1886.1.163),  a specimen of elephant tooth purchased by the PRM from Rowland Ward Ltd in 1952 (1952.1.3B), a Roman coin of Pontius Pilate donated by Anthony John Arkell (1971.15.1554), 4 ceramic vessels collected by Denis Buxton (1966.32.68–69, 1966.32.72, 1966.32.74), 13 flint flakes (2008.107.1–13) and 2 ceramic sherds (2009.170.1).



21.2 Middle East

21.2.1 Palestinian Territories, Israel and Jordan
The PRM holds c. 3,524  ‘archaeological’ objects from Israel, c. 1,099 from Jordan, and c. 364 from the Palestinian Territories. These c. 4,986 artefacts are considered by Bill Finlayson in Chapter 22. All but 221 of these objects are stone tools. The other objects comprise of just c. 103 ceramic objects (many of which are undated ceramic lamps), c. 79 bone tools and pendants, c. 18 copper alloy objects, and c. 21 further shell and metal objects.
Just one object from these countries is from the PRM founding collection: a stone arrow-head simply recorded as from ‘Palestine’ (1884.135.176). The earliest dates of collection for these countries include an undated fragment of polished marble from the Mount of Olives, collected by R.H. Inglis in 1834 and transferred from the Ashmolean Museum in 1886 (1886.1.268), and an assemblage of c. 20 archaeological ceramic vessels and figures ‘brought back from Palestine, 1885–1887’, donated to Ipswich Museum by Mercy Watson, and purchased by the PRM with a large collection of other material from Ipswich Museum in 1966 (1967.29.32–35, 1967.29.59–62; cf. 21.2.5 below). A small collection of 4 stone flakes from Galgala, Jordan was donated from the estate of John Lubbock (Lord Avebury) in 1917 (1917.36.18).
As Finlayson observes in Chapter 22, the vast majority of the collection from this region is made up of large assemblages from major field projects, most notably the c. 2,885 objects collected by Dorothy Garrod from Israeli sites at Wadi Natuf (Shukbah [Shuqbah] Cave) and Mount Carmel (Mugharet-el-Wad, Mugharet-es-Skhul, Tabun) (1930.63, 1931.70, 1966.2.168–169), and the c. 531 objects collected by Francis Turville-Petre during fieldwork conducted through the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem from Israeli sites including Mugharet el Emireh, Mugharet el Kebarah (Mount Carmel) and Deishun (1923.29, 1925.48, 1929.55, 1932.65). Garrod and Turville-Petre had both read for the Diploma in Anthropology at Oxford University in 1921, where their close relationship with the PRM began. Similarly, of the c. 1,099 archaeological artefacts from Jordan, some 1,063 were collected by Alison Betts during fieldwork at Ibn el Ghazzi and in the Arabian Desert (1984.21, 1986.8). Since these collections were often divided between numerous institutions, the research value of this material needs to be assessed in collaboration with those other museums. Building such collaborations is a major priority for future research into the PRM’s Middle Eastern archaeological collections.

