To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Engraved and carved bone and stone artifacts capture our imaginations and are known worldwide from archaeological contexts, but they are seemingly rare and oftentimes difficult to recognize. While preservation issues play a role in the limited recovery of early art objects, research on incised stones and bone from the Gault site in Texas demonstrates that an expectation to find such artifacts plays a key role in their identification and recovery. The presence of incised stones found by collectors at Gault alerted archaeologists to the potential for finding early art in systematic excavations. To date, 11 incised stones and one engraved bone of Paleoindian age (13,000–9,000 calibrated years before present) have been recovered and of these, the Clovis artifacts are among the earliest portable art objects from secure context in North America. The presence of incised stone and bone at Gault led to the development of an examination protocol for identifying and analyzing engraved and incised artifacts that can be applied to a wide variety of archaeological contexts.
Executive functions (EF) are a complex set of neurodevelopmental, higher-ordered processes that are especially salient during adolescence. Disruptions to these processes are predictive of psychiatric problems in later adolescence and adulthood. The objectives of the current study were to characterize the latent structure of EF using bifactor analysis and to investigate the independent and interactive effects of genes and environments on EF during adolescence. Using a representative young adolescent sample, we tested the interaction of a polymorphism in the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR) and parental supervision for EF through hierarchical linear regression. To account for the possibility of a hierarchical factor structure for EF, a bifactor analysis was conducted on the eight subtests of the Delis-Kaplan Executive Functions System (D-KEFS). The bifactor analysis revealed the presence of a general EF construct and three EF subdomains (i.e., conceptual flexibility, inhibition, and fluency). A significant 5-HTTLPR by parental supervision interaction was found for conceptual flexibility, but not for general EF, fluency or inhibition. Specifically, youth with the L/L genotype had significantly lower conceptual flexibility scores compared to youth with S/S or S/L genotypes given low levels of parental supervision. Our findings indicate that adolescents with the L/L genotype were especially vulnerable to poor parental supervision on EF. This vulnerability may be amenable to preventive interventions. (JINS, 2014, 20, 62–73)
The inspiration for this chapter has come from the observations of several years of public participatory archaeology seminars and workshops in both the UK and Canada. The audiences of these sessions have varied from school groups aged between 12 and 19 to prospective archaeology students, their families and undergraduate archaeology students. This chapter will describe the development of three different workshops, their trials and possible future developments. The ultimate goal is to share good practice and encourage other archaeologists to seek out public interaction as a means of enriching both the discipline and the public's understanding of archaeology.
Archaeology has become increasingly popular in the media. But the image that is created is not always consistent with the reality of the discipline. However, simply flooding the media with academic-sponsored information is far from the solution. An additional problem, affecting not only archaeology but also other minority departments, is the retention of students and the lack of preparation of these students for the independent nature of university learning. With these two issues in mind, a proactive solution was developed. Using enquiry-based learning (EBL) as a means to facilitate student-directed learning, three different workshops were developed and tested.
The first workshop was part of a project funded by the Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-Based Learning (CEEBL), located at the University of Manchester in 2007-08. The second workshop was part of an even larger project directed at embedding enquiry-based learning into the archaeology curriculum at the University of Manchester, again funded by the CEEBL in 2009–10.
Halfway through the interview, the author posed a question to the teacher: ‘So, do you think that our archaeological heritage is important?’ The teacher answered with confidence: ‘Of course!’, and went on to explain: ‘Our archaeological heritage is more expensive than oil … It has to be preserved, it brings hard currency through tourism into the country …’ (Teacher R 2005, pers comm).
The teacher's response was alarming. Questions were beginning to arise: why has she focused so much attention on the benefits of archaeology to tourism? Is there a link between what she taught and the curriculum aims and content? Is this an isolated case or is it a widespread phenomenon across the Jordanian education system? Is archaeology being used within this context to teach other aspects about the past and heritage? A research agenda was put in place in an attempt to find the answers to these questions. The outcome of this investigation is presented in this chapter.
Why Teach Archaeology?
The benefits of using archaeology to teach pupils about the past are varied and have long been researched. As early as the 19th century, Dewey (1899) argued for the teaching of ‘prehistory’ to children in particular, as the nature of prehistory relates to children's interests and environment. His support for the use of archaeology in teaching young pupils fits with his philosophy of education which called for evidence-based curriculum and encouraged experimentation, observation and analysis, rather than the memorisation of facts (Dewey 1884). Dewey's views are still shared by many archaeologists, who argue that this approach to teaching pupils about archaeology would enhance their skills and understanding of the past (see for example Stone 2004; Antoni et al 2004; Hogberg 2007).
Within the context of Jordan, the term ‘heritage’ is verbally and mentally more approachable for lay people than the term ‘archaeology’. Thus, in this chapter, community heritage is used interchangeably with community archaeology to describe a discipline that explores people's engagement with material of the past. Basically, community archaeology ‘create[s] an open, participatory and rational-critical debate, which is presumably the only way to integrate public opinions into decisions about archaeology’ (Matsuda 2004, 66). This critical engagement with contemporary issues, using a participatory approach, enhances archaeological theories and practices related to heritage management, given that ‘archaeological theory falls short in addressing heritage management and how archaeological knowledge is used within the management process’ (Smith 1994, 300).
This chapter is about establishing engagement with people in Jordan regarding archaeological sites. The respondents in the study supplied data through in-depth interviews about certain archaeological sites that exist within their living or working environments. The interviews focused on the respondents’ opinions of the interventions carried out within the sites in question. Their accounts are then incorporated with community archaeology literature that is, basically, produced in Western academic contexts. Thus, the study places the theoretical framework provided by the literature within a practical perspective influenced by the Jordanian setting. This should support the respondents’ accounts and make them eligible to be part of the archaeological knowledge that can be used in the management process, as Smith (1994, 300) observes.