21.2.2 Iraq
The PRM holds c. 323 archaeological objects from Iraq. Some 24 of these formed part of the PRM founding collection:  4 Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets  (1884.98.912, Figure 21.1), 8 stone seals (1884.140.451, 1884.140.456, 1884.140.459–462, 1884.140.470–471), 11 undated ceramic lamps 1884.116.56–66), and a cast of a stone tool from the British Museum (1884.125.151). The seals are unstudied and undated. The cuneiform tablets date from c. 626539 BCE, and were purchased by Pitt-Rivers in April 1878 from a Sotheby’s sale of William Chadwicke Neligan’s collection. After their deposition in the PRM, translations of the tablets were published by A.H. Sayce, an Oxford-based Assyriologist (Sayce 1889).[1] All 4 tablets are private business documents, and seem to belong to the so-called Egibi archive: a family archive covering 120 years (606482 BCE), extending into the Achemenid period.
The Museum holds 3 more cuneiform tablets, a brick fragment bearing an inscription, 2 bone cylinder seals, and 9 casts of cuneiform tablets and cylinder seals. Two of the cuneiform tablets, from the Ur III period (21002000 BCE), were purchased by the PRM in 1900 from George Fabian Lawrence, and are probably from the site of Telloh (1900.64.12). One (1900.64.1) is a four-column account of barley from the 44th year of Shulgi, the second king of the Ur III Dynasty. The other (1900.64.2) is a small account of temple livestock (Figure 21.2). Due to its unfinished appearance and many irregularities this text is most likely a school exercise or model account: such texts are rare from this period even considering our c.100.000 known texts in collections across the globe from this 100-year period. A third cuneiform tablet – known as the ‘Singashid Tablet’ – is recorded as from Uruk, and was donated in 1966 from the estate of Denis Alfred Jex Buxton (1966.32.76). These 3 tablets are unpublished. Another artefact bearing an inscription – a Neo-Babylonian brick fragment (1891.60.2) - mentions Nebuchadnezzar II, and was transferred from the OUMNH in 1891, but its earlier history is currently unknown. Two bone cylinder seals, collected by Helen Maria Dennis in the early 20th century, were donated in 1968 (1968.9.1–2). There are also 9 casts of tablets and seals: one donated by Cuthbert Edgar Peek (1892.26.2), 7 from the collection of E.B. Tylor (1917.53.698, 1917.53.795–801, 1917.53.808), and one donated by Winifred Susan Blackman (1920.45.1).
The largest single component of the PRM’s archaeological collections from Iraq comes from the site of Kish: a Bronze Age site located c. 80 km south of Baghdad on the floodplain of the River Euphrates, which was the focus of a joint project between the University of Oxford and the Field Museum, Chicago – known as the Weld-Blundel Expedition because it was backed financially by Herbert Weld Blundell – that ran from 1923 to 1933 (Langdon 1924, 1930; Langdon and Watelin 1934). Criticized as ‘badly excavated…badly recorded and…badly published’ (Lloyd 1969: 48), the results of the excavations were partly published by Mcguire Gibson and by Roger Moorey in the 1970s (Gibson 1972; Moorey 1978). More recently, the Field Museum has developed a digitized archive of the excavations.[2] The material recovered from Kish was divided between the Iraq Museum in Baghdad, the Field Museum, and the Ashmolean Museum (e.g. Langdon 1928), but c. 123 objects from the site came to the PRM.
The PRM material from Kish dates mainly from the Neolithic or Early Chalcolithic periods (6th–5th millennia BCE). Accordingly, all of the material from Kish comprises stone tools, apart from a cast (discussed below), a ceramic sickle (also discussed below), and a single copper nail probably of early Bronze Age date (mid 3rd millennium BCE), recorded as ‘from the rim of a chariot in grave Y529’ (1943.3.45). Henry Balfour’s archaeological interests in flintwork (Curator 1891–1939) were certainly a central factor in the PRM’s acquisition of this material. Also very significant, however, was Thomas K. Penniman’s participation in the 1928–1929 excavation season at Kish, shortly after completing his Diploma in Anthropology at Oxford. The Oxford University Gazette records that Penniman was given a room and ‘other facilities’ in the Department of Human Anatomy, then located in the University Museum of Natural History (OUMNH) from 1929 ‘for the purpose of mending the skeletal material which he excavated at Kish ... and of preparing a report on the graves excavated during that season.’[3]Penniman took up the position of Curator of the PRM after Balfour’s death in 1939. 
Most of the Kish flintwork – c. 105 objects – came to the PRM in two donations by Herbert Joseph and the Weld-Blundel Expedition in 1926 and 1932. These donations comprised material of Neolithic or early Chalcolithic date (6th millennium BCE): c. 22 serrated ‘sickle-edged’ flint flakes (1926.46.3–7, (1932.64.1–18), 2 further flint tools with serrated edges ((1932.64.67–68), 42 awls (1932.64.19–60), 6 further flint scrapers and discs (1932.64.61–66), and a further unquantified assemblage of flintwork (1926.46.7–9, 1932.64.69–78). The PRM also holds 2 objects from the site of Jesmet Nasr, c. 16 miles to the east of Kish, collected by the Weld-Blundel Expedition: a flint core (1926.46.2), and an object described as a ‘ceramic sickle (jawbone shaped), for edging with serrated flint-flakes set in pitch or other adhesive’, probably dating from the 5th or 4th millennium BCE (1926.46.1).
Some 17 further artefacts from Kish were donated by Penniman himself, in 4 separate donations: a collection of 9 chert cores and blades donated (1944.11.2), and recorded as ‘from factories in Y area, 3–6 metres below modern plain level’; the copper nail mentioned above; 2 flint borers (1943.3.46–47); and 4 serrated fragments of flint saws or sickle blades from ‘between Jesmet Hasr layer and Dynastic or Royal Tomb stratum, Chalcolithic date’ at ‘Tal Ingharra’, one of which is set in bitumen (1929.21.1, 1941.10.54–56). In the first years of his Curatorship. Penniman oversaw the purchase by the PRM of a cast of a rare terracotta head recorded as ‘from red stratum, Harsagkalamma’, made in Oxford around 1930 (1941.12.1 B). A duplicate exists in the Ashmolean (Moorey 2004: 68–9), but the original was kept in National Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad. Penniman is recorded on the PRM catalogue as the ‘co-excavator’ of the original object, with Louis Charles Watelin. Penniman later donated c. 51 photographic negatives from the 1928–1929 excavations (1971.16.1–2, 1998.282.25.1–2), as well as copies of some of the pages of his fieldnotes and correspondence (Figures 23.3 and 23.4).[4] The location of the full set of fieldnotes is currently unknown. Penniman’s unpublished autobiography[5] includes an account of life at the site, but limited information about the finds.
Also from Kish is a single ceramic sherd, transferred from the Ashmolean Museum in 1950 (1950.5.25, Ashmolean Museum number 1930.236a). Arthur Evans is (perhaps incorrectly) identified as possibly the field collector for this object.
Apart from the material from Kish, there are a number of smaller donations. These include c. 11 flint and obsidian tools collected at Ur by Arnold Walter Lawrence (1923.10.1–11); 5 stone cores from Makertou, collected through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1923 and donated through the British Museum (1925.5.1–5); and 2 undated ceramic lamps collected by Henry Balfour (1932.88.499, 1932.88.516). There is also a collection of c. 23 Neolithic and Bronze Age ceramic sherds transferred from the Ashmolean Museum in 1950: from the sites of Tell Arpachiyah (1950.5.20), Eridu (1950.5.22), Ur  (1950.5.23), Samarra (1950.5.24), Jemdet Nasr (1950.5.26), and Ninevah  (1950.5.27). A further assemblage of c. 5 ceramic sherds from Jesmet Nasr was acquired through an exchange with Newbury Museum, per Herbert Henery Coghlan, having previously been obtained through an exchange with Chicago Natural History Museum (1951.11.1–5). A fragment of a ceramic sickle – also from Jesmet Masr – was donated from the estate of Leonard Halford Dudley Buxton in 1959 (1959.2.49).[6] A Bronze Age ceramic vessel from southern Iraq was also from Buxton’s collection (1966.32.52), as well as the clay tablet mentioned above (1966.32.76). There are 3 pieces of 8th-century BCE iron tripod from Nimrud, which were donated from the British Museum in 1953 for metallurgical analysis (1953.6.1). Seven sherds of Chinese Tang Dynasty ceramics were obtained through an exchange with the National Museum of Iraq in 1957 (1957.5.2–8). Finally, there is also an undated ceramic tobacco pipe bowl collected from a cave in the Bradost Mountains by the Oxford University Expedition to Iraqi Kurdistan (1957.7.6); and 6 Palaeolithic stone tools collected by Dorothy Garrod from Tarjil, Kirkuk, which came to the Museum through the purchase of collections from the Ipswich Museum in 1966 (1966.2.152).

21.2.3 Saudi Arabia
There are c. 227 ‘archaeological’ objects from Saudi Arabia. However, this is only a rough estimate, since all but 3 of these objects are from an unquantified assemblage of material collected by Richard Francis Burton from the site of ‘Midian’ – a name used by Burton to describe a mountainous area to the south-west of the Gulf of Aqaba, on the east coast of the Red Sea in western Saudi Arabia (Burton 1878). An estimated 101 stone flakes collected by Burton from ‘Midian’ came to the Museum as part of the PRM founding collection (1884.132.90, 1884.132.164). The PRM’s primary documentation does not record when or how these objects came into Pitt-Rivers’ own collection. However, it is probable that they were collected in archaeological activities conducted during Burton’s participation in the ‘Second Khedevial Expedition’ of 1878–1879, the main purpose of which was to find gold. Details of the expedition were published in the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London (Burton 1879a) and in his two-volume The Land of Midian (revisited) (Burton 1879b). In the first volume of The Land of Midian (revisited) (Burton 1879b), Burton appears to describe collecting this assemblage of stone tools at the site of Maghair Shu’ayb:
‘The principal ruins of ancient settlements, and the ateliers, all of them showing vestiges of metal-working, numbered eight: these are, beginning from the south, Tiryam, Sharma, ‘Aynunah, the Jebel el-Abyaz, Maghair Shu’ayb, Makna’, Tayyib Ism, and El- ‘Akabah. Maghair Hhu’ayb, the Madiama of Ptolemy, is evidently the ancient capital of the district. It was the only place which supplied Midianitish (Nabathaan) coins. Moreover, it yielded graffiti from the catacombs, fragments of bronze which it will be interesting to compare by assay with the metal of the European prehistoric age, and, finally, stone implements, worked as well as rude’ (Burton 1879b: 267).
Indeed, Burton records that
‘The little “find” of stone implements, rude and worked, and the instruments illustrating the mining industry of the country, appeared before the Anthropological Section of the British Association, which met at Dublin (August 1878), and again before the Anthropological Institute of London, December 10 1878’ (Burton 1879b: xv).
These two exhibitions would have provided Pitt-Rivers with the opportunity of obtaining the stone tools.[7] A further collection of c. 13 stone tools and c. 110 fragments of copper alloy objects and specimens of copper ore were given directly to the PRM by Burton in September 1886 (1886.10.1–6), and probably derive from the same expedition.[8] This may include items described by Burton in 1879 as ‘my private collection of mineralogical specimens [which] was deposited with Professor M.H.N. Story-Maskelyne’ (Burton 1879b: xv). There are also some plant specimens from the same site (1886.10.13). All of these assemblages of material collected by Burton in Saudi Arabia remains unstudied, undated and unquantified.
The remaining 3 objects from Saudi Arabia are 3 ceramic clay pipe bowls collected by E.H. Brown and purchased from J. Thornton & Sons of Broad Street, Oxford in 1960 (1960.4.5–7 B).

21.2.4 Syria
The PRM holds c. 132 archaeological objects from Syria. This figure is only a rough estimate, however, since most of the collection is made up of an unquantified and unsorted assemblage of c. 100 Neolithic artefacts from excavations at Abu Hureyra, collected by during fieldwork by Andrew Moore in 1973 (1973.17.1). The artefacts from the project were divided between the Aleppo Museum (around 50%), and ten British museums that contributed to the project (Moore et al. 2000: 457).[9] According to the excavation report (Moore et al. 2000: 548, table A7.1), the PRM assemblage derives from the 1973 excavations of Trench E3 (‘levels 58–94’), and from a collection from surface of the site (1971 season) (Moore et al. 2000: 221–241). In total there are 11 4-litre boxes of lithic material, all noted with context data, and a box of obsidian pieces from Trench E3.
 The remaining material comprises 3 objects from the PRMF. Two of these are specimens of human hair recorded as from a mummy at Palmyra (Tadmur), collected by Richard Burton (1884.106.40–41). This appears to have been collected by Burton during his expedition to the Holy Land in 18701871 (Burton 1872: 105; Carter Blake 1872). Mummified human remains and specimens of hair are among those items listed in Burton’s a ‘Catalogue Raisonné of an Anthropological Collection made in Syria and Palestine between Apr. 15 1870 and Aug. 6 1871’ (Burton and Carter Blake 1872: 303). The other item from the PRM founding collection is a Roman copper alloy fibula recorded as ‘possibly Syrian’ (1884.79.48). An object recorded as a ‘fragment of bone breccia’ from Nahr el Kelb was donated by Henry Balfour in 1898 (1898.20.60). Four flints recorded as from Aleppo, and interpreted as being from a tribulum (threshing tool), were obtained by exchange with Edward Lovett in 1903 (1903.42.3–6).[10] Two further chert blades, interpreted as part of a tribulum were purchased from Archibald Colquhoun Bell in 1920 (1921.91.112–113).
An undated ceramic lamp from Palmyra was purchased from ‘Miss K.M. Reynolds’ (1909.68.19), along with an object recorded as a Neolithic stone axe used as a healing stone (1910.71.3). Other undated objects comprise a polished stone axe mounted in silver as a pendant, collected by David George Hogarth at Jarabulus (1912.22.1), and c. 14 chert and obsidian blades, flakes and scrapers recovered during ‘amateur wartime excavations by French troops’ at Antioch, donated by Herbert Vander Vord Noone (1947.9.69–71). A sherd of Neolithic pottery from the site of Chargar Bazar was transferred from the Ashmolean Museum in 1950 (1950.5.21). A carburized steel socketed spear-head from Deve Hüyük was also transferred from the Ashmolean Museum, for metallurgical analysis, in 1953 (1953.1.32). Finally, a ceramic jug from Al Mina (1966.32.32) and a string of stone beads from northern Syria (1966.32.59) were donated from the estate of Denis Buxton in 1966 (1966.32.59).

21.2.5 Lebanon
 The PRM holds c. 92 ‘archaeological’ artefacts from Lebanon. The first accessioned material was an unaquantified assemblage (estimated as 10 objects) of stone cores and flakes from Ras Beirut, donated by John Evans in 1892 (1892.25.7). Also from John Evans’ collection, donated from his estate in 1928, are two ‘fragments of implentiferous breccia from the Pass of Nahr-el-Kelb’ (1928.68.486–487). A collection of c. 11 undated stone tools from Byblos, Nahr el Kelb and the Beqaa Valley was donated by R.B. Heidenstrom in 1931 (1931.40.1–11). Two Classical Greek ceramic lekthoi (5th–4th centuries BCE), recorded as from a tomb in Tyre, were donated by William Brown Keer in October 1897 (1897.47.1–2).  There are also 5 undated glass phials, a stone tesserae and a ceramic lamp ‘from the site of ancient Tyre’, collected by Eustace Fulcrand Bosanquet (1934.32.1–7); and a murex shell ‘from the ruins of a Roman villa in the sands south of Beirut’ collected by Dorothy Mary Mackay (1952.1.7).
The largest component of the Lebanese material comprises an assemblage of c. 11 glass scent bottles ‘taken from tombs near Tyre and Sidon’, and c. 50 fragments of glass from multiple sites (1967.29.63, 1967.29.122), were among a collection of objects ‘brought back from Palestine, 1885-1887’, donated to Ipswich Museum by Mercy Watson, and purchased by the PRM with a large collection of other material from Ipswich Museum in 1966 (cf. 21.2.1 above).

21.2.6 Iran
There are c. 19 ‘archaeological’ objects that are recorded as from Iran. Four of these are undated stone thumb-rings: 3 from the Tradescant collection, transferred from the Ashmolean Museum in 1886 (1886.1.54–56),[11] and one from the collection of E.B. Tylor (1917.53.263). There are 4 undated ceramic lamps: 3 from the collection of Henry Balfour (1932.88.479–481), and one from the collection of Frederick William Rollins (1966.3.107). There are also 2 undated (‘ancient’) iron padlocks, purchased from the Church Missionary Society in 1965 (1965.12.40A, 1965.12.40B).
There is also a collection of 8 Bronze Age ceramic jars from Giyan Tepe (‘Giyan IV–III’), that were received from the estate of Denis Alfred Jex Buxton in 1966 (1966.32.64–67, 1966.32.70–71, 1966.32.73, 1966.32.75). One of the vessels (1966.32.70) has the note ‘Tepe Gigyan (Louvre) Ghirshman or Contenain’ written on its side: a reference to the excavators of Giyan Tepe from 1931–1932 (Contenau and Ghirshman 1933). There is also an object, from the Adrien de Mortillet collection of amulets, which came to the PRM through the Wellcome Collection in 1985, which is described as ‘a crescent of tin, found in a tumulus near Damagan’ [Damghan] (1985.52.179).

21.2.7 Yemen
The PRM holds just 5 artefacts from Yemen that are currently defined as ‘archaeological’. There are 2 leather synagogue rolls containing the Pentateuch, of 12th-, 13th- or 14th-century CE date, from the PRM founding collection (1884.98.7–8). The other artefacts are 3 unidentified wooden objects from the island of Socotra, collected on 10 January 1897 ‘from a limestone cave together with a great accumulation of human bones from which the flesh had decomposed previous to interment, near Ras Momi’ by Mabel Bent and James Theodore Bent, and passed to the PRM from the estate of E.B. Tylor in 1917 (1917.53.670–672). These objects were described by the Bents as follows ‘carved wooden objects which looked as it they had originally served as crosses to mark the tombs, in which the corpses had been permitted to decay prior to their removal to the charnel-house’ (Bent and Bent 1900: 356), although in a review of the objects Peter Shinnie (1960: 110, note 2) suggested that they ‘look much more like wooden clubs’. These wooden objects remain unstudied and undated.

21.3 South Asia
21.3.1 India and Sri Lanka
The PRM holds c. 5,449 ‘archaeological’ objects from India, and c. 1,580 from Sri Lanka. These c. 7,029 objects are discussed in detail in Chapter 23. There are some 180 ‘archaeological’ objects from the PRM founding collection from India, and none from Sri Lanka. The Indian archaeological collections mainly comprise prehistoric stone tools – very many of which are Palaeolithic in date – although there are also some significant collections from historical periods. The collections were largely formed through the collecting activities of a small number of key individuals in the history of South Asian archaeology and ethnography, including Robert Bruce Foote, Frederick John Richards, John Henry Hutton, James Philip Mills, Walter Seton-Karr, Charles and Zara Seligman, Charles Hartley, and K.R.U. Todd. The enormous Todd collection – which comprises c. 2,157 stone tools from Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu, India – is a major unstudied assemblage of Palaeolithic material (see sections 23.2.2 and 23.2.5). The historical material includes an assemblage from the PRM founding collection excavated by Edward Horace Man from a kitchen midden at Port Blair harbour in the Andaman Islands (see section 23.2.15), and a collection of Buddhist clay models (chatyas) collected in Sri Lanka in the 1850s (see section 23.3)

21.3.2 Pakistan
There are c. 235 ‘archaeological’ artefacts from Pakista4n. Some 40 of these are from the PRM founding collection: c. 38 stone cores and flakes from the Rohri Hills (1884.131.34–35, 1884.131.39, 1884.131.46–60, 1884.131.119–121, 1884.131.185–201), and 2 stone flakes from the bank of the River Indus, one of which is recorded as from Sukkur, Sindh Province (1884.131.36, 1884.131.122).
Later acquisitions include c. 8 stone cores from the Rohri Hills from the collection of John Lubbock (Lord Avebury), which were transferred from the Ashmolean Museum in 1886 (1886.1.250), and 3 more stone flakes from the Rohri Hills donated by Thomas Humfrey Vines in 1919 (1919.49.1–3).[12] These stone tools are currently unexamined and therefore undated, but since the Rohri Hills are a significant region in the Palaeolithic of India – an area in which ‘the first Palaeolithic sites… were discovered by Allchin in 1975’ (Biagi and Cremaschi 1988: 421) – the nature of the early fieldwork and collecting activity reflected in these objects clearly requires further investigation. Another chert core, recorded as from the Indus River, is recorded as collected by ‘Twemlow in 1866’, and was donated from the John Evans collection in 1928 (1928.68.241). In October 1866, John Evans published in Geological Magazine a letter by George Twemlow. The letter described the discovery of 3 chert cores ‘three feet below the rock in the bed of the river (Indus)’ by Twemlow’s son, Edward D’Oyly Twemlow, who was a Lieutenant in the Royal Bombay Engineers). The letter was reproduced with a plate showing the stone cores (Evans 1866: plate XVI), and a commentary by Evans, which suggested that they were Neolithic (rather than Palaeolithic) in date (Evans 1866). Twemlow published a drawn section of the location of the find-spot, provided by his son (Twemlow 1867), and used the stone cores as a central part of his argument in his book Facts and Fossils adduced to prove the Deluge of Noah, and modify the transmutation system of Darwin, with some notices regarding Indus flint cores (Twemlow 1866). It is possible that 2 two stone cores recorded as from the River Indus in the PRM founding collection, mentioned above, were also collected by Twemlow, but a number of other early publications also describe stone cores and flakes collected from this region (e.g. Blanford 1875). There is also a single chert core, from the collection of G.F. Lawrence and recorded as from Sindh Province, that was purchased at Stevens Auction Rooms in May 1922 (1922.61.3),
There are c. 28 artefacts from the site of Harappa (Sahiwal District, Punjab Province): c. 11 ceramic, bone and stone objects donated by John Henry Hutton in 1928 (1928.7.2), and c. 17 faience, ceramic and stone objects collected by Stuart Piggott (1953.1.9–14, 1956.12.37, 1957.5.10) obtained from Newbury Museum in an exchange in 1953. Also collected by Piggott and obtained from Newbury Museum are 3 ceramic sherds and c. 24 stone tools from the Tharro Hills (1956.12.24, 1956.12.38), and 9 ceramic sherds from Mohenjo-daro (1956.12.25). Further artefacts transferred from Newbury Museum, per Herbert Henery Coghlan, comprise a Bronze Age ceramic cup and 2 ceramic sherds from the site of Nal, Balochistan Province (1953.1.15–17); a ceramic sherd from Armi (Dadu District, Sindh Province) (1953.1.8); 6 ceramic sherds from the site of Mohenjo-Daro (Larkana Province, Sindh Province) (1953.1.3–6, 1957.5.9), and a ceramic sherd from the site of Chanu-daro (Nawabshah District, Sindh Province) (1953.1.7). There are also further donations of Bronze Age objects from Mohenjo-Daro and Chanu-daro. From the Chanu-daro there is an unquantified assemblage of c. 58 steatite and carnelian beads and perforated stone discs donated by Ernest John Henry Mackay in 1936 (1936.51.1, 1950.9.4–11); and another assemblage of perhaps 10 very small ceramic beads collected by John Arkell  (1971.15.1213). From Mohenjo-daro there are 9 casts of Bronze Age seals, donated by Maharaja Mayurdwajsinhji Meghrajji III (1955.12.1–9).
From the site of Gandhara (Peshawar District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province), there is a carved stone panel ‘from an Indian temple’ donated by Oliver H. Wild in December 1933 (1933.20.7), and a limestone frieze purchased from Ipswich Museum in 1966 (1966.1.1452). Also from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province is an unquantified assemblage of c. 10 ceramic sherds from Bedali (Hazara Province) donated from the estate of Marc Aurel Stein (1944.5.13); 2 carved stone figures from the Vale of Peshawar donated by E. Joseph (1946.5.61–62); a bronze spear-head from the Swat Valley donated by W. Ryder (1946.2.41); 2 coins collected by A.R. Nye from Charsadda (1956.8.4–5); and 2 agate beads – one from Swat District and Ganhara, acquired Schuyler Jones (Curator of the PRM) in the 1980s and 1990s (1989.22.35, 1995.46.1).

21.3.3 The Rest of South Asia
There are 2 ‘archaeological’ objects from Nepal: an undated stone figure of Kali from the PRM founding collection (1884.59.29), and an agate bead ‘from a prehistoric grave’ donated by John Henry Hutton in 1928 (1928.7.1). There are also just 2 objects from Afghanistan: 2 forged gold coins of Pixodaros of Caria, donated by Richard Carnac Temple in 1892 (1892.41.535–536). Elsewhere in South Asia, there are no ‘archaeological’ objects from the Maldives, Bangladesh or Bhutan.

21.4 South-East Asia
21.4.1 Malaysia and Myanmar
The PRM holds c. 355 ‘archaeological’ objects from Malaysia, and c. 246 from Myanmar (Burma). These are discussed in detail by Huw Barton in Chapter 26. There are c. 15 ‘archaeological’ objects from the PRM founding collection that are recorded as from Myanmar, and just one from Malaysia, all of which are stone tools. The archaeological materials from this region are virtually unstudied (cf. Dudley 1996), but include a number of significant collections, including copper or bronze objects (see section 26.3.4), and a collection of Buddhist votive offerings excavated by Richard Carnac Temple (see section 26.3.5), as well a stone tools, charms  and touchstones (sections 26.3.1–2).

21.4.2 Thailand
The PRM holds c. 80 ‘archaeological’ objects from Thailand. The first object to be accessioned was a bronze figure of Buddha, collected by biologist Richard Evans on the Skeat expedition to the Malay Peninsula in 1899–1900, and recorded as ‘found below the Great Statue of Buddha at Ayuthia, Siam’ [Ayutthaya] (1900.52.9). There is also an undated assemblage of c. 60 Buddhist votive artefacts excavated from 2 caves by W.G. Steffen, and purchased by the PRM from Thomas Nelson Annandale: one at Kao Wat Han rock, 6 miles east of Huai Yot (Trang Province), and one on ‘Kao Sai mountain’. These comprise c. 42 stamped clay tablets (1902.88.535–554, 2004.68.1–12), c. 14 engraved copper tablets (1902.88.555–567, 1902.88.574), 2 bronze Buddha figures (1902.88.568–569), a wooden Buddha figure (1902.88.570), and a fragment of a ceramic bowl (1902.88.575). The ceramic tablets were published by Steffen and Annandale in 1902 (Steffen and Annandale 1902; cf. Annandale et al. 1907). There are also c. 19 ceramic sherds donated by H.G. Quarich Wales from his 1956 excavations at early Buddhist sites at Thamen Chai and Muang Pet [Phret], Nakhon Ratchasima Province (Wales 1957) (1956.5.1–19).

21.4.3 The Rest of SouthEast Asia
There are 5 archaeological objects from Vietnam. There is a single stone adze, donated by William Sollas in 1912 (1912.2.1). There are also 4 objects loaned by the Musée de l'Homme in the 1950s, probably for the PRM’s programme of metallurgical analysis: 2 bronze axes dating from c. 40–50 CE, collected by Paul Lévy, from the Vayson de Preadenne collection (1954.9.01–02), and 2 casts of bronze axes (1957.1.3–4).
There are 6 ‘archaeological’ objects from Indonesia, all of which are stone tools. These comprise 5 axes, collected by V.J. Allard, recorded as Lower Palaeolithic in date, from North Sumatra (1932.38.1–5), and a possibly natural stone collected by V.A. Stein Callenfels, and donated from the collection of Charles and Brenda Seligman (1940.12.855). 
Elsewhere in South-East Asia, there is a single ‘archaeological’ object from Cambodia: an undated perforated shell pendant from the Adrien de Mortillet collection of amulets, which came to the PRM through the Wellcome Collection in 1985 (1985.52.144). There are no ‘archaeological’ objects from Tibet, the Philippines, or Laos.

21.5 East Asia
21.5.1 Japan
The PRM holds c. 510 ‘archaeological’ objects from Japan, which are discussed in some detail in Chapter 24. However, that review – and the current PRM catalogue definitions – do not include any Edo-Period material within the ‘archaeological’ collections, so this number of Japanese archaeological artefacts may (as with other parts of the world) omit other significant collections. Some 13 of these objects are from the PRM founding collection. While the documentation is very minimal for these objects at present, Pitt-Rivers attended the International Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology in Norwich in 1868, at which A.W. Franks gave a paper titled ‘Notes on the discovery of stone implements in Japan’ (Franks 1869), which indicates one possible source for these objects.[13] Most of the material acquired after 1883 comprises a collection of c. 292 stone tools and ceramics collected by Basil Hall Chamberlain, and donated to the PRM between 1892 and 1908 (cf. Chamberlain 1895).

21.5.2 China
The PRM holds c. 253 ‘archaeological’ objects from China, which are discussed in detail in Chapter 25 by Lucas Nickel. As well as c. 20 objects from the PRM founding collection, there is a rare collection  of organic materials made by Aurel Stein, donated to the PRM in 1944 (see section 25.3.1), a significant numismatic collection, and a rubbing of the Nestorian stele (sections 25.3.2–3).

21.5.3 North Korea and South Korea
There are c. 51 ‘archaeological’ objects from North Korea and South Korea. There are 3 Korai Dynasty ceramic bowls and a bronze vessel (broken into two parts) ‘from a tomb near Seoul’ purchased from S. Wakefield in November 1907 (1907.80.2–4, 2005.36.1). There are also c. 37 objects – c. 6 stone slabs, c. 7 sections of bronze armour and c. 24 bronze vessels, tweezers, and other bronze objects – ‘found in ancient tombs in Korea’ that were purchased at Stevens Auction Rooms in March 1913 (1913.67.2–37).[14] The remaining 9 objects comprise 2 stone arrow-heads, a bronze arrow-head and 2 bronze ear-scoops from Korea donated by Louis Colville Gray Clarke in 1921 (1921.7.23–25, 1938.1.23–24); 3 bronze spoons ‘excavated at the Royal Tombs, Kang-Hwa, River Han’ by ‘Mrs Sprott’ in 1910 were donated by Harry Geoffrey Beasley in September 1923 (1923.38.1–3); and an undated iron figure of an animal from Korea from the collection of A.S. Hewlett in was purchased from Sydney Gerald Hewlett in 1934 (1934.63.16).

21.6 Central and Northern Asia
21.6.1 Russia
There are c. 42 ‘archaeological’ objects from Russia. Some 35 of these were donated by Polish-born anthropologist Marie Antoinette Czaplicka, having been purchased by her (some directly from the Minusinsk Museum) during a joint PRM-Pennsylvania University Museum expedition (with artist Dora Curtis and ornithologist Maud Haviland) to Yenisei Province, Siberia in 1914, funded by the Committee for Anthropology of the British Association for the Advancement of Science and a Mary Ewart scholarship from Somerville College, Oxford. Czaplicka had studied Ethnology at the London School of Economics, graduating in 1910. She received a Diploma in Anthropology from the University of Oxford, studying under R.R. Marrett, in 1912, (Collins and Urry 1997; Kubica 2007), and published a series of papers on the ethnology of Siberia before her early death in 1921 (Czaplicka 1914a, 1914b, 1915, 1921, 1999).[15] The main body of material is recorded as found on ‘pasture-land’, ‘dunes’ and other sites near Minusinsk, and comprises c. 22 objects:  8 iron arrow-heads, a bronze socketed axe, a bronze stud, 2 bronze pins, 6 bronze knives, a copper alloy button, 2 ground stone objects, a ceramic spindle-whorl and an unidentified bronze object – (1915.50.2–23). There is a small range of material from burial sites: a bronze dagger ‘from a kurgan, Abakan Steppe’ (1915.50.1); a wooden reindeer-driving pole ‘from a Yurak grave’ (1915.50.128); 2 wooden figures, of a raven and a fish, ‘from the grave of Nakte, a Tungus shaman of Yakut origin’ (1915.50.129–130); a bow-drill ‘from a grave on the tundra, N. of the Arctic Circle, East of the Yenesei River’ (1915.50.55); a reindeer-horn head-stall ‘from a Samoyed grave, mouth of the Yenesei River’ (1915.50.88); and ‘an ancient [sheathed] Samoyed knife found by the grave of a Samoyed of the Tharasinskaya Orda near the east bank of the Yenisei at Golchikha July 1st 1914’ (1915.50.52–53). There are also 2 undated soapstone figures (1915.50.148), and an undated bronze figure ‘found on the bank of a tributary of the Yenesei, near Golchika’ (1915.50.139).
Apart from the material donated by Czaplicka, there is also a bronze socketed axe ‘of south Siberian type’ donated by Louis Colville Gray Clarke (1921.53.19), a single stone flake simply recorded as from Russia, donated by Alfred Schwartz Barnes (1940.4.24), and a slate leaf-shaped blade from the Kamchatka Peninsula collected in 1891, and transferred from the OUMNH in 1953 (1953.6.54). There is also a collection of 4 bronze figures, in the shapes of animal heads, that are recorded as Iron Age in date, and perforated for suspension as amulets at a later date, from the Adrien de Mortillet collection of amulets, which came to the PRM through the Wellcome Collection in 1985 (1985.52.1011, 1985.52.220, 1985.52.493).

21.7 Conclusions
The archaeological collections from Asia are as diverse as the continent, and are dominated by the large stone tool collections from the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East. Beyond the larger collections, however, smaller archaeological assemblages also hold much potential: whether the Czaplicka collections from Russia, the early collections from south-east Asia, Japan and China, or the unstudied archaeological material from Kish in Iraq. Future research into the Asian archaeological collections may involve both projects looking at large assemblages, but also research focused on small bodies of material or individual items. In each region, as elsewhere, the boundaries between ‘archaeology’, ‘ethnography’, and historical collections are blurred: but in many different and often challenging ways.

Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Jacob Dahl for examining the cuneiform tablets and providing further information about these for this report.

References
Annandale N., J. Coggin Brown and F.H. Greavely 1913. The limestone caves of Burma and the Malay Peninsula. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 9: 391–422.
Bent, J.T. and M. Bent 1900. Southern Arabia. London: Smith, Elder and Co.
Biagi, P. and M. Cremaschi 1988. The early Palaeolithic sites of the Rohri Hills (Sind, Pakistan) and their environmental significance. World Archaeology 19(3): 421–433.
Blanford, W.T.  1875. Note on some flint-cores and flakes from Sakhar and Rohri on the Indus, Sind. Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1875: 134–136.
Burton, R.F. 1872. Notes on an exploration of the Tulúl el Safá, the volcanic region east of Damascus, and the Umm Nírán Cave. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 42: 49–61.
Burton, R.F. 1878. The Gold-Mines of Midian and the Ruined Midianite Cities: a fortnight’s tour in North-West Arabia. London: Kegan Paul and Co.
Burton, R.F. 1879a. Itineraries of the Second Khedivial Expedition: memoir explaining the New map of Midian made by the Egyptian staff-officers. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 49: 1–150.
Burton, R.F. 1879b. The Land of Midian (revisited) (two volumes). London: Kegan Paul and Co.
Burton, R.F. and C. Carter Blake 1872. On anthropological collections from the Holy Land. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 1: 300–312.
Buxton, L.H.D. and D.T. Rice 1931. Report on the human remains found at Kish. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 61: 57–119.
Carter Blake, C. 1872. Notes on human remains from Palmyra. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 1: 312–320.
Chamberlain, B.H. 1895. Two funeral urns from Loochoo. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 24: 58–59.

Collins, D. and J. Urry 1997. 'A flame too intense for mortal body to support'. Anthropology Today 13(6): 18–20.
Contenau, G. and R. Ghirshman 1933. Rapport preliminaire sur les fouilles de Tepe Giyan, près de Nehavend (Perse). Syria 14: 1–11.
Czaplicka, M.A. 1914a. Aboriginal Siberia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Czaplicka, M.A. 1914b. The influence of environment upon the religious ideas and practices of the aborigines of northern Asia. Folklore 25: 3454.
Czaplicka, M.A. 1915. My Siberian Year. London: Mills & Boon.
Czaplicka, M.A. 1921. History and ethnology in Central Asia. Man 21: 1924.
Czaplicka, M.A. 1999. Collected Works of M.A. Czaplicka (ed. D.N. Collins). Richmond: Curzon.
Dudley. S. 1996. Burmese collections in the Pitt Rivers Museum: an introduction. Journal of Museum Ethnography 5: 57–v64.
Evans, J. 1866. On some flint-cores from the Indus, Upper Scinde. Geological Magazine 3: 433–435.
Franks, A.W. 1869. Notes on the discovery of stone implements in Japan. In Anon (ed.) International Congress of Prehistoric Archaeology: transactions of the third session, Norwich, 1868. London: Longmans Green and Co, pp. 258268.
Gibson, M. 1972. The City and Area of Kish. Coconut Grove, Miami: Field Research Projects.
Günther, A. 1878. On reptiles from Midian collected by Major Burton. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 46: 977–978.
Kubica, G. 2007. A good lady, androgynous angel, and intrepid woman: Maria Czaplicka in feminist profile. In D. F. Bryceson, J. Okely and J. Webber (eds) Identity and Networks: fashioning gender and ethnicity across cultures. Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 146–163.
Lane Fox, A.F. 1878. Observations on Mr. Man's collection of Andamanese and Nicobarese objects. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 7: 434–451.

Langdon, S. 1924. Excavations at Kish, Volume 1: the Herbert Weld (for the University of Oxford) and Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) Expedition to Mesopotamia. Paris: Geuthner.
Langdon, S. 1928. The Herbert Weld Collection in the Ashmolean Museum. Pictographic inscriptions from Jemdet Nasr. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 7).
Langdon, S. 1930. Excavations at Kish, Volume 3: the Herbert Weld (for the University of Oxford) and Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) Expedition to Mesopotamia. Paris: Geuthner.
Langdon, S. and L.Ch. Watelin 1934. Excavations at Kish, Volume 4: the Herbert Weld (for the University of Oxford) and Field Museum of Natural History (Chicago) Expedition to Mesopotamia. Paris: Geuthner.
Lloyd, S. 1969. Back to Ingharra. Some further thoughts on the excavations at East Kish. Iraq 31: 40–48.
Man, E.H. 1878. On the arts of the Andamanese and Nicobarese. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 7: 451–469.
Moore, A.M.T., G.C. Hillman and A.J. Legge 2000. Village on the Euphrates. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moorey, P.R.S. 1978. Kish Excavations 1923–1933: with a microfiche catalogue of the objects in Oxford excavated by the Oxford-Field Museum, Chicago, Expedition to Kish in Iraq, 1923–1933. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Moorey, P.R.S. 2004. Ancient Near Eastern Terracottas with a Catalogue of the Collection in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. http://www.ashmolean.org/ash/amocats/anet  (Accessed 5 February 2012).
Ohinata, F. 1997. Prehistoric arrowheads from Northern Japan. Unpublished B.A. thesis, University of Oxford.
Paterson, W.F. 1983. Three archer’s thumb-rings (numbers 6062). In A. MacGregor (ed.) Tradescant’s Rarities: essays on the foundation of the Ashmolean Museum, 1683. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 173174.
Piggott, S. 1950. Prehistoric India to 1000 AD. London: Penguin.
Sayce, A.H. 1889. Some unpublished contact-tablets. Babylonian and Oriental Record 4(1): 16.
Shinnie, P.L. 1960. Socotra. Antiquity 34: 100110.
Steffen, A. and N. Annandale 1902. Clay tablets from caves in Siamese Malaya. Man 2: 177–180.
Twemlow, G. 1866b. Facts and Fossils Adduced to Prove the Deluge of Noah, and Modify the Transmutation System of Darwin, with some notices regarding Indus flint cores. London: Simpkin, Marshall and Co.
Twemlow, G. 1867. Flint cores from the Indus. Geological Magazine 4: 444.
Wales, H.G. Quaritch 1957. An early Buddhist civilization in Eastern Siam. Journal of the Siam. Society, XLV: Pt. I, 4260
Williamson, L. 1983. Ethnological specimens in the Pitt Rivers Museum attributed to the Tradescant Collection. In A. MacGregor (ed.) Tradescant’s Rarities: essays on the foundation of the Ashmolean Museum, 1683. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 338345.
Wunsch, C. 1997. Kollation der in BOR 4 publizierten neubabylonischen Urkunden. Notes Assyriologiques Breves et Utilitaires 2: 53–56.
Wunsch, C. 2000. Das Egibi-Archiv, I. Die Felder und Gärten. Groningen: Styx (Cuneiform Monographs 20A).



[1] New translations were published by Wunsch (1997: 536; 2000: 1236, 13940, 241).
[2] http://www.fieldmuseum.org/kish/introduction.asp
[3] Oxford University Gazette 1930: 661.
[4] PRM Manuscript collections, Penniman Archive. Box 11: Correspondence, Photographs, etc. – Kish. See also Box 13, Folder 6, item 29.
[5] PRM Manuscript collections, Penniman Archive. Box 2: ‘Scrambled Memories’ (unfinished memoirs). Box 11: ‘KISH’ (120-page typescript).
[6] Buxton had studied the human remains from Kish (Buxton and Rice 1931).
[7] Zoological collections made by Burton were reportedly received by the British Museum, as well as coins (Burton 1879b: xv; Günther 1878). A collection of ‘skulls and fragments of skulls’ were received by Richard Owen at the British Museum (Burton 1879b.: xvi). Burton also describes (1879b) a portfolio of some 200 illustrations of sites, which were deposited in Egypt with the Khediv Isma’il Pasha, shortly before he was removed from power by the British.
[8] A further assemblage of 13 flakes, found unentered on the Museum catalogue in 2008, may also derive from this donation by Burton (2008.107.113).
[9] Other than the PRM, the museums that received objects from the Abu Hureyra fieldwork comprise Liverpool Museum, Bolton Museum, Ashmolean Museum, British Museum, Oriental Institute Chicago, Royal Ontario Museum, Manchester University Museum, Birmingham Museum and Warrington Museum. The PRM’s Curator Bernard Fagg was, along with Kathleen Kenyon, thanked in the excavation report ‘with a special sense of gratitude…. [and] who gave the project their strong backing in the crucial initial stages’ (Moore et al. 2000: x).
[10] Two artefacts, also recorded as ‘tribulum flints’ from Aleppo, were donated to the Smithsonian Institution (National Museum of Natural History) in 1903 (SI Accession Number 042021; NMNH catalogue number E224470-0).
[11] These 3 thumb-rings are not listed in Lynne Williamson’s list of ‘Ethnological specimens in the Pitt Rivers Museum attributed to the Tradescant Collection’ (Williamson 1983), but do appear in the main list of ‘Antiquities from the Foundation Collection of the Ashmolean Museum’ (Paterson 1983).
[12] There are also detailed manuscript notes, in Vines’ hand, of the locations at which these 3 stone flakes were found (PRM Related Documents File for 1919.49).
[13] Franks (1869: 267) provides drawn illustrations of some of the artefacts discussed by him.
[14] A microsection of a bronze bowl from this collection was taken for metallurgical analysis in 1950 (1950.4.42).
[15] Czaplicka (1884–1921) taught ethnology at Oxford between 1916 and 1919, and was described as ‘the only woman lecturer at Oxford’ (Collins and Urry 1997: 19).